Dataset Information

Cost-benefit Analysis of Cochlear Implants: A Societal Perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

While the costs and outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) have been widely assessed, most of these analyses were solely performed from the perspective of healthcare costs. This study assesses the costs and benefits of CI in the Netherlands from a broader societal perspective, including health outcomes, healthcare cost, educational cost, and productivity losses and gains.

Design

The cost and benefits of CI were analyzed in this cost-benefit analysis, in which a monetary value is put on both the resources needed and the outcomes of CI. The costs and benefits were analyzed by prototypical instances of three groups, representing the majority of cochlear implant patients: prelingually deaf children implanted at the age of 1, adults with progressive profound hearing loss implanted at the age of 40 and seniors implanted at the age of 70 with progressive profound hearing loss. Costs and benefits were estimated over the expected lifetimes of the members of each group, using a Markov state transition model. Model parameters and assumptions were based on published literature. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

In all three patient groups, the total benefits of CI exceeded the total cost, leading to a net benefit of CI. Prelingually deaf children with a bilateral CI had a lifetime positive outcome net benefit of €433,000. Adults and seniors with progressive profound hearing loss and a unilateral CI had a total net benefit of €275,000 and €76,000, respectively. These results ensue from health outcomes expressed in monetary terms, reduced educational cost, and increased productivity.

Conclusions

Based on estimates from modeling, the increased healthcare costs due to CI were more than compensated by the value of the health benefits and by savings in educational and productivity costs. In particular, for children and working adults, the societal benefit was positive even without taking health benefits into account. Therefore, CI generates an advantage for both patients and society.

SUBMITTER: Neve OM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8378541 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesComparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance.DesignRandomised controlled trial with a minimum follow up of three months.SettingFour health centres (two urban, two rural) and two regional hospitals.Subjects204 general practice patients requiring referral to dermatology services; 102 were randomised to teledermatology consultation and 102 to traditional outpatient consultation.Main outcome measuresReported clinical outcome of initial consultation, primary care and outpatient reattendance data, and cost-benefit analysis of both methods of delivering care.ResultsNo major differences were found in the reported clinical outcomes of teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of patients randomised to teledermatology, 55 (54%) were managed within primary care and 47 (46%) required at least one hospital appointment. Of patients randomised to the conventional hospital outpatient consultation, 46 (45%) required at least one further hospital appointment, 15 (15%) required general practice review, and 40 (39%) no follow up visits. Clinical records showed that 42 (41%) patients seen by teledermatology attended subsequent hospital appointments compared with 41 (40%) patients seen conventionally. The net societal cost of the initial consultation was pound132.10 per patient for teledermatology and pound48.73 for conventional consultation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if each health centre had allocated one morning session a week to teledermatology and the average round trip to hospital had been 78 km instead of 26 km, the costs of the two methods of care would have been equal.ConclusionsReal time teledermatology was clinically feasible but not cost effective compared with conventional dermatological outpatient care. However, if the equipment were purchased at current prices and the travelling distances greater, teledermatology would be a cost effective alternative to conventional care.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to identify the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MI SIJF) surgery with titanium triangular implants for patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain who have failed conservative management, compared to non-surgical management (NSM) from a National Health Service (NHS) England perspective.MethodsOver a time horizon of 5 years, a cohort state transition model compared the costs and outcomes of treating patients with MI SIJF to those of traditional NSM treatment pathways. The NSM arm included two treatments: grouped physical therapy and corticosteroid injections (PTSI) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Three different strategies were considered: (1) a stepped pathway, (2) patients split between PTSI and RFA, and (3) RFA only. The outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in 2018 British pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model results.ResultsPatients undergoing MI SIJF accrued total procedure-related and pain-management costs of £8358, while NSM treatment strategy 1 had total costs of £6880. The MI SIJF cohort had 2.98 QALYs compared to strategy 1 with 2.30 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER for MI SIJF versus strategy 1 of £2164/QALY gained. Strategy 2 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6564) and 2.26 QALYs, and this resulted in an ICER of £2468/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Strategy 3 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6580), and this resulted in 2.28 QALYs and an ICER of £2518/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained, MI SIJF has a probability of being cost-effective versus NSM strategies of 96%, 97%, and 91% for strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively.ConclusionMI SIJF appears to be cost-effective over a 5-year time horizon when compared to traditional NSM pathways in an NHS context.