Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria: a decision-analytic model

  • Astrid Langer1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Inken Brockow4,
  • Uta Nennstiel-Ratzel4 and
  • Petra Menn3
BMC Health Services Research201212:418

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-418

Received: 22 March 2012

Accepted: 20 November 2012

Published: 22 November 2012

Abstract

Background

Although several countries, including Germany, have established newborn hearing screening programmes for early detection and treatment of newborns with hearing impairments, nationwide tracking systems for follow-up of newborns with positive test results until diagnosis of hearing impairment have often not been implemented. However, a recent study on universal newborn hearing screening in Bavaria showed that, in a high proportion of newborns, early diagnosis was only possible with the use of a tracking system. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria.

Methods

Data from a Bavarian pilot project on newborn hearing screening and Bavarian newborn hearing screening facilities were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the inclusion of a tracking system within a newborn hearing screening programme. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. The time horizon of the model was limited to the newborn hearing screening programme. Costs of the initial hearing screening test and subsequent tests were included, as well as costs of diagnosis and costs of tracking. The outcome measure of the economic analysis was the cost per case of bilateral hearing impairment detected. In order to reflect uncertainty, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tracking vs. no tracking was €1,697 per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected.

Conclusions

Compared with no tracking, tracking resulted in more cases of bilateral hearing impairment detected as well as higher costs. If society is willing to pay at least €1,697 per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected, tracking can be recommended.

Keywords

‘Neonatal Screening’[Mesh] ‘Hearing Disorders’[Mesh] ‘Costs and Cost Analysis’[Mesh] ‘Decision Support Techniques’[Mesh] ‘Germany’[Mesh]

Background

In Germany, the prevalence of congenital hearing impairments is approximately 1.2 cases per 1,000 newborns [1]. Newborn hearing screening is used ‘to identify hearing impairments shortly after birth to initiate treatment as soon as possible and to allow affected children to enjoy largely normal development’ (p. 130) [2]. A systematic review of newborn hearing screening by Wolff et al. [2] found that screening, and earlier treatment, were both associated with better language development. These findings are supported by a recent review [3].

In Germany, newborn hearing screening for the early detection of hearing impairment was legally mandated in 2008 and came into effect on 1 January 2009 [4]. Since then, all newborns insured by Statutory Health Insurance in Germany have been entitled to newborn hearing screening. In Germany, the primary aim of newborn hearing screening is to detect bilateral hearing impairments of 35 dB or more (using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) or automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) in the first stage and AABR in the second stage) in the first three months of life, and to initiate treatment in the first six months of life. However, a nationwide tracking system – that is, a nationwide system to ensure completeness of participation and the follow-up of newborns with positive (conspicuous) hearing (screening) test results until diagnosis of hearing impairment – was not included [4].

Several research groups have recently endorsed the need for a tracking system. For instance, Rohlfs et al. argue that ‘the implementation of newborn hearing screening only makes sense if there exists an efficient tracking system’ (p. 1453) [5]. In its report ‘Newborn hearing screening in the detection of hearing impairment’, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care found that, for early diagnosis and treatment, the full-scale implementation of newborn hearing screening may not be sufficient. They argue that substantial benefit from newborn hearing screening can only be expected if screening is reinforced by organizational structures which ensure there are neither delays nor disruptions from the point of initial suspicion of hearing impairment to its subsequent treatment [1]. In a recent review, Ptok points out that ‘the most important single measure for the practical realization of early detection of hearing impairments in newborns and infants in Germany seems to be the installation of a system of tracking centers covering the whole country’ (p. 430) [6]. Furthermore, a recent study on universal newborn hearing screening two years after its full-scale implementation in Bavaria showed that, in 49% of newborns with hearing impairment, early diagnosis was only possible through the use of a tracking system [7]. Therefore, in the absence of a tracking system for follow-up of newborns with positive (conspicuous) hearing (screening) test results until diagnosis of hearing impairment, early suspicion of hearing impairment may not actually result in early detection and treatment.

The aim of this study, therefore, was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria based on data from Bavarian newborn hearing screening facilities in a decision-analytic model.

Methods

Decision-analytic model: scope and perspective

In Germany, a nationwide newborn hearing screening programme was implemented in 2009, but a tracking system covering the whole country was not considered. In May 2003, a newborn hearing screening programme including a tracking system was initiated in the Upper Palatinate based on an interdisciplinary design [8]. In the pilot project, referred to as ‘newborn auditory screening’, consecutive TEOAE and AABR screening tests were conducted. The Screening Centre at the Public Health Authority was involved in coordinating the screening process. It was responsible for the completeness of participation, the follow-up of newborns with a positive screening test result, and quality assurance of the pilot project. For this purpose, the screening centre maintained registers of newborns who had not been screened and newborns with a positive (conspicuous) screening test result. The tracking system established at the screening centre was used, on the one hand, to achieve a high coverage rate, i.e. a high proportion of newborns screened, and on the other hand a low loss to follow-up rate for subsequent tests. The interventions of the tracking system included recalls by letter and telephone and, if required, involvement of the public health office. Data from the pilot project and Bavarian newborn hearing screening facilities were, therefore, used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the inclusion of a tracking system within a newborn hearing screening programme. These data were obtained from the Bavarian Food and Health Safety Authority and some of them are publicly available. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance, taking into account the costs of tracking. Owing to a lack of long-term data, the time horizon of the model was limited to the newborn hearing screening programme (initial hearing screening test and subsequent hearing tests or diagnosis). Therefore, discounting was not relevant. The model included the costs of the initial hearing screening test and subsequent hearing tests, costs of diagnosis, and costs of tracking. Only bilateral hearing impairment of 35 dB or more was considered, as is standard practice in Germany. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence concerning the benefits of early detection in newborns with unilateral hearing impairment in terms, for example, of language and speech development [9]. Therefore, the outcome measure of the economic analysis was the cost per case of bilateral hearing impairment detected.

There are several good-practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health economic evaluation [1016]. The decision-analytic model developed here follows the guidelines established by Philips et al. [10], as these are the result of a review and synthesis of existing good practice guidelines. With regard to the model’s technical documentation, the guidelines on modelling provided by the Institute on Quality and Efficiency in Health Care were followed [16]. TreeAge Pro 2011 software was used to build a static decision tree model, which is appropriate for the analysis of the probabilities of events characterized by limited change or recurrence over time, such as the probability that a newborn is hearing impaired or not [1719].

Decision-analytic model: structure

The structure of the decision tree is largely based on the test procedure of the pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ [8]. The structure of the decision tree was also informed by existing decision tree models concerning newborn hearing screening [20, 21] and is shown in Figure 1. In Germany, a two-stage newborn hearing screening programme performed in hospital before discharge should immediately be followed by confirmatory diagnostic evaluation [4]. As there are not enough pediatric audiologists or otolaryngologists with expertise in phoniatry and pedaudiology to perform confirmatory diagnostic evaluation, in the pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’, up to two other hearing tests (AABR, otoacoustic emissions (OAE), or both OAE and AABR) were performed after discharge from hospital, and before referral to pediatric audiologists or otolaryngologists with expertise in phoniatry and pedaudiology for confirmatory diagnostic evaluation. Therefore, the decision tree includes a four-stage test procedure for newborns that bilaterally fail the first, second, and third hearing tests – that is to say, newborns who have a positive bilateral hearing impairment test result are scheduled for an additional hearing test. Whereas the first hearing test is a two-stage screening procedure (first TEOAE or AABR and then, if the TEOAE or AABR screening test result is positive, AABR), the other hearing tests are one-stage tests using OAE, AABR, or both OAE and AABR. Newborns do not run through the four-stage test procedure in the following four cases: they are not screened; they are lost to follow-up after the first, second, or third test; they pass the first, second, or third test (i.e. have no evidence of bilateral hearing impairment); or they unilaterally fail the first, second, or third test. Newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in this group may be identified at a later date outside the newborn hearing screening programme, for example due to parental concern. As these newborns are not identified at an early stage as a consequence of screening, they are not counted as part of the yield of the four-stage test procedure [20].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-12-418/MediaObjects/12913_2012_Article_2356_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Structure of the model.

Decision-analytic model: variable estimation

Table 1 gives the probabilities of events related to the four-stage test procedure. These probabilities were taken from published and unpublished data in the pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ [8] and, where data from the pilot project were not available, from Bavarian newborn hearing screening facilities for 2010. The data include the probability that the newborn is lost to follow-up before the first test (i.e. the probability that the newborn is not screened) or to subsequent tests, with and without tracking; that it bilaterally fails the first or subsequent tests; and that it is diagnosed after the second or third test. The probability of failing the first test was estimated from the number of newborns who fail the first test divided by the number of newborns screened. The probability of failing subsequent tests was conditional on having failed previous tests.
Table 1

Probabilities of events related to the four-stage test procedure

Name

Description

Mean (95% CI)

Source

p_Ltfu1_t

Probability of loss to follow-up before the initial hearing screening test with tracking

0.045 (0.043; 0.047)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ [8]

p_Ltfu1_nt

Probability of loss to follow-up before the initial hearing screening test without tracking

0.053 (0.051; 0.055)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ [8]

p_Ltfu2_t

Probability of loss to follow-up before 2nd test with tracking

0.07 (0.057; 0.084)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_Ltfu2_nt

Probability of loss to follow-up before 2nd test without tracking

0.51 (0.497; 0.524)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_Ltfu3_t

Probability of loss to follow-up before 3rd test with tracking

0.08 (0.048; 0.117)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_Ltfu3_nt

Probability of loss to follow-up before 3rd test without tracking

0.29 (0.256; 0.325)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_Ltfu4_t

Probability of loss to follow-up before 4th test with tracking

0.07 (0.027; 0.133)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_Ltfu4_nt

Probability of loss to follow-up before 4th test without tracking

0.18 (0.133; 0.239)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_fail_1st_test

Probability of failing the initial hearing screening test bilaterally

0.006 (0.005; 0.007)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ [8]

p_fail_2nd_test

Probability of failing the 2nd test bilaterally

0.202 (0.167; 0.241)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’*

p_fail_3rd_test

Probability of failing the 3rd test bilaterally

0.627 (0.512; 0.739)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’*

p_fail_4th_test

Probability of failing the 4th test bilaterally

0.609 (0.400; 0.785)

Pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’*

p_diagnosis_after_2nd_test

Probability of diagnosis after 2nd test

0.11 (0.073; 0.159)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

p_diagnosis_after_3rd_test

Probability of diagnosis after 3rd test

0.36 (0.261; 0.460)

Data from the state-wide screening programme for 2010

*unpublished data.

Table 2 shows the cost items used to calculate the costs of hearing (screening) tests and diagnosis, and Table 3 provides the costs of the initial hearing screening test, subsequent tests, and diagnosis. It is assumed that the first test – that is, the initial hearing screening test – is performed in a hospital, while the second and third tests are performed by office-based ear, nose, and throat (ENT) physicians. Newborns who fail the second, third, or fourth test by pediatric audiologists receive a final diagnosis. Office-based ENT physicians and office-based pediatric audiologists receive a specific lump sum in addition to the costs of the tests. In order to confirm or exclude bilateral hearing impairment, pediatric audiologists perform AABR and an impedance test of the middle ear. As inpatient services in Germany are generally reimbursed as a lump sum by diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), costs for inpatient tests (i.e. the first test) were estimated based on the tariff scheme of the German Hospital Federation (DKG-NT [22]). Costs for outpatient tests (i.e. the second, third, and fourth tests), were taken from the doctor’s fee scale (EBM [23]). All costs were calculated as the product of points and point value (point price). The costs for tests were weighted by the probability that a newborn receives OAE, AABR, or both OAE and AABR. These probabilities were taken from the pilot project and based on assumptions. Unlike the other tests, the first test is a two-stage screening test: in the first stage, 95.2% of newborns are screened by OAE and 4.8% by AABR; in the second stage, all newborns who bilaterally fail the initial screening test (7.66%) are screened by AABR. The probability of using both OAE and AABR was 10.4% for the second test, 20.9% for the third test, and 0% for diagnostic tests performed by pediatric audiologists. The probability of using OAE or AABR was respectively 74.7% or 14.9% for the second test, 40.3% or 38.8% for the third, and 0% or 100% for tests performed by pediatric audiologists. The costs of tests were €42.22 for the first test, €38.99 for the second test, €43.39 for the third test, and €91.83 for diagnostic tests performed by pediatric audiologists. The costs of tracking were taken from the pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening’ and were calculated at €4.55 per newborn screened (total costs of tracking divided by the number of newborns screened). A detailed breakdown of the costs of tracking is provided in Table 4.
Table 2

Cost items used to calculate the costs of hearing (screening) tests and diagnosis

Name

Description

Item

Points

Point value

Mean

Source

c_OAE_inpatient

Costs of OAE performed in hospital

1409

400

8.589704 Cent

€34.36

DKG-NT [22]

c_AABR_inpatient

Costs of AABR performed in hospital

1408

888

8.589704 Cent

€76.28

DKG-NT [22]

c_lumpsum_ENT

Lump sum for office-based ENT physicians

09210

680

3.5048 Cent

€23.83

EBM [23]

c_OAE_outpatient_ENT

Costs of OAE performed by office-based ENT physicians

09324

340

3.5048 Cent

€11.92

EBM [23]

c_AABR_outpatient_ENT

Costs of AABR performed by office-based ENT physicians

01706

705

3.5048 Cent

€24.71

EBM [23]

c_lumpsum_PA

Lump sum for office-based pediatric audiologists

20210

865

3.5048 Cent

€30.32

EBM [23]

c_AABR_outpatient_PA

Costs of AABR performed by office-based pediatric audiologists

20327

1535

3.5048 Cent

€53.80

EBM [23]

c_MEM_reflex_outpatient_PA

Costs of impedance test of the middle ear performed by office-based pediatric audiologists

20323

220

3.5048 Cent

€7.71

EBM [23]

AABR: automated auditory brainstem response; CI: confidence interval; DKG-NT: ‘Deutsche Krankenhausgesellschaft-Normaltarif’; EBM: ‘Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab’; ENT: ear, nose, and throat; MEM: middle ear muscle; OAE: otoacoustic emissions; PA: pediatric audiologist.

Table 3

Costs of the hearing screening test, subsequent tests and diagnosis

Name

OAE (in %)

AABR (in %)

Both, OAE and AABR (in %)

Mean

Comment

c_1st_test_2stagesa

95.2e/0f

4.8e/7.66f

0e/0f

€42.22

(0.952*c_OAE_inpatient+0.048*c_AABR_inpatient)+0.0766*c_AABR_inpatient

c_2nd_test_1stage_ENTb

74.7

14.9

10.4

€38.99

(0.104g+0.149)*c_AABR_outpatient_ENT+0.747*c_OAE_outpatient_ENT+c_lumpsum_ENT

c_3rd_test_1stage_ENTc

40.3

38.8

20.9

€43.39

(0.209g+0.388)*c_AABR_outpatient_ENT+0,403*c_OAE_outpatient_ENT+c_lumpsum_ENT

c_test_PAd

0

100

0

€91.83

c_lumpsum_PA+c_MEM_reflex_outpatient_PA+c_AABR_outpatient_PA

aCosts of the initial two-stage hearing screening test performed in hospital; bCosts of 2nd test performed by office-based ENT physicians; cCosts of 3rd test performed by office-based ENT physicians; dCosts of confirmatory diagnostic testing performed by pediatric audiologists; e1st stage; f2nd stage; gCosts of OAE are included in costs of AABR; AABR: automated auditory brainstem response, ENT: ear, nose, and throat, MEM: middle ear muscle, OAE: otoacoustic emissions, PA: pediatric audiologist.

Table 4

Costs of tracking from the pilot project ‘newborn auditory screening

Personnel expenses

Nurse (0.75 position; tariff part: E8)

€33,876

Epidemiologist (0.5 position; tariff part: E14)

€31,759

Personnel expenses total

€65,635

Non-personnel expenses

Printing costs (flyer, data sheets)

€1,500

Stamped addressed envelopes for hospitals and doctors’ offices (50 per week)

€1,590

Telephone/fax (40 per working day)

€1,000

Room

€4,200

Two desktop PCs

€3,000

One telephone (nationwide connection)

€100

Letters (eight per working day)

€1,000

Non-personnel expenses total

€12,390

Total costs

€78,025

Decision-analytic model: uncertainty and consistency

The decision-analytic model was developed and validated by discussion with experts in the provision of newborn hearing screening. In order to reflect uncertainty, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to show how the model’s outputs change with variation in its inputs. In univariate sensitivity analyses, parameters were varied by ±50%. A beta distribution was assumed for all probabilities and a gamma distribution for all cost parameters [17]. A structural sensitivity analysis was also performed to analyse how the results change with a variation in the test procedure – that is, all children are supposed to be diagnosed after the second or third test.

Data analysis

Economic evaluation examines both the costs and the effects of two or more alternatives and thus provides information that can be used to optimize (usually: maximize) effectiveness in relation to the resources available [18]. Differences in costs (C) and effects (E) are related using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Here, the ICER is defined as: (Ctracking–Cno tracking)/(Etracking–Eno tracking). The ICER was used as the primary outcome measure in the economic analysis to compare tracking with no tracking. The results of the base case analysis and the sensitivity analyses are presented in the tables, a scatter plot, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As there is no evidence as to what is the maximum a decision-maker is willing to pay for an additional detected case of bilateral hearing impairment, a range of thresholds for cost-effectiveness was used, from €0 to €5,000.

Results

Decision-analytic model: base case analysis

The estimated effects and costs were combined in an ICER to calculate the incremental cost of detecting one additional case of bilateral hearing impairment. The base case analysis of the model is shown in Table 5. In the base case, the cost per case of bilateral hearing impairment detected was €40.12 for no tracking and €40.63 for tracking. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 newborns, the number of cases of bilateral hearing impairment detected with no tracking was 21, and with tracking 51. The ICER of tracking vs. no tracking was €1,697 per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected. Compared with no tracking, tracking resulted in more cases of bilateral hearing impairment detected as well as higher costs.
Table 5

Base case analysis of the model

Intervention

Costs

Effects (cases detected)

ACER: Cost per case detected

ICER: Incremental cost per additional case detected

Tracking

€40.63

0.00051

€79,667

-

No tracking

€40.12

0.00021

€191,048

€1,697

ACER: average cost-effectiveness ratio; ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Decision-analytic model: sensitivity analyses

Table 6 shows the results of the univariate sensitivity analyses. It was found that the higher the probability of loss to follow-up before the second and consecutive tests with tracking, the higher the ICER; the lower the probability of loss to follow-up before the second and consecutive tests with no tracking, the higher the ICER; and the higher the costs of tracking, the higher the ICER. Overall, the results were relatively robust in the univariate sensitivity analyses: the ICER varied between €1,419 (probability of loss to follow-up before second test without tracking = 0.77) and €2,297 (probability of loss to follow-up before second test without tracking = 0.26) per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected.
Table 6

Univariate sensitivity analyses

p_Ltfu2_t a

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.04

40.12

40.64

0.52

0.00021

0.00053

0.00032

1,628

0.07*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.11

40.12

40.62

0.50

0.00021

0.00050

0.00029

1,775

p_Ltfu2_nt b

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.26

40.19

40.63

0.44

0.00032

0.00051

0.00019

2,297

0.51*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.77

40.04

40.63

0.59

0.00010

0.00051

0.00041

1,419

p_Ltfu3_t c

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.04

40.12

40.64

0.52

0.00021

0.00053

0.00032

1,620

0.08*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.12

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00021

0.00050

0.00029

1,793

p_Ltfu3_nt d

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.15

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00024

0.00051

0.00027

1,853

0.29*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.44

40.11

40.63

0.52

0.00018

0.00051

0.00033

1,551

p_Ltfu4_t e

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.04

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00021

0.00052

0.00031

1,663

0.07*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.11

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00021

0.00050

0.00029

1,740

p_Ltfu4_nt f

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

0.09

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00022

0.00051

0.00029

1,737

0.18*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

0.27

40.12

40.63

0.51

0.00020

0.00051

0.00031

1,657

c_tracking g

Costs (€) of no tracking

Costs (€) of tracking

Incremental costs (€)

Effects of no tracking

Effects of tracking

Incremental effects

ICER (€/case detected)

2.28

40.12

40.62

0.50

0.00021

0.00051

0.00030

1,654

4.55*

40.12*

40.63*

0.51*

0.00021*

0.00051*

0.00030*

1,697*

6.83

40.12

40.65

0.53

0.00021

0.00051

0.00030

1,740

aProbability of loss to follow-up before 2nd test with tracking; bProbability of loss to follow-up before 2nd test without tracking; cProbability of loss to follow-up before 3rd test with tracking; dProbability of loss to follow-up before 3rd test without tracking; eProbability of loss to follow-up before 4th test with tracking; fProbability of loss to follow-up before 4th test without tracking; gCosts of tracking *Value in base case analysis; ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Figure 2 shows that the ICER in the second-order Monte Carlo simulation ranged from €1,060 to €2,769.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-12-418/MediaObjects/12913_2012_Article_2356_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot for the model.

In Figure 3, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that, at a willingness to pay of €2,000 or €2,500 per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected, the probability that tracking is cost-effective was 83.8% or 99.5%, respectively.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-12-418/MediaObjects/12913_2012_Article_2356_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for the model.

The structural sensitivity analysis revealed that if all children were referred to pediatric audiologists and received a final diagnosis after the second or third test, the ICER would be €954 or €1,309 per case of bilateral hearing impairment detected.

Discussion

Using a decision-analytic model based on data from Bavarian newborn hearing screening facilities, the cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria was assessed. The costs of tracking in Bavaria – that is, €4.55 – compare well with those from a cost analysis of universal newborn hearing screening in Hesse, in which the costs of tracking were estimated at €4.00 [24]. According to a recent literature review [25], this is the first model to assess the cost-effectiveness of tracking within a newborn hearing screening programme; therefore the results of this model are not directly comparable with those of other models. However, with an ICER of €1,697 per additional detected case of bilateral hearing impairment, the implementation of a tracking system within a newborn hearing screening programme may be cost-effective, in particular with regard to the lifelong benefits of early detection and treatment, such as increased productivity owing to better language outcomes. In the pilot project, it is reported that from 2003 to 2008 there were 51 cases of confirmed bilateral hearing loss detected out of 73,332 infants screened, resulting in a rate of 0.70 per 1,000. That is higher than the rate of 0.51 per 1,000 with tracking used in the model. In the pilot project, 48% of the children with bilateral hearing impairment were followed up solely because of the existence of the tracking centre. Therefore, 27 cases of bilateral hearing impairment would have been diagnosed in the absence of the tracking programme, resulting in a rate of 0.5 per 1,000, compared with 0.31 per 1,000 in the decision-analytic model. However, the incremental number of children detected as a result of tracking is the same: 0.20 per 1,000.

Several economic evaluations have shown that the short-term cost-effectiveness of a newborn hearing screening programme depends not only on the diagnostic accuracy of the screening test procedure, but also on the ability to ensure follow-up of newborns with positive screening test results [20, 26]. Tracking systems are, therefore, needed to ensure that early detection results in early intervention without unnecessary delays. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tracking systems within newborn screening programmes.

The model used here has several limitations. First, it is assumed that, at the end of the four-stage test procedure, bilateral hearing impairment can be definitively confirmed or excluded. However, in contrast to other decision-analytic models which assume conditional independence, it could be considered that the probability that a newborn fails subsequent tests is conditional on having previous positive test results. However, this required the merging of data from two different newborn hearing screening programmes with different referral rates and rates of diagnosis conditional on referral. This merging of data could result in an underestimation of the number of cases detected relative to the experience of both newborn hearing screening programmes.

Second, some of the data used are taken from a Bavarian pilot project, and these data may therefore differ from data compiled subsequent to the nationwide implementation of newborn hearing screening in 2009, as well as data from other newborn hearing screening programmes in Germany. This may have implications for the generalizability of results; however, the issue of generalizability was addressed in the sensitivity analyses.

Third, only parameter and structural uncertainty was addressed via the sensitivity analyses, whereas methodological uncertainty (for example, discount rate, long time horizon) was not addressed, owing to a lack of long-term data. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention in different patient groups (uni- and/or bilateral hearing impairment) was not assessed because the target population was newborns with bilateral hearing impairment only, as is standard practice in Germany [4]. Thus, the analysis is rather conservative. If centralized tracking was extended to include unilateral referrals – some of which may indeed result in the diagnosis of bilateral hearing impairment – the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would presumably be lower. A recent study found that children with unilateral hearing loss had worse language skills than their siblings with normal hearing [27]. However, more research is needed to clarify this issue.

Fourth, owing to a lack of adequate data, the time horizon was limited to the newborn hearing screening programme (initial hearing screening test and subsequent hearing tests or diagnosis) and a scenario analysis was not conducted.

Several studies have shown that the economic and disease burden of hearing impairment is high. The societal cost of severe to profound hearing loss over the lifetime of an affected person in the United States was estimated at US$297,000, mainly resulting from productivity losses (63%) and the requirement for special education (21%) [28]. Furthermore, permanent bilateral hearing impairment in children between 7 and 9 years of age was found to be associated with reduced health status and health-related quality of life compared with children with normal hearing [29], and an expected cost to society of about £14,000 in the preceding year of life [30]. Therefore, if a longer time horizon was taken into account, a transsectoral or even societal perspective on the effects on health-related quality of life would favour a newborn hearing screening programme which included tracking. Tracking may even be cost-saving from the perspective of public health services themselves (who pay for the tracking) once public expenditures for schooling etc. for children with special needs are taken into account. However, adequate and robust data on the long-term effects of tracking within newborn screening programmes with respect to costs and outcomes are lacking.

Conclusions

Switching from no tracking to tracking costs €1,697 for each additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected. If society is willing to pay at least €1,697 per additional case of bilateral hearing impairment detected, tracking can be recommended. Tracking may be even cost-saving in the long term if a high proportion of bilaterally hearing-impaired children go on to achieve normal language skills and so enjoy increased lifetime productivity, as a result of the early intervention thereby enabled. The cost-effectiveness of a newborn hearing screening programme does not depend only on the accuracy of the programme, but also on the ability to ensure follow-up of newborns that do not pass the initial hearing screening test and subsequent tests. Overall, then, this economic analysis is rather conservative because an outcome measure for the earliness of diagnosis was not included.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Prof. Dr. Reiner Leidl for valuable comments on drafts of this manuscript, and Dr. Björn Stollenwerk who informed the model-building process.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Section Quality of Health Care, Health Economics, Health System Analysis, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority
(2)
Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Munich School of Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
(3)
Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Centre for Environmental Health
(4)
Screening Centre of the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority

References

  1. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen: [Newborn hearing screening in the detection of hearing impairment]. 2007, Köln: Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG)Google Scholar
  2. Wolff R, Hommerich J, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S, Kleijnen J: Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Arch Dis Child. 2010, 95 (2): 130-135. 10.1136/adc.2008.151092.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pimperton H, Kennedy CR: The impact of early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment on speech and language outcomes. Arch Dis Child. 2012, 97 (7): 648-653. 10.1136/archdischild-2011-301501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bundesausschuss Gemeinsamer: Bekanntmachung eines beschlusses des gemeinsamen bundesausschusses über eine änderung der kinder-richtlinien: einführung eines neugeborenen-hörscreenings. Vom 19. Juni 2008. Bundesanzeiger. 2008, 146: 3484.Google Scholar
  5. Rohlfs AK, Wiesner T, Drews H, Muller F, Breitfuss A, Schiller R, Hess M: Interdisciplinary approach to design, performance, and quality management in a multicenter newborn hearing screening project. Discussion of the results of newborn hearing screening in Hamburg (part II). Eur J Pediatr. 2010, 169 (12): 1453-1463. 10.1007/s00431-010-1229-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ptok M: Early detection of hearing impairment in newborns and infants. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011, 108 (25): 426-431.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockow I, Kummer P, Liebl B, Nennstiel-Ratzel U: [Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS): is it possible to successfully implement it nationwide?]. Gesundheitswesen. 2011, 73: 477-482.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Nennstiel-Ratzel U, Brockow I, Wildner M, Koch-Dlouhy E, Gantner V, Schneider I, Strutz J, Richter E, Von Kries R: Neugeborenen-Hörscreening: Abschlussbericht zum Modellprojekt in der Oberpfalz und in Oberfranken. 2009, Erlangen: Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und LebensmittelsicherheitGoogle Scholar
  9. Boshuizen HC, van der Lem GJ, Kauffman-de Boer MA, van Zanten GA, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Verkerk PH: Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001, 85 (3): F177-F181. 10.1136/fn.85.3.F177.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S: Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006, 24 (4): 355-371. 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Akehurst R, Anderson P, Brazier J, Brennan A, Briggs A, Buxton M, Cairns J, Calvert N, Claxton K, Dixon S, et al: Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies - a consensus statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000, 17 (5): 443-444. 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR: Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003, 6 (1): 9-17. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ, Evans JS, Kuntz KM, Graham JD, Hammitt JK: Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health. 2001, 4 (5): 348-361. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.45061.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K: Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000, 17 (5): 461-477. 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Soto J: Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices--utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002, 18 (1): 94-111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen: Arbeitspapier Modellierung. Version 1.0 vom 12.10.2009. 2009, Köln: IQWIGGoogle Scholar
  17. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. 2006, Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2005, New York: Oxford University Press, 3Google Scholar
  19. Bamford J, Fortnum H, Bristow K, Smith J, Vamvakas G, Davies L, Taylor R, Watkin P, Fonseca S, Davis A, et al: Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen. Health Technol Assess. 2007, 11 (32): 1-168. iii-ivView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD: Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001, 124 (4): 359-367. 10.1067/mhn.2001.113945.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Merlin T, Hedayati H, Sullivan T, Buckley E, Newton S, Hodgkinson B, Bywood P, Jenner F, Moss J, Hiller JE: Universal neonatal hearing screening. MSAC reference 17 Assessment report. 2007, Canberra: MSACGoogle Scholar
  22. Deutsche Krankenhausgesellschaft: DKG-NT Band I: Tarif der Deutschen Krankenhausgesellschaft für die Abrechnung erbrachter Leistungen und für die Kostenerstattung vom Arzt an das Krankenhaus zugleich BG-T vereinbarter Tarif für die Abrechnung mit den gesetzlichen Unfallversicherungsträgern, vol. 31., überarbeitete Auflage. 2007, Berlin: Deutsche KrankenhausgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
  23. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung: Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM): Stand: 4. Quartal 2011. 2010, Berlin: Kassenärztliche BundesvereinigungGoogle Scholar
  24. Böttcher P, Gramss M, Euler HA, Neumann K: [Cost analysis of a universal newborn hearing screening for clinics using the State of Hesse as an example]. HNO. 2009, 57 (1): 21-28. 10.1007/s00106-008-1879-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Colgan S, Gold L, Wirth K, Ching T, Poulakis Z, Rickards F, Wake M: The cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impariment: systematic review. Acad Pediatr. 2012, 12 (3): 171-180. 10.1016/j.acap.2012.02.002.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Keren R, Helfand M, Homer C, McPhillips H, Lieu TA: Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2002, 110 (5): 855-864. 10.1542/peds.110.5.855.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lieu JE, Tye-Murray N, Karzon RK, Piccirillo JF: Unilateral hearing loss is associated with worse speech-language scores in children. Pediatrics. 2010, 125 (6): e1348-e1355. 10.1542/peds.2009-2448.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mohr PE, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, McConkey-Robbins A, Niparko JK, Rittenhouse RK, Skinner MW: The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000, 16 (4): 1120-1135. 10.1017/S0266462300103162.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrou S, McCann D, Law CM, Watkin PM, Worsfold S, Kennedy CR: Health status and health-related quality of life preference-based outcomes of children who are aged 7 to 9 years and have bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics. 2007, 120 (5): 1044-1052. 10.1542/peds.2007-0159.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schroeder L, Petrou S, Kennedy C, McCann D, Law C, Watkin PM, Worsfold S, Yuen HM: The economic costs of congenital bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics. 2006, 117 (4): 1101-1112. 10.1542/peds.2005-1335.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/12/418/prepub

Copyright

© Langer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.