Objective: This analysis was designed to provide a systematic method to estimate the costs of childhood blood lead screening comparing the cost of blood lead testing using hand-held anoidic stripping voltammetry (HASV) in a private clinical pediatric office with graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAAS) in a centralized laboratory. . Methods: We used decision analysis to compare the technologies. The primary analysis was conducted from a societal perspective with estimates from the medical literature and Massachusetts Blood Lead Testing Laboratory.
Results: We found the cost of screening a child for lead poisoning using GFAAS in a large central laboratory lower than the cost of HASV whether all costs or only direct costs of testing a child, laboratory and health care provider time, are considered. The model was sensitive to the methods' specificity and sensitivity, number of specimens and the costs of disposables.
Conclusions: For health care providers with access to a large centralized laboratory, GFAAS is the preferred alternative. In settings where high volume, timely GFAAS testing is not available, HASV provides a reasonable methodology for childhood blood lead screening programs.
Learning Objectives: Participants will be prepared to analyze site specific costs associated with use of lead testing technologies
Keywords: Lead, Cost Issues
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: LeadCare analyzer
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.