Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Standardised integration of productivity costs into health economic evaluations is hindered by equity and distributional concerns. Our aim was to explore the distributive impact of productivity cost methodological variation, describing the consequences for different groups.

Methods

527 prostate cancer survivors (2–5 years post-diagnosis) completed questions on work patterns since diagnosis. Productivity loss, categorised into temporary/permanent absenteeism, reduced hours and presenteeism, were costed in €2012. Valuation approaches included the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA), with wage multipliers (WM) applied in additional analyses. Both national and self-reported wages were used. Costs were compared across socio-demographic and economic characteristics using non-parametric tests.

Results

The estimated base case (HCA, using national wages) total productivity cost was €44,201 per prostate cancer survivor. Permanent absenteeism accounted for the largest cost (€18,537), followed by reduced work hours (€11,130), presenteeism (€8148) and temporary absenteeism (€6386). Alternative valuation estimates ranged from − 90% (FCAnational wage: €4625) to + 82% (HCAWMself-reported wage: €80,485) compared to the base case and were consistently higher for self-reported wages compared to national wages. Statistically significant differences in productivity cost were found across four of the six survivor socio-demographic and economic characteristics by valuation approach, despite no significant difference in their physical unit equivalents.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the distributional impact of productivity costs varies by socio-economic and demographic characteristics. We advocate that: productivity loss should be reported in physical units where possible; cost estimation should be subject to sensitivity analysis, and only where this is not feasible, that the HCA and national wages be used to value productivity loss where equity concerns are paramount.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brock, D.: Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health resources. In: Khushf, G. (ed.) Handbook of Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine, p. 78. Springer, Dordrecht (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. WHO guide to identifying the economic consequences of disease and injury. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/137037 (2009). Accessed 6 Jun 2018

  3. Rutstein, S.E., Price, J.T., Rosenberg, N.E., Rennie, S.M., Biddle, A.K., Miller, W.C.: Hidden costs: the ethics of cost-effectiveness analyses for health interventions in resource-limited settings. Glob. Public Health 12, 1269–1281 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams, A.: Cost-effectiveness analysis: is it ethical? J. Med. Ethics 18, 7–11 (1992)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Krol, M., Brouwer, W., Rutten, F.: Productivity costs in economic evaluations: past, present, future. Pharmacoeconomics. 31, 537–549 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brouwer, W.B.F., Exel, J.A., Baltussen, R.M.P.M., Rutten, F.F.H.: A dollar is a dollar-or is it? Value Health. 9, 341–347 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jonsson, B.: Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. 10, 357–359 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tarricone, R.: Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics? Health Policy. 77, 51–63 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economics appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Krol, M., Papenburg, J., Koopmanschap, M., Brouwer, W.: Do productivity costs matter? The impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. Pharmacoeconomics. 29, 601–619 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krol, M., Papenburg, J., Tan, S.S., Brouwer, W., Hakkaart, L.: A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs. Eur. J. Health Econ. 17, 391–402 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Olsen, J., Richardson, J.: Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 17–26 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tranmer, J.E., Guerriere, D.N., Ungar, W.J., Coyte, P.C.: Valuing patient and caregiver time: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 23, 449–459 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Drummond, F.J., Kinnear, H., Donnelly, C., O’Leary, E., O’Brien, K., Burns, R.M., Gavin, A., Sharp, L.: Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: the Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study. BMJ Open 17, e006851 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Health Information and Quality Authority.: Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland. Health Information and Quality Authority. https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/health-technology-assessment/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health (2018). Accessed 11 Jan 2019

  16. Zhang, W., Bansback, N., Anis, A.H.: Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: a critical review. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 185–192 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kigozi, J., Jowett, S., Lewis, M., Barton, P., Coast, J.: Valuing productivity costs using the friction-cost approach: estimating friction-period estimates by occupational classifications for the UK. Health Econ. 26, 1862–1868 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Koopmanschap, M.A., Rutten, F.F., van Ineveld, B.M., van Roijen, L.: The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J. Health Econ. 14, 171–189 (1995)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Krol, M., Brouwer, W.: How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 32, 335–344 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hanly, P., Koopmanschap, M., Sharp, L.: Valuing productivity costs in a changing macroeconomic environment: the estimation of colorectal cancer productivity costs using the friction cost approach. Eur. J. Health Econ. 17, 553–561 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kigozi, J., Jowett, S., Lewis, M., Barton, P., Coast, J.: Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review. Eur. J. Health Econ. 17, 31–44 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nicholson, S., Pauly, M.V., Polsky, D., Sharda, C., Szrek, H., Berger, M.L.: Measuring the effects of work loss on productivity with team production. Health Econ. 15, 111–123 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Strömberg, C., Aboagye, E., Hagberg, J., Bergström, G., Lohela-Karlsson, M.: Estimating the effect and economic impact of absenteeism, presenteeism, and work environment-related problems on reductions in productivity from a managerial perspective. Value Health. 20, 1058–1064 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Burns, R.M., Leal, J., Wolstenhome, J., O’Neill, C., Sullivan, F.J., Drummond, F.J., Sharp, L.: The Burden of health care costs associated with prostate cancer in Ireland. Value Health. 17, A627 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Connolly, M.P., Tashjian, C., Kotsopoulos, N., Bhatt, A., Postma, M.J.: A comparison of average wages with age-specific wages for assessing indirect productivity losses: analytic simplicity versus analytic precision. Eur. J. Health Econ. 18, 697–701 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kigozi, J., Jowett, S., Lewis, M., Barton, P., Coast, J.: The estimation and inclusion of presenteeism costs in applied economic evaluation: a systematic review. Value Health. 20, 496–506 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang, W., Sun, H., Woodcock, S., Anis, A.: Illness related wage and productivity losses: valuing ‘presenteeism’. Soc. Sci. Med. 147, 62–71 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krol, M., Brouwer, W.B., Severens, J.L., Kaper, J., Evers, S.M.: Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects. Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 1981–1988 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the men who took part in this study and the health professionals who helped screen men for eligibility. We would also like to thank Dr. Anna Gavin, Dr. Heather Kinnear and all the staff of the National Cancer Registry Ireland and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry for collecting and processing the registrations which formed the study sampling frame.

Funding

Funding for the collection of the data used in this study was supplied by the Irish Health Research Board (HRA_HSR/2010/17) and Prostate Cancer UK (NI09‐03 and NI‐PG13‐001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National College of Ireland, Mayor Street, Dublin 1, Ireland

    Paul Hanly

  2. Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

    Rebecca Maguire

  3. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Frances Drummond

  4. Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

    Linda Sharp

Authors
  1. Paul Hanly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Maguire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frances Drummond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Hanly.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hanly, P., Maguire, R., Drummond, F. et al. Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer. Eur J Health Econ 20, 1399–1408 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01098-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01098-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation