RESUMEN
AIM: Dental caries is a major public health problem worldwide, with very significant deleterious consequences for many people. The available data are alarming in Canada and the province of Quebec. The water fluoridation program has been shown to be the most effective means of preventing caries and reducing oral health inequalities. This article analyzes the cost-effectiveness of Quebec's water fluoridation program to provide decision-makers with economic information for assessing its usefulness. METHODS: An approach adapted from economic evaluation was used to: (1) build a logic model for Quebec's water fluoridation program; (2) determine its implementation cost; and (3) analyze its cost-effectiveness. Documentary analysis was used to build the logic model. Program cost was calculated using data from 13 municipalities that adopted fluoridation between 2002 and 2010 and two that received only infrastructure grants. Other sources were used to collect demographic data and calculate costs for caries treatment including costs associated with travel and lost productivity. RESULTS: The analyses showed the water fluoridation program was cost-effective even with a conservatively estimated 1 % reduction in dental caries. The benefit-cost ratio indicated that, at an expected average effectiveness of 30 % caries reduction, one dollar invested in the program saved $71.05-$82.83 per Quebec's inhabitant in dental costs (in 2010) or more than $560 million for the State and taxpayers. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the drinking-water fluoridation program produced substantial savings. Public health decision-makers could develop economic arguments to support wide deployment of this population-based intervention whose efficacy and safety have been demonstrated and acknowledged.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: No cost-effectiveness evaluation of pit and fissure sealants has ever been carried out in Quebec. The objective of this study was to simulate a publicly funded program of pit and fissure administration, either in the public or private sectors, and compare these hypothetical situations with the current one, i.e., a publicly funded, school-based selective program. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a virtual population of 8-year-old children that was monitored over a time span of 10 years. The incremental cost per child without decay was computed. RESULTS: The current situation and a publicly funded program in the public sector were more cost-effective than the other option: a universal, publicly funded, private practice. However, the most cost-effective option varied, depending on the incidence of decay and the proportion of children identified as being at high-risk for decay. CONCLUSION: By implementing a school-based program of universal pit and fissure sealant application, access to preventive dental care could be improved at an equivalent cost-effectiveness to the current one.