Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Military Hearing Conservation Program

被引:7
|
作者
Garcia, Seth L. [1 ]
Smith, Kenneth J. [2 ]
Palmer, Catherine [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, 4028 Forbes Tower, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Clin & Translat Sci, 200 Meyran Ave,Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol, 203 Lothrop St,Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
NOISE; WORKERS; HEALTH; TINNITUS;
D O I
10.1093/milmed/usx112
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Occupational noise threatens U.S. worker health and safety and commands a significant financial burden on state and federal government worker compensation programs. Previous studies suggest that hearing conservation programs have contributed to reduced occupational hearing loss for noise-exposed workers. Many military personnel are overexposed to noise and are provided hearing conservation services. Select military branches require all active duty personnel to follow hearing conservation program guidelines, regardless of individual noise exposure. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a military hearing conservation program, relative to no intervention, in relation to cases of hearing loss prevented. Methods: We employed cost-effectiveness analytic methods to compare the costs and effectiveness, in terms of hearing loss cases prevented, of a military hearing conservation program relative to no program. We used costs and probability estimates available in the literature and publicly available sources. The effectiveness of the interventions was analyzed based on whether hearing loss occurred over a 20-yr time frame. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the hearing conservation program compared with no intervention was $10,657 per case of hearing loss prevented. Workers were 28% less likely to sustain hearing loss in our model when they received the hearing conservation program compared with no intervention, which reflected the greater effectiveness of the hearing conservation program. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to estimated values for the probability of acquiring hearing loss from both interventions and the cost of hearing protection. We performed a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis where we simultaneously varied all the model parameters to their extreme plausible bounds. When we ran 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations, we observed that the hearing conservation program was more cost-effective in 99% of cases when decision makers were willing to pay $64,172 per case of hearing loss prevented. Conclusions: Conceding a lifetime cost for service-related compensation for hearing loss per individual of $64,172, the Department of Defense Hearing Conservation Program is an economically reasonable program relative to no intervention, if a case of hearing loss avoided costs $10,657. Considering the net difference of the costs and comparative benefits of both treatment strategies, providing a hearing conservation program for all active duty military workers may be a cost-effective intervention for the Department of Defense.
引用
收藏
页码:E547 / E553
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The influence of military service on auditory health and the efficacy of a hearing conservation program
    Muhr, Per
    Rosenhall, Ulf
    NOISE & HEALTH, 2011, 13 (53): : 320 - 327
  • [2] Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis at Rwanda Military Hospital
    Silverstein, Allison
    Costas-Chavarri, Ainhoa
    Gakwaya, Mussa R.
    Lule, Joseph
    Mukhopadhyay, Swagoto
    Meara, John G.
    Shrime, Mark G.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 41 (05) : 1225 - 1233
  • [3] Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis
    Antonioli, Eliane
    Malheiro, Daniel v
    Teich, Vanessa Damazio
    Paiao, Isabela Dias
    Cendoroglo Neto, Miguel
    Lenza, Mario
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [4] Cost-effectiveness of the Victorian Stroke Telemedicine program
    Kim, Joosup
    Tan, Elise
    Gao, Lan
    Moodie, Marj
    Dewey, Helen M.
    Bagot, Kathleen L.
    Pompeani, Nancy
    Sheppard, Lauren
    Bladin, Christopher F.
    Cadilhac, Dominique A.
    AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2022, 46 (03) : 294 - 301
  • [5] Individualized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    Garber, Alan M.
    PLOS MEDICINE, 2011, 8 (07)
  • [6] Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Hearing Screening Programs: A Micro-Simulation Modeling Analysis
    Verkleij, Mirjam L.
    Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.
    Busse, Andrea M. L.
    Carr, Gwen
    Goedegebure, Andre
    Mackey, Allison R.
    Qirjazi, Birkena
    Uhlen, Inger M.
    Sloot, Frea
    Hoeve, Hans L. J.
    de Koning, Harry J.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2021, 42 (04): : 909 - 916
  • [7] Cost, Effectiveness, and Cost-Effectiveness
    Diamond, George A.
    Kaul, Sanjay
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2009, 2 (01): : 49 - 54
  • [8] Assessing Hearing Conservation Program Effectiveness: Results of a Multisite Assessment
    Rabinowitz, Peter
    Cantley, Linda F.
    Galusha, Deron
    Trufan, Sally
    Swersey, Arthur
    Dixon-Ernst, Christine
    Ramirez, Vickie
    Neitzel, Richard
    JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, 2018, 60 (01) : 29 - 35
  • [9] The effectiveness of an interactive hearing conservation program for elementary school children
    Chermak, GD
    Curtis, L
    Seikel, JA
    LANGUAGE SPEECH AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS, 1996, 27 (01) : 29 - 39
  • [10] Understanding the Cost-Effectiveness of Hearing Aids and Surgery for the Treatment of Otosclerosis
    Gillard, Danielle M.
    Sharon, Jeffrey D.
    CURRENT OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY REPORTS, 2022, 10 (01) : 16 - 22