↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Milbank Quarterly, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience
Published in
Milbank Quarterly, June 2016
DOI 10.1111/1468-0009.12196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott D Grosse, John D Thompson, Yao Ding, Michael Glass

Abstract

Newborn screening not only saves lives but can also yield net societal economic benefit, in addition to benefits such as improved quality of life to affected individuals and families. Calculations of net economic benefit from newborn screening include the monetary equivalent of avoided deaths and reductions in costs of care for complications associated with late-diagnosed individuals minus the additional costs of screening, diagnosis, and treatment associated with prompt diagnosis. Since 2001 the Washington State Department of Health has successfully implemented an approach to conducting evidence-based economic evaluations of disorders proposed for addition to the state-mandated newborn screening panel. Economic evaluations can inform policy decisions on the expansion of newborn screening panels. This article documents the use of cost-benefit models in Washington State as part of the rule-making process that resulted in the implementation of screening for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and 4 other metabolic disorders in 2004, cystic fibrosis (CF) in 2006, 15 other metabolic disorders in 2008, and severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) in 2014. We reviewed Washington State Department of Health internal reports and spreadsheet models of expected net societal benefit of adding disorders to the state newborn screening panel. We summarize the assumptions and findings for 2 models (MCAD and CF) and discuss them in relation to findings in the peer-reviewed literature. The MCAD model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 3.4 to 1 based on assumptions of a 20.0 percentage point reduction in infant mortality and a 13.9 percentage point reduction in serious developmental disability. The CF model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 4.0-5.4 to 1 for a discount rate of 3%-4% and a plausible range of 1-2 percentage point reductions in deaths up to age 10 years. The Washington State cost-benefit models of newborn screening were broadly consistent with peer-reviewed literature, and their findings of net benefit appear to be robust to uncertainty in parameters. Public health newborn screening programs can develop their own capacity to project expected costs and benefits of expansion of newborn screening panels, although it would be most efficient if this capacity were shared among programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Researcher 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Professor 4 4%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,778,730
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Milbank Quarterly
#760
of 1,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,429
of 355,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Milbank Quarterly
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.