File(s) not publicly available

Ear, nose, and throat surgical access for remote living Indigenous children: What is the least costly model?

journal contribution
posted on 15.05.2019, 00:00 by Susan Jacups, Irina Kinchin, KM McConnon
Rationale, aims, and objectives: This costing evaluation compares three service delivery models for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery for remote living Indigenous children to improve their hearing outcomes, with the aim to identify the least costly model. Methods: The main outcome measure presented was the incremental cost difference between the base case (Model 1) and two alternative models (Model 2, 3). The costs in 2017 Australian dollars are assessed from two viewpoints: (1) health system perspective, and (2) patients and their families including travel out-of-pocket expenses, presented separately according to the funding source. Results: Findings indicate that the least costly model offered low-risk ENT surgery from a state funded hospital in a remote setting, with high use of videoconference technology: TeleHealth (Model 3) could save $3626 to $5067 per patient, compared with patients travelling to a regional centre public hospital (Model 1). A federally funded scheme which allowed groups of patients to access a direct flight charter transfer to the private hospital in regional centre (Model 2) reduced the cost by $2178 to $2711 per patient when compared with standard care (Model 1). From a societal perspective, Model 1 required out-of-pocket patient expenses, with greater time away from home, and hence appears the least preferred option. Conclusions: The sensitivity analyses also demonstrate that Model 3 would be the more economical model for providing ENT surgery for remote living children. By proving an accurate assessment of the true costs of delivering these important ear and hearing health services, strategic health service planners may be better informed and sufficient budgets can be allocated to provide improved service delivery. The benefits of Model 3, over Models 1 or 2, would also incorporate improvements to patient safety as a result of reducing patient travel, which should in-turn, reduce failure-to-attend rates. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Funding

Category 2 - Other Public Sector Grants Category

History

Volume

24

Issue

6

Start Page

1330

End Page

1338

Number of Pages

9

eISSN

1365-2753

ISSN

1356-1294

Publisher

Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, UK

Peer Reviewed

Yes

Open Access

No

Acceptance Date

03/09/2018

External Author Affiliations

James Cook University; Macquarie University

Author Research Institute

Centre for Indigenous Health Equity Research

Era Eligible

Yes

Journal

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice