Browse > Article

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant  

Lee, Hoo-Yeon (Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Health Services Research, Yonsei University)
Kim, Hee-Nam (Department of otolaryngology, College of Medicine, Yonsei University)
Kim, Han-Joong (Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Health Services Research, Yonsei University, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University)
Choi, Jae-Young (Department of otolaryngology, College of Medicine, Yonsei University)
Park, Eun-Cheol (National Cancer Center)
Publication Information
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health / v.37, no.4, 2004 , pp. 353-358 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective : To determine the quality of life and cost consequences for deaf adults who received a cochlear implant. Methods : The data from 11 patients, post-lingual deaf adults who received cochlear implants from 1990 to 2002, underwent cost-utility analysis. The average age of the participants was 49.6 years. The main outcomes were direct cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using the visual analog scale (VAS), health utility index (HUI), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and quality well-being (QWB), with costs and utilities being discounted 3% annually. Results : Recipients had an average of 5.6 years of implant use. Mean VAS scores increased by 0.33, from 0.27 before implantation to 0.60 at survey. HUI scores increased by 0.36, from 0.29 to 0.65, EQ-5D scores increased by 0.26, from 0.52 to 0.78, and QWB scores increased by 0.16, from 0.45 to 0.61. Discounted direct costs were $22,320, yielding $19,223/QALY using VAS, $17,387/QALY using HUI, $24,604/QALY using EQ-5D, and $40,474/QALY using QWB. Cost-utility ratios using VAS, HUI, and EQ-5D were all below $25,000 per QALY, except using QWB. Conclusion : Cochlear implants in post-lingual deaf adult have a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable direct costs and appear to produce a net saving to society.
Keywords
Cost-utility analysis; Cochlear implant; Quality-adjusted life-year;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 대한이비인후과학회. 이비인후과학/두경부외과학I.일조각,2002
2 Niparko J. Cochlear implants. in: Cummings F, Harker, Krause, Richardson, Schouuller, ed. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 3rd ed., 1998
3 Summerfield AQ, Marchall DH, Bartom GR. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear impantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128 : 1255-1262   DOI   PUBMED
4 Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt R, Rothman M, Lissovoy G. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch OtolaryngoI Head Neck Surg 1999; 125: 1221-1228   DOI
5 Robinson K. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 105: 415-422
6 NIH Consensus Development Panel on Cochlear implants in Adult and Children Cochlear implants in adults and children. JAMA 1995; 274: 1955-1961
7 Hinderink JB, Krabbee FM, Broek PVD. Development and application of a health -related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear irrplant: The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123: 756-765
8 Torrance GW, Feeny GH, Furlong WJ. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system Health Utility Index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702-722   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Riley AW, Forrest CB, Starfield B, Green B, Kang M, Ensminger M. Reliaility and validity of the adolescent health profile-types. Med Care 1998; 36: 1237-1248   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Stiggelboun A. Eijkemans M, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, De Haes H. The 'utility' of the visual anaog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 291-298   DOI
11 Cheng Ak, Rubine HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850-856   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Cha CE, Khang YH, Lee MS, WC Kang, SH Jeon, KL Kim, SI Lee. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hyperlipidemia mass screening program in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 2002; 35:(2):99-106
13 Cheng AK, Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlearrplant implant in adult: a meta analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surh 1999; 125: 1214-1218   DOI
14 Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman ML, Lissovoy G. Cost effectiveness of the multichannel cochealer implant. Am J Otol 1995; 16(1): 52-62   PUBMED
15 Samuel FE. Technology and costs: Complrelationship. Hospital 1988; 62-72
16 Loomes G. Disparities between health state measure: an explanation and some implication, York:Department of Economics, University of York:1998
17 Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 111-124   DOI   ScienceOn
18 www.nidcd.nih .gov/health/healthhearing/tools/pdf/cochleariimplant.pdf
19 Harris JP, Anderson JP , Novak R. An outcomes study of cochlear implant in deaf patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 121:398-404   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
20 Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman ML. Cost utility of the meltichannel cochlear implant in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 816-821   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Macran S, Weatherly H. Kind P. Measuring population health : A comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care 2003; 41(2): 218-231   DOI