PURPOSE: Evidence supports the effectiveness of speech-language treatment for individuals with aphasia, yet less is known about the cost-effectiveness of such treatments. The purpose of this study was to examine the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of aphasia treatment using previously published data. METHOD: The authors completed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis using experimental data that they extracted from 19 previously published aphasia treatment studies. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated based on participants' pre- and posttreatment proficiency scores. RESULTS: The average cost-effectiveness ratio for all sessions was $9.54 for each 1% increase in the outcome of interest. Measures of incremental cost-effectiveness indicated that aphasia treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements up to and including 17 treatment sessions. Increases in proficiency occurred at a cost of approximately $7.00 per 1% increase for the first 3 sessions to more than $20.00 in the 14th session; the ratio was either not statistically significant or dominated (more costly and less effective) in later sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that initial aphasia treatment sessions resulted in relatively larger and more cost-effective benefits than did later aphasia treatment sessions. The findings reported here are preliminary and have limitations. Prospective studies are needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of speech-language treatment for individuals with aphasia.
PURPOSE: Evidence supports the effectiveness of speech-language treatment for individuals with aphasia, yet less is known about the cost-effectiveness of such treatments. The purpose of this study was to examine the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of aphasia treatment using previously published data. METHOD: The authors completed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis using experimental data that they extracted from 19 previously published aphasia treatment studies. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated based on participants' pre- and posttreatment proficiency scores. RESULTS: The average cost-effectiveness ratio for all sessions was $9.54 for each 1% increase in the outcome of interest. Measures of incremental cost-effectiveness indicated that aphasia treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements up to and including 17 treatment sessions. Increases in proficiency occurred at a cost of approximately $7.00 per 1% increase for the first 3 sessions to more than $20.00 in the 14th session; the ratio was either not statistically significant or dominated (more costly and less effective) in later sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that initial aphasia treatment sessions resulted in relatively larger and more cost-effective benefits than did later aphasia treatment sessions. The findings reported here are preliminary and have limitations. Prospective studies are needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of speech-language treatment for individuals with aphasia.