Why Do Cochlear Implant Candidates Defer Surgery? A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE(S): Despite undergoing thorough cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluation and counseling, some patients ultimately elect against implantation. This study sought to identify patient-related and socioeconomic factors predicting CI deferral. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult (≥18 years old) CI candidates presenting between 2007 and 2021 at a tertiary academic CI center was performed. The primary outcome was device implantation. Data collected included age, gender, hearing status, race, zip code of residence, median family income (MFI), distance traveled from the CI center, marital status, employment status, and insurance status. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of implantation. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients qualifying for CI were included, encompassing 77 adults deferring surgery (CI-deferred) and 123 consecutive adults electing for surgery (CI-pursued). Age, gender, hearing status, insurance type, employment status, distance from the implant center, and MFI were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). Compared to CI-pursued patients, CI-deferred patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (24.7% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.015) and unmarried (55.8% vs. 38.2%, p = 0.015). On multivariable logistic regression, older age (OR 0.981, 0.964-0.998, p = 0.027), African American race (OR 0.227, 0.071-0.726, p = 0.012), and unmarried status (OR 0.505, 0.273-0.935, p = 0.030) were independent predictors of implant deferral. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that increasing age at evaluation, African American race, and unmarried status are predictors for deferring CI surgery despite being implant candidates. These patients may benefit from increased outreach in the form of counseling, education, and social support prior to undergoing CI surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 - retrospective study with internal control group Laryngoscope, 134:2857-2863, 2024.

Como a judicialização da cirurgia de implante coclear impacta o Sistema Único de Saúde / How the judicialization of cochlear implant surgery impacts the Unified Health System

RESUMO Objetivo Descrever o impacto da judicialização na realização da cirurgia de implante coclear no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brasil, incluindo o serviço público e a saúde suplementar. Métodos Foi realizado um levantamento documental de acórdãos de todos os tribunais nacionais e a jurisprudência dominante, voltados à cirurgia do implante coclear no Sistema Único de Saúde, no período de 2007 a 2019, por meio da Plataforma Jusbrasil, utilizando o termo "implante coclear" para realização da busca. Também foi realizado um levantamento na plataforma DATASUS (Departamento de Informação do Sistema Único de Saúde) sobre quantos procedimentos de implante coclear unilateral e bilateral foram realizados no mesmo período. Resultados De acordo com o DATASUS, no período de 2008 a 2019 foram realizados 8.857 procedimentos de cirurgia de implante coclear pelos entes públicos ou pelas operadoras dos planos de saúde no país. Com relação à judicialização para solicitação da cirurgia do implante coclear, unilateral ou bilateral, foram encontrados 216 processos, representando 2,43% dos casos. Conclusão A judicialização da saúde, quando se considera a cirurgia do implante coclear, tem representado uma parcela mínima dos casos, o que demonstra baixo impacto no orçamento público e não tem expressiva ação na organização do Sistema Único de Saúde.

ABSTRACT Purpose To describe the impact of Judicialization on the performance of Cochlear Implant (CI) surgery in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), including the public service and supplementary health. Methods A documentary survey of judgments of all National Courts and the Dominant Jurisprudence focused on CI surgery in the SUS from 2007 to 2019 was carried out through the Jusbrasil Platform using the term "cochlear implant" to carry out the search. A survey was also carried out on the DATASUS platform on how many uni and bilateral CI procedures were performed in the same period. Results According to DATASUS, from 2008 to 2019, 8,857 CI surgery procedures were performed by Public Entities or Health Plan Operators in the country. With regard to Judicialization, for requesting unilateral or bilateral CI surgery, a total of 216 processes were found, representing a total of 2.43% of Judicialization of Cochlear Implant (CI) surgery. Conclusion In view of the data, it is possible to perceive that the Judicialization of Health when we consider the CI surgery has represented a small portion of the cases, which does not demonstrate a large impact on the public budget and does not have an impact on the organization of the SUS.

Distance and Socieoeconomic Status as Barriers to Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the distance burden for access to cochlear implant (CI)-related services and to assess whether socioeconomic disadvantage or level of education and occupation influenced uptake of CIs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: A CI services provider operating across multiple centers. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing CI surgery in a 2-year period between March 2018 and February 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Diagnosis of hearing loss, CI surgery, and subsequent habilitation and mapping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance traveled by patients to their audiological diagnostic, CI surgery hospital, and habilitation sites; subjects' index of relative socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage (IRSAD) and index of education and occupation (IEO). RESULTS: n = 201 children and n = 623 adults. There was a significant difference across IRSAD domains for children (p < 0.0001) and adults (p < 0.0001), and IEO in children (p = 0.015) and adults (p < 0.0001) when tested for equal proportions. The median driving distance from home to the diagnostic audiological site for children was 20 km (mean, 69 km; range, 1-1184 km; upper quartile, 79 km; lower quartile, 8 km). There was no significant difference between the driving distances from home to the CI surgery hospital site, or the mapping/habilitation sites between children and adults. There was no correlation for age at first surgery and either IRSAD/IEO. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of distance for access to CI in Australia is significant for the upper quartile who may not live within the large city centers. Greater consideration needs to be given regarding barriers to CI for those in lower socioeconomic and educational groups to ensure equity of access across different socioeconomic and educational level backgrounds.

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.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Access and Use: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric cochlear implantation (CI) is a multistep process, which exposes a healthcare system's potential weaknesses in ability to deliver timely care to deaf children. The current systematic review aims to determine the sociodemographic disparities that predict pediatric CI access and use among CI candidates and recipients across the world. We hypothesize that sociodemographic factors independently influence CI access and use within a given country. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases was conducted for studies investigating the association of sociodemographic factors such as race, income, or insurance status with measures of pediatric CI access, such as age at CI or CI rate. RESULTS: Out of 807 unique abstracts initially retrieved, 39 papers were included in the final qualitative systematic review. Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-one CI-candidate children (6,623 CI recipients) were studied in 14 countries, with 21 studies conducted in the United States of America, published within the years of 1993 to 2020. CONCLUSION: Some measures of CI access, such as age at CI and rates of CI, are consistently reported in the CI disparities literature while others such as access to rehabilitation services, willingness to undergo CI, and daily CI use are rarely measured. There are persistently reported disparities in a few key measures of CI access in a few populations, while there are some populations with a paucity of data. Future studies should delineate the nuances in the mechanisms of disparities by conducting multivariable analysis of representative sample data. Laryngoscope, 132:670-686, 2022.

A prospective study on the feasibility of cochlear implantation during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis and trends of assessment: experience in a UK centre.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of continuing cochlear implantation during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis and to report on trends of referrals via the neonatal hearing screening programme. METHODS: A prospective case series was conducted on children who underwent cochlear implantation during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis in the UK and a sample of referrals via the neonatal hearing screening programme. A step-by-step description of peri-operative management is included. RESULTS: Regionally, between February and May 2020, 106 babies were referred via the neonatal hearing screening programme to paediatric audiology. Eleven children were operated on during the coronavirus disease 2019 study period. None of the 11 children developed coronavirus symptoms. DISCUSSION: It is widely recognised that the demands of managing the current pandemic may compromise screening, clinical assessment and elective surgery. Time-sensitive issues such as cancer management have gained prominence, but a similar need exists for timely paediatric cochlear implantation. CONCLUSION: Implantation in the paediatric population during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is feasible with careful planning.

Racial and Insurance Inequalities in Access to Early Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and insurance status on the access to early cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based retrospective analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation procedures. SETTING: State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of Florida from 2005 to 2017. METHODS: All children aged 18 years or younger in the state of Florida undergoing cochlear implantation were identified. The outcome measures were access to early cochlear implantation (before 1 and 2 years of age). Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Among 1511 pediatric cochlear implantation procedures with complete data, 65 (4.3%) procedures were performed by 1 year of age and 348 (23.0%) by 2 years of age. Black children (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70), Hispanic children (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94), and children with Medicaid (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84) were significantly less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age. Even when insured by private insurance, black and Hispanic children were still less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age compared to white children with private insurance. Greater racial and insurance disparities existed in access to cochlear implantation before 1 year of age compared to implantation before 2 years of age. CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic and insurance disparities in pediatric cochlear implantation can be observed at the population level. To address these racial and insurance inequalities, a multidisciplinary care team is needed and priorities should be given to research endeavors and policy interventions that target these disparities.

The French Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): General indicators.

Cochlear and brainstem implants have been included on the list of reimbursable products (LPPR) in France since March of 2009. The implants were initially inscribed for 5 years, after which an application for renewal with the French National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies (Commission Nationale d'évaluation des dispositifs médicaux et des technologies de santé - CNEDiMTS) was required [Haute Autorité de santé, 2009]. Upon registration to the list of reimbursable products, the companies and the reference centers for cochlear and brainstem implants were asked to set up a post-registration registry called EPIIC. This article reports the evolution in the EPIIC registry of the general indicators for 5051 patients over the five years from 2012-2016.

The French Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): Cochlear implant candidacy assessment of off-label indications.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate in France the outcomes of cochlear implantation outside the selection criteria, off-label. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study including adults and children having received a cochlear implant (CI) in an off-label indication, that is outside the criteria established by the "Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)" in 2012. The data was collected from the "EPIIC" registry on recipients who received CIs in France between 2011 and 2014. Speech audiometry was performed at 60dB preimplantation and after one year of CI use, as well as an evaluation of the scores of the quality of life with the APHAB questionnaire, the scores for CAP and the professional/academic status in pre- and post-implantation conditions. Major and minor complications at surgery have been recorded. RESULTS: In total, 590 patients (447 adults and 143 children) with an off-label indication for CIs were included in this study from the EPIIC registry (11.7% of the whole cohort of EPIIC). For adults, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 41% in preimplantation condition versus 53% after one year of CI use (P<0.001) and 60% versus 71% in dissyllabic word lists (P<0.001). The CAP scores were 5 versus 6 in pre- and post-implantation conditions respectively (P<0.001) and the APHAB scores were statistically lower after implantation (P<0.001). In the children cohort, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 51% in preimplantation condition and 65% after CI (P<0.001), and 48% versus 82% (P<0.001) for dissyllabic word lists. The CAP scores were 5 versus 7 respectively in pre- and post-CI conditions (P<0.001). Thirty-two minor complications (5.4%) and 17 major complications (2.8%) were reported in our panel of off-label indication patients. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a revision of the cochlear implantation candidacy criteria is necessary to allow more patients with severe or asymmetric hearing loss to benefit from a CI when there is an impact on quality of life despite the use of an optimal hearing aid.

Overcoming developing world challenges of cochlear implantation: Chinese perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over a short period, China has adopted cochlear implants and emerged as a burgeoning market. This represents a valuable case study for emerging countries in terms of planning, initiating, and growing cochlear implant programs. RECENT FINDINGS: Although many challenges such as funding, establishing infrastructure, and recipient community support have been addressed, many more remain. Consistent rapid escalation in numbers has been driven by push-and-pull factors. Federal, state, and private funding have all played a role. SUMMARY: The review highlights the massive need for hearing rehabilitation that currently exists in China. The shortfall can only be addressed by a purposeful and coordinated approach involving government policy, The China Disabled Persons Federation, the industry partnering with hearing and medical professionals and the deaf community.

Evolving Trends in Cochlear Implantation: A Critical Look at the Older Population.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-accepted surgical option for the treatment of moderate to profound deafness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the temporal and geographic trends of this procedure nationwide in the Medicare population in an attempt to explore the impact of evolving technologies and changes in healthcare policy. METHODS: Medicare Part B national summary procedural datasets from 2007 to 2016 were obtained. Current Procedural Terminology codes for CI as well as auditory osseointegrated implantation were obtained. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets were evaluated to determine temporal trends. For geographic trends, specific carrier datasets from 2007 and 2016 were used. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2016, the number of CI procedures increased annually from 1603 to 3600 (124.6%). Other procedures to treat hearing loss including bone-anchored implantation exhibited comparatively modest increases (23%, 90%). CI procedures increased every year in contrast to bone-anchored implants. Controlling for Medicare population, the greatest number of CI procedures performed per capita in the United States was in the West North Central, with an average 1.05 CIs per 10,000 beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: The number of CI procedures performed in the elderly population has increased markedly over the past 10 years, far outpacing growth in other hearing surgeries. Potential reasons may relate to changes in criteria for CI candidacy over the past decade, although significant regional variability demonstrated suggests a lack of consensus. Further studies would be necessary to ascertain the true reason for geographic disparities.

A sustainable model for cochlear implantation in the developing world: perspectives from the Indian subcontinent.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The overall prevalence of deafness in India is 0.2%, but the prevalence in the southern state of Tamil Nadu is much higher (around 0.6%) because of consanguinity. Especially in India, establishing cochlear implantation as a treatment modality for hearing loss has been a daunting task, but in the last decade, the cochlear implantation program has emerged as an unqualified success in many states, with over 20 000 cochlear implantations done till date. Several states are sponsoring free implants to children under the age of 6 years and below poverty line. RECENT FINDINGS: Nearly 3000 cochlear implantations have been performed in Tamil Nadu under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme, with the goal to have a 'deafness free Tamil Nadu' by 2025. This scheme covers nearly 40 million people in rural areas. Valuable lessons have been learnt from this social experiment. One of the cornerstones of this scheme is the method to deliver habilitation via satellite centers in rural areas at the doorstep of the patient. The outcomes in peripheral centers were found to be statistically similar to those in the main center and correlated well with duration of habilitation. SUMMARY: Opening up satellite centers for habilitation across the state of Tamil Nadu has greatly helped to improve the attendance and outcomes. The Indian model has been hugely successful and has helped start similar cochlear implantation programs in neighboring countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Barriers to pediatric cochlear implantation: A parental survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) determine barriers in the pediatric cochlear implantation process specific to publicly insured patients, wherein delayed implantation has been reported, and (2) compare the perceived barriers between publicly and privately insured patients. SETTING: Tertiary care cochlear implantation center at academic pediatric hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey, retrospective chart review. METHODS: The validated, 39 item Barriers to Care Questionnaire was administered to the parents of 80 recipients of cochlear implantation by two surgeons between 2013 and 2016. Survey results and diagnosis to implant interval were compared based on public or private insurance status. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 110 cochlear implants, 27 of 80 (34%) English-speaking parents completed the survey. 15 were privately insured and 12 were publicly insured. 23 of 27 respondents received cochlear implantation for pre-lingual sensorineural hearing loss. Publicly insured patients had significantly longer median time from diagnosis to implant than privately insured (19 vs. 8 mo, p = 0.01). The three worst scoring barrier categories for privately insured families in order were Pragmatics, Expectations, and Marginalization, whereas for publicly insured families it was Pragmatics, Skills, and Expectations. The worst scoring question for privately insured patients was "Having to take time off work". For the publicly insured, it was "Lack of communication." CONCLUSION: Privately insured patients reported more barriers on the Barriers to Care Questionnaire than publicly insured patients did. Although pragmatics was the worst-scoring barrier category for both groups, difficulties found on the survey ranked differently for each group. This information can help providers address disparities and access barriers for vulnerable patients.

Survey of the American Neurotology Society on Cochlear Implantation: Part 1, Candidacy Assessment and Expanding Indications.

OBJECTIVE: To examine practice variance of cochlear implant candidacy assessment and off-label indications across centers in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the American Neurotology Society (ANS). RESULTS: A total of 81 surveys were returned from ANS members who report regular involvement in cochlear implant care. Overall there was a broad distribution in age and clinical experience, with most respondents reporting ACGME accreditation in neurotology and employment at an academic center. The annual volume of cochlear implant surgeries varied considerably across centers.Seventy-eight percent of respondents performed cochlear implantation for at least one of the following indications within the last 2 years: profound hearing loss in children less than 12 months of age (35, 43%), children with asymmetrical hearing loss where at least one ear was better than performance cutoff for age (25, 31%), adults with asymmetrical hearing where at least one ear was better than the performance cutoff for adult criteria (49, 61%), single-sided deafness (37, 46%), and ipsilateral vestibular schwannoma (28, 35%). Centers with a higher annual implant volume more frequently performed off-label implantation in all queried populations (all, p≤0.001), and performed surgery on infants with congenital deafness at a younger age (p = 0.013), compared with centers with lower surgical volume.When surveyed regarding speech perception testing practices for adult candidacy assessment, 75 (100%) respondents who answered this question reported routine use of AzBio sentences, 42 (56%) CNC word scores, and 26 (35%) HINT testing; only 7 (9%) reported using BKB-SIN testing and 6 (8%) reported using CUNY scores. Fifty-one (68%) reported routine use of speech-in-noise testing to determine adult cochlear implant candidacy, 21 (28%) reported selective use only when patient scores were borderline in quiet, and 3 (4%) reported that their center does not currently use testing in noise for candidacy determination. Nineteen (26%) solely used +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), 12 (16%) solely used +5 dB SNR, and 41 (55%) used both +10 and +5 dB SNR. Overall, 19% (N = 14) only perform unilateral implantation in the Medicare population, while 81% (N = 58) consider bilateral implantation. CONCLUSION: Significant variation in cochlear implant candidacy assessment and off-label implantation exists across centers and providers in the United States resulting in healthcare inequities. The high percentage of surgeons performing implantations for off-label or nontraditional indications reflects the overly restrictive and dated status of current implant guidelines. With greater adoption of more difficult speech perception testing in noise, careful clinical judgment is needed to maintain a favorable risk-benefit balance for prospective implant candidates.

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.

Provincial Variation of Cochlear Implantation Surgical Volumes and Cost in Canada.

Objectives To investigate provincial cochlear implantation (CI) annual volume and cost trends. Study Design Database analysis. Setting National surgical volume and cost database. Subjects and Methods Aggregate-level provincial CI volumes and cost data for adult and pediatric CI surgery from 2005 to 2014 were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Population-level aging forecast estimates were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Finance and Statistics Canada. Linear fit, analysis of variance, and Tukey's analyses were utilized to compare variances and means. Results The national volume of annual CI procedures is forecasted to increase by <30 per year ( R2 = 0.88). Ontario has the highest mean annual CI volume (282; 95% confidence interval, 258-308), followed by Alberta (92.0; 95% confidence interval, 66.3-118), which are significantly higher than all other provinces ( P < .05 for each). Ontario's annual CI procedure volume is forecasted to increase by <11 per year ( R2 = 0.62). Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have the highest CI procedures per 100,000 residents as compared with all other provinces ( P < .05). Alberta, Newfoundland, and Manitoba have the highest estimated implantation cost of all provinces ( P < .05). Conclusions Historical trends of CI forecast modest national volume growth. Potential bottlenecks include provincial funding and access to surgical expertise. The proportion of older adult patients who may benefit from a CI will rise, and there may be insufficient capacity to meet this need. Delayed access to CI for pediatric patients is also a concern, given recent reports of long wait times for CI surgery.

Timing and Impact of Hearing Healthcare in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Rural-Urban Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the timing and impact of hearing healthcare of rural and urban adults with severe hearing loss who use cochlear implants (CI). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adult cochlear implant recipients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected included county of residence, socioeconomic information, impact of hearing loss on education/employment, and timing of hearing loss treatment. The benefits obtained from cochlear implantation were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 91 participants (32 from urban counties, 26 from moderately rural counties, and 33 for extremely rural counties). Rural participants have a longer commute time to the CI center (p < 0.001), lower income (p < 0.001), and higher percentage of Medicaid coverage (p = 0.004). Compared with urban-metro participants, rural participants with gradually progressive hearing loss had a greater time interval from the onset of hearing loss to obtaining hearing aid amplification (10 yr versus 5 yr, p = 0.04). There was also a greater time interval from onset of hearing loss to the time of cochlear implantation in rural participants (p = 0.04). Reported job loss was higher in rural participants than in urban participants (p = 0.05). Both groups reported comparable benefit from cochlear implantation. CONCLUSION: Rural CI recipients differ from urban residents in socioeconomic characteristics and may be delayed in timely treatment of hearing loss. Further efforts to expand access to hearing healthcare services may benefit rural adult patients.

Cochlear implants in Belgium: Prevalence in paediatric and adult cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES: Belgium, and especially the northern region called Flanders, has been a centre of expertise in cochlear implants and early hearing screening for many years. Cochlear implants are reimbursed by the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability (BNIHD) Insurance in adults and in children since October 1994. More than 20 years later, we would like to measure the prevalence of cochlear implants in adults and in children till now. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on scientific research data on the prevalence of severe to profound hearing loss in adults and in children and on the number of implantations from the data of the BNIHD, we could measure the percentages of paediatric and adult CI users in comparing to the number of CI candidates. RESULTS: The degree of utilisation of cochlear implantation varies considerably between the paediatric and the adult population. On average, 78% of deaf children are receiving cochlear implants, but in adults only 6.6% of CI candidates are receiving one. CONCLUSION: There are big differences in Belgium in utilisation of cochlear implants between adults and children. Because of the underutilisation of cochlear implants, especially in adults, we have to work on raising the general awareness of the benefits of cochlear implants, and its improvement in quality of life, based on cost-effectiveness data and on guidelines for good clinical practice.

Access to cochlear implants: Time to reflect.

Cochlear implant (CI) intervention is expensive and accessed mainly by developed countries. The introduction of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and funding via a public health service give children better access to CIs. However for adults large disparities exist between utilization and estimated prevalence. In the UK CI selection criteria are restrictive compared with many other countries. Improved audiological awareness and screening programmes for adults would improve access to hearing technologies that would improve health and quality of life. Hearing loss itself has significant medical and financial burdens on society and by investing in early intervention and using best technology this would mitigate some of the rising associated medical costs.