Lisa Feuchtbaum1, George Cunningham. 1. Genetic Disease Branch, California Department of Health Services, Richmond, CA 94804, USA. lfeuchtb@dhs.ca.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: On the basis of California's experience implementing a pilot tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) screening program, an economic evaluation was conducted to determine the economic benefits and costs of a statewide MS/MS screening program. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness, benefit/cost, and cost-utility analyses were conducted with a base-case set of assumptions. The base-case assumptions were varied by using a set of more-favorable and less-favorable assumptions to test the robustness of the analysis findings. RESULTS: The total estimated, annualized, incremental costs of MS/MS screening of 540,000 births in California were nearly $5.7 million; 83 affected newborns would be identified. Screening would reduce the expected lifetime costs of medical care for affected newborns by $7.2 million ($9.0 million in the best-case scenario and $1.8 million in the worst-case scenario). When all program costs and savings were considered, screening saved $1.5 million ($3.4 million saved in the best-case scenario and $3.8 million additional costs in the worst-case scenario). With only incremental program costs, the cost per life saved was $708,000 and the cost per case detected was $68,000. With consideration of the projected lifetime medical care costs, the total cost per case detected was $132,000. MS/MS screening produced a benefit/cost ratio of $9.32 ($11.67 with the best-case set of assumptions and $4.34 with the worst-case set of assumptions). In this analysis, the benefits of screening exceeded total program costs by $47.1 million (the net incremental benefit). In the worst-case scenario, the net incremental benefit of screening was $18.9 million. Screening saved 949 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and saved $1628 per QALY in the base case analysis. Under the worst-case scenario, the cost per QALY was $14,922. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the benefits of MS/MS screening outweighed the costs and that the net benefits were significant and robust in various scenarios with various conservative underlying assumptions.
OBJECTIVE: On the basis of California's experience implementing a pilot tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) screening program, an economic evaluation was conducted to determine the economic benefits and costs of a statewide MS/MS screening program. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness, benefit/cost, and cost-utility analyses were conducted with a base-case set of assumptions. The base-case assumptions were varied by using a set of more-favorable and less-favorable assumptions to test the robustness of the analysis findings. RESULTS: The total estimated, annualized, incremental costs of MS/MS screening of 540,000 births in California were nearly $5.7 million; 83 affected newborns would be identified. Screening would reduce the expected lifetime costs of medical care for affected newborns by $7.2 million ($9.0 million in the best-case scenario and $1.8 million in the worst-case scenario). When all program costs and savings were considered, screening saved $1.5 million ($3.4 million saved in the best-case scenario and $3.8 million additional costs in the worst-case scenario). With only incremental program costs, the cost per life saved was $708,000 and the cost per case detected was $68,000. With consideration of the projected lifetime medical care costs, the total cost per case detected was $132,000. MS/MS screening produced a benefit/cost ratio of $9.32 ($11.67 with the best-case set of assumptions and $4.34 with the worst-case set of assumptions). In this analysis, the benefits of screening exceeded total program costs by $47.1 million (the net incremental benefit). In the worst-case scenario, the net incremental benefit of screening was $18.9 million. Screening saved 949 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and saved $1628 per QALY in the base case analysis. Under the worst-case scenario, the cost per QALY was $14,922. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the benefits of MS/MS screening outweighed the costs and that the net benefits were significant and robust in various scenarios with various conservative underlying assumptions.
Authors: Maria D Karaceper; Sara D Khangura; Kumanan Wilson; Doug Coyle; Marni Brownell; Christine Davies; Linda Dodds; Annette Feigenbaum; Deshayne B Fell; Scott D Grosse; Astrid Guttmann; Steven Hawken; Robin Z Hayeems; Jonathan B Kronick; Anne-Marie Laberge; Julian Little; Aizeddin Mhanni; John J Mitchell; Meranda Nakhla; Murray Potter; Chitra Prasad; Cheryl Rockman-Greenberg; Rebecca Sparkes; Sylvia Stockler; Keiko Ueda; Hilary Vallance; Brenda J Wilson; Pranesh Chakraborty; Beth K Potter Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Carmencita D Padilla; Bradford L Therrell; Maria Melanie Liberty B Alcausin; Mary Anne D Chiong; Mary Ann R Abacan; Ma Elouisa L Reyes; Charity M Jomento; Maria Truda T Dizon-Escoreal; Margarita Aziza E Canlas; Michelle E Abadingo; J Edgar Winston C Posecion; Conchita G Abarquez; Alma P Andal; Anna Lea G Elizaga; Bernadette C Halili-Mendoza; Maria Paz Virginia K Otayza; David S Millington Journal: Int J Neonatal Screen Date: 2022-01-19
Authors: Johannes Pfeil; Stefan Listl; Georg F Hoffmann; Stefan Kölker; Martin Lindner; Peter Burgard Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.123