Grosse Scott D
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA;
Healthcare (Basel). 2015;3(4):1133-57. doi: 10.3390/healthcare3041133. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
Decision makers sometimes request information on the cost savings, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit of public health programs. In practice, quantifying the health and economic benefits of population-level screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is challenging. It requires that one specify the frequencies of health outcomes and events, such as hospitalizations, for a cohort of children with a given condition under two different scenarios-with or without NBS. Such analyses also assume that everything else, including treatments, is the same between groups. Lack of comparable data for representative screened and unscreened cohorts that are exposed to the same treatments following diagnosis can result in either under- or over-statement of differences. Accordingly, the benefits of early detection may be understated or overstated. This paper illustrates these common problems through a review of past economic evaluations of screening for two historically significant conditions, phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis. In both examples qualitative judgments about the value of prompt identification and early treatment to an affected child were more influential than specific numerical estimates of lives or costs saved.
决策者有时会要求提供有关公共卫生项目成本节约、成本效益或成本收益方面的信息。实际上,量化诸如新生儿筛查(NBS)等人群层面筛查项目的健康和经济效益具有挑战性。这要求明确在两种不同情况下(即进行或不进行新生儿筛查),患有特定疾病的一组儿童的健康结局和事件(如住院)发生频率。此类分析还假定,包括治疗在内的其他所有因素在两组之间是相同的。对于具有代表性的已筛查和未筛查队列,在诊断后接受相同治疗但缺乏可比数据,可能会导致对差异的低估或高估。因此,早期检测的益处可能被低估或高估。本文通过回顾过去对苯丙酮尿症和囊性纤维化这两种具有历史意义的疾病筛查的经济评估,来说明这些常见问题。在这两个例子中,对于受影响儿童而言,关于及时识别和早期治疗价值的定性判断,比所挽救生命或节省成本的具体数值估计更具影响力。