Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation

Similar documents
Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay -- Louisiana,

NFIS Advisory. A review of the current cost benefit of community water fluoridation interventions

Updating the Economic Analysis of Community Water Fluoridation

Significant disparities in oral health exist according to. Rural Versus Urban Analysis of Dental Procedures Provided to Virginia Medicaid Recipients

Oral Health in Perth County

Rebecca King, DDS, MPH NC State Dental Director Section Chief, Oral Health Section

Why is oral health important?

Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs: Economic Review. Page 1 of 26. Study Info Intervention Characteristics Population Characteristics

Community Water Fluoridation: What It Is, How It Works, and Why You Should Care

Effects of Preventive Dental Care in Medical Offices on Access To Care for Young Children Enrolled in Medicaid

A Tale of 2 Evidence Based Reviews: Current Evidence on Community Water Fluoridation

Oral Health in Barre District Office and Vermont. Preventive and Access to Care, Risk Factors, and Outcomes

Is fluoridation of drinking water in the United States an effective preventive health care measure?

Oral Health in Oregon

Research Team. Return on Investment to Funding an Adult Dental Medicaid Benefit National Oral Health Conference Tuesday, April 19 th, 2016

AmericanFluoridationSociety.org Building Effective Statewide Teams for Fluoridation

Oral Health in Colorado

Dental Care Remains the No. 1 Unmet Health Care Need for Children and Low-Income Adults

CDHA POSITION STATEMENT: COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION

The Regional Municipality of Halton. Chair and Members of the Health and Social Services Committee

Oral Health: State of the State

Insurance Guide For Dental Healthcare Professionals

The cost-effectiveness of raising the legal smoking age in California Ahmad S

A cost-benefit analysis of an advocacy project to fluoridate toothpastes in Nepal Yee R, McDonald N, Walker D

POSITION STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM NADP PRINCIPLES FOR EXPANDING ACCESS TO DENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS

Health technology Sumatriptan therapy was compared with nontriptan medications in the treatment of acute migraine.

Oral Health and Dental Access in Champaign County: A Report by Champaign County Health Care Consumers

for benefit recipients of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Oral Health Resources Oral Health Home Contact Us

Children s Oral Health and Access to Dental Care in the United States

Teeth, Taxes, and Treatment: Making the Case for Oral Health. Tahoe

Health and economic consequences of HCV lookback Pereira A

Improving the Oral Health of Colorado s Children

b de HPV Vaccination of School-Age Girls comparing the cost-effectiveness of 3 delivery programmes SUMMARY

2015 Social Service Funding Application Non-Alcohol Funds

How to Get Paid for Doing EBD

Water Fluoridation and Dental Health Indicators in Rural and Urban Areas of the United States

Less than 40 percent of Medicaid-enrolled children in the study States received dental care during the study period.

Issue Brief. Eliminating Adult Dental Benefits in Medi-Cal: An Analysis of Impact. Introduction. Background

Non-Dental Health Professionals Addressing Oral Health Disparities

23XX2293 R3/08 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana incorporated as Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company

Jefferson Healthcare Rural Health Dental Clinic

A model to determine the economic viability of water fluoridation

2017 Social Service Funding Application Non-Alcohol Funds

Chair and members of the Board of Health. Dr. Robert Hawkins, Dental Consultant. Andrea Roberts, Director, Family Health

An Analytical Review of the Pew Report Entitled, It Takes A Team and the Accompanying Productivity and Profit Calculator

Delta Dental PPO Plan Benefit Summary

Eligibility and Enrollment

The Case for Fluoridation In Orillia

COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION MYTHBUSTERS

Oral Health Access and Issues in Rural Areas. Diane Brunson, RDH, MPH Director, Public Health University of Colorado Denver School of Dental Medicine

Never has there been a more

Dental Referrals for At Risk School-Age Children Aren t Working: Alternative Strategies

Access to Dental Services in. Reimbursement Rates and Administrative Streamlining

Setting The setting was community. The economic study was carried out in the USA.

Impact of Dental Therapists on Federally Qualified Health Center Finances

Economics of Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Cardiovascular Preventive Services for Patients with High Blood Pressure and High Cholesterol

Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics Tool. User Manual

Cost-effectiveness of a pediatric dengue vaccine Shepard D S, Suaya J A, Halstead S B, Nathan M B, Gubler D J, Mahoney R T, Wang D N, Meltzer M I

A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis Choi H K, Seeger J D, Kuntz K M

Use of Dental Services by Children Enrolled in Wisconsin Medicaid Program

ORAL HEALTH: WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY WATER SUPPLY. 1.1 The Gisborne City water supply is flurodated and has been since approximately the mid 1960 s.

Public Health Dental Program

Paul Glassman DDS, MA, MBA Professor and Director of Community Oral Health University of the Pacific School of Dentistry San Francisco, CA

Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Quitline Interventions

Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Quitline Interventions

Basic and Preventive Care

Community Water Fluoridation Position Statement

Setting The setting was the community. The economic study was conducted in Yokohama city, Japan.

Greater Access to Dental Services Reduces Health Inequities and Boosts Sealant Use Among HUSKY-Insured Children

Smile Survey 2010: The Oral Health of Children in Pierce County

Dental Public Health Activities & Practices

MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT

Curators of the University of Missouri - Combined January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

Texas Administrative Code

Community Water Fluoridation Maintaining a Legacy of Healthy Teeth in Muskoka

The Impact of Oral Disease on Colorado s Children

Program Eligibility, Rules & Regulations

Oral Health Matters The forgotten part of overall health

you can smile more with Horizon Dental Dental Plan Guide Individual and Family Plans HorizonBlue.com/ShopDental

Trends in the Provision of Oral Health Services by Federally Qualified Health Centers

Addressing the complex problem of oral. approach and the application of multiple solutions.

Access to care and dental providers Minnesota Initiatives Leon Assael DMD CMM, Dean April

Regulatory Impact Statement:

The economic benefits of sugarfree gum

Health technology Four strategies for the control of serogroup C meningococcal disease (CMD) were examined. These were:

DIRECT REIMBURSEMENT

Managed Care Trends in Statin Usage GARY R. BAZALO, MS, MBA

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Screening Policies

Dental PPO Plan. A plan to help you pay for the dental care you need. Accident & Health

What is the Current Evidence on Taxes and Subsidies on Food? Structure

CANNABIS IN ONTARIO S COMMUNITIES

Appendix. Background Information: New Zealand s Tobacco Control Programme. Report from the Ministry of Health

Health technology The screening of newborns for galactosemia (GAL) using the Beutler test was studied.

Building a Community Dental Health Network 75% Cavity Free 5 Year Olds by 2020 UCSF DPH 175-February 28,2017

Index. Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type.

Oral Health in Canada: a Federal Perspective. Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH)

CHAPTER 10 CANCER REPORT. Angela Webster Germaine Wong

Fluoridation and Oral Health

Transcription:

Preventing Dental : Community Water Fluoridation Summary Evidence Tables Review O Connell et.al (2005) Method: Costbenefit analysis : year 2003 is 1.266. 3% : Colorado, U.S. : Out of 172 public water systems in Colorado that served populations of 1000 individuals or more, 61 had WF, and 111 did not. 52 of the 111 were recommended to have WF because their fluoride level was lower than the CDC recommended level. Hydrofluosilicic acid was used as fluoridation compound : 15 years Control group: 52 communities with 769,287 population potentially served by WF group: 61 communities with 2,449,674 population served by WF rate: 0.2 Annual cost per size 1000-4999: $2.66 (or $3.36 in 2013 dollars) size 5000-9999: $1.44 (or $1.82 in 2013 dollars) size 10,000-19,999: $0.93 (or $1.18 in 2013 dollars) size >= 20,000: 0.43 (or $0.54 in 2013 dollars) Total annual cost averted per $58.05 (or $73.50 in 2013 dollars) Total cost included healthcare cost and productivity loss Summary Benefit cost ratio: 21.82 to 135, depending on the size of the water system. Net savings: $60.78 per person, or $76.95 per person in 2013 dollars. CO would have additional $46.6 million, or $59 million in 2013 dollars, savings if the 52 water systems were installed. Tchouaket E et al. (2013) : Quebec, Canada (whole province) group: 15 municipalities in Quebec rate: from 1% to 50% hypothetically. Annual cost per size of the community was not given, but the total Total annual savings averted per $106.42 (or $93.19 in 2013$) for 20% caries rate Benefit cost ratio: 7.32 to 8.53 for 1% caries rate

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Method: Cost benefit : PPP is 1.22 for year 2010. 2010 is 1.07. 3% characteristics: 15 municipalities in Quebec between 2002 and 2010. Only 2.7% of the population in Quebec had access to voluntarily fluoridated water in 2010. The population with at least one cavity ranged from 38.9% to 96%, depending on age. : 20 years Control group: none 30% assumption was used by the author. 20% assumption was reported in this review. population of 7,907,375 was given. The average per capita cost at 3% discount rate, given 30% effectiveness assumption was $1.93 ($1.69 2013 U.S dollars) The average per capita cost at 3% discount rate, given 20% effectiveness assumption was $1.86 ($1.63 2013 U.S dollars) $159.62 (or $139.78 in 2013$) for 30% caries rate Treatment cost per Per person (2010) dental expense is $532.08, $532.87 and $534.05 for discount rates of 3, 5, 8%. (or $465.93, $466.63 and $467.66 in 2013 U.S. dollars). Loss of productivity per based on the min wage rate of $9.65 ($8.45 in 2013 U.S dollars). Transportation cost per $2.9 (or, $2.54 in 2013 U.S dollars) for patients under 14; and $5.8 (or, $5.08 in 2013 U.S dollars) for those over 14. Summary 115 to 134.07 for 50% caries rate 75.29 to 514.9 for 30% caries rate 57.21 to 49.07 for 20% caries rate Wright et al. (2001) Method: Costbenefit : New Zealand. characteristics: By 1999, 57% of New Zealand were Fluoridated area. The study was to check if WF is still cost saving in the group: Children living in fluoridated areas from 4 to 13 year old. Control group: Children living in non-fluoridated areas from 4 to 13 year old. rate: 33% caries rate assuming 15% Maori population Annual cost a per size 1,000: $5.2 (or $4.92 in 2013$) size 5,000: $1.12 (or $1.06 in 2013$) size 10,000: $0.61 (or $0.58 in 2013$) Healthcare cost averted per $5.8 b ($5.49 in 2013 U.S dollars) b By Dividing total healthcare cost averted by 30 years. Benefit cost ratio: size 1,000: 1.12 size 5,000: 5.18 size 10,000: 9.51 size 50,000: 27.88 Page 2 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Summary : PPP is 1.43 for year 1999. 1999 is 1.398. 5% years of 2000 to 2030. The assumptions of the population were: No new averted decay after age 34. No dental cost savings after age 45. From 2000 to 2030 there is no mortality in the birth cohorts receiving fluoridated water. Out-migration in the cohort is exactly counterbalanced by immigration. size 50,000: $0.21 (or $0.2 in 2013$) size 100,000: $0.154 (or $0.15 in 2013$) size 300,000: $0.12 (or $0.11 in 2013$) a By Dividing intervention cost by 30 years. size 100,000: 37.66 size 300,000: 48.79 : 30 years Cobiac et al. (2012) Method: Cost effectiveness/ Cost benefit : Australia Sample: 69% of the population in Australia was receiving the minimum recommended dose of WF. The study analyzes the possibility of extending WF to group: fluoridated area rate: 15% Annual cost per size >1,000: $0.26 (or $0.24 in 2013 US dollars); Rural area: $26 (or $24.38 in 2013 US dollars). Cost effectiveness: For $13 million cost (or $18.7 million in 2013 dollars), DALY averted was 26,000 (communities with larger than 1,000 population). Healthcare cost total per year: $490 million (or $704.97 million in US dollars) Benefit Cost ratio: 37.69 (calculated by dividing the total benefit by total cost). Cost/DALY: $719.23 Page 3 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Summary Conversion: the PPP for year 2003 is 1.35; the CPI ratio of year 2013 against 2003 is 1.266. 3% all communities with over 1000 people (89% of the population), also analyzed the possibility of extending it to 100% population : 15 years Griffin et al. (2001) Simulation study Method: Cost benefit Conversion: The 1995 is 1.529. 4% : U.S : 18,507 respondents of National Survey of Oral Health in U.S. School Children: 1986-1987, or 47% of all children age 6-17 years who had at least one permanent tooth and for whom a complete fluoride exposure history could be created. Simulation study, data are from publications and national surveys. rate: ranged from 4% to 34%, with 19% being the baseline Annual cost per size <5,000: $3.17 (or $4.85 in 2013$) size 5,000-9,999: $1.64 (or $2.51 in 2013$) size 10,000-20,000: $1.06 (or $1.62 in 2013$) size >20,000: $0.5 (or $0.76 in 2013$) Healthcare cost averted per Worst-case of 4% caries and 8% discount rate: $2.99 (or $4.57 in 2013 dollars) Best-case of 34% caries and 0% discount rate: $56.07 (or $85.71 in 2013 dollars) Best-case of 19% caries and 4% discount rate: $19.12 (or $29.23 in 2013 dollars) Benefit Cost ratio: For baseline case: size <5,000: 6.03 size 5,000-9,999: 11.66 size 10,000-20,000: 18.04 size >20,000: 38.24 : 15 years Ciketic et al. (2010) : Brisbane and South East group: fluoridated town of Townsville Total intervention cost: $35.97 million with Total intervention benefit: Benefit-Cost ratio: 17.51 (calculated from total Page 4 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Summary Method: Cost effectiveness /benefit Conversion: The PPP for year 2002 is 1.34. The CPI ratio of year 2013 against 2002 is 1.29. 3% Queensland, Australia; characteristics: The population of South East Queensland region was 2.86 million. Brisbane was until the paper was written the only capital in Australia with a large population that was experiencing the highest rate of tooth decay in the whole nation due to nonfluoridated water supplies. Control group: non-fluoridated town of Brisbane rate: not available (or $34.76 million in 2013 U.S dollars) Per capita annual cost: $0.84 (or $0.81 in 2013 U.S dollars), assuming population size of 2.86 million $630 million (or $608.81 million in 2013 U.S dollars) Per capita annual benefit: $14.68 (or $14.19 in 2013 U.S dollars), assuming population size of 2.86 million The DALY saved is 10,437 benefit divided by total cost) ICER (incremental costeffectiveness ratio): $3608/DALY ($3486.63/DALY in 2013 U.S dollars) without cost offsets. : 15 years Maupome et al. (2007) cross-sectional : U.S. Sample: HMO members with continuous dental eligibility (Jan 1, 1990 to Dec 31, 1995) who Three models were run with three dependent variables: cost, proportions of members with one or more restorative procedures, counts NA Per capita annual cost: $0.67 in 1989 (or $1.024 in 2013 U.S dollars) and ranged from $0.15 to $1.53 in 1995 dollars (or $0.23 to $2.34 in 2013 dollars). Taking into consideration the varying impact of age and locale, it seems reasonable to conclude that, as a general rule, costs were lower in the fluoride areas. In conclusion, we found evidence that WF was associated with reduced total and restorative cost among members with one or more dental visits, particularly in older adults. The effect we observed was generally small, likely Page 5 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Summary Method: Multilinear regression, Analysis of covariance : The 1995 is 1.529. resided in Oregon and Washington. : 85% of eligible members (n=51683) were classified as residing either in a fluoridated (n=12194) or non-fluoridated (n=39489) area. of number of procedures or visits. because of this insured population s access to care and the higher use of preventive procedures, in particular supplemental fluorides, in the NF areas. Mean age was 40; 52.3% were women. TX health department (2000) Cross-sectional Method: Regression : The 1999 is 1.398. : Texas, U.S. Sample: 254 TX counties: 253 had incurred Medicaid dental costs and were used in the analysis 86 had optimal public WF level 167 had <= 0.8 ppm The study assessed the impact of one public program for prevention of tooth decay, WF, on another program, Medicaid, which provides publicly funded dental care for a group known to be at greater risk for disease. NA The estimated cost of installing water fluoridation system in four counties ranges from $.71 ($0.99 in 2013 dollar) to $1.9 ($2.66 in 2013 dollar) per person for one year and would cost under $.35 ($0.49 in 2013 dollar) per person to maintain. Using regression analysis by regressing cost on the log of WF level and the squared term of it. For a unit rise of 1 ppm Fluoride, the average TX dental treatment cost per child across the entire state falls by $24 ($33.56 in 2013 dollar) Adjustment from a very low natural level to.8 ppm F will lower the average cost of dental treatment by $19 (or $26.57 in 2013 dollar) per child. Conclusion: about 70% of the TX population can benefit from adjusted WF. Page 6 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables CDC (1999) Cross-sectional Method: Linear regression : The CPI ratio for year 1995 is 1.529 : Louisiana; 19 parishes out of 64 Sample: 5 fluoridated parishes with 38,162 Medicaideligible preschoolers and 14 nonfluoridated parishes with 16,444 Medicaideligible preschoolers Linear regression was used to regress parish average cariesrelated cost per Medicaid-eligible child on fluoridation status of the parish, per capita income, population, and dentist per 1000 residents. NA NA The difference in treatment costs per Medical-eligible child in Fluoridated parishes compared to those residing in Non-fluoridated parishes ranged from $14.68 (or $22.44 in 2013 dollar) for 1- year-old to $58.91 (or $90.05 in 2013 dollar) for 3- year-old. The mean difference regardless of age is $36.28, (or $55.46 in 2013 dollars). Summary In 1998, at least 39,000 preschoolers could potentially benefit from water fluoridation, with the expected annual in dental costs of $1.4 million (or $2.14 million in 2013 dollar). : 1995-1996 Kumar et al. (2010) Cross-sectional Method: Scatterplots, linear regression Conversion: The 2006 is 1.16 : New York; 57 counties and NYC Sample: 606,125 children under 21 years old who had at least one claim for a dental procedure. WF is measured as the percentage of people receiving fluoridated water in each county determined by dividing the number of residents on fluoridated water by the total population from the 2007 U.S census data. Three strata: less fluoridated (<=30%), partially NA NA The regression analysis shows that for every 10% increase in the fluoridation status of the county, the number of claims per child for caries-related services declined by 0.06. A single claim for a simple restoration costs $55 ($63.55 in 2013 dollar). So the difference between less fluoridated county and predominantly fluoridated counties as for per recipient costs on simple restoration is (1.66-1.23)*$55 = $23.63 ($27.31 in 2013 dollar). Page 7 of 8

Oral Health: Community Water Fluoridation Evidence Tables Summary fluoridated (31% - 69%), and predominantly fluoridated (>=70%). Abbreviations: CPI, Consumer Price Index DALY, Disability-Adjusted Life Year NA, Not applicable PPP, Purchasing Power Parity WF, Water fluoridation Page 8 of 8