COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR BEEF BULLS WITH PREPUTIAL PROLAPSE

Objective - To develop an economic model for comparing cost-effectiven ess of medical and surgical treatment versus replacement of beef bulls with preputial prolapse. Design - Economic analysis. Sample Populatio n-Estimates determined from medical records of bulls treated for prepu tial prolapse al our hospital and from information about treatment of bulls published elsewhere. Procedure - Annual depreciation cost for tr eatment (ADC(T)) and replacement (ADC(R)) were calculated. Total inves tment for an injured bull equaled the sum of salvage value, maintenanc e cost, and expected cost of the treatment option under consideration. Total investment for a replacement bull was purchase price. Net prese nt value of cost was calculated for each year of bull use. Sensitivity analyses were constructed to determine the value that would warrant t reatment of an injured bull. Results - The decision to treat was indic ated when ADC(T) was less than ADC(R). In our example, it was more cos t-effective for owners to cull an injured bull. The ADC(R) was $97 les s than ADC(T) for medical treatment ($365 vs $462) and $280 less than ADC(T) for surgical treatment ($365 vs $645). Likewise, net present va lue of cost values indicated that it was more cost-effective for owner s to cull an injured bull. Sensitivity analysis indicated treatment de cisions were justified on the basis of replacement value or planned nu mber of breeding seasons remaining for the bull. Clinical Implications - The model described here can be used by practitioners to provide an objective basis to guide decision making of owners who seek advice on whether to treat or replace bulls with preputial prolapse.