Using Benefit-Cost Ratio to Select Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Test Criteria

Objectives: Current protocols presumably use criteria that are chosen on the basis of the sensitivity and specificity rates they produce. Such an approach emphasizes test performance but does not include societal implications of the benefit of early identification. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate an approach to selecting criteria for use in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) programs that uses benefit-cost ratio (BCR) to demonstrate an alternative method to audiologists, administrators, and others involved in UNHS protocol decisions. Design: Existing data from more than 1200 ears were used to analyze BCR as a function of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission (DPOAE) level. These data were selected because both audiometric and DPOAE data were available on every ear. Although these data were not obtained in newborns, this compromise was necessary because audiometric outcomes (especially in infants with congenital hearing loss) in neonates are either lacking or limited in number. As such, it is important to note that the characteristics of responses from the group of subjects that formed the bases of the present analyses are different from those for neonates. This limits the extent to which actual criterion levels can be selected but should not affect the general approach of using BCR as a framework for considering UNHS criteria. Estimates of the prevalence of congenital hearing loss identified through UNHS in 37 states and U.S. territories in 2004 were used to calculate BCR. A range of estimates for the lifetime monetary benefits and yearly costs for UNHS were used, based on data available in the literature. Still, exact benefits and costs are difficult to know. Both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by automated auditory brainstem response, AABR) screening paradigms were considered in the calculation of BCR. The influence of middle ear effusion was simulated by incorporating a range of expected DPOAE level reductions into an additional BCR analyses Results: Our calculations indicate that for a range of proposed benefit and cost estimates, the monetary benefits of both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by AABR) NHS programs outweigh programmatic costs. Our calculations indicate that BCR is robust in that it can be applied regardless of the values that are assigned to benefit and cost. Maximum BCR was identified and remained stable regardless of these values; however, it was recognized that the use of maximum BCR could result in reduced test sensitivity and may not be optimal for use in UNHS programs. The inclusion of secondary AABR screening increases BCR but does not alter the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR occurs. The model of middle ear effusion reduces overall DPOAE level, subsequently lowering the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR was obtained Conclusion: BCR is one of several alternative methods for choosing UNHS criteria, in which the evaluation of costs and benefits allows clinical and societal considerations to be incorporated into the pass/refer decision in a meaningful way. Although some of the benefits of early identification of hearing impairment cannot be estimated through a monetary analysis, such as improved psychosocial development and quality of life, this article provides an alternative to audiologists and administrators for selecting UNHS protocols that includes consideration of societal implications of UNHS screening criteria. BCR suggests that UNHS is a worthwhile investment for society as benefits always outweigh costs, at least for the estimations included in this article. Although the use of screening criteria that maximize BCR results in lower test sensitivity compared with other criteria, BCR may be used to select criteria that result in increased test sensitivity and still provide a high, although not maximal, BCR. Using BCR analysis provides a framework in which the societal implications of NHS protocols are considered and emphasizes the value of UNHS.

[1]  S. Purdy,et al.  Influence of acquisition parameters on the measurement of click evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonates in a hospital environment. , 1996, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[2]  M P Gorga,et al.  Toward optimizing the clinical utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Christine Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Early intervention after universal neonatal hearing screening: impact on outcomes. , 2003, Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews.

[4]  B. Vohr,et al.  Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. , 2001, The Journal of pediatrics.

[5]  B. Prieve,et al.  The New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Introduction and Overview , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[6]  B. Hoover,et al.  Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn hearing screening program. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  S. Neely,et al.  A Validation and Potential Clinical Application of Multivariate Analyses of Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emission Data , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Terrance R. Skantz,et al.  Audit and Nonaudit Fees and the Market's Reaction to Earnings Announcements , 2006 .

[9]  M P Gorga,et al.  Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Patients with Normal Hearing and in Patients with Hearing Loss , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[10]  S. Grosse,et al.  Cost Savings From Universal Newborn Hearing Screening , 2006, Pediatrics.

[11]  W Jesteadt,et al.  A comparison of transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  C. Abdala,et al.  Changes in the DP-Gram During the Preterm and Early Postnatal Period , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[13]  M. Webb,et al.  Community based universal neonatal hearing screening by health visitors using otoacoustic emissions , 2001, Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition.

[14]  B. Vohr,et al.  A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: results of visual reinforcement audiometry. , 2005, American journal of audiology.

[15]  J. Roush,et al.  Trends in Age of Identification and Intervention in Infants with Hearing Loss , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[16]  K. White Realities, Myths, and Challenges of Newborn Hearing Screening in the United States , 1997 .

[17]  M. P. Moeller,et al.  Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. , 2000, Pediatrics.

[18]  L. Kozak,et al.  National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2001 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. , 2004, Vital and health statistics. Series 13, Data from the National Health Survey.

[19]  P. A. Dorn,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission test performance for a priori criteria and for multifrequency audiometric standards. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[20]  A. M. Tharpe Unilateral and Mild Bilateral Hearing Loss in Children: Past and Current Perspectives , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[21]  G. de Lissovoy,et al.  A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[22]  M. P. Moeller Current State of Knowledge: Psychosocial Development in Children with Hearing Impairment , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[23]  C. Yoshinaga-Itano,et al.  Early Identification of Infants with Significant Hearing Loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory , 1995 .

[24]  B. Vohr,et al.  Identification of Neonatal Hearing Impairment: Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions during the Perinatal Period , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[25]  R. Lasky,et al.  Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in human newborns and adults. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[26]  B. Vohr,et al.  A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: recommendations for policy, practice, and research. , 2005, American journal of audiology.

[27]  R. Parker,et al.  Children with Minimal Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Prevalence, Educational Performance, and Functional Status , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Comparing the level of the acoustic distortion product 2f1-f2 with behavioural threshold audiograms from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. , 1993, British journal of audiology.

[29]  D O Kim,et al.  Distortion-product and click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in healthy newborns. , 1991, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[30]  J. Wu,et al.  Community-based newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan. , 2004, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[31]  P. Mohr,et al.  THE SOCIETAL COSTS OF SEVERE TO PROFOUND HEARING LOSS IN THE UNITED STATES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[32]  C. Normand,et al.  A Cost‐Utility Analysis of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation , 2000, The Laryngoscope.

[33]  C. Morton,et al.  Newborn hearing screening--a silent revolution. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  Elizabeth K. Hughes,et al.  Outcomes of Children with Mild-Profound Congenital Hearing Loss at 7 to 8 Years: A Population Study , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[35]  J. Feldman,et al.  The severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States: prevalence estimates and demographics. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[36]  A. Rosen,et al.  Trends in Cost Effectiveness Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[37]  J. Stevenson,et al.  Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects: distortion product responses. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  P. A. Dorn,et al.  Predicting audiometric status from distortion product otoacoustic emissions using multivariate analyses. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[40]  H. Wallenburg,et al.  Click-evoked oto-acoustic emissions in 1036 ears of healthy newborns. , 1993, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[41]  S. Petrou,et al.  The Economic Costs of Congenital Bilateral Permanent Childhood Hearing Impairment , 2006, Pediatrics.

[42]  R. Keren,et al.  Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. , 2002, Pediatrics.

[43]  T. Finitzo,et al.  The newborn with hearing loss: detection in the nursery. , 1998, Pediatrics.

[44]  S. Neely,et al.  From Laboratory to Clinic: A Large Scale Study of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Ears with Normal Hearing and Ears with Hearing Loss , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[45]  D T Kemp,et al.  Basic characteristics of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in infants and children. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  D. O. Kim,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission test of sensorineural hearing loss: performance regarding sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. , 1996, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[47]  U. P. S. T. Force Universal Screening for Hearing Loss in Newborns: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2008, Pediatrics.

[48]  Yvonne Sininger,et al.  Identification of Neonatal Hearing Impairment: Evaluation of Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission, Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission, and Auditory Brain Stem Response Test Performance , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[49]  R. Kelly,et al.  Deaf college students' mathematical skills relative to morphological knowledge, reading level, and language proficiency. , 2006, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[50]  S. Neely,et al.  Cost-effectiveness and test-performance factors in relation to universal newborn hearing screening. , 2003, Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews.

[51]  M P Gorga,et al.  The use of cumulative distributions to determine critical values and levels of confidence for clinical distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  L. C. Cox,et al.  Evolution of a universal infant hearing screening program in an inner city hospital. , 2001, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[53]  W. Winkelmayer,et al.  Comparing Cost-Utility Analyses in Cardiovascular Medicine , 2003 .