Benefit-Cost Analyses of Hearing Aids, Over-the-Counter Hearing Devices, and Hearing Care Services.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
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.

助听器、非处方听力设备和听力保健服务的效益成本分析。
目的:听力保健服务的可及性有限,这对患有听力损失的老年人的就地健康养老构成了威胁。本研究采用 "支付意愿"(WTP)方法,通过效益成本分析确定处方先进数字技术(ADT)助听器、非处方(OTC)听力设备和康复服务的效益和价值:本研究是一项横断面调查,对两家独立听力诊所的助听器用户进行了病历审查。70位助听器用户(回复率:15.6%)提供了他们对ADT处方助听器、OTC听力设备和听力康复服务的WTP。使用确定性和探索性方法计算了效益成本比和净社会效益。效益成本比和净社会效益的点估算值采用自举取样法(N = 5,000)得出:ADT处方助听器和康复服务的WTP中位数分别为2000美元和250美元。非处方药设备的 WTP 最低(中位数 = 0 美元;最高 = 500 美元)。当自付费用保持在较低水平时,ADT 处方助听器、非处方药和听力康复服务的效益成本比和净社会效益有利于这些干预措施。效益成本分析也得出了有利于 ADT 处方助听器干预的结果,每台设备的成本高达 1,530 美元:WTP结果表明,研究中的所有干预措施都具有可衡量的消费者感知利益。效益成本分析结果有利于干预措施,但仅限于成本低于市场价格的情况。听力保健服务的效益成本分析结果表明,当听力保健服务作为综合康复计划的一部分提供时,其价值是显而易见的,这也为未来医疗政策的改变提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Audiology
American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信