Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep;132(3):e595-603.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0332. Epub 2013 Aug 5.

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for critical congenital heart disease in US newborns

Cora Peterson  1 , Scott D Grosse, Matthew E Oster, Richard S Olney, Cynthia H Cassell
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for critical congenital heart disease in US newborns

Cora Peterson et al. Pediatrics. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical evidence indicates newborn critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) screening through pulse oximetry is lifesaving. In 2011, CCHD was added to the US Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for newborns. Several states have implemented or are considering screening mandates. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine screening among US newborns unsuspected of having CCHD.

Methods: We developed a cohort model with a time horizon of infancy to estimate the inpatient medical costs and health benefits of CCHD screening. Model inputs were derived from new estimates of hospital screening costs and inpatient care for infants with late-detected CCHD, defined as no diagnosis at the birth hospital. We estimated the number of newborns with CCHD detected at birth hospitals and life-years saved with routine screening compared with no screening.

Results: Screening was estimated to incur an additional cost of $6.28 per newborn, with incremental costs of $20 862 per newborn with CCHD detected at birth hospitals and $40 385 per life-year gained (2011 US dollars). We estimated 1189 more newborns with CCHD would be identified at birth hospitals and 20 infant deaths averted annually with screening. Another 1975 false-positive results not associated with CCHD were estimated to occur, although these results had a minimal impact on total estimated costs.

Conclusions: This study provides the first US cost-effectiveness analysis of CCHD screening in the United States could be reasonably cost-effective. We anticipate data from states that have recently approved or initiated CCHD screening will become available over the next few years to refine these projections.

Keywords: congenital heart defects; costs and cost analysis; neonatal screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cohort state transition model of routine screening for CCHD in the United States.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of cost per life-year gained.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mahle WT, Martin GR, Beekman RH, III, Morrow WR Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Executive Committee. Endorsement of Health and Human Services recommendation for pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):190–192. - PubMed
    1. Mahle WT, Newburger JW, Matherne GP, et al. Role of pulse oximetry in examining newborns for congenital heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):823–836. - PubMed
    1. Chang RK, Gurvitz M, Rodriguez S. Missed diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162 (10):969–974. - PubMed
    1. State of California, Department of Public Health, Birth Records. [Accessed May 18, 2012];Birth Statistical Data Tables: Table 2-1: Number of live births by age of mother, California, 1960–2005 (by place of residence) Available at: www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/StatewideBirth-StatisticalDataTabl....
    1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: preliminary data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;60(2):1–25. - PubMed