A Comparative Cost Analysis of XXXX and Nasoalveolar Molding before Formal Cleft Lip Repair.

@entity1 @entity3384
BACKGROUND: @entity1 with @entity3384 may benefit from @entity3384 or nasoalveolar molding before formal cleft lip repair. The authors compared the relative costs to insurers of these two treatment modalities and the burden of care to families. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of @entity3384 @entity1 treated with nasoalveolar molding or @entity3384 at The @entity1 's Hospital of Philadelphia between January of 2007 and June of 2012. Demographic, appointment, and surgical data were reviewed; surgical, inpatient hospital, and orthodontic charges and costs were obtained. Multivariate linear regression and two-sample, two-tailed independent t tests were performed to compare cost and appointment data between groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cleft adhesion and 35 nasoalveolar molding @entity1 met inclusion criteria. Mean costs for nasoalveolar molding were  3550.24     667.27. Cleft adhesion costs, consisting of both hospital and surgical costs, were  9370.55     1691.79. Analysis of log costs demonstrated a significant difference between the groups, with the mean total cost for nasoalveolar molding significantly lower than that for adhesion (p < 0.0001). Nasoalveolar molding @entity1 had significantly more made, cancelled, no-show, and missed visits and a higher missed percentage than adhesion @entity1 (p < 0.0001) for all except no-show appointments, (p = 0.0199), indicating a higher burden of care to families. CONCLUSIONS: Nasoalveolar molding may cost @entity3384 repair treatment than @entity3384 . Third-party payers who cover adhesion and not nasoalveolar molding may not be acting in their own best interest. Nasoalveolar molding places a higher burden of care on families, and this fact should be considered in planning treatment.
