Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment alternatives for beef bulls with preputial prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an economic model for comparing cost-effectiveness of medical and surgical treatment versus replacement of beef bulls with preputial prolapse.

DESIGN

Economic analysis.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Estimates determined from medical records of bulls treated for preputial prolapse at our hospital and from information about treatment of bulls published elsewhere.

PROCEDURE

Annual depreciation cost for treatment (ADC(T)) and replacement (ADC(R)) were calculated. Total investment for an injured bull equaled the sum of salvage value, maintenance cost, and expected cost of the treatment option under consideration. Total investment for a replacement bull was purchase price. Net present value of cost was calculated for each year of bull use. Sensitivity analyses were constructed to determine the value that would warrant treatment of an injured bull.

RESULTS

The decision to treat was indicated when ADC(T) was less than ADC(R). In our example, it was more cost-effective for owners to cull an injured bull. The ADC(R) was $97 less than ADC(T) for medical treatment ($365 vs $462) and $280 less than ADC(T) for surgical treatment ($365 vs $645). Likewise, net present value of cost values indicated that it was more cost-effective for owners to cull an injured bull. Sensitivity analysis indicated treatment decisions were justified on the basis of replacement value or planned number of breeding seasons remaining for the bull.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The model described here can be used by practitioners to provide an objective basis to guide decision making of owners who seek advice on whether to treat or replace bulls with preputial prolapse.