IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i5d10.1007_s10198-021-01393-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Cutler

    (Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy)

  • Mutsa Gumbie

    (Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy)

  • Emma Olin

    (Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy)

  • Bonny Parkinson

    (Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy)

  • Ross Bowman

    (Health Technology Analysts)

  • Hafsa Quadri

    (Cochlear Limited)

  • Timothy Mann

    (Cochlear Limited)

Abstract

Objective The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its eligibility criteria for unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) in 2019. NICE claimed this would not impact the cost-effectiveness results used within its 2009 technology appraisal guidance. This claim is uncertain given changed clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness estimates of UCIs in UK adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary NHS environment. Methods A cost–utility analysis employing a Markov model was undertaken to compare UCIs with hearing aids or no hearing aids for people with severe to profound hearing loss. A clinical pathway was developed to estimate resource use. Health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades and device failure were captured. Unit costs were derived mostly from the NHS data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further assessed the effect of uncertain model inputs. Results A UCI is likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (£11,946/QALY) or no hearing aid (£10,499/QALY). A UCI has an 93.0% and 98.7% likelihood of being cost-effective within the UK adult population when compared to a hearing aid or no hearing aid, respectively. ICERs were mostly sensitive to the proportion of people eligible for cochlear implant, discount rate, surgery and device costs and processor upgrade cost. Conclusion UCIs remain cost-effective despite changes to clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Updating the NICE criteria to provide better access UCIs is projected to increase annual implants in adults and children by 70% and expenditure by £28.6 million within three years. This increased access to UCIs will further improve quality of life of recipients and overall social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Cutler & Mutsa Gumbie & Emma Olin & Bonny Parkinson & Ross Bowman & Hafsa Quadri & Timothy Mann, 2022. "The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(5), pages 763-779, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01393-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01393-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01393-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01393-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Briggs & Ron Goeree & Gord Blackhouse & Bernie O'Brien, 2001. "Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for Gastro-Esophogeal Reflux Disease," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2001-01, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    2. Piers Dawes & Richard Emsley & Karen J Cruickshanks & David R Moore & Heather Fortnum & Mark Edmondson-Jones & Abby McCormack & Kevin J Munro, 2015. "Hearing Loss and Cognition: The Role of Hearing Aids, Social Isolation and Depression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Pienkowski, 2021. "Loud Music and Leisure Noise Is a Common Cause of Chronic Hearing Loss, Tinnitus and Hyperacusis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Mark Spreckley & David Macleod & Brenda González Trampe & Andrew Smith & Hannah Kuper, 2020. "Impact of Hearing Aids on Poverty, Quality of Life and Mental Health in Guatemala: Results of a before and after Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, May.
    3. Anna K. Stuck & Stephan Born & Andreas E. Stuck & Martin Kompis, 2023. "Potentially Inadequate Real-Life Speech Levels by Healthcare Professionals during Communication with Older Inpatients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-9, March.
    4. So Young Kim & Hyung-Jong Kim & Min-Su Kim & Bumjung Park & Jin-Hwan Kim & Hyo Geun Choi, 2017. "Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. So Young Kim & Hyung-Jong Kim & Eun-Kyu Park & Jiwon Joe & Songyong Sim & Hyo Geun Choi, 2017. "Severe hearing impairment and risk of depression: A national cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost–utility; Cochlear implant; Hearing aid; Hearing loss; Economic evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01393-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.