A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hearing Aids, Including the Benefits of Reducing the Symptoms of Dementia

Perspectives on Hearing Aid Cost and Uptake for Prescription and Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Users

PURPOSE

This study explored user perspectives on the relationship between hearing aid cost and uptake, as well as cost-related recommendations for others with hearing difficulties, in a sample of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid users.

METHOD

A secondary analysis was conducted on a cross-sectional survey using qualitative content analysis to analyze responses related to the cost of hearing aids. The study included a total of 241 adult participants, comprising 179 prescription hearing aid users from the Hearing Tracker website and 62 OTC hearing aid users from the Lexie Hearing U.S. database.

RESULTS

Prescription users had a mean age of 66.7 years (SD = 13.2), including 62.0% males, 37.4% females, and 0.6% nonbinary individuals. OTC users had a mean age of 63.0 years (SD = 13.4), with 48.4% males and 51.6% females. Three overarching domains were identified: perceived enablers to hearing aid uptake related to the cost, perceived barriers to hearing aid uptake related to the cost, and recommendations to others with hearing difficulties related to the cost, with 14 categories recognized for prescription users and 12 for OTC users. Both groups identified the high cost of hearing aids and lack of insurance coverage as significant barriers to uptake. Many prescription users reported external support (e.g., financial support and health insurance coverage) as an enabler, while OTC users frequently mentioned the affordability of OTC devices. The most common recommendation among prescription users was to seek professional support, whereas OTC users recommended researching hearing aids before making a purchase.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost and insurance coverage consistently emerge as primary barriers to hearing aid adoption for both prescription and OTC users. To foster greater accessibility, initiatives should target these financial obstacles. Additional research is warranted on the relationship between hearing aid cost and uptake, especially among OTC users and those seeking financial assistance.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26496922.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office.

METHODS

Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Age-Related Hearing Loss and the Development of Cognitive Impairment and Late-Life Depression: A Scoping Overview

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has been connected to both cognitive decline and late-life depression. Several mechanisms have been offered to explain both individual links. Causal and common mechanisms have been theorized for the relationship between ARHL and impaired cognition, including dementia. The causal mechanisms include increased cognitive load, social isolation, and structural brain changes. Common mechanisms include neurovascular disease as well as other known or as-yet undiscovered neuropathologic processes. Behavioral mechanisms have been used to explain the potentially causal association of ARHL with depression. Behavioral mechanisms include social isolation, loneliness, as well as decreased mobility and impairments of activities of daily living, all of which can increase the risk of depression. The mechanisms underlying the associations between hearing loss and impaired cognition, as well as hearing loss and depression, are likely not mutually exclusive. ARHL may contribute to both impaired cognition and depression through overlapping mechanisms. Furthermore, ARHL may contribute to impaired cognition which may, in turn, contribute to depression. Because ARHL is highly prevalent and greatly undertreated, targeting this condition is an appealing and potentially influential strategy to reduce the risk of developing two potentially devastating diseases of later life. However, further studies are necessary to elucidate the mechanistic relationship between ARHL, depression, and impaired cognition.

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study

BACKGROUND

Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).

METHODS

Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.

RESULTS

There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.

CONCLUSIONS

HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

Behavioral versus Biological Definitions of Dementia Symptoms: Recognizing that Worthwhile Interventions already Exist

BACKGROUND

The 2018 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures special report includes two new guidelines for measuring dementia symptoms. The first requires that a biomarker (biological factor) be added to a doctor's clinical judgment of the cause of symptoms when determining whether dementia is present. The second involves identifying four stages of dementia: normal cognition, preclinical, MCI and dementia. Now only those with defining brain pathologies and significant symptoms will be judged to be persons with stage 4 dementia. This article examines the implications of adopting these two new guidelines. The implications are in terms of whether worthwhile dementia interventions can be said to exist, and the extent to which symptoms have to change for an intervention to be judged to have reduced the prevalence of dementia.

METHODS

A cost-benefit framework is used to examine the implications of the new guidelines. To undertake a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) a measure of dementia symptoms change is required for any intervention to be judged effective. A behavioral measure of dementia symptoms is thought more useful than a biological one. The instrument that is recommended and explained is the clinical dementia rating (CDR) scale, which is measured on a 0-to-18 interval. Using this instrument, three CBAs can be shown to exist, and from a contracted version of the CDR, estimates of the prevalence rates for the four stages of dementia are derived. The implications for future dementia research of using the full CDR instrument is presented in the discussion section.

RESULTS

The three CBAs that are reported and explained are years of education, Medicare eligibility and hearing aids. For each intervention, the analysis is in terms of demonstrating that it is effective, beneficial and socially worthwhile.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a behavioral rather than a biological definition of dementia symptoms, we can show that worthwhile interventions already exist.