Cost-effectiveness of Universal School- and Community-Based Vision Testing Strategies to Detect Amblyopia in Children in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE: Screening for amblyopia in primary care visits is recommended for young children, yet screening rates are poor. Although the prevalence of amblyopia is low (3%-5%) among young children, universal screening in schools and mandatory optometric examinations may improve vision care, but the cost-effectiveness of these vision testing strategies compared with the standard in primary care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of universal school screening and mandated optometric examinations compared with standard care vision screening in primary care visits in Toronto, Canada, with the aim of detecting and facilitating treatment of amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors from the Ontario government’s perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An economic evaluation was conducted from July 2019 to May 2021 using a Markov model to compare 15-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between school screening and optometric examination compared with primary care screening in Toronto, Canada. Parameters were derived from published literature, the Ontario Schedule of Benefits and Fees, and the Kindergarten Vision Testing Program. A hypothetical cohort of 25 000 children aged 3 to 5 years was simulated. It was assumed that children in the cohort had irreversible vision impairment if not diagnosed by an optometrist. In addition, incremental costs and outcomes of 0 were adjusted to favor the reference strategy. Vision testing programs were designed to detect amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each strategy, the mean costs per child included the costs of screening, optometric examinations, and treatment. The mean health benefits (QALYs) gained were informed by the presence of vision impairment and the benefits of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each alternative strategy relative to the standard primary care screening strategy as the additional cost required to achieve an additional QALY at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($37 690) per QALY gained. RESULTS: School screening relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $84.09 (95% CI, CAD $82.22-$85.95) (US $63.38 [95% CI, US $61.97-$64.78]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0004 (95% CI, −0.0047 to 0.0055) QALYs per child. Optometric examinations relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $74.47 (95% CI, CAD $72.90-$76.03) (US $56.13 [95% CI, $54.95-$57.30]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0508 (95% CI, 0.0455-0.0561) QALYs per child. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50 000 (US $37 690) per QALY gained, school screening and optometric examinations were cost-effective relative to primary care screening in only 20% and 29% of iterations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, because amblyopia prevalence is low among young children and most children in the hypothetical cohort had healthy vision, universal school screening and optometric examinations were not cost-effective relative to primary care screening for detecting amblyopia in young children in Toronto, Canada. The mean added health benefits of school screening and optometric examinations compared with primary care screening did not warrant the resources used.