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.

Utility and value of pre-operative CT and MRI for cochlear implantation in the elderly.

PURPOSE: To determine the utility and value of pre-operative imaging among the elderly population ≥70 y.o. with bilateral progressive sensorineural hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional review was performed at a tertiary referral center between 2010 and 2018 including patients ≥70 y.o. with bilateral presbycusis who underwent preoperative imaging and cochlear implantation. Primary outcome was whether pre-operative imaging changed the surgeon's surgical plan such as side of implant or abort procedure entirely. Patient characteristics including age, sex, side of implant, imaging modality, whether imaging changed surgical plan, and surgical complications were reviewed. One-way analysis of variance with post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni and Fisher's exact test were used to examine differences between groups. Secondary outcome was cost of preoperative imaging. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients (mean age 79.38 [5.51 SD]) who underwent a total of 142 surgical cases and 147 total scans. There were 92, 27, and 14 patients who underwent CT, MRI, or both, respectfully (n=133). Of the 142 implants that were placed, preoperative imaging did not reveal a contraindication to placing implant on one side over another. Total cost of imaging was $29,694. Estimated cost if 20% of cochlear implant eligible patients ≥70 y.o. underwent imaging is $7,763,490. CONCLUSION: Decreasing unnecessary preoperative imaging can potentially decrease cost in cochlear implantation. In this sample, preoperative imaging did not affect the surgeon's choice of which side to operate on. However, imaging may provide an anatomic roadmap and contribute to either surgical confidence or caution. With the increasing amount of cochlear implant eligible elderly adults, preoperative imaging needs to be more clearly defined in this unique population.

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.

Cochlear implantation in different socioeconomic groups - bursting the myth.

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implantation does wonders for children suffering from severe to profound hearing loss, especially when the child is less than 12 months of age. However, most studies indicate that detection and implantation are done well beyond that age, owing to poor socioeconomic status, parental education, and income. Taking into account The Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme in Tamil Nadu, which provides cochlear implantation free of cost, this study aims to describe ages at presentation and nutritional factors among different socioeconomic classes. METHODS: A randomized retrospective comparative study was done between two groups of children based on the socioeconomic status of the family. Group A included children with a parental income of less than Rs. 72,000 and the cost of surgery covered by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme and group B included children with a parental income of more than 72,000 and the cost of surgery covered by the family. Three parameters were considered and compared-the age at presentation to the hospital for diagnosis and management and the weight and hemoglobin. The results were computed, and statistical analysis done. RESULTS: There was a negligible difference between the age at presentation between the two groups with the mean age for children belonging to group A being 2.906563 and the mean age for children belonging to group B being 3.540625. Weight among the two groups showed a significant difference with a p-value of 0.023664 at p < 0.05. The difference in hemoglobin values was found to be insignificant, with mean values being 11.0375 g/dl and 11.7375 g/dl for groups A and B respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has concluded sufficient awareness among different strata of society, despite economical differences, over cochlear implant programs owing to government initiatives of educating people and supporting them with necessary health benefits. Tamil Nadu, as a responsible state of a developing nation, has been proactive in ensuring the accessibility and reach of the health care system in this regard.

Lifetime cost of unilateral cochlear implants in adults: a Monte Carlo simulation.

BACKROUND/OBJECTIVE: Due to increasing prevalence of hearing loss and relaxation of candidacy criteria of cochlear implant (CI) supply, the number of implantations is likely to further increase. Statutory health insurances are facing ever more urgent financing challenges since CI treatment causes high life-long costs. Additionally, increasing life expectancy and earlier implantation may extend therapy time and cost. With every case being individual, this study aims to calculate the possible lifetime cost of unilateral CI treatment in adults including stochastic uncertainties. METHODS: Taking a statutory health insurance perspective, relevant cost components of CI therapy and their values were identified. The Monte Carlo method was used to simulate lifetime cost considering age at first implantation and distributions of costrelevant variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the most crucial variables impacting on lifetime cost. RESULTS: Lifetime cost of CI treatment varies according to age at first implantation, respectively remaining lifetime; the earlier the implantation, the higher the overall cost. According to our simulation, the average lifetime cost for an adult patient first implanted between the age of 20-80 is at 53,030 € (present value). Cost of implantation and periodic speech processor exchanges show the highest impact on the total cost. DISCUSSION: Health care systems could face rising expenses for CI supply by technical development. Innovative life-long CIs could achieve significant savings per case that could finance additional implant cost. Until then, further targeted research will be required. CONCLUSION: CI-related cost for statutory health insurance crucially depends on the patient-side demand for cochlear implants. Therefore, cost forecasts must also consider the development of demand.

Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants. RESULTS: We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, P < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, P < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; P < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.

Cost-effective analysis of unilateral cochlear implantation under the Taiwan national healthcare insurance.

Objective: The value of cochlear implantation (CI) has not been established in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of paediatric CI within the context of Taiwan's national health insurance (NHI) programme.Design: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral CI (UCI) with a contralateral acoustic hearing aid (UCI-HA) compared with a bilateral HA. We performed one-way sensitivity analyses to identify the cost variables that affected the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) the most. Monte Carlo simulation was used to explore the simultaneous effect of all uncertain parameters on cost-effectiveness.Study sample: Not applicable.Results: Compared with bilateral HAs, the ICER for UCI-HA was $6487 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICERs were consistently below $7000 per QALY gained and were most sensitive to the selling price of the external CI device. When this selling price increased by 10%, the ICER of UCI-HA would increase to $6954 per QALY gained. UCI-HA has a probability greater than 50% of being cost-effective if the cost-effectiveness threshold exceeds approximately $10,000 per QALY.Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that within the context of Taiwan's NHI programme, UCI is highly cost-effective for deaf children.

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.

Parent-perceived challenges related to the pediatric cochlear implantation process and support services received in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and describe parent-perceived challenges related to the pediatric cochlear implantation process and support services received. METHOD: A multicenter survey study across six cochlear implant (CI) programs in South Africa (SA) was conducted. The study sample included 82 parents of pediatric (≤18 years) CI recipients with at least 12 months CI experience. A self-administered questionnaire was developed for the purpose of this study, exploring parental challenges regarding the CI process, education of their implanted children and the support services received. RESULTS: The financial implications of cochlear implantation, including CI device maintenance, were identified by parents as the most prominent challenge. Financing issues were the highest scoring reason that attributed to the delay between diagnosis of hearing loss and cochlear implantation, as well as the greatest barrier to bilateral implantation. Parent-perceived educational challenges included finding adequate educational settings specific to the individual needs of their child and a shortage of trained teachers equipped to support children with CIs. The presence of one/more additional developmental conditions and grade repetition were associated with more pronounced parent-perceived educational challenges. Parents considered speech-language therapy as the most critical support service for their implanted children to achieve optimal outcomes, while parent guidance was indicated to be the most critical support service required for parents of pediatric CI recipients. CONCLUSION: A greater understanding of parent-perceived challenges will guide CI professionals to promote optimal outcomes, evidence-based service delivery and on-going support to pediatric CI recipients and their families. Study results imply a call for action regarding financial and educational support for pediatric CI recipients in SA.

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.

Age Dependent Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation in Adults. Is There an Age Related Cut-off?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of age at implantation on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI). STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model. SETTING: Adults with profound postlingual hearing loss in a "high income" country. INTERVENTION: Unilateral and sequential CI were compared with hearing aids (HA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in CHF/QALY), for individual age and sex combinations in relation to two different willingness to pay thresholds. 1 CHF (Swiss franc) is equivalent to 1.01 USD. RESULTS: When a threshold of 50,000 CHF per QALY is applied, unilateral CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 91 for women and 89 for men. Sequential CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 87 for women and 85 for men. If a more contemporary threshold of 100,000 CHF per QALY is applied, sequential CI in comparison to unilateral CI is cost-effective up to an age of 80 for women and 78 for men. CONCLUSIONS: Performing both sequential and unilateral CI is cost-effective up to very advanced ages when compared with hearing aids.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bimodal Stimulation Compared to Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Bilateral Severe to Profound Deafness.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of severe-profoundly deaf adult unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users receive bimodal stimulation; that is, they use a conventional acoustic hearing aid (HA) in their nonimplanted ear. The combination of electric and contralateral acoustic hearing provides additional benefits to hearing and also to general health-related quality of life compared with unilateral CI use. Bilateral CI is a treatment alternative to both unilateral CI and bimodal stimulation in some healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of bimodal stimulation compared with other management options for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness. DESIGN: The economic evaluation took the form of a cost-utility analysis and compared bimodal stimulation (CI+HA) to two treatment alternatives: unilateral and bilateral CI. The analysis used a public healthcare system perspective based on data from the United Kingdom and the United States. Costs and health benefits were identified for both alternatives and estimated across a patient's lifetime using Markov state transition models. Utilities were based on Health Utilities Index estimates, and health outcomes were expressed in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The results were presented using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and the Net Monetary Benefit approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of bimodal stimulation. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the degree of overall uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and analysis of covariance identified parameters to which the model was most sensitive; that is, whose values had a strong influence on the intervention that was determined to be most cost-effective. A value of information analysis was performed to determine the potential value to be gained from additional research on bimodal stimulation. RESULTS: The base case model showed that bimodal stimulation was the most cost-effective treatment option with a decision certainty of 72 and 67% in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively. Despite producing more QALYs than either unilateral CI or bimodal stimulation, bilateral CI was found not to be cost-effective because it was associated with excessive costs. Compared with unilateral CI, the increased costs of bimodal stimulation were outweighed by the gain in quality of life. Bimodal stimulation was found to cost an extra £174 per person in the United Kingdom ($937 in the US) and yielded an additional 0.114 QALYs compared with unilateral CI, resulting in an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of £1521 per QALY gained in the United Kingdom ($8192/QALY in the United States). The most influential variable was the utility gained from the simultaneous use of both devices (CI+HA) compared with Unilateral CI. The value of further research was £4,383,922 at £20,000/QALY ($86,955,460 at $50,000/QALY in the United States). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the most cost-effective treatment alternative for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness from publicly funded healthcare perspectives of the United Kingdom and United States. Bimodal stimulation was found to be more cost-effective than unilateral and bilateral CI across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. If there is scope for future research, conducting interventional designs to obtain utilities for bimodal stimulation compared with unilateral CI would reduce decision uncertainty considerably.

Cochlear implants: a transformative technology.

Cochlear implants bring sound to people living with permanent hearing loss. But making them accessible to all in need is a major challenge. Andrey Shukshin reports.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Intraoperative Testing During Cochlear Implantation From a Time and Cost Perspective: A Single-Center Experience in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the time spent performing intraoperative testing during cochlear implantation (CI) and determine the impact on hospital charges. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-two children (7 mo-18 yr) who underwent a total of 22 consecutive primary and/or revision CIs by a single surgeon from December 2016 to July 2017. INTERVENTION: The time spent performing intraoperative testing, including evoked compound action potentials (ECAP) and electrical impedances (EI), was recorded for each case. The audiologist performing the testing was unaware of the time measurement and subsequent evaluations with regard to cost data. Billing information was used to determine if the testing contributed to increased operative charges to the patient. OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether intraoperative testing had an impact on operative charges to the patient. RESULTS: The average time spent in testing (ECAPs/EIs in all cases) was 6.7 minutes (range, 2-26 min). No correlation was found between testing time and preoperative computed tomography findings, the audiologist performing testing, or the electrode type used (p > 0.05). Based on billing data, including time spent in the operating room (OR), 5/22 (23%) cases incurred greater charges than if intraoperative testing had not been performed. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that intraoperative testing increases time in the OR and can contribute to increased hospital charges for CI patients. By using testing selectively, costs incurred by patients and hospitals may be reduced. This is of interest in a healthcare environment that is increasingly focused on cost, quality, and outcomes.

Barriers to Rehabilitation Care in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess barriers to rehabilitation care for pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire study. SETTING: Tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: Parents of children who received a CI from October 1996 to June 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Factors related to access to and barriers in audiology and speech therapy services, factors related to CI use, and performance with CI using the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH). RESULTS: Thirty-five parents participated in the study (21 rural residents and 14 urban residents). Distance was a significant barrier to audiology services for rural participants compared with urban participants (p = 0.01). Consistent CI use was complicated by mechanical complications or malfunction in 70% of rural children compared with 33% of urban children (p = 0.05). Only 10% of rural children were able to access speech therapy services at diagnosis compared with 42% of urban children (p = 0.04). Low socioeconomic (SES) status and Medicaid insurance were associated with a lack of local speech therapists and medical/mechanical CI complications. Higher parental educational attainment was associated with higher PEACH scores in quiet conditions compared with families with lower parental education (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Rural children are often delayed in receipt of CI rehabilitation services. Multiple barriers including low SES, insurance type, and parental education can affect utilization of these services and may impact the recipient language development. Close follow-up and efforts to expand access to care are needed to maximize CI benefit.