Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program

Michael P Gorga, K. Preissler, J. Simmons, L. Walker, B. Hoover

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. It follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-112
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Volume12
Issue number2
StatePublished - Nov 20 2001

Fingerprint

Newborn Infant
Costs and Cost Analysis
Brain Stem Auditory Evoked Potentials
Hearing
Disposable Equipment
Parturition
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Follow-up costs
  • Program costs
  • Universal newborn hearing screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program. / Gorga, Michael P; Preissler, K.; Simmons, J.; Walker, L.; Hoover, B.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 12, No. 2, 20.11.2001, p. 101-112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gorga, MP, Preissler, K, Simmons, J, Walker, L & Hoover, B 2001, 'Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program', Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 101-112.
Gorga, Michael P ; Preissler, K. ; Simmons, J. ; Walker, L. ; Hoover, B. / Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program. In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2001 ; Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 101-112.
@article{63a85fe8b13f4066bbcd16ec7a7217b7,
title = "Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program",
abstract = "This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. It follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.",
keywords = "Follow-up costs, Program costs, Universal newborn hearing screening",
author = "Gorga, {Michael P} and K. Preissler and J. Simmons and L. Walker and B. Hoover",
year = "2001",
month = "11",
day = "20",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "101--112",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Audiology",
issn = "1050-0545",
publisher = "American Academy of Audiology",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn heaing screening program

AU - Gorga, Michael P

AU - Preissler, K.

AU - Simmons, J.

AU - Walker, L.

AU - Hoover, B.

PY - 2001/11/20

Y1 - 2001/11/20

N2 - This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. It follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.

AB - This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. It follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.

KW - Follow-up costs

KW - Program costs

KW - Universal newborn hearing screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034757713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034757713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 101

EP - 112

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

SN - 1050-0545

IS - 2

ER -