Hospital use and associated costs of children aged zero‐to‐two years with craniofacial malformations in Massachusetts

Abstract

In the first two years of life, children with CFMs incur increased hospital costs compared to other children without such conditions, with substantial heterogeneity by defect and pattern type.

Measuring health and well-being effects in family caregivers of children with craniofacial malformations

“…Orofacial clefts, for example, are the most common of all birth defects with a prevalence of 1-2 per 1,000 births in the US, resulting in over 8,000 affected newborns every year. Children with clefts or other CFM have been shown to have much higher medical care use and costs than other children in the first 5 years of life [1][2][3][4]. Children with CFM often require complex and lengthy treatments such as surgical, nutritional, dental, speech, medical, and behavioral intervention that impose a substantial economic and societal burden [5].…”

Evaluating the Need for Routine Admission following Primary Cleft Palate Repair

“…33 Children with additional anomalies are significantly more likely to have emergency readmission compared with their less complex counterparts, comparable to results found in another study. 34 There is evidence that recovery may be expedited with inpatient care, as parents or guardians may feel more comfortable in a setting that enables access to experienced hospital staff, 35 capable of providing competent postoperative care and faster return to normal function. As suggested by other authors, 32 the presence of such medical staff during the postoperative period is equally as important as proper preoperative evaluation and intraoperative management, particularly with regard to provision of an environment adequate for monitoring and responding to an airway obstruction event.…”

Economic evaluation of anti-epileptic drug therapies with specific focus on teratogenic outcomes

“…For all associated malformation sub-groups we estimated the quality-of-life and the life expectancy of the offspring based on the published literature (Table 1) [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] . For our 'rest group' of NOS malformations it was not possible to find any reference.…”