| Résumé | The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for implementing a recent recommendation to install a more radon resistant foundation barrier were modelled for new and existing housing in 2016, for each province and territory in Canada. Cost-utility analyses were conducted, in which the health benefit of an intervention was quantified in quality-adjusted life years, to help guide policymakers considering increasing investment in radon reduction in housing to reduce the associated lung cancer burden shouldered by the health care system. Lung cancer morbidity was modelled using a lifetable analysis that incorporated lung cancer incidence and survival time for localized, regional, and distant stages of diagnoses for both non-small cell and small cell lung cancer. The model accounted for surgical or advanced lung cancer treatment costs avoided, and average health care costs incurred for radon-attributable lung cancer cases prevented by the intervention. The incremental implementation of radon interventions in the housing stock was modelled over a lifetime horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% was adopted. This radon intervention in new housing was cost effective in all but one region, ranging from $18,075/QALY (15,704; 20,178) for the Yukon to $58,454/QALY (52,045; 65,795) for British Columbia. A sequential analysis was conducted to compare intervention in existing housing for mitigation thresholds of 200 and 100 Bq/m3. This intervention in existing housing was cost effective at a mitigation threshold of 200 Bq/m3 in regions with higher radon levels, ranging from $33,247/QALY (27,699; 39,377) for the Yukon to $61,960/QALY (46,932; 113,737) for Newfoundland, and more cost effective at a threshold of 200 than 100 Bq/m3. More lung cancer deaths can be prevented by intervention in new housing than in existing housing; it was estimated that the proposed intervention in new housing would prevent a mean of 446 (416; 477) lung cancer cases annually. The cost effectiveness of increased radon resistance in foundation barriers in housing varied widely, and would support adopting this intervention in new housing across Canada and in existing housing in higher radon regions. This study provides further evidence that the most cost effective way of responding to the geographically variable radon burden is by implementing specific regional radon reduction policies. |
|---|
