Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Assessment and Evaluation of the High Risk Neonate: The NICU Network Neurobehavioral Scale
Published on: August 25, 2014
Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn hearing screening program
M P Gorga1, K Preissler, J Simmons
1Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska 68131, USA.
Insights
Establishing a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program is cost-effective. Screening newborns using otoacoustic emissions (OAE) followed by auditory brainstem response (ABR) for infants who fail OAE testing is the most economical approach.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Public Health
- Healthcare Economics
Background:
- Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) programs aim to identify hearing loss early.
- Accurate estimation of test sensitivity and specificity is crucial for program effectiveness.
- Programmatic costs encompass equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the cost-effectiveness of different UNHS protocols.
- To determine the financial feasibility of implementing UNHS programs in hospitals of varying sizes.
Main Methods:
- Comparative cost analysis of three screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and a combined OAE/ABR approach.
- Estimation of costs based on the number of births per year and inclusion of follow-up testing.
- Review of data from a local UNHS program.
Main Results:
- Otoacoustic emissions (OAE) screening alone is less expensive if follow-up costs are excluded.
- When follow-up is included, the OAE followed by ABR protocol is most cost-effective for programs with at least 400 births annually.
- Per-baby costs are estimated to be under $30, decreasing with increased screening volume.
Conclusions:
- Universal newborn hearing screening can be implemented cost-effectively.
- The combined OAE/ABR protocol offers the lowest cost for programs screening 400 or more infants annually.
- Even with unique program features like audiologist-led screening, costs remain below $30 per infant.
Abstract:
This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. If follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.
