Economic implications of unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning in the United States and the cost and benefit of CO detectors - 10/03/18
, Tursynbek Nurmagambetov, PhD, Kanta Sircar, PhDAbstract |
Background |
Unintentional non-fire-related (UNFR) carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning has been among the leading causes of poisoning in the United States. Current estimation of its economic burden is important for an optimal allocation of resources for UNFR CO poisoning prevention.
Objective |
This study was to estimate the morbidity costs of UNFR CO poisoning. We also compared the costs and benefits of installing CO detectors in residences.
Methods |
We used 2010–2014 charges and cost data from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), and Truven© Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental data. We directly measured the morbidity cost as the summation of costs for different healthcare services. Benefit of installing CO detector was estimated by summing up the avoidable morbidity cost and mortality cost (value of life). Cost of CO detectors was calculated using the average market price of CO detectors. We also calculated the benefit-to-cost ratio by dividing the benefit by its cost. All expenditures were converted into 2013 U.S. dollars.
Results |
For UNFR CO poisoning, total annual medical cost ranged from $33.6 to $37.7 million. Annual non-health-sector costs varied from $3.7 to almost $4.4 million. The benefit-to-cost ratio can be as high as 7.2 to 1.
Conclusion |
UNFR CO poisoning causes substantial economic burden in the U.S. The benefit of using CO detectors in homes to prevent UNFR CO poisoning can considerably exceed the cost of installation. Public health programs could use these findings to promote broad installation of CO detectors in homes.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Abbreviations : UNFR, CO, NIS, NEDS, HCUP, ED, COBRA, ICD-9-CM, E-codes, SAS, VSL
Keywords : Unintentional non-fire carbon monoxide poisoning, Economic cost, Carbon monoxide detectors
Plan
| ☆ | The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. |
| ☆☆ | This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. |
Vol 36 - N° 3
P. 414-419 - mars 2018 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Impact of implementation of the HEART pathway using an electronic clinical decision support tool in a community hospital setting
- Peter B. Smulowitz, Yotam Dizitzer, Sarah Tadiri, Lara Thibodeau, Liudvikas Jagminas, Victor Novack
- Predicting 72-hour emergency department revisits
- Gene Pellerin, Kelly Gao, Laurence Kaminsky
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?