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] Cost-effectiveness analysis of a screening program for gallbladder disease in Chile
    Puschel, K
    Sullivan, S
    Montero, J
    Thompson, B
    Díaz, A
    [J]. REVISTA MEDICA DE CHILE, 2002, 130 (04) : 447 - 459
  • [42] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE SPANISH RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY PROGRAM
    Villa, Guillermo
    Fernandez-Ortiz, Lucia
    Cuervo, Jesus
    Rebollo, Pablo
    Selgas, Rafael
    Gonzalez, Teresa
    Arrieta, Javier
    [J]. PERITONEAL DIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 32 (02): : 192 - 199
  • [43] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Universal Rotavirus Immunization Program in Japan
    Sato, Takanori
    Nakagomi, Toyoko
    Nakagomi, Osamu
    [J]. JAPANESE JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2011, 64 (04) : 277 - 283
  • [44] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE WALK WITH EASE PROGRAM FOR KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
    Zimmerman, Z. E.
    Cleveland, R. J.
    Leifer, V. P.
    Weisner, S. E.
    Kostic, A. M.
    Allen, K. D.
    Golightly, Y. M.
    Callahan, L. F.
    Losina, E.
    [J]. OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2022, 30 : S62 - S63
  • [45] A TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR FAILURE-TO-THRIVE - A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
    KARNISKI, W
    VANBUREN, L
    CUPOLI, JM
    [J]. CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT, 1986, 10 (04) : 471 - 478
  • [46] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
    BALAKRISHNA, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 1992, 11 (05) : 701 - 703
  • [47] Cost-effectiveness analysis
    Yates, BT
    [J]. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2002, 25 (02) : 201 - 202
  • [48] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE DUTCH LIVER-TRANSPLANTATION PROGRAM
    BONSEL, GJ
    KLOMPMAKER, IJ
    ESSINKBOT, ML
    HABBEMA, JDF
    SLOOFF, MJH
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1990, 22 (04) : 1481 - 1484
  • [49] Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rotavirus immunization program for the United States
    Tucker, AW
    Haddix, AC
    Bresee, JS
    Holman, RC
    Parashar, UD
    Glass, RI
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (17): : 1371 - 1376
  • [50] Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care program for schizophrenia: an analysis of routine data
    Kerkemeyer, Linda
    Wasem, Juergen
    Neumann, Anja
    Brannath, Werner
    Mester, Benjamin
    Timm, Juergen
    Wobrock, Thomas
    Bartels, Claudia
    Falkai, Peter
    Biermann, Janine
    [J]. EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PSYCHIATRY AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2018, 268 (06) : 611 - 619