Search

Objective: To estimate costs of severe to profound hearing loss, including costs and cost-savings associated with cochlear implantation., Methods: Data was obtained from the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and national Medicare rates. We used continuous time state transition models with individual patient simulations to estimate the costs of severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) across the lifespan. The model included four states, normal hearing, severe to profound hearing loss, cochlear implantation, and death., Results: The estimated lifetime cost of an individual born with SPHL is $489,274 [377,518; 616,519]. Costs are lower for those who received a cochlear implant before 18 months of age $390,931 [311,976; 471,475], compared to those who are not implanted $608,167 [442,544; 791,719]. For individuals with a later onset of hearing loss (60 years old) lifetime costs were $154,536 [7,093; 302,936]. The annual societal costs for the US population were estimated to be $37 [8; 187] billion., Conclusions: SPHL is a costly condition, with the primary driver being lost productivity. Medical costs were higher for cochlear implantation, however, the higher income earnings offset the higher medical costs. Overall, early implantation substantially reduced lifetime costs. Access to hearing health care and technology is critical given the documented benefits for language, education, and quality of life. Government and insurance policies should be modified to allow for equal access and coverage for hearing technology, which will ultimately reduce lifetime and societal costs., Levels of Evidence: N/A The current study used existing nationally representative datasets. Thus, these levels of evidence do not apply. Laryngoscope, 134:4358-4365, 2024., (© 2024 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to provide an updated European narrative review spanning the last decade, focusing on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants (CIs) for adults with severe to profound post-lingual hearing loss., Methods: This review encompasses both prospective and retrospective approaches, as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal trials conducted on CIs in adults. All studies related to European countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and Poland) were conducted in English and were published between 2012 and June 2023., Results: Nine studies were included in the analysis. The patients' ages ranged from 18 years to over 67 years, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 100 patients; two of these studies were focused on single-sided deafness in adults. The Markov model was identified as the most commonly utilized analysis method., Conclusions: This review identified a general consensus on CI cost-effectiveness, despite substantial variability among countries in factors such as observation time horizons, cost-effectiveness thresholds, methods of cost collection, discount rates, CI eligibility criteria and country-specific health systems. Generally, CIs yield positive societal benefits for working-age individuals, potentially less for seniors. Early unilateral CI enhances cost-effectiveness, highlighting the importance of prompt candidate identification. A consistent undersupply of CIs relative to the percentage of potential recipients emerged across countries. Therefore, further investigation into subcategories such as single-sided deafness is warranted, along with country-specific cost analyses. Emphasizing the significance of detailed information on health systems and associated costs and benefits is crucial for facilitating comparisons across different settings., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Cochlear Implant (CI) has been shown to improve speech comprehension, sound localization and tinnitus in adults with Single-Sided-Deafness (SSD) compared to standard treatment currently available in the Dutch setting such as a CROS (Contralateral Routing of Signals) hearing device or a BCD (Bone Conduction Device). Also, for the pediatric population with SSD, CI has shown to be clinically meaningful. Because currently no information is available on the health economic effects of CI in adults and children with SSD in the Netherlands, a cost-utility analysis was conducted., Methods: We developed a Markov cohort model, for both the adult and pediatric SSD population, with three states: implant, no implant, and dead. CI was compared with the Bone Conduction Device (BCD) treatment, requiring surgery and no specific treatment. The time horizon of the model was lifelong, costs were discounted with 3% and effects with 1.5%. A societal perspective was taken, including productivity costs in the analysis, with costing data based on publicly available prices for the Netherlands. Values for clinical outcome parameters, i.e. hearing gain, and event probabilities were based on existing literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario analyses were performed to outline uncertainty of individual and combined parameters., Results: Mean per patient costs for CI in the adult population were €194,051 (95%-CrI €177,274 to €211,108) compared to the total costs of €185,310 (95%-CrI €182,367 to €194,142) for BCD resulting in a cost difference of €8,826 (95%-CrI -€5,020 to €18,252). Compared to no treatment, the cost difference was -€25,089 (95%-CrI -€31,678 to -€6,003). Adults who were treated with CI gained 18.41 (95%-CrI 18.07 to 18.75) quality adjusted life years (QALY) whereas BCD patients gained 15.81 QALYs (95%-CrI 15.53 to 16.10), a difference of 2.60 QALYs (95%-CrI 2.15 to 3.05). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for adults with CI was determined to be €3,494/QALY gained. Patient without treatment gained 13.46 QALY (95%-CrI 13.20 to 13.73), a difference of 4.95 (95%-CrI 4.87 to 5.01) resulting in CI dominating no treatment. The ICER remained below the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. For children, CI dominated when compared to BCD and when compared to no treatment. Compared to BCD, CI led to a cost saving of €29,611 (95%-CrI -€126,800 to €54,375) and compared to no treatment, CI resulted in a cost saving of €57,658 (95%-CrI -€146,687 to €5,919). The incremental QALY gain compared to BCD was 7.22 (95%-CrI 4.19 to 8.55) and 26.03 (95%-CrI 20.82 to 31.06) compared to no treatment., Conclusions: Based on the results of this health economic evaluation with a Markov cohort model, it is very likely that CI is cost-effective compared to BCD and to no treatment in the Dutch adult and pediatric population with SSD. In both populations the ICER was below the Dutch cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/QALY., Competing Interests: A. L. Smit received unrestricted grands from Cochlear Ltd for studies on treatments for SSD. . The funding does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 van Lieshout et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of cochlear implants (CI) in adults with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss., Databases Reviewed: PubMed (Medline), The Cochrane Library, Embase via Elsevier, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Scopus., Methods: The study included adult participants with severe to profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss. The analysis encompassed quality of life improvements, costs, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 were retrieved. Exclusion criteria included incomplete studies, abstracts, clinical cases, editorials, letters, studies involving pediatric populations, single-side deafness, methodology research, noneconomic aspects of CI, mixed child and adult data, and studies published before 2010. The risk of bias was assessed following the criteria outlined in Appendix I of the economic evaluation's quality assessment as per the NICE Guideline Development Method., Results: Ten articles met the criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. One study conducted a prospective cost-utility analyses, one carried out a cost-benefit analyses, one was a randomized controlled clinical trial focusing on cost-utility, and another was a clinical trial addressing cost-effectiveness. Six studies employed Markov models, and one study utilized uniquely the Monte Carlo method. None quantified the economic impact of improved hearing on cognitive function., Conclusions: The heterogeneity of sources impacted data quality. Unilateral and sequential bilateral CI appeared to be cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids or nontechnological support. When properly indicated, simultaneous bilateral CIs are cost-effective compared to no interventions and to unilateral cochlear implantation through differential discounting or variations from the base cases, especially with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

Purpose: The number of cochlear implant (CI) surgeries is growing over time, with the risk of overloading CI centers in the post-surgical management. Telemedicine is a possible solution to address this phenomenon. Remote Check (RC) is an application that is specific for CI recipients monitoring. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of application, potential economic impact and patients' acceptance of RC., Methods: The study is retrospective investigation, data on clinical, audiological features (from remote and on-site evaluation), and satisfaction surveys of 66 consecutive patients were collected; costs required for RC and for on-site evaluations were recorded as well., Results: One hundred and ninety RC sessions were completed by the patients (2.88 sessions per patient). RC and on-site audiometry significantly correlated except for the 500 Hz frequency. Estimated costs for the Italian National Health System for RC review and on-site evaluations were 1.32€ and 3.49€ per minute, respectively. High satisfaction for RC was reached in 91 % of patients., Conclusion: RC revealed to be a reliable, cost-effective and well accepted tool in CI monitoring. This study preliminarily supports the hypothesis that RC could be a valid instrument to reduce CI management overload in the outpatient clinic., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Hearing loss in children is common and by age 18 years, affects nearly 1 of every 5 children. Without hearing rehabilitation, hearing loss can cause detrimental effects on speech, language, developmental, educational, and cognitive outcomes in children., Observations: Consequences of hearing loss in children include worse outcomes in speech, language, education, social functioning, cognitive abilities, and quality of life. Hearing loss can be congenital, delayed onset, or acquired with possible etiologies including congenital infections, genetic causes including syndromic and nonsyndromic etiologies, and trauma, among others. Evaluation of hearing loss must be based on suspected diagnosis, type, laterality and degree of hearing loss, age of onset, and additional variables such as exposure to cranial irradiation. Hearing rehabilitation for children with hearing loss may include use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone anchored devices, or use of assistive devices such as frequency modulating systems., Conclusions and Relevance: Hearing loss in children is common, and there has been substantial progress in diagnosis and management of these cases. Early identification of hearing loss and understanding its etiology can assist with prognosis and counseling of families. In addition, awareness of treatment strategies including the many hearing device options, cochlear implant, and assistive devices can help direct management of the patient to optimize outcomes.

Cochlear and brainstem implants have been included on the list of reimbursable products (LPPR) in France since March of 2009. The implants were initially inscribed for 5 years, after which an application for renewal with the French National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies (Commission Nationale d'évaluation des dispositifs médicaux et des technologies de santé - CNEDiMTS) was required [Haute Autorité de santé, 2009]. Upon registration to the list of reimbursable products, the companies and the reference centers for cochlear and brainstem implants were asked to set up a post-registration registry called EPIIC. This article reports the evolution in the EPIIC registry of the general indicators for 5051 patients over the five years from 2012-2016., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Backround/objective: Due to increasing prevalence of hearing loss and relaxation of candidacy criteria of cochlear implant (CI) supply, the number of implantations is likely to further increase. Statutory health insurances are facing ever more urgent financing challenges since CI treatment causes high life-long costs. Additionally, increasing life expectancy and earlier implantation may extend therapy time and cost. With every case being individual, this study aims to calculate the possible lifetime cost of unilateral CI treatment in adults including stochastic uncertainties., Methods: Taking a statutory health insurance perspective, relevant cost components of CI therapy and their values were identified. The Monte Carlo method was used to simulate lifetime cost considering age at first implantation and distributions of costrelevant variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the most crucial variables impacting on lifetime cost., Results: Lifetime cost of CI treatment varies according to age at first implantation, respectively remaining lifetime; the earlier the implantation, the higher the overall cost. According to our simulation, the average lifetime cost for an adult patient first implanted between the age of 20-80 is at 53,030 € (present value). Cost of implantation and periodic speech processor exchanges show the highest impact on the total cost., Discussion: Health care systems could face rising expenses for CI supply by technical development. Innovative life-long CIs could achieve significant savings per case that could finance additional implant cost. Until then, further targeted research will be required., Conclusion: CI-related cost for statutory health insurance crucially depends on the patient-side demand for cochlear implants. Therefore, cost forecasts must also consider the development of demand.

Objective: The value of cochlear implantation (CI) has not been established in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of paediatric CI within the context of Taiwan's national health insurance (NHI) programme. Design: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral CI (UCI) with a contralateral acoustic hearing aid (UCI-HA) compared with a bilateral HA. We performed one-way sensitivity analyses to identify the cost variables that affected the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) the most. Monte Carlo simulation was used to explore the simultaneous effect of all uncertain parameters on cost-effectiveness. Study sample: Not applicable. Results: Compared with bilateral HAs, the ICER for UCI-HA was $6487 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICERs were consistently below $7000 per QALY gained and were most sensitive to the selling price of the external CI device. When this selling price increased by 10%, the ICER of UCI-HA would increase to $6954 per QALY gained. UCI-HA has a probability greater than 50% of being cost-effective if the cost-effectiveness threshold exceeds approximately $10,000 per QALY. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that within the context of Taiwan's NHI programme, UCI is highly cost-effective for deaf children.

As a signatory to Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Aotearoa New Zealand aims to be a "non-disabling society-a place where disabled people have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations". Yet many adult New Zealanders with severe-to-profound hearing loss (SPHL) due to sensorineural deterioration over time are being denied timely access to publicly funded cochlear implants. This presents a serious inequity in Aotearoa New Zealand's health system and contravenes disability and human rights principles. For Māori affected by SPHL, this brings additional challenges along with broader impacts on Māori health and development. These issues are investigated through a self-case study together with a review of relevant evidence-based research and public policy., Competing Interests: Nil.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) with mainstream education and deaf education with sign language for treatment of children with profound sensorineural hearing loss in low- and lower-middle income countries in Asia., Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study., Subjects and Methods: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3., Results: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39)., Conclusion: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: To analyze the impact of age at implantation on the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI)., Study Design: Cost-utility analysis in an adapted Markov model., Setting: Adults with profound postlingual hearing loss in a "high income" country., Intervention: Unilateral and sequential CI were compared with hearing aids (HA)., Main Outcome Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated as costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in CHF/QALY), for individual age and sex combinations in relation to two different willingness to pay thresholds. 1 CHF (Swiss franc) is equivalent to 1.01 USD., Results: When a threshold of 50,000 CHF per QALY is applied, unilateral CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 91 for women and 89 for men. Sequential CI in comparison to HA is cost-effective up to an age of 87 for women and 85 for men. If a more contemporary threshold of 100,000 CHF per QALY is applied, sequential CI in comparison to unilateral CI is cost-effective up to an age of 80 for women and 78 for men., Conclusions: Performing both sequential and unilateral CI is cost-effective up to very advanced ages when compared with hearing aids.

Purpose of Review: Over a short period, China has adopted cochlear implants and emerged as a burgeoning market. This represents a valuable case study for emerging countries in terms of planning, initiating, and growing cochlear implant programs., Recent Findings: Although many challenges such as funding, establishing infrastructure, and recipient community support have been addressed, many more remain. Consistent rapid escalation in numbers has been driven by push-and-pull factors. Federal, state, and private funding have all played a role., Summary: The review highlights the massive need for hearing rehabilitation that currently exists in China. The shortfall can only be addressed by a purposeful and coordinated approach involving government policy, The China Disabled Persons Federation, the industry partnering with hearing and medical professionals and the deaf community.

Background: Sensorineural hearing loss occurs as a result of damage to the hair cells in the cochlea, or to the auditory nerve. It negatively affects learning and development in children, and employment and economic attainment in adults. Current policy in Ontario is to provide unilateral cochlear implantation for patients with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, hearing with both ears as a result of bilateral cochlear implantation may offer added benefits., Methods: We completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to bilateral cochlear implantation. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children from inception to March 2017. We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective and analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children in Ontario for the next 5 years. Finally, we conducted interviews with adults who have sensorineural hearing loss and unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants, and with parents of children with bilateral cochlear implants., Results: We included 24 publications (10 in adults, 14 in children) in the clinical evidence review. Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral cochlear implantation improved sound localization, speech perception in noise, and subjective benefits of hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (GRADE: moderate to high). Bilateral cochlear implantation also allowed for better language development and more vocalization in preverbal communication in children (GRADE: moderate). The safety profile was acceptable.Bilateral cochlear implantation was more expensive and more effective than unilateral cochlear implantation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $48,978/QALY in adults and between $27,427/QALY and $30,386/QALY in children. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on the quality-of-life values used. We estimated that the net budget impact of publicly funding bilateral cochlear implantation for adults in Ontario would be between $510,000 and $780,000 per year for the next 5 years.Patients described the social and emotional effects of hearing loss, and the benefits and challenges of using cochlear implants., Conclusions: Based on evidence of moderate to high quality, we found that bilateral cochlear implantation improved hearing in adults and children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Bilateral cochlear implantation was potentially cost-effective compared to unilateral cochlear implantation in adults and children. Patients with sensorineural hearing loss reported the positive effects of cochlear implants, and patients with unilateral cochlear implants generally expressed a desire for bilateral implants.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess barriers to rehabilitation care for pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients., Study Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study., Setting: Tertiary medical center., Patients: Parents of children who received a CI from October 1996 to June 2013., Main Outcome Measure(s): Factors related to access to and barriers in audiology and speech therapy services, factors related to CI use, and performance with CI using the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH)., Results: Thirty-five parents participated in the study (21 rural residents and 14 urban residents). Distance was a significant barrier to audiology services for rural participants compared with urban participants (p = 0.01). Consistent CI use was complicated by mechanical complications or malfunction in 70% of rural children compared with 33% of urban children (p = 0.05). Only 10% of rural children were able to access speech therapy services at diagnosis compared with 42% of urban children (p = 0.04). Low socioeconomic (SES) status and Medicaid insurance were associated with a lack of local speech therapists and medical/mechanical CI complications. Higher parental educational attainment was associated with higher PEACH scores in quiet conditions compared with families with lower parental education (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Rural children are often delayed in receipt of CI rehabilitation services. Multiple barriers including low SES, insurance type, and parental education can affect utilization of these services and may impact the recipient language development. Close follow-up and efforts to expand access to care are needed to maximize CI benefit.

Purpose of Review: Effective hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implantation is challenging in developing countries, and this review focuses on strategies for childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss care in South America., Recent Findings: Most global hearing loss exists in developing countries; optimal cost-effective management strategies are essential in these environments. This review aims to assess and discuss the challenges of cochlear implantation effectiveness in South America. The authors searched electronic databases, bibliographies, and references for published and unpublished studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and failure rate. Costs were obtained from experts in South America using known costs and estimations whenever necessary. Recent studies reported several challenges in unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants: cochlear implant costs, deaf education costs, increasing need for cochlear implant capacity, and training and increasing longevity., Summary: Cochlear implantation was very cost-effective in all South American countries. Despite inconsistencies in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods substantiates the positive findings of the included studies, demonstrating that unilateral cochlear implantation is clinically effective and likely to be cost-effective in developing countries.

Purpose of Review: The overall prevalence of deafness in India is 0.2%, but the prevalence in the southern state of Tamil Nadu is much higher (around 0.6%) because of consanguinity. Especially in India, establishing cochlear implantation as a treatment modality for hearing loss has been a daunting task, but in the last decade, the cochlear implantation program has emerged as an unqualified success in many states, with over 20 000 cochlear implantations done till date. Several states are sponsoring free implants to children under the age of 6 years and below poverty line., Recent Findings: Nearly 3000 cochlear implantations have been performed in Tamil Nadu under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme, with the goal to have a 'deafness free Tamil Nadu' by 2025. This scheme covers nearly 40 million people in rural areas. Valuable lessons have been learnt from this social experiment. One of the cornerstones of this scheme is the method to deliver habilitation via satellite centers in rural areas at the doorstep of the patient. The outcomes in peripheral centers were found to be statistically similar to those in the main center and correlated well with duration of habilitation., Summary: Opening up satellite centers for habilitation across the state of Tamil Nadu has greatly helped to improve the attendance and outcomes. The Indian model has been hugely successful and has helped start similar cochlear implantation programs in neighboring countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Purpose of Review: Cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants is a major concern for expanding these services to low-income and middle-income developing countries., Recent Findings: Recent studies have applied appropriate methodology to make determination of cost-effectiveness for cochlear implants in developing countries. In addition, important parameters that effect cost-effectiveness have been reviewed in a systematic way. The combination of these new studies along with existing reports of cochlear implant programmes in developing countries allows for a discussion of cost and outcomes determinants that drive cost-effectiveness in these environments., Summary: Cochlear implants are a very cost-effective treatment for profound hearing loss in all high-resource countries and in many low-income and middle-income developing countries. A number of cost considerations affect cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants in developing countries including device cost and device-related expenses such as power consumption and reliability, but also including rehabilitation and access-related expenses. Large-scale programmes confer an advantage for cost-effectiveness, primarily through device-related savings.

Background: Since the indication for receiving a cochlear implant (CI) has widened (single-sided deafness [SSD], electric acoustic stimulation [EAS], bilateral CI, CI for long-term deafness), more and more patients come into consideration for such a treatment. Hence, disputes increasingly arise between patients and their insurance companies concerning the question of whether surgery and follow-up treatment have to be paid for by statutory health insurance., Objective: This work provides an overview of judgments rendered by the German social courts. We investigated whether and in which cases it is advisable for a patient to go to court, and how long the proceedings may take., Materials and Methods: We looked for judgments in the two biggest commercial legal databases and in the database of the German social courts, using combinations of the search parameters "Cochlear," "Cochlea," "Implant," and "Implantat." Three verdicts were attained by directly contacting the court; another one was mentioned in an article. The reviewed judgements were issued between 2003 and 2017., Results: A total of 12 judgments were found. The patients won in all but one of the main proceedings. The case that was lost concerned exceptional circumstances. One patient didn't get the desired interim measure, but won in the main proceedings. The proceedings took between 1 year and 8 months, and 9 years and 5 months., Conclusion: Despite the amount of time the patient has to invest, taking legal action is worthwhile. The proceedings at the social courts are generally exempt from charges. In most cases, the statutory health insurance is ordered to pay for a CI.

Objectives/hypothesis: From a purely surgical efficiency point of view, simultaneous cochlear implantation (SimCI) is more cost-effective than sequential cochlear implantation (SeqCI) when total direct costs are considered (implant and hospital costs). However, in a setting where only SeqCI is practiced and a proportion of initially unilaterally implanted patients do not progress to a second implant, this may not be the case, especially when audiological costs are factored in. We present a cost analysis of such a scenario as would occur in our institution., Study Design: Retrospective review and cost analysis., Methods: Between 2005 and 2015, 370 patients fulfilled the audiological criteria for bilateral implantation. Of those, 267 (72.1%) underwent unilateral cochlear implantation only, 101 (27.3%) progressed to SeqCI, and two underwent SimCI. The total hospital, surgical, and implant costs, and initial implant stimulation series audiological costs between August 2015 and August 2016 (29 adult patients) were used in this analysis., Results: The total hospital, surgical, and implant costs for this period was $2,731,360.42. Based on previous local trends, if a projected eight (27.3%) of these patients decide to progress to SeqCI, this will cost an additional $750,811.04, resulting in an overall total of $3,482,171.46 for these 29 patients. Had all 29 undergone SimCI, the total projected cost would have been $3,332,991.75, representing a total potential saving of $149,179.67 (4.3%)., Conclusions: In institutions where only SeqCI is allowed in adults, overall patient management may cost marginally more than if SimCI were practiced. This will be of interest to CI programs and health insurance companies., Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:2615-2618, 2017., (© 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Here I identify two gaps in cochlear implants that have been limiting their performance and acceptance. First, cochlear implant performance has remained largely unchanged, despite the number of publications tripling per decade in the last 30 years. Little has been done so far to address a fundamental limitation in the electrode-to-neuron interface, with the electrode size being a thousand times larger than the neuron diameter while the number of electrodes being a thousand times less. Both the small number and the large size of electrodes produce broad spatial activation and poor frequency resolution that limit current cochlear implant performance. Second, a similarly rapid growth in cochlear implant volume has not produced an expected decrease in unit price in the same period. The high cost contributes to low market penetration rate, which is about 20% in developed countries and less than 1% in developing countries. I will discuss changes needed in both research strategy and business practice to close the gap between prosthetic and normal hearing as well as that between haves and have-nots.

Background: The percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device can be associated with more soft tissue complications when compared to the magnetic transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device. This study aimed to determine whether fewer soft tissue complications may result in the transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device being a lower cost option in hearing rehabilitation., Methods: This retrospective case note review included adult patients who underwent implantation with the transcutaneous Cochlear Attract (n = 22) or percutaneous Cochlear DermaLock (n = 25) bone-anchored hearing aids between September 2013 and December 2014. The number of post-operative clinic appointments, complications and treatments undertaken, and calculated cost average, were compared between the two groups., Results: Although the transcutaneous device was slightly more expensive than the percutaneous device, the percutaneous device was associated with a greater number of soft tissue complications and, as a result, the percutaneous device had significantly higher follow-up costs in the first six months following surgery., Conclusion: The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.

Hypothesis: Medicaid reimbursement rates for cochlear implants and related services fall short of the federal benchmark set by Medicare., Background: The financial hardships of cochlear implant centers around the United States may be a repercussion of poor Medicaid reimbursement. In time, these reimbursement discrepancies could force additional Otolaryngologists and cochlear implant centers to not provide these crucial services due to financial limitations., Methods: Based on Medicare (MCR) claims data, current procedural terminology (CPT) codes used for cochlear implantation and related services were selected. Medicaid (MCD) and Medicare (MCR) payment schemes were queried for the same services in 49 states and Washington, D.C. The difference in MCD and MCR payment in dollars and percent was determined and reimbursement per relative value of work (RVU) calculated. MCD reimbursement differences (by dollar amount and by percentage) were qualified as a shortfall or excess as compared with the MCR benchmark., Results: Marked differences in MCD and MCR reimbursement exist for all cochlear implant related services, most commonly as a substantial shortfall. The MCD shortfall varied in amount between states and great variability in reimbursement exists within and between audiology, surgery, and speech services. Shortfalls and excesses were not consistent between procedures or states., Conclusions: The variation in MCD payment models reflects marked differences in the value of the same work provided, which in many cases is far less than federal benchmarks. These results question the fairness of the MCD reimbursement scheme in cochlear implantation with potential serious implications on access to care for this underserved patient population.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost utility of cochlear implantation (CI) for severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) among children from rural settings in P.R. China (China)., Research Design: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was undertaken using data generated from a single-center substudy of the Cochlear Pediatric Implanted Recipient Observational Study (Cochlear P-IROS). The data were projected over a 20-year time horizon using a decision tree model., Setting: The Chinese healthcare payer and patient perspectives were adopted., Intervention: Unilateral CI of children with a severe-to-profound SNHL compared with their preimplantation state of no treatment or amplification with hearing aids ("no CI" status)., Main Outcome Measure/s: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained., Results: The mean total discounted cost of unilateral CI was CNY 252,506 (37,876 USD), compared with CNY 29,005 (4,351 USD) for the no CI status from the healthcare payer plus patient perspective. A total discounted benefit of 8.9 QALYs was estimated for CI recipients compared with 6.7 QALYs for the no CI status. From the healthcare payer plus patient perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for unilateral CI compared with no CI was CNY 100,561 (15,084 USD) per QALY. The healthcare payer perspective yielded an ICER of CNY 40,929 (6,139 USD) per QALY. Both ICERs fell within one to three times China's gross domestic product per capita (GDP, 2011-2015), considered "cost-effective" by World Health Organization (WHO) standards., Conclusions: Treatment with unilateral CI is a cost-effective hearing solution for children with severe to profound SNHL in rural China. Increased access to mainstream education and greater opportunities for employment, are potential downstream benefits of CI that may yield further societal and economic benefits. CI may be considered favorably for broader inclusion in medical insurance schemes across China.

Objective: In Colombia there are three main treatment approaches for bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss, also known as profound deafness (PD): cochlear implants (CI), hearing aids (HA), and no treatment (NT). The objective of this study is to determine the optimal treatment approach for PD in terms of productivity and cost-effectiveness., Study Design: Hearing levels and SES data were obtained from audiometric tests conducted on 100 patients with CI. For each treatment approach, productivity and cost-effectiveness assessments were estimated using influence diagrams and Monte Carlo simulations. Productivity was calculated as the net present value of a patient's lifetime income divided by total health-related and educational costs. For the CI and HA, the cost-effectiveness indicator was calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained in comparison with the NT approach divided by the total cost of the treatment option., Results: The results for the CI, the HA, and NT in terms of productivity ratio were 1.53, 0.94, and 1.47, respectively. Patients using CI had a gain of 5.7 QALYs, whereas patients using HA had a gain of 4.6 QALYs. The results for the CI and the HA in terms of cost-effectiveness were $15,169 and $15,430 per QALY, respectively., Conclusion: The CI was found to be the optimal treatment for PD, as it was the most efficient and cost-effective in terms of improving patients' productivity and quality of life. We observed that children who had received CI developed hearing and speech abilities that contributed to their productivity and quality of life to a greater extent than those with HA.

Importance: Barriers to early pediatric cochlear implantation in underinsured populations have been previously reported. However, to our knowledge, the effect of this delay on the development of auditory and speech-language objectives has not been evaluated., Objective: To determine if health care insurance status affects the achievement of proficiency in basic sound access and imitation tasks in children with cochlear implants., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective review of 123 children aged 1 to 12 years receiving cochlear implants at the single tertiary referral academic free-standing Children's National Health System in Washington, DC, between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015., Main Outcomes and Measures: Auditory function after cochlear implantation, time to proficiency in Ling-6 scores, and number of speech therapy and audiological appointments, as well as current educational setting, were compared with patient age at diagnosis of hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation, cochlear implantation insertion technique, and health care insurance status for recipients of cochlear implants., Results: A total of 123 children aged 1 to 12 years (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [57.4] years) with cochlear implants were included in the study. Of 37 patients with complete and accurate Ling-6 test scores, 23 (62.1%) were able to have proficiency a mean of 5.1 months at follow-up. Despite equal auditory performance on pure-tone audiometry after cochlear implantation, publicly insured recipients had Ling-6 proficiency a mean of 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.5-6.5 months) later than privately insured recipients (11.0 vs 5.0 months). When controlling for patient age, time to cochlear implantation, number of therapy sessions, and cochlear implantation insertion technique, multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed health care insurance status to be the independent variable associated with inadequate Ling-6 discrimination scores (odds ratio, 46.2; 95% CI, 2.9-729.4)., Conclusions and Relevance: Despite equal speech detection scores, publicly insured recipients of cochlear implantation had a significant and critical delay in attaining proficiency in a fundamental measure of sound recognition and imitation.

Objectives: To review evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) among children and adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss., Study Design: Narrative review., Methods: Publications related to quality of life (QoL) and costs of care in CI were acquired through searches in English-language databases. Studies were included if they had identified the HRQoL attainment, cost of care, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness associated with CI., Results: 57 studies were critically reviewed. The QoL outcome metrics used in these articles were divided into 2 categories - generic and condition specific. In studies investigating children, many reported no significant difference in QoL attainment between CI recipients and normal-hearing peers. In adults, significant improvements in QoL after implantation and higher QoL than in their nonimplanted (hearing-aided) peers were frequently reported. Studies involving an older adult cohort reported significant improvement in QoL after implantation, which was often independent of audiological performance. Overall, the calculated cost-utility ratios consistently met the threshold of cost acceptance, indicating acceptable values for expenditures on CI., Conclusions: Considerable work has been done on the QoL attainment and health economic implications of CI. Unilateral CI across all age groups leads to reported sustained benefits in the recipients' overall and disease-specific QoL. With increased cost associated with bilateral CI, further study is needed to characterize its costs and benefits with respect to the recipients' health, well-being, and contributions to society., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives To investigate provincial cochlear implantation (CI) annual volume and cost trends. Study Design Database analysis. Setting National surgical volume and cost database. Subjects and Methods Aggregate-level provincial CI volumes and cost data for adult and pediatric CI surgery from 2005 to 2014 were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Population-level aging forecast estimates were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Finance and Statistics Canada. Linear fit, analysis of variance, and Tukey's analyses were utilized to compare variances and means. Results The national volume of annual CI procedures is forecasted to increase by <30 per year ( R 2 = 0.88). Ontario has the highest mean annual CI volume (282; 95% confidence interval, 258-308), followed by Alberta (92.0; 95% confidence interval, 66.3-118), which are significantly higher than all other provinces ( P < .05 for each). Ontario's annual CI procedure volume is forecasted to increase by <11 per year ( R 2 = 0.62). Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have the highest CI procedures per 100,000 residents as compared with all other provinces ( P < .05). Alberta, Newfoundland, and Manitoba have the highest estimated implantation cost of all provinces ( P < .05). Conclusions Historical trends of CI forecast modest national volume growth. Potential bottlenecks include provincial funding and access to surgical expertise. The proportion of older adult patients who may benefit from a CI will rise, and there may be insufficient capacity to meet this need. Delayed access to CI for pediatric patients is also a concern, given recent reports of long wait times for CI surgery.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the timing and impact of hearing healthcare of rural and urban adults with severe hearing loss who use cochlear implants (CI)., Study Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study., Setting: Tertiary referral center., Patients: Adult cochlear implant recipients., Main Outcome Measures: Data collected included county of residence, socioeconomic information, impact of hearing loss on education/employment, and timing of hearing loss treatment. The benefits obtained from cochlear implantation were also evaluated., Results: There were 91 participants (32 from urban counties, 26 from moderately rural counties, and 33 for extremely rural counties). Rural participants have a longer commute time to the CI center (p < 0.001), lower income (p < 0.001), and higher percentage of Medicaid coverage (p = 0.004). Compared with urban-metro participants, rural participants with gradually progressive hearing loss had a greater time interval from the onset of hearing loss to obtaining hearing aid amplification (10 yr versus 5 yr, p = 0.04). There was also a greater time interval from onset of hearing loss to the time of cochlear implantation in rural participants (p = 0.04). Reported job loss was higher in rural participants than in urban participants (p = 0.05). Both groups reported comparable benefit from cochlear implantation., Conclusion: Rural CI recipients differ from urban residents in socioeconomic characteristics and may be delayed in timely treatment of hearing loss. Further efforts to expand access to hearing healthcare services may benefit rural adult patients., Competing Interests: The authors have no other financial relationships or conflicts of interest to disclose pertaining to the manuscript.

Objectives: In Australia, surgical treatment options for children with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss exist in a continuum ranging from unilateral cochlear implantation (CI), sequential bilateral CI through to simultaneous bilateral CI, depending on the condition. When treatment options are mutually exclusive, the mean costs and benefits of each treatment group are summed together to obtain the total mean costs and benefits. This enables an incremental analysis of treatment options in the context of the treated populations.The objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of current Australian CI treatment practices in children using domestic costs and consequences when compared with bilateral hearing aids (HAs)., Research Design: Economic evaluation including a Markov model based on secondary sources., Setting: The base case modeled a government health payer perspective over a child's lifetime. Primary and secondary school education costs were also assessed., Intervention: Bilateral HAs compared with CI, including unilateral, sequential bilateral, or simultaneous bilateral CI weighted according to treatment., Main Outcome Measures: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year., Results: Approximately 42% of children in Australia with unilateral CI did not transition to sequential bilateral nor undergo simultaneous bilateral implantation. This differs from previous economic evaluations that assumed 100% of children transitioned to sequential bilateral CI treatment or were treated with simultaneous bilateral CI.The incremental cost utility of unilateral cochlear implantation compared with HAs was AUD 21,947/QALY. The weighted average incremental cost utility of the combined cochlear implantation treatment groups was AUD 31,238/QALY when compared with HAs., Conclusion: Previous economic evaluations of cochlear implantation assumed 100% of unilaterally treated patients would transition to sequential bilateral or be treated with simultaneous bilateral implantation. This approach does not take into account the total treated population, where a proportion of patients are treated with unilateral CI.CI was cost effective when compared with HAs, and included children treated with unilateral, sequential bilateral, and simultaneous bilateral CI.The model was sensitive to the number of assessment and habilitation visits. Alternative health service models with cost efficiencies are needed to reduce after care costs.

Objectives: Sequential and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants are emerging as appropriate treatment options for Australian adults with sensory deficits in both cochleae. Current funding of Australian public hospitals does not provide for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) as a separate surgical procedure. Previous cost-effectiveness studies of sequential and simultaneous bilateral CI assumed 100% of unilaterally treated patients' transition to a sequential bilateral CI. This assumption does not place cochlear implantation in the context of the generally treated population. When mutually exclusive treatment options exist, such as unilateral CI, sequential bilateral CI, and simultaneous bilateral CI, the mean costs of the treated populations are weighted in the calculation of incremental cost-utility ratios. The objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of bilateral hearing aids (HAs) compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI in Australian adults with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss., Research Design: Cost-utility analysis of secondary sources input to a Markov model., Setting: Australian health care perspective, lifetime horizon with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually., Intervention: Bilateral HAs as treatment for bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss compared with unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI., Main Outcome Measures: Incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (AUD/QALY)., Results: When compared with bilateral hearing aids the incremental cost-utility ratio for the CI treatment population was AUD11,160/QALY. The incremental cost-utility ratio was weighted according to the number of patients treated unilaterally, sequentially, and simultaneously, as these were mutually exclusive treatment options., Conclusion: No peer-reviewed articles have reported the incremental analysis of cochlear implantation in a continuum of care for surgically treated populations with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Unilateral, sequential, and simultaneous bilateral CI were cost-effective when compared with bilateral hearing aids. Technologies that reduce the total number of visits for a patient could introduce additional cost efficiencies into clinical practice.

Since the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) review of cochlear implantation in 2009, (NICE, 2009) there have been a number of significant changes to our understanding of the impact of severe-to-profound hearing loss on quality of life and comorbidity with life limiting illness. There have been questions about the validity of current methods of assessing candidacy for cochlear implants. There have also been significant improvements in the effectiveness of implants, the age of successful implantation and a reduction in costs. Additionally, the costs to the health and welfare system of not addressing severe-to-profound hearing loss are often not considered when assessing costs and benefits of this technology and when assessing candidacy criteria. Consideration of these changes since the NICE review suggests the need for an urgent review of the current guidance.

Objective: The number of implantation of cochlear implants has steadily risen in recent years. Reasons for this are an extension of indication criteria, demographic change, increased quality of life needs and greater acceptance. The consequences are rising expenditure for statutory health insurance (SHI) for cochlear implantation. A detailed calculation of lifetime costs from SHI's perspective for postlingually deafened adolescents and adults is essential in estimating future cost developments., Methods: Calculations are based on accounting data from the Hannover Medical School. With regard to further life expectancy, average costs of preoperative diagnosis, surgery, rehabilitation, follow-ups, processor upgrades and electrical maintenance were discounted to their present value at age of implantation., Results: There is an inverse relation between cost of unilateral cochlear implantation and age of initial implantation. From SHI's perspective, the intervention costs between 36,001 and 68,970 € ($ 42,504-$ 81,429). The largest cost components are initial implantation and processor upgrades., Conclusion: Compared to the UK the cost of cochlear implantation in Germany seems to be significantly lower. In particular the costs of, rehabilitation and maintenance in Germany cause only a small percentage of total costs. Also, the costs during the first year of treatment seem comparatively low. With regard to future spending of SHI due to implant innovations and associated extension of indication, increasing cost may be suspected., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Introduction: Undue attention in the allocation of healthcare resources can be given to expenditures as opposed to expenditures avoided. This can be particularly apparent when expenditures avoided fall across different budget holders and budgetary pressures are strained., Methods: The paper presents estimates of the potential savings attributable to the adoption of new hearing assistive technologies in Britain between 1992 and 2014 based on multivariate analyses of survey data., Results: The reduction in service use among the hearing impaired between 1992 and 2014 is estimated to amount to between £53 and £92 million per annum., Conclusion: Issues in estimating the impact of widening candidature for cochlear implants on costs exist related to potential savings. This research begins to lay a firmer evidence base for such work as well as identifying some of the challenges.

Only a small fraction of patients with profound sensorineural hearing loss have access to cochlear implantation with the majority of these affected people living in developing countries. Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an important tool to demonstrate the value of this technology to healthcare policy makers. This approach requires that hearing healthcare professionals incorporate methods of assessing long-term benefits of cochlear implantation that include psychosocial, quality of life, and disability outcomes. This review explores different aspects of CEA methodology relevant to cochlear implants and discusses ways that we can improve global access by addressing factors that influence cost-effectiveness.

Objective: To study the cost-utility of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) versus unilateral CI., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT)., Setting: Five tertiary referral centers., Patients: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults eligible for cochlear implantation., Interventions: A cost-utility analysis was performed from a health insurance perspective., Main Outcome Measures: Utility was assessed using the HUI3, TTO, VAS on hearing, VAS on general health and EQ-5D. We modeled the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of unilateral versus bilateral CI over periods of 2, 5, 10, 25 years, and actual life-expectancy., Results: Direct costs for unilateral and bilateral CI were €43,883 ± €11,513(SD) and €87,765 ± €23,027(SD) respectively. Annual costs from the second year onward were €3,435 ± €1,085(SD) and €6,871 ± €2,169(SD), respectively. A cost-utility analysis revealed that a second implant became cost-effective after a 5- to 10-year period, based on the HUI3, TTO, and VAS on hearing., Conclusion: This is the first study that describes a cost-utility analysis to compare unilateral with simultaneous bilateral CI in postlingually deafened adults, using a multicenter RCT. Compared with accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, simultaneous bilateral CI is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer.

Healthcare technology assessment (HTA) aims to support decisions as to which technologies should be used in which situations to optimize value. Because such decisions will create winners and losers, they are bound to be controversial. HTA, then, faces a dilemma: should it stay away from such controversies, remaining a source of incomplete advice and risking an important kind of marginalization, or should it enter the controversy? The question is a challenging one, because we lack agreement on principles that are fine grained enough to tell us what choices we should make. In this study, we will argue that HTA should take a stand on ethical issues raised by the technology that is being investigated. To do so, we propose adding a form of procedural justice to HTA to arrive at decisions that the public can regard as legitimate and fair. A fair process involves deliberation about the reasons, evidence, and rationales that are considered relevant to meeting population-health needs fairly. One important way to make sure that there is real deliberation about relevant reasons is to include a range of stakeholders in the deliberative process. To illustrate how such deliberation might work, we use the case of cochlear implants for deaf children.

Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a common intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss in high-income countries, but is not commonly available to children in low resource environments. Owing in part to the device costs, CI has been assumed to be less economical than deaf education for low resource countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of the two interventions for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a model using disability adjusted life years (DALYs)., Methods: Cost estimates were derived from published data, expert opinion, and known costs of services in Nicaragua. Individual costs and lifetime DALY estimates with a 3% discounting rate were applied to both two interventions. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the effect on the discounted cost of five key components: implant cost, audiology salary, speech therapy salary, number of children implanted per year, and device failure probability., Results: The costs per DALY averted are $5,898 and $5,529 for CI and deaf education, respectively. Using standards set by the WHO, both interventions are cost effective. Sensitivity analysis shows that when all costs set to maximum estimates, CI is still cost effective., Conclusion: Using a conservative DALY analysis, both CI and deaf education are cost-effective treatment alternatives for severe-to-profound SNHL. CI intervention costs are not only influenced by the initial surgery and device costs but also by rehabilitation costs and the lifetime maintenance, device replacement, and battery costs. The major CI cost differences in this low resource setting were increased initial training and infrastructure costs, but lower medical personnel and surgery costs.

Hypothesis: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are cost effective in Sub-Saharan Africa., Background: Cost effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation has been well established in developed countries but is unknown in low resource settings, where access to the technology has traditionally been limited. With incidence of severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss 5 to 6 times higher in low/middle-income countries than the United States and Europe, developing cost-effective management strategies in these settings is critical., Methods: Costs were obtained from experts in Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Malawi using known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability adjusted life years (DALY) model was applied using 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the WHO standard of cost-effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP) less than 3., Results: Cochlear implantation was cost effective in South Africa and Nigeria, with CER/GDP of 1.03 and 2.05, respectively. Deaf education was cost effective in all countries investigated, with CER/GDP ranging from 0.55 to 1.56. The most influential factor in the sensitivity analysis was device cost, with the cost-effective threshold reached in all countries using discounted device costs that varied directly with GDP., Conclusion: Cochlear implantation and deaf education are equally cost effective in lower-middle and upper-middle income economies of Nigeria and South Africa. Device cost may have greater impact in the emerging economies of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi.

Objectives/hypothesis: To determine if the choice of health utility measure affects the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) when assessing the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI)., Study Design: A scenario-based estimate with three scenarios: 1) a patient with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss with no intervention, 2) the same patient with a unilateral CI with average or better performance, and 3) the same patient with bilateral CIs with average or better performance., Methods: One hundred and forty-two subjects comprising preimplantees (n = 30), unilateral cochlear implantees (n = 30), bilateral implantees (n = 30), and healthcare professionals (n = 52). The four health utility instruments applied were the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3), European Quality of Life Questionnaire in 5 Domains (EQ5D), visual analog scale (VAS), and time trade-off (TTO). Cost for each implant was based on a 25-year time horizon, 50% discount for the second implant, and a 15% failure rate., Results: Using the HUI3, the utility gain from unilateral to bilateral implantation was 0.035 or 11.5% of the total utility gain. This ratio was higher using the other instruments: EQ5D (22.2%), VAS (35.0%), and TTO (41.4%). For the scenario of bilateral CI compared to no intervention, HUI3 ICUR estimates were the lowest, and for bilateral CI compared to unilateral CI, HUI3 ICUR estimates were the highest., Conclusions: The choice of utility instrument in cost-utility analysis of bilateral CI heavily influences whether the second implant is deemed cost-effective. The HUI3 is the utility of choice in CI studies and is the most conservative., Level of Evidence: 4., (© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Purpose of Review: Health professionals would be well served to have as good an understanding of cost effectiveness as clinical effectiveness, as both are critical to their patients having access to better health care and achieving better health outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evaluations allow decision makers a means of comparing different interventions when deciding resource allocation. It is a powerful tool, but like any analysis, not understanding the processes and assumptions involved leads to misinterpretation., Recent Findings: Cost effectiveness is an economic evaluation of cost and benefit. The threshold at which an intervention is considered cost effective is reflected by the payer's "willingness to pay", which can vary considerably from country to country. These evaluations are complex and can involve the use of incomplete financial data, and subjective impressions of benefit, while excluding broader social and economic benefits., Summary: Pediatric unilateral and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and adult unilateral cochlear implantation are felt to be cost effective in the United States. Pediatric sequential cochlear implantation, adult bilateral cochlear implantation, implantation in the aged and the long deaf are not. However, cost-effectiveness economic evaluations are only part of broader assessment of social and economic benefit when determining resource allocation.