A cost-utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: are the benefits worth the cost?
The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing two treatment approaches: (1) hearing aid use alone (HA) and (2) hearing aid use with short-term group postfitting audiologic rehabilitation (HA + AR). A total of 105 veterans, 67 males and 38 females, with at least a mild sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. The SF-36V was administered to each participant before and after treatment. This instrument measures both mental component summary (MCS) scales and physical component summary (PCS) scales of quality of life. As a whole, the participants exhibited a statistically significant improvement in mean MCS scores pre- to postintervention, with average improvements of 1.4 and 3.0 points for the HA and HA + AR groups, respectively. With the use of the MCS scores, the results of a cost-utility analysis revealed that HA treatment cost $60.00 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, while HA + AR cost only $31.91 per QALY gained, making HA + AR the more cost-effective treatment.
Abrams
Harvey
H
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Audiology and Speech Pathology Service, Bay Pines, FL 33744, USA. harvey.abrams@med.va.gov
Chisolm
Theresa Hnath
TH
McArdle
Rachel
R
D000328:Adult; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D005260:Female; D006310:Hearing Aids / Q000191:economics*; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000191:economics* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012046:Rehabilitation / Q000191:economics