A comparison of costs associated with screening for gestational diabetes with two-tiered and one-tiered testing protocols.
OBJECTIVE
The Fourth International Workshop on Gestational Diabetes recently suggested that two techniques, a 2-tiered protocol and a 1-tiered protocol, to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus are acceptable alternatives. This study was undertaken to compare the direct costs and patient time expenditures associated with implementing both techniques.


METHODS
A MEDLINE search was undertaken to determine the prevalence of positive and negative screening results. Direct costs of testing were estimated by determining the range of supply costs from manufacturers' catalogs and the labor costs by estimating the time required to perform each procedure and multiplying by the appropriate range of wages; these costs were then multiplied by the appropriate range of the number of procedures required to implement both protocols, and the totals were summed. Patient time expended was estimated by assigning test times of 1, 2, and 3 hours for the 50-g screening glucose challenge test, the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, and the 100-g oral glucose tolerance test, respectively. If additional visits were required, 2 travel-time units were assigned each time a patient underwent a procedure. These units were multiplied by the range of patients undergoing various tests to implement the alternative protocols.


RESULTS
We identified low and high direct costs, test times, and travel units per patient screened by the 1- and 2-tiered testing protocols. Low and high direct costs were $3.46 and $7.88, respectively, for the 2-tiered protocol and $5.64 and $10.88, respectively, for the 1-tiered protocol (relative ratios, 1.63 for low direct costs in each protocol and 1.38 for high direct costs in each protocol). Low and high test times were 1.4 and 1.5 hours, respectively, for the 2-tiered protocol and 2.0 and 2.0 hours, respectively, for the 1-tiered protocol (relative ratios, 1.47 for low test times in each protocol and 1.32 for high test times in each protocol). Low and high travel units for the 2-tiered protocol were 0.2 and 0.3, respectively, when the glucose challenge test was given at the prenatal visit, and 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, when the test was not given at that time. Low and high travel units for the 1-tiered protocol were 8.3 and 5.8, respectively, when the glucose challenge test was given at the prenatal visit, and 0.89 and 0.85, respectively, when the test was not given at that time.


CONCLUSIONS
The 2-tiered protocol appears to be associated with lower direct implementation costs and less patient time expenditure than the 1-tiered scheme. The 1-tiered protocol is associated with slightly less travel time, but this is unlikely to offset the test time advantage of the 2-tiered protocol. Until further data regarding the relative clinical utility of the 2 protocols become available, these factors may be important for clinicians in deciding which screening format to follow.
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Summa Health System and Akron General Medical Center, and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 44304, USA.
J P
JP
Lavin
B
B
Lavin
N
N
O'Donnell
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016640:Diabetes, Gestational / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics*; D005260:Female; D005951:Glucose Tolerance Test / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics; D011247:Pregnancy; D013997:Time Factors