Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Newborn Hearing Screening in Bavaria—Is It Possible to Reach the Quality Parameters?
Previous Article in Journal
Current State of the Art of Newborn Screening for Lysosomal Storage Disorders
Previous Article in Special Issue
Potential Benefit of Selective CMV Testing after Failed Newborn Hearing Screening
Open AccessReview

What Contribution Did Economic Evidence Make to the Adoption of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Policies in the United States?

1
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mail Stop E-87, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA
2
College of Education and Human Development, University of Maine, Orono, ME 00469, USA
3
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80045, USA
4
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM), Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
5
Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2018, 4(3), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns4030025
Received: 25 May 2018 / Revised: 13 July 2018 / Accepted: 17 July 2018 / Published: 20 July 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Newborn Hearing Screening)
Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), when accompanied by timely access to intervention services, can improve language outcomes for children born deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) and result in economic benefits to society. Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs promote UNHS and using information systems support access to follow-up diagnostic and early intervention services so that infants can be screened no later than 1 month of age, with those who do not pass their screen receiving diagnostic evaluation no later than 3 months of age, and those with diagnosed hearing loss receiving intervention services no later than 6 months of age. In this paper, we first document the rapid roll-out of UNHS/EHDI policies and programs at the national and state/territorial levels in the United States between 1997 and 2005. We then review cost analyses and economic arguments that were made in advancing those policies in the United States. Finally, we examine evidence on language and educational outcomes that pertain to the economic benefits of UNHS/EHDI. In conclusion, although formal cost-effectiveness analyses do not appear to have played a decisive role, informal economic assessments of costs and benefits appear to have contributed to the adoption of UNHS policies in the United States. View Full-Text
Keywords: cost-effectiveness; cost analysis; EHDI; neonatal screening; hearing screening cost-effectiveness; cost analysis; EHDI; neonatal screening; hearing screening
MDPI and ACS Style

Grosse, S.D.; Mason, C.A.; Gaffney, M.; Thomson, V.; White, K.R. What Contribution Did Economic Evidence Make to the Adoption of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Policies in the United States? Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2018, 4, 25.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop