Anna Marie Jilla, Carole E Johnson, Jonathan D Baldwin, Nick Huntington-Klein
{"title":"Benefit-Cost Analyses of Hearing Aids, Over-the-Counter Hearing Devices, and Hearing Care Services.","authors":"Anna Marie Jilla, Carole E Johnson, Jonathan D Baldwin, Nick Huntington-Klein","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-23-00262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Limited accessibility to hearing health care threatens healthy aging in place for older adults with hearing loss. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach was used to determine benefits and value of prescription advanced digital technology (ADT) hearing aids, over-the-counter (OTC) hearing devices, and rehabilitative services using benefit-cost analyses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study was a cross-sectional survey with chart review of hearing aid users at two independent audiology practices. Seventy hearing aid users (response rate: 15.6%) provided their WTP for ADT prescription hearing aids, OTC hearing devices, and hearing rehabilitative services. Benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit were calculated using deterministic and exploratory approaches. Point estimates for benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit were derived using bootstrap sampling with replacement (<i>N</i> = 5,000).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median WTP for ADT prescription hearing aids and rehabilitative services were $2,000 and $250, respectively. WTP was lowest for OTC devices (<i>Mdn</i> = $0; maximum = $500). Benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit for ADT prescription hearing aids, OTC devices, and hearing rehabilitative services favored these interventions when out-of-pocket costs remained low. Benefit-cost analyses also produced results favoring prescription ADT hearing aid intervention with costs as high as $1,530 per device.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>WTP results indicated that all interventions under study have a measurable consumer-perceived benefit. Results of benefit-cost analyses favored the interventions but only when costs were lower than market prices. The benefit-cost analysis results for hearing care services underscore their value when provided as part of a comprehensive rehabilitative plan that may inform future health policy changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-23-00262","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Limited accessibility to hearing health care threatens healthy aging in place for older adults with hearing loss. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach was used to determine benefits and value of prescription advanced digital technology (ADT) hearing aids, over-the-counter (OTC) hearing devices, and rehabilitative services using benefit-cost analyses.
Method: This study was a cross-sectional survey with chart review of hearing aid users at two independent audiology practices. Seventy hearing aid users (response rate: 15.6%) provided their WTP for ADT prescription hearing aids, OTC hearing devices, and hearing rehabilitative services. Benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit were calculated using deterministic and exploratory approaches. Point estimates for benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit were derived using bootstrap sampling with replacement (N = 5,000).
Results: Median WTP for ADT prescription hearing aids and rehabilitative services were $2,000 and $250, respectively. WTP was lowest for OTC devices (Mdn = $0; maximum = $500). Benefit-cost ratios and net social benefit for ADT prescription hearing aids, OTC devices, and hearing rehabilitative services favored these interventions when out-of-pocket costs remained low. Benefit-cost analyses also produced results favoring prescription ADT hearing aid intervention with costs as high as $1,530 per device.
Conclusions: WTP results indicated that all interventions under study have a measurable consumer-perceived benefit. Results of benefit-cost analyses favored the interventions but only when costs were lower than market prices. The benefit-cost analysis results for hearing care services underscore their value when provided as part of a comprehensive rehabilitative plan that may inform future health policy changes.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.