Cost and Cost-effectiveness of Universal Screening for Hearing Loss in Newborns

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Decision analysis model utilizing the hospital perspective. This model evaluated 4 distinct protocols for screening a fixed and defined hypothetical cohort of newborn infants.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of screening and the number of infants with hearing loss identified through universal screening.

RESULTS: Otoacoustic emissions testing at birth followed by repeat testing at follow up demonstrated the lowest cost ($13 per infant) and had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio ($5100 per infant with hearing loss identified). Screening auditory brainstem evoked response testing at birth with no screening test at follow-up was the only protocol with greater effectiveness, but it also demonstrated the highest cost ($25 per infant) and highest cost-effectiveness ratio ($9500 per infant with hearing loss identified). These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis, including best-case and worst-case estimation. The prevalence of hearing loss and the fraction of infants returned for follow-up testing had a large impact on the absolute level, but not relative level of protocol cost and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION: The otoacoustic emissions testing protocol should be selected by screening programs concerned with cost and cost-effectiveness, although there are certain caveats to consider.

SIGNIFICANCE: The most significant barriers to implementation of universal newborn hearing screening programs have been financial, and this study compares the most common protocols currently in use. This study can assist program directors not only in the decision to initiate universal screening but also in their choice of screening protocol.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Position statement. Int J Ped Otorhinolaryngol 1995; 32:265–74.

Vohr

Carty

Moore

, et al. The Rhode Island Hearing Assessment Program: Experience with statewide hearing screening (1993-1996). J Pediatrics 1998; 133:353–7.

Yoshinaga-Itano

Sedey

Coulter

, et al. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics 1998; 102:1161–71.

White

Universal newborn hearing screening: Issues and evidence. Paper presented to the CDC Workshop on Early Hearing Detection and Intervention, Atlanta, GA, October 1997. Available from URL: http://www.infanthearing.org/presentations/cdc/index.html.

Mason

Herrmann

Universal infant hearing screening by automated auditory brainstem response measurement. Pediatrics 1998; 101:221–8.

Weirather

Korth

White

, et al. Cost analysis of TEOAE-based universal newborn hearing screening. J Commun Disord 1997; 30:477–93.

Grosse

The costs and benefits of universal newborn hearing screening. Paper presented to the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, Alexandria, VASeptember 1997.

Barsky-Firkser

Sun

Universal newborn hearing screenings: A three-year experience. Pediatrics 1997; 99:e4.

Maxon

White

Behrens

, et al. Referral rates and cost efficiency in a universal newborn hearing screening program using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Am Acad Audiol 1995; 6:271–7.

10.

Prager

Stone

Rose

Hearing loss screening in the neonatal intensive care unit: Auditory brain stem response versus Crib-O-Gram; a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hearing 1987; 8:213–6.

11.

Prieve

Establishing infant hearing programs in hospitals. Am J Audiol 1997; 6:84–7.

12.

Huynh

Pollack

Cunningham

RAJ

Universal newborn hearing screening: Feasibility in a community hospital. J Family Practice 1996; 42:487–90.

13.

Downs

Universal newborn hearing screening: The Colorado story. Int J Ped Otorhinolaryngol 1995; 32:257–9.

14.

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (US). What does a newborn hearing screening program cost? Logan (UT) NCHAM; 1999. Available from URL: http://www.infant-hearing.org/resources/costperbaby.html

15.

Mason

Davis

Wood

, et al. Field sensitivity of targeted neonatal hearing screening using the Nottingham ABR screener. Ear Hearing 1998; 19:91–102.

16.

Lutman

Davis

Fortnum

, et al. Field sensitivity of targeted neonatal hearing screening by transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hearing 1997; 18:265–76.

17.

Maxon

White

Culpepper

, et al. Maintaining acceptably low referral rates in TEOAE-based newborn hearing screening programs. J Commun Disord 1997; 30:457–75.

18.

Finitzo

Albright

O'Neal

The newborn with hearing loss: Detection in the nursery. Pediatrics 1998; 102:1452–60.

19.

Watkin

Baldwin

Laoide

Parental suspicion and identification of hearing impairment. Arch Disease Childhood 1990; 65:846–50.

20.

White

Robinette

The status of universal newborn hearing screening in the United States. Paper presented to the XXIV International Congress of Audiology, Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 1998. Available from URL: http://www.infanthearing.org/presentations/argentina/index.html