Skip Navigation
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Your Environment. Your Health.

Cost-effectiveness of a home-based environmental intervention for inner-city children with asthma

Environmental Health Economic Analysis Annotated Bibliography

Details

Research article Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)
Authors
Kattan M, Stearns SC, Crain EF, Stout JW, Gergen PJ, Evans R 3rd, Visness CM, Gruchalla RS, Morgan WJ, O'Connor GT, Mastin JP, and Mitchell HE
Journal
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Summary
The authors of this study calculated the benefits of a home-based environmental remediation for young, asthmatic children. They determined that the intervention, which cost $1,469 per family, led to a statistically significant reduction in asthma-symptom days, unscheduled clinic visits, and use of beta-agonist inhalers. Findings indicated that the intervention is cost-effective when the aim is to reduce asthma symptom days and the associated costs.
Population
Children (6-11 years) enrolled in the Inner City Asthma Study (ICAS) with moderate-to-severe asthma

Health Outcomes

  • Respiratory outcomes (asthma)

Environmental Agents

List of Environmental Agents:

  • Air pollutants (tobacco smoke)
  • indoor allergens (dust mite, cockroach, mold, pets, rodents)

Source of Environmental Agents:

  • Allergens from pests (cockroaches, rodents)
  • cigarette smoke (secondhand smoke)

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Type:

  • Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)

Cost Measured:

  • Healthcare use costs (scheduled/unscheduled medical visits, emergency department visits, inpatient hospital days, medications/pharmaceutical use)
  • costs of the intervention which included skin tests, anti-allergen equipment (e.g., impermeable mattress and pillow covers, HEPA vacuum cleaner, HEPA air cleaner, vent filters)
  • salary for environmental counselor
  • travel costs
  • pest management services

Potential Cost Measures:

  • School days lost
  • days on which caretaker had to change plans due to child's asthma

Benefits Measures:

  • Number of asthma-symptom free days
  • reduced healthcare costs

Potential Benefits:

  • Reduction in health costs and asthma symptom-free days for other household members

Location:

  • Cities within the United States — Boston
  • New York City
  • Chicago
  • Dallas
  • Seattle
  • Tucson

Models Used: (Not available)

Methods Used:

  • The authors used incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to assess the cost-effectiveness of a home-based environmental allergen and irritant remediation intervention among inner-city children aged 6-11 years with moderate-to-severe-asthma over a two-year study period.

Sources Used:

  • Inner-City Asthma Study (ICAS); National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study (NCICAS); Medicaid Reimbursement Survey; American Academy of Pediatrics (2001); The cost-effectiveness of an inner-city asthma intervention for children (Sullivan et al., 2002); Kids Inpatient Database (Hospital Cost and Utilization Project, 2000); Drugs for Asthma (The Medical Letter, Vol. 42, 2000); Drug Topics Red Book (2000); Update and First DataBank Price Alert (2000); additional sources cited in publication

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Citation:

  • Kattan M, Stearns SC, Crain EF, Stout JW, Gergen PJ, Evans R 3rd, Visness CM, Gruchalla RS, Morgan WJ, O'Connor GT, Mastin JP, and Mitchell HE. 2005. Cost-effectiveness of a home-based environmental intervention for inner-city children with asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Pubmed:

DOI:

NIEHS Funding: (Not available)

Other Funding: (Not available)

Back
to Top