Objective
To develop an economic model for comparing cost-effectiveness of medical and surgical treatment versus replacement of beef bulls with preputial prolapse.
Design
Economic analysis.
Sample Population
Estimates determined from medical records of bulls treated for preputial prolapse at our hospital and from information about treatment of bulls published elsewhere.
Procedure
Annual depreciation cost for treatment (ADCT) and replacement (ADCR) were calculated. Total investment for an injured bull equaled the sum of salvage value, maintenance cost, and expected cost of the treatment option under consideration. Total investment for a replacement bull was purchase price. Net present value of cost was calculated for each year of bull use. Sensitivity analyses were constructed to determine the value that would warrant treatment of an injured bull.
Results
The decision to treat was indicated when ADCT was less than ADCR. In our example, it was more cost-effective for owners to cull an injured bull. The ADCR was $97 less than ADCT for medical treatment ($365 vs $462) and $280 less than ADCT for surgical treatment ($365 vs $645). Likewise, net present value of cost values indicated that it was more cost-effective for owners to cull an injured bull. Sensitivity analysis indicated treatment decisions were justified on the basis of replacement value or planned number 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. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;211:856–859)
