[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.132.114. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 2000

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Hearing Screening Strategies

Author Affiliations

From the Children's Primary Care Research Group, Department of Pediatrics University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(5):484-488. doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.5.484
Abstract

Context  Congenital hearing loss affects between 1 and 3 out of every 1000 children. Screening of all neonates has been made possible by the development of portable automated devices. Universal screening is a 2-stage screening process using automated transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions, followed when indicated by automated auditory brain response testing. Targeted screening reserves the 2-stage screening process for those infants at risk for congenital hearing loss.

Objective  To compare the expected costs and benefits of targeted screening with universal screening for the detection of significant bilateral congenital hearing loss.

Design  Cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care system perspective, including costs directly related to screening and initial follow-up evaluation.

Main Outcome Measures  Number of cases identified, number of false positives, and cost per case.

Results  For every 100,000 newborns screened, universal screening detects 86 of 110 cases of congenital hearing loss, at a cost of $11,650 per case identified. Targeted screening identifies 51 of 110 cases, at $3120 per case identified. Universal screening produces 320 false-positive results, 304 more than targeted screening. Switching to universal screening from targeted screening would cost an additional $23,930 for each extra case detected.

Conclusions  Universal screening detects more cases of congenital hearing loss, at the expense of both greater cost and more false-positive screening results. Little is known about the negative impact of false-positive screening and about the benefits of early intervention for congenital hearing loss. Those who advocate adoption of universal screening should be aware not only of the direct costs of universal screening, but of the indirect costs and strategies to increase the benefits of screening.

×