Cost implications for changing candidacy or access to service within a publicly funded healthcare system?
BACKGROUND
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
a School of Business and Economics , NUI Galway, Galway , Ireland.
Ciaran
C
O'Neill
b University of Derby , Kedleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB , UK.
Brian
B
Lamb
c The Ear Foundation , 83 Sherwin Road, NG7 2FB Nottingham , UK.
Sue
S
Archbold
D019929:Cochlear Implantation / Q000191:economics; D003054:Cochlear Implants / Q000191:economics; D012048:Correction of Hearing Impairment / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D017048:Health Care Costs; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000191:economics* / Q000534:rehabilitation; D006801:Humans; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D018579:Patient Selection; D013222:State Medicine; D006113:United Kingdom
Cochlear implant; Costs; Economic burden; Health economics; Hearing impairment