Cost-Benefit Analysis of Neonatal Intensive Care for Infants Weighing Less Than 1,000 Grams at Birth

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna-Jean B. Walker ◽  
Allan Feldman ◽  
Betty R. Vohr ◽  
William Oh

Cost-benefit analysis was performed on the care of 247 infants weighing between 500 and 999 g at birth, admitted to Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island between January 1977 and December 1981. The neonatal mortality was 68%. Eighty-seven percent of the survivors were evaluated neurodevelopmentally for 1 to 5 years: 74% were normal or minimally impaired, 10% were moderately impaired, and 16% were severely handicapped. Using these data in conjunction with cost information obtained from the hospital and therapeutic care facilities for handicapped children, total lifetime costs for the care of these infants were estimated. In 1982 dollars, present values of costs ranged from $362,992 per survivor for those weighing between 600 and 699 g to $40,647 per survivor for those weighing between 900 and 999 g, resulting in an inverse correlation between cost per survivor and birth weight (P < .001). We estimated present values of expected lifetime earnings per survivor, with a range of zero earnings for infants between 500 and 699 g, to $77,084 for those with birth weight of 900 to 999 g. It is concluded that from the standpoint of cost-benefit analysis as was used for this study population, neonatal intensive care may not be justifiable for infants weighing less than 900 g at birth.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-799
Author(s):  
LEHMAN E. BLACK ◽  
RICHARD J. DAVID ◽  
DAVID G. MCLONE

To the Editor.— The article by Walker et al1 supports an idea that is becoming commonplace in the medical literature: preserving the lives of certain segments of the population (in this case very low-birth-weight babies) may not be worthwhile, not because we are inflicting pain and suffering on them by our treatments, but because they may constitute a net fiscal burden on society. These authors are even more explicit than most, using a cost-benefit analysis that compares the costs of neonatal intensive care and future medical and educational services to an infant's "expected lifetime earnings" to determine a baby's net worth.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-799
Author(s):  
DONALD N. MANGRAVITE

To the Editor.— I would like to commend Walker and colleagues1 for their comprehensive examination of the costs and benefits of neonatal intensive care for infants weighing less than 1,000 grams. However, examining only one group of infants served by a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) can be misleading. By definition, a tertiary level NICU is designed to provide a broad range of services to infants with a wide variety of illnesses. As is true for any system expected to provide a broad range of services, some services will result in a more favorable cost-benefit ratio than others.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-798
Author(s):  
DANIEL R. NEUSPIEL

To the Editor.— Walker et al1 have contributed to the recent plethora of studies applying cost-benefit analysis to the provision of health care. In using this dangerous method to determine the value of neonatal intensive care, they legitimize the acceptance of cost criteria for the rationing of health services. This approach reduces the measurement of human life to economic productivity and accepts the unproven contention of dwindling societal resources available for health care. Walker et al divided their subjejcts according to their neurodevelopmental evaluation into four categories: normal, (midly imapired, moderately impaired, or severely handicapped).


Resuscitation ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. S43
Author(s):  
Zvi Feigenberg ◽  
Magen David Adom ◽  
G.M. Ginsberg ◽  
E. Karesenty ◽  
M. Siebzehner ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-800
Author(s):  
DONNA-JEAN B. WALKER ◽  
ALLAN FELDMAN ◽  
BETTY R. VOHR ◽  
WILLIAM OH

In Reply.— In response to the comments on our paper1 dealing with the issue of cost-benefit analysis of health care delivery to the very low-birth-weight infants. 1. Neuspiel raised two issues. The first issue refers to placing a dollar value on human life. The final sentence of the abstract of our paper may be read by some to infer that care of infants weighing less than 900 g at birth is not economically beneficial; therefore, these infants should be restricted from receiving this care.


1994 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. W. Holt ◽  
A. D. Bersten ◽  
S. Fuller ◽  
R. K. Piper ◽  
L. I. G. Worthley ◽  
...  

Costing data for intensive care admissions is important, not only for unit funding, but also for cost outcome analysis of new therapies. This paper presents an intensive care episode costing methodology using the example of a cost-benefit analysis of mask CPAP for severe cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (CPO). This analysis examines the intervention of admitting all patients with severe CPO to the intensive care unit for mask CPAP, compared with the previous practice of admitting only patients failing conventional non-CPAP treatment and requiring mechanical ventilation. The episode costs were determined from a prospective study which showed mask CPAP reduced the need for mechanical ventilation from 35% to 0%. The mean cost of a mask CPAP episode was $1,156, with a mean stay of 1.2 days, compared with ventilated patients, $5,055 and 4.2 days. The major contributors to cost in both groups were nursing and medical salaries, and hospital overheads. The cost of previous estimated yearly caseload of 35 ventilated patients ($176,925) was greater than the cost associated with an increased caseload of 100 mask CPAP patients ($115,600). We conclude that, despite an increase in admissions, mask CPAP for severe CPO is cost-effective.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document