Donald L. Chi is with the Department of Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle. David N. van der Goes is with the Department of Economics, College of Arts and Sciences and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. John P. Ney is with the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Washington.
Am J Public Health. 2014 Mar;104(3):555-61. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301588. Epub 2014 Jan 16.
We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of 2 primary molar sealant strategies-always seal and never seal-with standard care for Medicaid-enrolled children.
We used Iowa Medicaid claims data (2008-2011), developed a tooth-level Markov model for 10 000 teeth, and compared costs, treatment avoided, and incremental cost per treatment avoided for the 2 sealant strategies with standard care.
In 10 000 simulated teeth, standard care cost $214 510, always seal cost $232 141, and never seal cost $186 010. Relative to standard care, always seal reduced the number of restorations to 340 from 2389, whereas never seal increased restorations to 2853. Compared with standard care, always seal cost $8.12 per restoration avoided (95% confidence interval [CI] = $4.10, $12.26; P ≤ .001). Compared with never seal, standard care cost $65.62 per restoration avoided (95% CI = $52.99, $78.26; P ≤ .001).
Relative to standard care, always sealing primary molars is more costly but reduces subsequent dental treatment. Never sealing costs less but leads to more treatment. State Medicaid programs that do not currently reimburse dentists for primary molar sealants should consider reimbursement for primary molar sealant procedures as a population-based strategy to prevent tooth decay and reduce later treatment needs in vulnerable young children.
我们比较了两种针对参加医疗补助计划的儿童的恒磨牙窝沟封闭策略(始终封闭和从不封闭)与标准护理相比的增量成本效益。
我们使用爱荷华州医疗补助索赔数据(2008-2011 年),为 10000 颗牙齿开发了一个牙齿水平的马尔可夫模型,并比较了两种窝沟封闭策略与标准护理的成本、避免的治疗和每例避免治疗的增量成本。
在 10000 颗模拟牙齿中,标准护理的成本为 214510 美元,始终封闭的成本为 232141 美元,从不封闭的成本为 186010 美元。与标准护理相比,始终封闭将修复数量从 2389 减少到 340,而从不封闭则将修复数量增加到 2853。与标准护理相比,始终封闭每避免一次修复的成本为 8.12 美元(95%置信区间 [CI] = 4.10 美元,12.26 美元;P ≤.001)。与从不封闭相比,标准护理每避免一次修复的成本为 65.62 美元(95%CI = 52.99 美元,78.26 美元;P ≤.001)。
与标准护理相比,始终封闭恒磨牙的成本更高,但可减少后续的牙科治疗。从不封闭的成本较低,但会导致更多的治疗。目前不向牙医报销恒磨牙窝沟封闭费用的州医疗补助计划应考虑为恒磨牙窝沟封闭程序报销费用,作为一种基于人群的策略,以预防儿童龋齿并减少弱势幼儿的后期治疗需求。