Anna Bergevin1, Cathleen D Zick2, Stephanie Browning McVicar3, Albert H Park4. 1. Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States. 2. Department of Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States. Electronic address: zick@fcs.utah.edu. 3. Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States. 4. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we estimate an ex ante cost-benefit analysis of a Utah law directed at improving early cytomegalovirus (CMV) detection. STUDY DESIGN: We use a differential cost of treatment analysis for publicly insured CMV-infected infants detected by a statewide hearing-directed CMV screening program. METHODS: Utah government administrative data and multi-hospital accounting data are used to estimate and compare costs and benefits for the Utah infant population. RESULTS: If antiviral treatment succeeds in mitigating hearing loss for one infant per year, the public savings will offset the public costs incurred by screening and treatment. If antiviral treatment is not successful, the program represents a net cost, but may still have non-monetary benefits such as accelerated achievement of diagnostic milestones. CONCLUSIONS: The CMV education and treatment program costs are modest and show potential for significant cost savings.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we estimate an ex ante cost-benefit analysis of a Utah law directed at improving early cytomegalovirus (CMV) detection. STUDY DESIGN: We use a differential cost of treatment analysis for publicly insured CMV-infected infants detected by a statewide hearing-directed CMV screening program. METHODS: Utah government administrative data and multi-hospital accounting data are used to estimate and compare costs and benefits for the Utah infant population. RESULTS: If antiviral treatment succeeds in mitigating hearing loss for one infant per year, the public savings will offset the public costs incurred by screening and treatment. If antiviral treatment is not successful, the program represents a net cost, but may still have non-monetary benefits such as accelerated achievement of diagnostic milestones. CONCLUSIONS: The CMV education and treatment program costs are modest and show potential for significant cost savings.
Authors: Ladawna L Gievers; Alison Volpe Holmes; Jaspreet Loyal; Ilse A Larson; Carlos R Oliveira; Erik H Waldman; Sheevaun Khaki Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Soren Gantt; David M Goldfarb; Albert Park; William Rawlinson; Suresh B Boppana; Tiziana Lazzarotto; Lawrence M Mertz Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Andrea Ronchi; Fiker Zeray; Lizette E Lee; Kris E Owen; Angela G Shoup; Fabiana Garcia; Liliana N Vazquez; Joseph B Cantey; Shawn Varghese; Lorenza Pugni; Fabio Mosca; Pablo J Sánchez Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 2.521