Access to Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Care at Private Equity-Owned Otolaryngology Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Characterizing access to sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) care at private practice otolaryngology clinics of varying ownership models. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional prospective review. SETTING: Private practice otolaryngology clinics. METHODS: We employed a Secret Shopper study design with private equity (PE) owned and non-PE-owned clinics within 15 miles of one another. Using a standardized script, researchers randomly called 50% of each clinic type between October 2021 and January 2022 requesting an appointment on behalf of a family member enrolled in either Medicaid or private insurance (PI) experiencing SSNHL. Access to timely care was assessed between clinic ownership and insurance type. RESULTS: Seventy-eight total PE-owned otolaryngology clinics were identified across the United States. Only 40 non-PE clinics could be matched to the PE clinics; 39 PE and 28 non-PE clinics were called as Medicaid patients; 39 PE and 25 non-PE clinics were called as PI patients; 48.7% of PE and 28.6% of non-PE clinics accepted Medicaid. The mean wait time to new appointment ranged between 9.55 and 13.21 days for all insurance and ownership types but did not vary significantly (P > .480). Telehealth was significantly more likely to be offered for new Medicaid patients at non-PE clinics compared to PE clinics (31.8% vs 0.0%, P = .001). The mean cost for an appointment was significantly greater at PE clinics than at non-PE clinics ($291.18 vs $203.75, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking SSNHL care at PE-owned otolaryngology clinics are likely to face long wait times prior to obtaining an initial appointment and reduced telehealth options.

Association of Socioeconomic Characteristics With Receipt of Pediatric Cochlear Implantations in California.

Importance: Earlier cochlear implantation among children with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is associated with improved language outcomes. More work is necessary to identify patients at risk for delayed cochlear implantation and understand targets for interventions to improve cochlear implantation rates among children. Objective: To describe the demographics among children receiving cochlear implantations and variability in implantation rates in California and to investigate sociodemographic and parental factors associated with early pediatric cochlear implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project California State Ambulatory Surgery Database in calendar year 2018. Included patients were children aged 9 years old or younger undergoing cochlear implantation. Sociodemographic factors, location of treatment, and parental factors were collected. Data were analyzed from March through August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary logistic regression was performed to investigate sociodemographic factors associated with early cochlear implantation (ie, before age 2 years). Geographic variability in pediatric cochlear implantation across hospital referral regions in California was described, and various parental factors associated with implantation before age 2 years were analyzed. Results: Among 182 children receiving cochlear implantations, the median (IQR) age was 3 (1-5) years and 58 children (31.9%) received implantations at ages 2 years or younger. There were 90 girls (49.5%) and 92 boys (50.5%), and among 170 children with race and ethnicity data, there were 27 Asian or Pacific Islander children (15.9%), 63 Hispanic children (37.1%), and 55 White children (32.4%). The risk of CI was significantly decreased among Black children compared with Asian or Pacific Islander children (relative risk [RR], 0.18 [95% CI, 0.07-0.47]; P = .001) and White children (RR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10-0.59]; P = .002) and among Hispanic children compared with Asian or Pacific Islander children (RR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.21-0.50]; P < .001) and White children (RR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.29-0.59; P < .001). Compared with private insurance, Medicaid insurance was associated with decreased odds of implantation at ages 2 years or younger (odds ratio [OR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.06-0.64]; P = .007), and every 1 percentage point increase in maternal high school completion percentage in a given California hospital referral region was correlated with a 5-percentage point increase in percentage of cochlear implants performed at age 2 years or younger (b = 5.18 [95% CI, 1.34-9.02]; P = .008). There were no significant differences in rates of early implantation by race or ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found significant variability in pediatric cochlear implantation rates in California. These findings suggest that socioeconomic and parental factors may be associated with differences in access to early cochlear implantation and suggest the need to invest in initiatives to address barriers to appropriate and timely access to care.

Assessment of Cochlear Implants for Adult Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 65 Years or Older Who Meet Expanded Indications of Open-Set Sentence Recognition: A Multicenter Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current indications for Medicare beneficiaries to receive a cochlear implant are outdated. Multichannel cochlear implant systems may be effective when provided to Medicare beneficiaries using expanded indications. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of cochlear implants, as measured by improvement on the AzBio Sentence Test, for newly implanted Medicare beneficiaries who meet the expanded indications of an AzBio Sentence Test score of 41% to 60% in their best-aided condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter nonrandomized trial examined preoperative and postoperative speech recognition, telephone communication, hearing device benefit, health utility, and quality of life for 34 participants enrolled at 8 different centers who received a cochlear implant between September 17, 2014, and July 10, 2018. All participants were 65 years or older, had bilateral moderate to profound hearing loss, and had a best-aided preoperative AzBio Sentence Test score in quiet of 41% to 60%. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Statistical analysis of final results took place from July 29 to October 1, 2019. Intervention: Multichannel cochlear implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the a priori hypothesis that the cochlear implant would improve the AzBio Sentence Test score in the best-aided condition by 25% or more and in the implanted ear-alone condition by 30% or more. The study additionally examined word and telephone recognition and examined device benefit, health utility, and quality of life. Results: A total of 34 participants received a cochlear implant; 31 (23 men [74%]; median age, 73.6 years [range, 65.7-85.1 years]) completed testing through the 6-month evaluation, and 29 completed testing through the 12-month evaluation. Median preoperative AzBio Sentence Test scores were 53% (range, 26%-60%) for the best-aided condition and 24% (range, 0%-53%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition; median scores 12 months after implantation improved to 89% (range, 36%-100%) for the best-aided condition and 77% (range, 13%-100%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition. This outcome represents a median change of 36% (range, -22% to 75%) for the best-aided condition (lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 31%) and a median change of 53% (range, -15% to 93%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition (lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 45%). Conclusions and Relevance: Intervention with a cochlear implant was associated with improved sentence, word, and telephone recognition in adult Medicare beneficiaries whose preoperative AzBio Sentence Test scores were between 41% and 60%. These findings support expansion of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid current indications for cochlear implants. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02075229.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bilateral cochlear implants for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears in Singapore.

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty.

Expanding Access: Cost-effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) with mainstream education and deaf education with sign language for treatment of children with profound sensorineural hearing loss in low- and lower-middle income countries in Asia. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3. RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39). CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.

Economic cost of congenital CMV in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is the most common infectious cause of congenital disability. It can disrupt neurodevelopment, causing lifelong impairments including sensorineural hearing loss and developmental delay. This study aimed, for the first time, to estimate the annual economic burden of managing cCMV and its sequelae in the UK. DESIGN: The study collated available secondary data to develop a static cost model. SETTING: The model aimed to estimate costs of cCMV in the UK for the year 2016. PATIENTS: Individuals of all ages with cCMV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct (incurred by the public sector) and indirect (incurred personally or by society) costs associated with management of cCMV and its sequelae. RESULTS: The model estimated that the total cost of cCMV to the UK in 2016 was £732 million (lower and upper estimates were between £495 and £942 million). Approximately 40% of the costs were directly incurred by the public sector, with the remaining 60% being indirect costs, including lost productivity. Long-term impairments caused by the virus had a higher financial burden than the acute management of cCMV. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of cCMV is substantial, predominantly stemming from long-term impairments. Costs should be compared against investment in educational strategies and vaccine development programmes that aim to prevent virus transmission, as well as the value of introducing universal screening for cCMV to both increase detection of children who would benefit from treatment, and to build a more robust evidence base for future research.

Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Sensorineural hearing loss occurs as a result of damage to the hair cells in the cochlea, or to the auditory nerve. It negatively affects learning and development in children, and employment and economic attainment in adults. Current policy in Ontario is to provide unilateral cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, hearing with both ears as a result of bilateral cochlear implantation may offer added benefits. METHODS: We completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to bilateral cochlear implantation. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children from inception to March 2017. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective and analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children in Ontario for the next 5 years. Finally, we conducted interviews with adults who have sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants, and with parents of children with bilateral cochlear implants. RESULTS: We included 24 publications (10 in adults, 14 in children) in the clinical evidence review. Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral cochlear implantation improved sound localization, speech perception in noise, and subjective benefits of hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (GRADE: moderate to high). Bilateral cochlear implantation also allowed for better language development and more vocalization in preverbal communication in children (GRADE: moderate). The safety profile was acceptable.Bilateral cochlear implantation was more expensive and more effective than unilateral cochlear implantation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $48,978/QALY in adults and between $27,427/QALY and $30,386/QALY in children. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the quality-of-life values used. We estimated that the net budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation for adults in Ontario would be between $510,000 and $780,000 per year for the next 5 years.Patients described the social and emotional effects of hearing loss, and the benefits and challenges of using cochlear implants. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of moderate to high quality, we found that bilateral cochlear implantation improved hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Bilateral cochlear implantation was potentially cost-effective compared to unilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children. Patients with sensorineural hearing loss reported the positive effects of cochlear implants, and patients with unilateral cochlear implants generally expressed a desire for bilateral implants.

Overcoming developing-world challenges in cochlear implantation: a South American perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implantation is challenging in developing countries, and this review focuses on strategies for childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss care in South America. RECENT FINDINGS: Most global hearing loss exists in developing countries; optimal cost-effective management strategies are essential in these environments. This review aims to assess and discuss the challenges of cochlear implantation effectiveness in South America. The authors searched electronic databases, bibliographies, and references for published and unpublished studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and failure rate. Costs were obtained from experts in South America using known costs and estimations whenever necessary. Recent studies reported several challenges in unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants: cochlear implant costs, deaf education costs, increasing need for cochlear implant capacity, and training and increasing longevity. SUMMARY: Cochlear implantation was very cost-effective in all South American countries. Despite inconsistencies in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods substantiates the positive findings of the included studies, demonstrating that unilateral cochlear implantation is clinically effective and likely to be cost-effective in developing countries.

Pediatric cochlear implantation: Variation in income, race, payer, and charges across five states.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Our objectives were to investigate pediatric cochlear implantation (PCI) across representative states within the United States and analyze any geographical differences in age, median household income, race, insurance, and total medical charges. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Data from children (aged 0.5-18 years) who received cochlear implantation surgery were collected from the 2011 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases from California (CA), Florida (FL), Maryland (MD), New York (NY), and Kentucky (KY) as a part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. We performed data analysis using a combination of Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, as well as nominal logistic regression. RESULTS: Five hundred twelve cases of PCI were performed during 2011 across the five states. The overall mean and median age of implantation were 5.6 years and 4 years, respectively. There was no statistical difference in age of implantation across states (P = .85). However, there were statistical differences in primary payer (P < .001), median household income quartiles of patients who received an implant (P < .006), race (P < .001), and total median hospital charges for four of the states, with the exception of CA (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age of PCI appears to be similar across the five states in cross-sectional analysis. Geographic variations in charges, payer, race, and median household income occur with statistical significance in PCI. Further analysis of contributing factors at each state level may help elucidate the root cause of these disparities and improve and justify a uniform approach to healthcare delivery and standards of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:954-958, 2018.

Cost-Utility of Partially Implantable Active Middle Ear Implants for Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partially implantable active middle ear implants (aMEIs) offer a solution for individuals who have mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss and an outer ear medical condition that precludes the use of hearing aids. When otherwise left untreated, individuals report a lower quality of life, which may further decrease with increasing disability. In the lack of cost-effectiveness studies and long-term data, there is a need for decision modeling. OBJECTIVE: To explore individual-level variance in resource utilization patterns following aMEI implantation. METHODS: A Markov model was developed and analyzed as microsimulation to estimate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) of partially implantable aMEIs compared with no (surgical) intervention in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss and an outer ear medical condition in Australia. Cost data were derived mostly from the Medicare Benefit Schedule and effectiveness data from published literature. A third-party payer perspective was adopted, and a 5% discount rate was applied over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: Compared with baseline strategy, aMEIs yielded an incremental cost of Australian dollars (AUD) 13,339.18, incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 1.35, and an ICUR of AUD 9,913.72/QALY. Of the respective number of simulated patients who visited each health state, 75.73% never had a minor adverse event, 99.82% did not experience device failure, and 97.75% did not cease to use their aMEIs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the ICUR to differ by only 0.95%. CONCLUSIONS: In the Australian setting, partially implantable aMEIs offer a safe and cost-effective solution compared with no intervention and are also well accepted by users.

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation for 1-year-old children suffering from bilateral sensorineural severe to profound hearing loss from the perspective of the Spanish public health system. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We conducted a general-population survey to estimate the quality-of-life increase contributed by the second implant. We built a Markov influence diagram and evaluated it for a life-long time horizon with a 3% discount rate in the base case. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of simultaneous bilateral implantation with respect to unilateral implantation for 1-year-old children with severe to profound deafness is €10,323 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). For sequential bilateral implantation, it rises to €11,733/QALY. Both options are cost-effective for the Spanish health system, whose willingness to pay is estimated at around €30,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that the probability of bilateral implantation being cost-effective reaches 100% for that cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral implantation is clearly cost-effective for the population considered. If possible, it should be done simultaneously (i.e., in one surgical operation), because it is as safe and effective as sequential implantation, and saves costs for the system and for users and their families. Sequential implantation is also cost-effective for children who have received the first implant recently, but it is difficult to determine when it ceases to be so because of the lack of detailed data. These results are specific for Spain, but the model can easily be adapted to other countries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C. Laryngoscope, 127:2866-2872, 2017.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Rural China.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost utility of cochlear implantation (CI) for severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) among children from rural settings in P.R. China (China). RESEARCH DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was undertaken using data generated from a single-center substudy of the Cochlear Pediatric Implanted Recipient Observational Study (Cochlear P-IROS). The data were projected over a 20-year time horizon using a decision tree model. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare payer and patient perspectives were adopted. INTERVENTION: Unilateral CI of children with a severe-to-profound SNHL compared with their preimplantation state of no treatment or amplification with hearing aids ("no CI" status). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE/S: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The mean total discounted cost of unilateral CI was CNY 252,506 (37,876 USD), compared with CNY 29,005 (4,351 USD) for the no CI status from the healthcare payer plus patient perspective. A total discounted benefit of 8.9 QALYs was estimated for CI recipients compared with 6.7 QALYs for the no CI status. From the healthcare payer plus patient perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for unilateral CI compared with no CI was CNY 100,561 (15,084 USD) per QALY. The healthcare payer perspective yielded an ICER of CNY 40,929 (6,139 USD) per QALY. Both ICERs fell within one to three times China's gross domestic product per capita (GDP, 2011-2015), considered "cost-effective" by World Health Organization (WHO) standards. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with unilateral CI is a cost-effective hearing solution for children with severe to profound SNHL in rural China. Increased access to mainstream education and greater opportunities for employment, are potential downstream benefits of CI that may yield further societal and economic benefits. CI may be considered favorably for broader inclusion in medical insurance schemes across China.

To image or not to image? A cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI for patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to perform an economic analysis evaluating whether ordering a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cost-effective practice in the workup of undifferentiated asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL). Use of T1 gadolinium-weighted MR (GdT1W) and T2 weighted MR without contrast (T2MR) was each examined. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MR imaging among ASNHL patients was evaluated using a decision tree. We calculated what the probability of having a cerebellopontine angle/internal auditory canal lesion would have to be to make MR more cost-effective than observation. The decision pathways included observation, GdT1W, and T2MR. The probability of detecting a lesion and associated costs were employed in constructing our tree. Missing a mass in the observation branch was considered to have an effectiveness of 0. The costs and probabilities were extracted from previously published studies. RESULTS: The ICERs of pursuing GdT1W and T2MR were $27,660 and $15,943, respectively, both below the widely accepted willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds of $30,000 and $50,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulations for GdT1W showed that it is more cost-effective than no imaging, with 54.4% and 83.5% certainty at $30,000 and $50,000 WTP thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulations for T2MR showed that it is more cost-effective than no imaging, with 75.2% and 92.6% certainty at $30,000 and $50,000 WTP thresholds. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation strongly supports pursuing MRI in patients with documented ASNHL as a cost-effective strategy. Both GdT1W and T2MR are more cost-effective than observation. Furthermore, noncontrast T2 imaging may be the more cost-effective modality of these two techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 127:939-944, 2017.

Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Pediatric Bilateral Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss: An Australian Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: In Australia, surgical treatment options for children with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss exist in a continuum ranging from unilateral cochlear implantation (CI), sequential bilateral CI through to simultaneous bilateral CI, depending on the condition. When treatment options are mutually exclusive, the mean costs and benefits of each treatment group are summed together to obtain the total mean costs and benefits. This enables an incremental analysis of treatment options in the context of the treated populations.The objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of current Australian CI treatment practices in children using domestic costs and consequences when compared with bilateral hearing aids (HAs). RESEARCH DESIGN: Economic evaluation including a Markov model based on secondary sources. SETTING: The base case modeled a government health payer perspective over a child's lifetime. Primary and secondary school education costs were also assessed. INTERVENTION: Bilateral HAs compared with CI, including unilateral, sequential bilateral, or simultaneous bilateral CI weighted according to treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year. RESULTS: Approximately 42% of children in Australia with unilateral CI did not transition to sequential bilateral nor undergo simultaneous bilateral implantation. This differs from previous economic evaluations that assumed 100% of children transitioned to sequential bilateral CI treatment or were treated with simultaneous bilateral CI.The incremental cost utility of unilateral cochlear implantation compared with HAs was AUD 21,947/QALY. The weighted average incremental cost utility of the combined cochlear implantation treatment groups was AUD 31,238/QALY when compared with HAs. CONCLUSION: Previous economic evaluations of cochlear implantation assumed 100% of unilaterally treated patients would transition to sequential bilateral or be treated with simultaneous bilateral implantation. This approach does not take into account the total treated population, where a proportion of patients are treated with unilateral CI.CI was cost effective when compared with HAs, and included children treated with unilateral, sequential bilateral, and simultaneous bilateral CI.The model was sensitive to the number of assessment and habilitation visits. Alternative health service models with cost efficiencies are needed to reduce after care costs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Cochlear Implantation in Australian Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Sequential and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants are emerging as appropriate treatment options for Australian adults with sensory deficits in both cochleae. Current funding of Australian public hospitals does not provide for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) as a separate surgical procedure. Previous cost-effectiveness studies of sequential and simultaneous bilateral CI assumed 100% of unilaterally treated patients' transition to a sequential bilateral CI. This assumption does not place cochlear implantation in the context of the generally treated population. When mutually exclusive treatment options exist, such as unilateral CI, sequential bilateral CI, and simultaneous bilateral CI, the mean costs of the treated populations are weighted in the calculation of incremental cost-utility ratios. The objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of bilateral hearing aids (HAs) compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI in Australian adults with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis of secondary sources input to a Markov model. SETTING: Australian health care perspective, lifetime horizon with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually. INTERVENTION: Bilateral HAs as treatment for bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (AUD/QALY). RESULTS: When compared with bilateral hearing aids the incremental cost-utility ratio for the CI treatment population was AUD11,160/QALY. The incremental cost-utility ratio was weighted according to the number of patients treated unilaterally, sequentially, and simultaneously, as these were mutually exclusive treatment options. CONCLUSION: No peer-reviewed articles have reported the incremental analysis of cochlear implantation in a continuum of care for surgically treated populations with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI were cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids. Technologies that reduce the total number of visits for a patient could introduce additional cost efficiencies into clinical practice.

Mini Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Unilateral Osseointegrated Implants in Adults: Possibly Cost-Effective for the Correct Indication.

An osseointegrated implant (e.g. bone-anchored hearing aid, BAHA) is a surgically implantable device for unilateral sensorineural and unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss in patients who otherwise cannot use or do not prefer a conventional air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). The specific indications for an osseointegrated implant are evolving and dependent upon the country or regulatory body overseeing the provision of these devices. However, there are general groups of patients who would be likely to benefit, one such group being patients with congenital aural atresia. Given the anatomical aberrancies with aural atresia, these subjects cannot wear ACHAs. Another group of patients who may benefit from an osseointegrated implant over an ACHA are patients with chronically draining otological infections. As the provision of an osseointegrated implant requires a surgical procedure, there are inherent direct and indirect costs associated with its use beyond those required for an ACHA. Consideration of outcomes and cost-effectiveness for the osseointegrated implant versus the ACHA is prudent prior to making policy decisions in a setting of limited health care resources. We performed a mini review on all available cost-effectiveness analyses of osseointegrated implants published in Medline. There are only 2 contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses published to date. There is limited quality of life data available for patients living with an osseointegrated implant. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the osseointegrated implant, specifically the BAHA, compared to conventional hearing aid devices remains unclear. However, there are clear indications for the BAHA when a standard hearing aid cannot be used (e.g. chronic draining ear) or in single-sided severe-to-profound hearing loss with reasonable hearing in the contralateral ear. The BAHA should not be considered interchangeable with the ACHA with regard to cost-effectiveness, but rather considered as an effective option for the patient for the correct indication.

First estimates of the potential cost and cost saving of protecting childhood hearing from damage caused by congenital CMV infection.

BACKGROUND: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is an important cause of childhood deafness, which is modifiable if diagnosed within the first month of life. Targeted screening of infants who do not pass their newborn hearing screening tests in England is a feasible approach to identify and treat cases to improve hearing outcome. AIMS: To conduct a cost analysis of targeted screening and subsequent treatment for cCMV-related sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in an, otherwise, asymptomatic infant, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Using data from the newborn hearing screening programme (NHSP) in England and a recent study of targeted screening for cCMV using salivary swabs within the NHSP, we estimate the cost (in UK pounds (£)) to the NHS. The cost of screening (time, swabs and PCR), assessing, treating and following up cases is calculated. The cost per case of preventing hearing deterioration secondary to cCMV with targeted screening is calculated. RESULTS: The cost of identifying, assessing and treating a case of cCMV-related SNHL through targeted cCMV screening is estimated to be £6683. The cost of improving hearing outcome for an infant with cCMV-related SNHL through targeted screening and treatment is estimated at £14 202. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of targeted screening for cCMV using salivary swabs integrated within NHSP resulted in an estimate of cost per case that compares favourably with other screening programmes. This could be used in future studies to estimate the full economic value in terms of incremental costs and incremental health benefits.

Cost Effectiveness of Childhood Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Nicaragua: A Disability Adjusted Life Year Model.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a common intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss in high-income countries, but is not commonly available to children in low resource environments. Owing in part to the device costs, CI has been assumed to be less economical than deaf education for low resource countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of the two interventions for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a model using disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: Cost estimates were derived from published data, expert opinion, and known costs of services in Nicaragua. Individual costs and lifetime DALY estimates with a 3% discounting rate were applied to both two interventions. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the effect on the discounted cost of five key components: implant cost, audiology salary, speech therapy salary, number of children implanted per year, and device failure probability. RESULTS: The costs per DALY averted are $5,898 and $5,529 for CI and deaf education, respectively. Using standards set by the WHO, both interventions are cost effective. Sensitivity analysis shows that when all costs set to maximum estimates, CI is still cost effective. CONCLUSION: Using a conservative DALY analysis, both CI and deaf education are cost-effective treatment alternatives for severe-to-profound SNHL. CI intervention costs are not only influenced by the initial surgery and device costs but also by rehabilitation costs and the lifetime maintenance, device replacement, and battery costs. The major CI cost differences in this low resource setting were increased initial training and infrastructure costs, but lower medical personnel and surgery costs.