Ear, nose, and throat surgical access for remote living Indigenous children

what is the least costly model?

Susan P. Jacups*, Irina Kinchin, Kate M. McConnon

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1330-1338
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume24
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018

Keywords

  • audiometry
  • cost
  • model of care
  • otitis media with effusion/*therapy
  • otologic surgical procedures
  • TeleHealth

Cite this