Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Lead-screening programs may reduce childhood disabilities, but at what cost? Through a review of the literature, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis in which the costs, savings, and health benefits of two lead-screening strategies--employing either a free erythrocyte protoporphyrin assay or blood lead measurement--were compared with each other and with a strategy of no screening in a population of three-year-old children. When the prevalence of lead poisoning among the children screened is 7 per cent or more, we estimate that free erythrocyte protoporphyrin screening averts morbidity and results in net savings: It is both better and cheaper than no screening. At prevalences below 7 per cent, the net positive costs from screening and early treatment must be weighed against the noneconomic benefits of improved quality of life and considered in relation to other investments that could be made to benefit society. At all prevalence rates, free erythrocyte protoporphyrin screening is more cost effective than blood lead screening.
Berwick et al. (Thu,) studied this question.