Cost of fluoridation: 44 Florida communities

Health surveillance: public water supply fluoridation in 40 municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil

Since fluoridation of water is an established public health measure for the prevention of dental caries and considering that monitoring of the method is crucial to its success, this study aimed to analyze the results of the analysis of the fluorine content of public water supply of 40 municipalities in the state of São Paulo, from November 2004 to December 2016. Samples were analyzed monthly using the potentiometric method. Of the 32,488 samples, 50.94% contained fluoride levels within the recommended range. In 2004, it was verified that 21 cities (52.50%) had mean levels within the recommended parameter, increasing to 32 cities (80.00%) in 2016. It was observed that 15 municipalities that initially had levels of fluoride below 0.55 mgF/L in their water supply adjusted to adequate levels during the project. In the first year of the study, 47.76% of the samples had values in the recommended range, which increased to 58.22% in 2016. Most of the municipalities adjusted the levels of fluoride in their waters over the years, evidencing the performance of heterocontrol programs as important strategies that assist in the monitoring of the method and have significant participation in the control of the water quality supplied to the population.

Economic evaluations in water-fluoridation: a scoping review

Background

Community water fluoridation (CWF) is considered one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century and has been a cornerstone strategies for the prevention and control of dental caries in many countries. However, for decision-makers the effectiveness and safety of any given intervention is not always sufficient to decide on the best option. Economic evaluations (EE) provide key information that managers weigh, alongside other evidence. This study reviews the relevant literature on EE in CWF.

Methods

A systematic database search up to August 2019 was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. The review included full economic evaluations on CWF programs, written in English, Spanish or Portuguese. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed.

Results

Of 498 identified articles, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 corresponded to cost-benefit analysis; nine were cost-effectiveness analyses; and four cost-utility studies. Two cost-utility studies used Disability-Adjusted Life Years,, one used Quality-Adjusted Tooth Years, and another Quality-Adjusted Life Years. EEs were conducted in eight countries. All studies concluded that water fluoridation was a cost-effective strategy when it was compared with non-fluoridated communities, independently of the perspective, time horizon or discount rate applied. Four studies adopted a lifetime time horizon. The outcome measures included caries averted (n = 14) and savings cost of dental treatment (n = 4). Most of the studies reported a caries reduction effects between 25 and 40%.

Conclusion

Findings indicated that CWF represents an appropriate use of communities’ resources, using a range of economic evaluation methods and in different locations. These findings provide evidence to decision-makers which they could use as an aid to deciding on resource allocation.

Costs And Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation In The United States

The most comprehensive study of US community water fluoridation program benefits and costs was published in 2001. This study provides updated estimates using an economic model that includes recent data on program costs, dental caries increments, and dental treatments. In 2013 more than 211 million people had access to fluoridated water through community water systems serving 1,000 or more people. Savings associated with dental caries averted in 2013 as a result of fluoridation were estimated to be $32.19 per capita for this population. Based on 2013 estimated costs ($324 million), net savings (savings minus costs) from fluoridation systems were estimated to be $6,469 million and the estimated return on investment, 20.0. While communities should assess their specific costs for continuing or implementing a fluoridation program, these updated findings indicate that program savings are likely to exceed costs.

Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

A recently updated Community Guide systematic review of the effectiveness of community water fluoridation once again found evidence that it reduces dental caries. Although community water fluoridation was found to save money in a 2002 Community Guide systematic review, the conclusion was based on studies conducted before 1995. Given the update to the effectiveness review, re-examination of the benefit and cost of community water fluoridation is necessary.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Using methods developed for Community Guide economic reviews, 564 studies were identified within a search period from January 1995 to November 2013. Ten studies were included in the current review, with four covering community fluoridation benefits only and another six providing both cost and benefit information. Additionally, two of the six studies analyzed the cost effectiveness of community water fluoridation. All currencies were converted to 2013 dollars.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The analysis was conducted in 2014. The benefit-only studies used regression analysis, showing that different measures of dental costs were always lower in communities with water fluoridation. For the six cost-benefit studies, per capita annual intervention cost ranged from $0.11 to $4.92 for communities with at least 1,000 population, and per capita annual benefit ranged from $5.49 to $93.19. Benefit-cost ratios ranged from 1.12:1 to 135:1, and these ratios were positively associated with community population size.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent evidence continues to indicate that the economic benefit of community water fluoridation exceeds the intervention cost. Further, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the community population size.

A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation

BACKGROUND

Although community water fluoridation (CWF) results in a range of potential contaminant exposures, little attention has been given to many of the possible impacts. A central argument for CWF is its cost-effectiveness. The U.S. Government states that $1 spent on CWF saves $38 in dental treatment costs.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reported cost-effectiveness of CWF.

METHODS

Methods and underlying data from the primary U.S. economic evaluation of CWF are analyzed and corrected calculations are described. Other recent economic evaluations are also examined.

RESULTS

Recent economic evaluations of CWF contain defective estimations of both costs and benefits. Incorrect handling of dental treatment costs and flawed estimates of effectiveness lead to overestimated benefits. The real-world costs to water treatment plants and communities are not reflected.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.

The economic value of Quebec's water fluoridation program

AIM

Dental caries is a major public health problem worldwide, with very significant deleterious consequences for many people. The available data are alarming in Canada and the province of Quebec. The water fluoridation program has been shown to be the most effective means of preventing caries and reducing oral health inequalities. This article analyzes the cost-effectiveness of Quebec's water fluoridation program to provide decision-makers with economic information for assessing its usefulness.

METHODS

An approach adapted from economic evaluation was used to: (1) build a logic model for Quebec's water fluoridation program; (2) determine its implementation cost; and (3) analyze its cost-effectiveness. Documentary analysis was used to build the logic model. Program cost was calculated using data from 13 municipalities that adopted fluoridation between 2002 and 2010 and two that received only infrastructure grants. Other sources were used to collect demographic data and calculate costs for caries treatment including costs associated with travel and lost productivity.

RESULTS

The analyses showed the water fluoridation program was cost-effective even with a conservatively estimated 1 % reduction in dental caries. The benefit-cost ratio indicated that, at an expected average effectiveness of 30 % caries reduction, one dollar invested in the program saved $71.05-$82.83 per Quebec's inhabitant in dental costs (in 2010) or more than $560 million for the State and taxpayers.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that the drinking-water fluoridation program produced substantial savings. Public health decision-makers could develop economic arguments to support wide deployment of this population-based intervention whose efficacy and safety have been demonstrated and acknowledged.

A model to determine the economic viability of water fluoridation

OBJECTIVES

In view of concerns expressed by South African local authorities the aim of this study was to develop a model to determine whether water fluoridation is economically viable to reduce dental caries in South Africa.

METHODS

Microsoft Excel software was used to develop a model to determine economic viability of water fluoridation for 17 water providers from all nine South African provinces. Input variables for this model relate to chemical cost, labor cost, maintenance cost of infrastructure, opportunity cost, and capital depreciation. The following output variables were calculated to evaluate the cost of water fluoridation: per capita cost per year, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit. In this model it is assumed that the introduction of community water fluoridation can reduce caries prevalence by an additional 15 percent and that the savings in cost of treatment will be equal to the average fee for a two surface restoration.

RESULTS

Water providers included in the study serve 53.5 percent of the total population of South Africa. For all providers combined chemical cost contributes 64.5 percent to the total cost, per capita cost per year was $0.36, cost-effectiveness was calculated as $11.41 and cost-benefit of the implementation of water fluoridation was 0.34.

CONCLUSIONS

This model confirmed that water fluoridation is an economically viable option to prevent dental caries in South African communities, as well as conclusions over the last 10 years that water fluoridation leads to significant cost savings and remains a cost-effective measure for reducing dental caries, even when the caries-preventive effectiveness is modest.

Community-specific, preventive oral health policies: preventive measures on dental caries

In all health fields, limited infrastructure and resources hinder the provision of basic services to low-income populations. Subsequently, oral health is often neglected, as over 90% of caries remains untreated in developing communities. In order to deliver the most cost-effective prevention methods, public health officials must assess each available strategy on an individual community basis. In this paper, examples from oral health will demonstrate the importance of community-specific determinants in the formation of preventive public health policies. These determinants include economical, cultural, social, and political elements that can assist policy makers in generating effective functional public health policies.

Estimating unit costs for dental service delivery in institutional and community-based settings in southern Thailand

In this cross-sectional study, the cost of different dental services was estimated and the unit costs of dental services for schoolchildren were compared between 2 settings: hospital-based and community-based mobile dental clinics. Heads of all departments in a selected community hospital were invited to attend 2 workshops to collect relevant data. Unit costs of different dental services varied from 41 to 2693 baht, with services falling into 4 unit cost groups: very high, high, moderate, and low. The very-high-unit-cost services included rehabilitative dental services. The high-unit-cost services covered removal of an impacted tooth, root canal treatment, and tooth-color fillings. The moderate-unit-cost group included a wide range of other dental services, with screening and oral hygiene instruction in community-based dental clinics falling into the low-unit-cost group. Generally, services provided in the community-based mobile clinic had lower unit costs than the same services provided in the hospital dental clinic.

Custo da fluoretação das águas de abastecimento público, estudo de caso Município de São Paulo, Brasil, período de 1985-2003

O objetivo do artigo é estimar o custo da fluoretação das águas de abastecimento público no Município de São Paulo no período de 1985-2003. Para o cálculo da composição de custos da fluoretação das águas levou-se em conta os seguintes custos: (a) capital inicial de instalação; (b) produto químico (ácido fluorsilícico); (c) operacionalização do sistema (manutenção do sistema, energia elétrica e recursos humanos); e (d) controle dos teores de flúor. A ação do flúor mostrou-se efetiva, pois para a idade de 12 anos observou-se redução de 73% na experiência de cárie dentária, sendo que em 1986 a média do índice CPO-D era de 6,47 (6,12-6,82) e em 2002 foi de 1,75 (1,48-2,92). Nesta idade-índice 40% das crianças apresentaram CPO-D = 0 em 2002. O custo médio per capita/ano na Cidade de São Paulo foi de R$ 0,08 (US$ 0,03) em 2003. O custo acumulado em 18 anos de implantação do sistema de fluoretação foi de R$ 1,44 (US$ 0,97) per capita.

Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other positive and negative effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to prevent or control dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. The related systematic reviews are linked by a common conceptual approach. These reviews form the basis of recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) about the use of these selected interventions. The Task Force recommendations are presented in this supplement.

An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to assess the local cost savings resulting from community water fluoridation, given current exposure levels to other fluoride sources.

METHODS

Adopting a societal perspective and using a discount rate of 4 percent, we compared the annual per person cost of fluoridation with the cost of averted disease and productivity losses. The latter was the product of annual dental caries increment in nonfluoridated communities, fluoridation effectiveness, and the discounted lifetime cost of treating a carious tooth surface. We obtained or imputed all parameters from published studies and national surveys. We conducted one-way and three-way sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

With base-case assumptions, the annual per person cost savings resulting from fluoridation ranged from $15.95 in very small communities to $18.62 in large communities. Fluoridation was still cost saving for communities of any size if we allowed increment, effectiveness, or the discount rate to take on their worst-case values, individually. For simultaneous variation of variables, fluoridation was cost saving for all but very small communities. There, fluoridation was cost saving if the reduction in carious surfaces attributable to one year of fluoridation was at least 0.046.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and cost of fluoridation, caries increment, and the cost and longevity of dental restorations, we find that water fluoridation offers significant cost savings.