BACKGROUND: While persons who receive immigrant and refugee visas are screened for active tuberculosis before admission into the United States, nonimmigrant visa applicants (NIVs) are not routinely screened and may enter the United States with infectious tuberculosis. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the costs and benefits of expanding pre-departure tuberculosis screening requirements to a subset of NIVs who arrive from a moderate (Mexico) or high (India) incidence tuberculosis country with temporary work visas. METHODS: We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the program costs and estimate the numbers of active tuberculosis cases that may be diagnosed in the United States in two scenarios: 1) "Screening": screening and treatment for tuberculosis among NIVs in their home country with recommended U.S. follow-up for NIVs at elevated risk of active tuberculosis; and, 2) "No Screening" in their home country so that cases would be diagnosed passively and treatment occurs after entry into the United States. Costs were assessed from multiple perspectives, including multinational and U.S.-only perspectives. RESULTS: Under "Screening" versus "No Screening", an estimated 179 active tuberculosis cases and 119 hospitalizations would be averted in the United States annually via predeparture treatment. From the U.S.-only perspective, this program would result in annual net cost savings of about $3.75 million. However, rom the multinational perspective, the screening program would cost $151,388 per U.S. case averted for Indian NIVs and $221,088 per U.S. case averted for Mexican NIVs. CONCLUSION: From the U.S.-only perspective, the screening program would result in substantial cost savings in the form of reduced treatment and hospitalization costs. NIVs would incur increased pre-departure screening and treatment costs.

SETTING: In 2007, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its tuberculosis (TB) technical instructions for panel physicians who administer mandatory medical examinations among US-bound immigrants. Many US-bound immigrants come from the Philippines, a high TB prevalence country. OBJECTIVE: To quantify economic and health impacts of smear- vs. culture-based TB screening. DESIGN: Decision tree modeling was used to compare three Filipino screening programs: 1) no screening, 2) smear-based screening, and 3) culture-based screening. The model incorporated pre-departure TB screening results from Filipino panel physicians and CDC databases with post-arrival follow-up outcomes. Costs (2013 $US) were examined from societal, immigrant, US Public Health Department and hospitalization perspectives. RESULTS: With no screening, an annual cohort of 35 722 Filipino immigrants would include an estimated 450 TB patients with 264 hospitalizations, at a societal cost of US$9.90 million. Culture-based vs. smear-based screening would result in fewer imported cases (80.9 vs. 310.5), hospitalizations (19.7 vs. 68.1), and treatment costs (US$1.57 million vs. US$4.28 million). Societal screening costs, including US follow-up, were greater for culture-based screening (US$5.98 million) than for smear-based screening (US$3.38 million). Culture-based screening requirements increased immigrant costs by 61% (US$1.7 million), but reduced costs for the US Public Health Department (22%, US$750 000) and of hospitalization (70%, US$1 020 000). CONCLUSION: Culture-based screening reduced imported TB and US costs among Filipino immigrants.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the effect of screening and treatment of refugees for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) before entrance to the United States as a strategy for reducing active tuberculosis (TB). The purpose of this study was to estimate the costs and benefits of LTBI screening and treatment in United States bound refugees prior to arrival. METHODS: Costs were included for foreign and domestic LTBI screening and treatment and the domestic treatment of active TB. A decision tree with multiple Markov nodes was developed to determine the total costs and number of active TB cases that occurred in refugee populations that tested 55, 35, and 20 % tuberculin skin test positive under two models: no overseas LTBI screening and overseas LTBI screening and treatment. For this analysis, refugees that tested 55, 35, and 20 % tuberculin skin test positive were divided into high, moderate, and low LTBI prevalence categories to denote their prevalence of LTBI relative to other refugee populations. RESULTS: For a hypothetical 1-year cohort of 100,000 refugees arriving in the United States from regions with high, moderate, and low LTBI prevalence, implementation of overseas screening would be expected to prevent 440, 220, and 57 active TB cases in the United States during the first 20 years after arrival. The cost savings associated with treatment of these averted cases would offset the cost of LTBI screening and treatment for refugees from countries with high (net cost-saving: $4.9 million) and moderate (net cost-saving: $1.6 million) LTBI prevalence. For low LTBI prevalence populations, LTBI screening and treatment exceed expected future TB treatment cost savings (net cost of $780,000). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing LTBI screening and treatment for United States bound refugees from countries with high or moderate LTBI prevalence would potentially save millions of dollars and contribute to United States TB elimination goals. These estimates are conservative since secondary transmission from tuberculosis cases in the United States was not considered in the model.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering implementation of overseas medical screening of student-visa applicants to reduce the numbers of active tuberculosis cases entering the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs, cases averted, and cost-effectiveness of screening for, and treating, tuberculosis in United States-bound students from countries with varying tuberculosis prevalence. METHODS: Costs and benefits were evaluated from two perspectives, combined and United States only. The combined perspective totaled overseas and United States costs and benefits from a societal perspective. The United States only perspective was a domestic measure of costs and benefits. A decision tree was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis screening and treatment from the combined perspective. RESULTS: From the United States only perspective, overseas screening programs of Chinese and Indian students would prevent the importation of 157 tuberculosis cases annually, and result in $2.7 million in savings. From the combined perspective, screening programs for Chinese students would cost more than $2.8 million annually and screening programs for Indian students nearly $440,000 annually. From the combined perspective, the incremental cost for each tuberculosis case averted by screening Chinese and Indian students was $22,187 and $15,063, respectively. Implementing screening programs for German students would prevent no cases in most years, and would result in increased costs both overseas and in the United States. The domestic costs would occur because public health departments would need to follow up on students identified overseas as having an elevated risk of tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: Tuberculosis screening and treatment programs for students seeking long term visas to attend United States schools would reduce the number of tuberculosis cases imported. Implementing screening in high-incidence countries could save the United States millions of dollars annually; however there would be increased costs incurred overseas for students and their families.

BACKGROUND: Refugees are at an increased risk of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because many of their countries of origin, as well as host countries, have intermediate-to-high prevalence rates. Refugees arriving to the US are also at risk of serious sequelae from chronic HBV infection because they are not routinely screened for the virus overseas or in domestic post-arrival exams, and may live in the US for years without awareness of their infection status. METHODS: A cohort of 26,548 refugees who arrived in Minnesota and Georgia during 2005-2010 was evaluated to determine the prevalence of chronic HBV infection. This prevalence information was then used in a cost-benefit analysis comparing two variations of a proposed overseas program to prevent or ameliorate the effects of HBV infection, titled 'Screen, then vaccinate or initiate management' (SVIM) and 'Vaccinate only' (VO). The analyses were performed in 2013. All values were converted to US 2012 dollars. RESULTS: The estimated six year period-prevalence of chronic HBV infection was 6.8% in the overall refugee population arriving to Minnesota and Georgia and 7.1% in those ≥6 years of age. The SVIM program variation was more cost beneficial than VO. While the up-front costs of SVIM were higher than VO ($154,084 vs. $73,758; n=58,538 refugees), the SVIM proposal displayed a positive net benefit, ranging from $24 million to $130 million after only 5 years since program initiation, depending on domestic post-arrival screening rates in the VO proposal. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic HBV infection remains an important health problem in refugees resettling to the United States. An overseas screening policy for chronic HBV infection is more cost-beneficial than a 'Vaccination only' policy. The major benefit drivers for the screening policy are earlier medical management of chronic HBV infection and averted lost societal contributions from premature death.