Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
    • Supplements
    • Publish Supplement
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
    • Supplements
    • Publish Supplement
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Article

Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years

Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja and Delia Hendrie
Pediatrics November 2006, 118 (5) 1994-1998; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1328
Ted R. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eduard Zaloshnja
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Delia Hendrie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this work was to analyze the societal return on investment in booster seats and in laws requiring their use in the United States. Booster seats reduce crash-related injury. Their use is mandatory for vehicle occupants aged 4 to 7 years in most of the United States. This study estimates the injury cost savings attributable to booster seat use.

METHODS. Seat cost came from pricing on the Web and at retailers. Costs of passing and enforcing a legal mandate were estimated as a percentage of the costs of seat use. Injury risk when belted absent a seat was computed from national probability samples of crashes in the last years before booster seats entered into general use (1993–1999). Published estimates were used of the percentage of reduction in injuries achieved with booster seats, the mix of diagnoses reduced, and injury cost by diagnosis. The computations used a 3% discount rate. We studied the net cost per quality-adjusted life year saved, benefit-cost ratio, and net savings per seat.

RESULTS. A booster seat costs $30 plus $167 for maintenance and time spent on installation and use. This investment saves $1854 per seat, a return on investment of 9.4 to 1. Even lower bound estimates in sensitivity analysis indicated that society would benefit from the use of booster seats. Seat laws offer a return of 8.6 to 1.

CONCLUSIONS. Belt-positioning booster seats offer a sound return on investment. Booster seat use laws should be passed, publicized, and enforced nationwide.

  • benfit-cost
  • booster seat
  • QALY
  • cost-effectiveness
  • injury
  • crash

When children graduate from child safety seats, they are too small for safety belts to fit properly.1,2 Current booster seats were designed to solve this problem. This study estimates the return on investment in belt positioning booster seats for child motor vehicle occupants aged 4 to 7 years and on laws requiring their use.

As of May 25, 2006, 36 states and the District of Columbia had legally mandated the use of a booster seat or other appropriate restraint device by children who have outgrown their forward-facing child safety seats but who are still too small to use an adult safety belt system correctly.3 Beyond sled tests, Durbin et al4 provided the first evidence of the effectiveness of booster seats in highway crashes. They found that the odds of serious injury were 59% lower for crash-involved children aged 4 to 7 years using booster seats and lap-shoulder belts compared with lap-shoulder belts only. Effectiveness did not vary by seating position. This article builds on Durbin et al4 to develop cost-outcome analyses of booster seat use and of booster seat laws for children aged 4 to 7 years. It analyzes the costs, benefits, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) savings associated with booster seats from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We conducted 2 cost-outcome analyses in this study: a benefit-cost and a cost-utility analysis. In the benefit-cost analysis, the costs and benefits of booster seat use were both measured in monetary units. In the cost-utility analysis, the outcome unit was a QALY. A QALY is a health outcome measure that values a year in perfect health at 1.0, values death at 0.0, and allows fates worse than death. QALYs merge some aspects of quality of life with quantity (or length) of life into a single measure. The number of life years (quantity of life) gained as a result of booster seat use is combined with published estimates of the quality of those life years5–7 to calculate the number of QALYs gained. Quality of life is a multidimensional concept measuring the physical, emotional, and social aspects that are relevant and important to a person's well-being.

The 2 alternatives evaluated in this study were use of a lap-shoulder belt with or without a booster seat. Given that a child should use a booster seat for 4 years, benefits accrue each year. Benefits in future years were discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate (with sensitivity analysis at 4%). This rate is recommended for reference case comparisons worldwide by the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.8 Statistical tables are available that provide the present value factors of a given monetary amount received each year. A present value factor is the “multiplier” that, when multiplied by the amount received each year, gives the present value of the cash flows. The present value factor for 4 years and a discount rate of 3% is 3.8286.9

The estimated cost of a booster seat came from Hendrie et al.10 They found that a low-end booster seat costs $20. Their US booster seat costs were ascertained from the www.shopping.com Web site and verified by visiting 2 national retailers. A backless seat was readily available for $18 to $22 (including sales tax or shipping), a model with back for $30, and premium models for $40 to $100. The available booster seat effectiveness data are predominantly for a sample of boosters with backs, so the analysis uses a $30 cost. In sensitivity analysis, the cost of time spent buying, installing, and maintaining a booster seat was estimated at 4 hours per year. This time was priced at the $10.88 hourly wage (in 2000 dollars) for an installation, maintenance, and repair helper, from US government statistics.11 We ignored the early retirement of some booster seats, most often ones involved in crashes. All of the costs and benefits were measured in year 2000 dollars.

Following previous studies,12–14 for laws and regulations we use Downing's14 estimates that the costs of approving mandates average 2.9% to 7.1% of the direct costs imposed on the public, with public implementation and administration costing another 4.2% to 4.6%. That means that the costs of a law mandating use of booster seats, on average, would add 9.4% to the direct cost of a booster seat.

To estimate the costs of injuries for belted and booster-seated injury victims, 3 components were used: the distribution of serious injuries for these 2 types of victims, the probability of a serious injury for a child aged 4 to 7 years who travels belted or in a booster seat, and injury costs. Any reduction in minor injuries associated with the use of booster seats was assumed to be offset by a rise in minor injuries that would have been severe without the booster seat.

The first component, the distribution of serious injuries, came from Durbin et al4 That source provides the only available effectiveness data on the impacts of booster seats on the number of serious injuries (fatalities, facial lacerations, and injuries that pose a moderate to critical risk of death). The probability of injury could not be computed from the same data, because no one knows the total number of children traveling in motor vehicles insured by State Farm Insurance (the claims file used in Durbin et al4). Therefore, the probability of a serious injury for a child aged 4 to 7 years who travels belted was estimated using the annual number of injuries from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 1993–1999 Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)15 and the average number of children from US Census data. We chose these years because booster seat use seems to have expanded rapidly starting in 2000. Our data are for the most recent period when booster seat use was virtually nonexistent.

The mix of injuries reported in Durbin et al4 was costed with published injury costs by body part and severity.15,16 These costs include the monetary value of the loss of health plus all of the other costs resulting from a serious injury.

We used the published cost estimates,15,16 because they mirror the official values used in regulatory analysis by NHTSA but computed at a 3% rather than a 4% discount rate. They draw on data from 1992–1994 Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services data for physician and emergency department fees, 1994–1995 data on hospital costs in Maryland and New York (the only 2 states where costs, not charges or payments, were known), and 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey and 1979–1987 National Council on Compensation Insurance data on the percentage of costs that occur >6 months postinjury.

The published estimates based short-term parental work loss on the assumption that the lowest paid parent would stay home to care for an injured child on any day that an adult with a comparable injury would not work. Information on the probability that an employed person would lose work for a specific injury came from the CDS 1993–1999. Information on the days of work lost per person who lost work came from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics 1993 Survey of Occupational Injury and Illness.17 Mean probabilities of work loss were estimated from just those CDS records that had the relevant information, which frequently was missing. Sample size considerations drove the decision to pool several years of CDS data. Long-term productivity loss by diagnosis was based on 1979–1987 National Council on Compensation Insurance Detailed Claims Information data on the probability that injuries would cause permanent partial/total disability and 1997 Detailed Claims Information data on the percentage loss of earning power for partially disabled injury victims.

The published estimates included a variety of other direct costs. Among them were emergency services, insurance claims administration, legal and court costs, and workplace disruption costs. These estimates used insurance data and data from previous NHTSA studies.

Following earlier studies,5,18 the published estimates based quality of life loss (QALY) on physicians' estimates of the functional capacity lost over time by injury diagnosis and a systematic review of the survey literature on the loss in value of life that results from different functional losses. These losses were costed based on a meta-analysis examining what people pay for small changes in fatality risk and surveys on what they state they are willing to pay. Recognizing that monetizing the value of quality of life is controversial, we provide analyses with both unmonetized and monetized QALYs.

The savings from booster seat use have 2 components: injury prevention and injury severity reduction. We valued injury prevention by multiplying the probability of a serious injury for a child aged 4 to 7 years who travels belted (.000704 annually) by the sum of booster seat effectiveness (59%) times the average cost per seriously injured belted child estimated using the published unit costs ($851745). We valued severity reduction at 41% (100%–59%) of the difference in the average cost of a serious injury to a child in a belt versus a child in a booster seat ($851745 vs $402139). In compact form, the calculation was as follows:

Annual costs averted = 0.000704 × [0.59 × $851745 + 0.41 × ($851745 − $402139)]

RESULTS

Each booster seat in use can avert $484 {0.000704 × [0.59 × $851745 + 0.41 × ($851745 − $402139)]} in injury costs annually. The present value of savings over 4 years is 3.8286 times this amount or $1854 (Table 1). The savings include $245 in medical spending, $161 in other resource costs, $433 in work losses, and QALYs valued at $1015. The estimated net savings per booster seat is $1824 ($1854 − $30). The benefit-cost ratio for a booster seat is 61.8 ($1854/$30). The savings in medical and other resource costs from a booster seat exceed its purchase price by $376. Thus, it offers net cost savings of $348543 per QALY. If parental time expenditures are included, the estimated net savings per booster seat is $1657 ($1854 − $197), the benefit-cost ratio for a booster seat is 9.4 ($1854/$197), and the savings in medical and other resource costs from a booster seat exceed its cost by $209. In addition, if the costs of mandating use are included, the estimated net savings per booster seat is $1638 ($1854 − $216), the benefit-cost ratio for a booster seat is 8.6 ($1854/$216), and the savings in medical and other resource costs from a booster seat still exceed its cost by $190.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Savings per Booster Seat From Injury Reduction and Cost-Benefit Ratios

In sensitivity analysis, a 4% discount rate was used, and booster seat effectiveness was set at a minimum of 35% and a maximum of 70%. The resulting variance in injury cost savings was −25% to +10%.

DISCUSSION

Benefit-cost and cost-utility analyses support comparisons between injury interventions when the unit of outcome varies between alternatives. Unlike cost-effectiveness analyses that measure outcomes using a generic unit, such as life years saved, they account for differences in quality of life that result from intervention. This makes them appropriate for comparing programs that are primarily life saving with those that focus on reducing nonfatal injury. Booster seats and laws mandating their use both offer net resource cost savings, which places them among the top tier of preventive interventions.19

An unquantified benefit in this study is that booster seats make safety belts more comfortable and make it difficult to slip the shoulder harness behind the shoulder. This may affect children's willingness to wear restraints and improve their positioning and behavior in the car. Thus, injury costs averted can be higher than estimated.

Other limitations of this analysis include: (1) only 1 study of seat effectiveness in actual use for all crash directions is available; (2) the injury unit costs used are not child specific; (3) some of the data used in estimating the other resource costs and QALY losses are old; (4) only modest validation has been done on the QALY loss estimates despite ∼15 years of use in regulatory analysis; (5) the CDS data profile serious injuries (Abbreviated Injury Severity 2 and above) in tow-away crashes, whereas the State Farm data profile serious injuries (Abbreviated Injury Severity 2 and above) in all crashes with insurance claims, meaning the injury cost savings might describe more serious injuries by body region than the effectiveness study and be overestimated; (6) no allowance is made for early seat retirement; and (7) some parents buy a child a booster seat for each family car, raising total seat cost per child. Nevertheless, in sensitivity analysis, when both booster seat effectiveness and injury unit cost estimates were lowered, although the savings were reduced by 25%, a booster seat law still offered net resource cost savings of $274 per seat. The net resource cost savings would be $279 per booster seat if seats were retired 1 year early and $173 per seat if 2 seats were purchased per child. Thus, the finding that booster seats are excellent investments is robust.

Despite these limitations, the benefits from using a booster seat clearly exceed the costs. Booster seats are a worthwhile investment from a societal perspective. The cost savings and safety provided by booster seats support the passage of booster seat use laws nationwide. Experience with child seat laws suggests that a booster seat law and related publicity should raise booster seat use by 40%.20,21 Seat laws will save both lives and money.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, contract 240-98-0006.

Footnotes

    • Accepted June 28, 2006.
  • Address correspondence to Ted Miller, PhD, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 11710 Beltsville Dr, Suite 125, Calverton, MD 20705. E-mail: miller{at}pire.org
  • The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

QALY—quality-adjusted life year • NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety Administration • CDS—Crashworthiness Data System

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Durbin DR, Arbogast KB, Moll EK. Seat belt syndrome in children: A case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Emerg Care.2001;17 ;474– 477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Ebel BE, Koepsell TD, Bennett EE, Rivera FP. Too small for a seatbelt: Predictors of booster seat use by child passengers. Pediatrics.2003;111 :323– 327
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. State booster seat use requirements in the U.S. Available at: www.google.com/search?q=cache:6LTXcy2ipSkJ:www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/BoosterSeatLaws_OverviewMaps_2-1-06.pdf+booster+seat+law+states&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12. Accessed May 25, 2006
  4. ↵
    Durbin DR, Elliott MR, Winston FK. Belt-positioning booster seats and reduction in risk of injury among children in vehicle crashes. JAMA.2003;289 ;2835– 2840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Miller TR, Pindus NM, Douglass JB, Rossman SB. Databook on Nonfatal Injury: Incidence, Costs, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press; 1995
  6. Miller TR. Costs and functional consequences of United States roadway crashes. Accid Anal Prev.1993;25 :593– 607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Blincoe L, Seay A, Zaloshnja E, et al. The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2002.
  8. ↵
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996
  9. ↵
    Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1997
  10. ↵
    Hendrie D, Miller TR, Orlando M, et al. Child and family safety device affordability by country income level: An 18-country comparison. Inj Prev.2004;10 ;338– 343
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. National occupational employment and wage estimates. Available at: www.bls.gov/oes/2000/oes499098.htm. Accessed November 15, 2001.
  12. ↵
    Miller TR. Assessing the burden of injury: Progress and pitfalls. In: Mohan D, Tiwari G, eds. Injury Prevention and Control. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2000:49–70
  13. Miller TR, Hendrie D. Cost and Benefit Analysis of Substance Abuse Prevention Interventions. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation; 2005
  14. ↵
    Downing PB. Policy consequences of indirect regulatory costs. Public Policy.1981;29 :507– 526
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National automotive sampling system: Crashworthiness Data System 1993–1999. Available at: ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/NASS. Accessed April 19, 2005
  16. ↵
    Miller TR, Zaloshnja E, Sheppard MA. Are booster seats needed: Comparing occupant outcomes ages 4–7 versus 8–13. 46th Annual Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Sep 29 to Oct 2, 2002. Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; 2002:239– 259
  17. ↵
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 1993. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1993
  18. ↵
    Zaloshnja E, Miller TR, Romano EO, Spicer RS. Crash costs by body part injured, fracture involvement, and threat to life severity, United States, 2000. Accid Anal Prev.2004;36 ;415– 427
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Miller TR, Levy DT. Cost-outcome analysis in injury prevention and control: Eighty-four recent estimates for the United States. Med Care.2000;38 ;562– 582
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Zaza S, Sleet DA, Thompson RS, Sosin DM, Bolen JC. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats. Am J Prev Med.2001;21(4 suppl) :31– 47
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Blomquist G. Motorist use of safety equipment: Expected benefits or risk incompetence. J. Risk Unc.1991;4 :135– 152
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  • Copyright © 2006 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Pediatrics
Vol. 118, Issue 5
November 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years
Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja, Delia Hendrie
Pediatrics Nov 2006, 118 (5) 1994-1998; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-1328

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years
Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja, Delia Hendrie
Pediatrics Nov 2006, 118 (5) 1994-1998; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-1328
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Studies Funded Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
  • Clinical Impact of a Diagnostic Gastrointestinal Panel in Children
  • Intrapartum Group B Streptococcal Prophylaxis and Childhood Allergic Disorders
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Injury, Violence & Poison Prevention
    • Injury, Violence & Poison Prevention
    • Carseat Safety
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • AAP.org
  • shopAAP
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
  • RSS
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics