Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations: Past, Present, Future
- 775 Downloads
Productivity costs occur when the productivity of individuals is affected by illness, treatment, disability or premature death. The objective of this paper was to review past and current developments related to the inclusion, identification, measurement and valuation of productivity costs in economic evaluations. The main debates in the theory and practice of economic evaluations of health technologies described in this review have centred on the questions of whether and how to include productivity costs, especially productivity costs related to paid work. The past few decades have seen important progress in this area. There are important sources of productivity costs other than absenteeism (e.g. presenteeism and multiplier effects in co-workers), but their exact influence on costs remains unclear. Different measurement instruments have been developed over the years, but which instrument provides the most accurate estimates has not been established. Several valuation approaches have been proposed. While empirical research suggests that productivity costs are best included in the cost side of the cost-effectiveness ratio, the jury is still out regarding whether the human capital approach or the friction cost approach is the most appropriate valuation method to do so. Despite the progress and the substantial amount of scientific research, a consensus has not been reached on either the inclusion of productivity costs in economic evaluations or the methods used to produce productivity cost estimates. Such a lack of consensus has likely contributed to ignoring productivity costs in actual economic evaluations and is reflected in variations in national health economic guidelines. Further research is needed to lessen the controversy regarding the estimation of health-related productivity costs. More standardization would increase the comparability and credibility of economic evaluations taking a societal perspective.
KeywordsProductivity Cost Economic Evaluation Societal Perspective Unpaid Work Human Capital Approach
This study was part of a larger project investigating the broader societal benefits of healthcare, which was financially supported by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag Merck and Pfizer BV. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.
WB and FR had the idea for the review. MK was primarily responsible for reviewing the literature and writing the manuscript, in cooperation with WB and FR. All authors read, edited and approved the final manuscript. WB is the overall guarantor for the content of this article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no further conflicts of interest to declare.
- 2.Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions (CHE research paper no. 54). New York: Centre for Health Economics; 2010.Google Scholar
- 4.Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Jönsson L, Kobelt G, Zethraeus N. Why should economic evaluations of medical innovations have a societal perspective? OHE briefing. 2009;51:1–32.Google Scholar
- 5.Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(3):332–42.Google Scholar
- 6.Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19(4):422–37.Google Scholar
- 8.Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator—a further discussion. Health Econ. 1997;6(5):511–4.Google Scholar
- 13.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 14.Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 17.Pritchard C, Sculpher M. Productivity costs: principles and practice in economic evaluation. London: Office of Health Economics; 2000.Google Scholar
- 18.Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Econ. 1994;3(6):385–93.Google Scholar
- 20.Krol M, Papenburg J, Tan S, Brouwer W, Hakkaart L. A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/38176/Productivity%20costs%20in%20economic%20evaluations%20_Marieke%20Krol.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2012.
- 24.Posnett J, Jan S. Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid inputs. Health Econ. 1996;5(1):13–23.Google Scholar
- 25.Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common? Health Policy. 2002;61(2):173–187.Google Scholar
- 36.Krol M, Stolk E, Brouwer W. Productivity costs predictions based on EQ-5D: an explorative study. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/38176/Productivity%20costs%20in%20economic%20evaluations%20_Marieke%20Krol.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2012.
- 39.Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, Lipscomb J, Luce BR, Manning WG Jr, et al. Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. Health Econ. 1997;6(5):505–10.Google Scholar
- 40.Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):253–9.Google Scholar
- 43.Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):249–55 (discussion 257–9).Google Scholar
- 46.Myers J, McCabe S, Gohmann S. Quality-of-life assessment when there is a loss of income. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(1):27–33.Google Scholar
- 52.Brouwer WB, Grootenboer S, Sendi P. The incorporation of income and leisure in health state valuations when the measure is silent: an empirical inquiry into the sound of silence. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):503–12.Google Scholar
- 54.Culyer AJ, Bombard Y. An equity framework for health technology assessments. Making: Med Decis.; 2011.Google Scholar
- 56.Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Belgium (KCE reports 78C). Brussels: KCE; 2008.Google Scholar
- 57.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.Google Scholar
- 58.Edling A, Stenberg A. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Stockholm: Pharmaceutical Benefits Board; 2003.Google Scholar
- 59.College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: CVZ; 2006.Google Scholar
- 60.Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, Merlo F, Mantovani L. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:189–201.Google Scholar
- 61.Norwegian Medicines Agency. Norwegian guidelines for pharmacoeconomic analysis in connection with applications for reimbursement. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Agency; 2002.Google Scholar
- 64.Swiebel J. Unpaid work and policy-making: towards a broader perspective of work and employment. Discussion paper of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 1999. DESA Discussion Paper No. 4. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/1999/esa99dp4.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.
- 67.van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Bonsel G, Rutten FF. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12(3):405–15.Google Scholar
- 69.Reid M. Economics of household production. New York: Wiley; 1934.Google Scholar
- 77.Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4):371–7.Google Scholar
- 78.Tilling C, Krol M, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Brouwer W. In or out? Income losses in health state valuations: a review. Value Health. 2010;13(2):298–305.Google Scholar
- 79.Waldman JD, Kelly F, Arora S, Smith HL. The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Manage Rev. 2004;29(1):2–7.Google Scholar
- 85.Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal. A consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15(1):147–60.Google Scholar
- 86.Grocott R, Metcalfe S, Schoeler R, Priest V, Hall C, Brougham M, et al. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. Wellington: PHARMAC Pharmaceutical Management Agency; 2007.Google Scholar