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
  • [41] The Community Diabetes Education (CoDE) Program Cost-Effectiveness and Health Outcomes
    Prezio, Elizabeth A.
    Pagan, Jose A.
    Shuval, Kerem
    Culica, Dan
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 47 (06) : 771 - 779
  • [42] Impact of Program Scale and Indirect Effects on the Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination Programs
    Ibuka, Yoko
    Paltiel, A. David
    Galvani, Alison P.
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (03) : 442 - 446
  • [43] Cost-effectiveness analysis of a physician deployment program to improve access to healthcare in rural and underserved areas in the Philippines
    Avancena, Anton L. V.
    Tejano, Kim Patrick S.
    Hutton, David W.
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (12):
  • [44] A Non-inferiority Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Xie, Xuanqian
    Falk, Lindsey
    Brophy, James M.
    Tu, Hong Anh
    Guo, Jennifer
    Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga
    Sikich, Nancy
    Dhalla, Irfan A.
    Ng, Vivian
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2019, 35 (04) : 291 - 297
  • [45] Methadone maintenance and HIV prevention: A cost-effectiveness analysis
    Zaric, GS
    Brandeau, ML
    Barnett, PG
    MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2000, 46 (08) : 1013 - 1031
  • [46] A cost-effectiveness analysis of a housing and recovery program for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses and precarious housing
    Dunt, David
    Day, Susan
    Brusco, Natasha
    JOURNAL OF SOCIAL DISTRESS AND THE HOMELESS, 2024,
  • [47] Magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Bickford, Celeste D.
    Magee, Laura A.
    Mitton, Craig
    Kruse, Marie
    Synnes, Anne R.
    Sawchuck, Diane
    Basso, Melanie
    Senikas, Vyta M.
    von Dadelszen, Peter
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2013, 13
  • [48] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in the Netherlands
    de Kok, Inge M. C. M.
    van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
    Habbema, J. Dik F.
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2009, 101 (15): : 1083 - 1092
  • [49] Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology: methods, results and implications
    Froelich, Matthias F.
    Kunz, Wolfgang G.
    Tollens, Fabian
    Schnitzer, Moritz L.
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    Kaiser, Clemens G.
    Ruebenthaler, Johannes
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2021, : 29 - 37
  • [50] Sustainability of Behavioral Interventions: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Brown, Paul M.
    Cameron, Linda D.
    Ramondt, Steven
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2015, 22 (03) : 425 - 433