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
  • [21] Cost-effectiveness analysis of a gender-neutral human papillomavirus vaccination program in the Netherlands
    Simons, Joost J. M.
    Vida, Nora
    Westra, Tjalke A.
    Postma, Maarten J.
    VACCINE, 2020, 38 (30) : 4687 - 4694
  • [22] A cost-effectiveness evaluation of a home visit program for adolescent mothers
    Aracena, Marcela
    Krause, Mariane
    Perez, Carola
    Jesus Mendez, Maria
    Salvatierra, Loreto
    Soto, Mauricio
    Pantoja, Tomas
    Navarro, Sandra
    Salinas, Alejandra
    Farah, Claudio
    Altimir, Carolina
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 14 (07) : 878 - 887
  • [23] Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of a Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Program
    Billups, Sarah J.
    Moore, Lindsy R.
    Olson, Kari L.
    Magid, David J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE, 2014, 20 (09) : E380 - E387
  • [24] Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comes of Age
    Cookson, Richard
    Griffin, Susan
    Norheim, Ole F.
    Culyer, Anthony J.
    Chalkidou, Kalipso
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2021, 24 (01) : 118 - 120
  • [25] Discounting, Preferences, and Paternalism in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Tinghog, Gustav
    HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 2012, 20 (03) : 297 - 318
  • [26] Costing and Perspective in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Neumann, Peter J.
    MEDICAL CARE, 2009, 47 (07) : S28 - S32
  • [27] Screening for Melanoma in Men: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Adamson, Adewole S.
    Jarmul, Jamie A.
    Pignone, Michael P.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 35 (04) : 1175 - 1181
  • [28] Augmenting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Will Not Improve Affordability
    Watkins, John B.
    Tsiao, Emily G.
    JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE & SPECIALTY PHARMACY, 2020, 26 (04) : 407 - 408
  • [29] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Qsymia for Weight Loss
    Finkelstein, Eric A.
    Kruger, Eliza
    Karnawat, Sunil
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2015, 33 (07) : 699 - 706
  • [30] Risk assessment and cost-effectiveness/utility analysis
    Busch, Michael
    Walderhaug, Mark
    Custer, Brian
    Allain, Jean-Pierre
    Reddy, Ravi
    McDonough, Brian
    BIOLOGICALS, 2009, 37 (02) : 78 - 87