Advertisement

The impact of firms’ adjustments on the indirect cost of illness

  • Michał Jakubczyk
  • Beata Koń
Research Article

Abstract

Illness-related absenteeism reduces firms’ output, an effect referred to as indirect cost (IC) and often included in cost-of-illness or cost-effectiveness (of health technologies) studies. The companies may foresee this effect and modify hiring or contracting policies. We present a model allowing the estimation of IC with such adjustments. We show that the risk of illness does not change the general shape and properties of the (expected) marginal productivity function. We apply our model to several illustrative examples and show that firm’s adjustments impact IC in an ambiguous way, depending on detailed company/market characteristics: in some cases the company reduces the employment (further increasing IC), in another—the opposite happens. Contrary to previous findings, teamwork and shortfall penalties may reduce IC in some settings. Our analysis highlights that IC should be split into the result of companies preparing for and actually experiencing sick leaves.

Keywords

Absenteeism Indirect cost Teamwork Output shortfall Friction cost method Societal perspective 

JEL Classification

D21 J24 J21 L23 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was partially prepared when M. Jakubczyk was at The University of Iowa, Tippie College of Business, which was possible thanks to the Fulbright Senior Award 2015/2016. We would also like to thank R. Amir for useful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arnold, D., & de Pinto, M. (2014). Sickness absence, presenteeism and work-related characteristics: Conference paper. Conference: Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2015: Ökonomische Entwicklung—Theorie und Politik—Session: Labor-Empirical Studies 5, No G16-V1.Google Scholar
  2. Audrey, S., & Procter, S. (2015). Employers’ views of promoting walking to work: A qualitative study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. doi: 10.1186/s12,966-015-0174-8.
  3. Berger, M., Murray, J., Xu, J., & Pauly, M. (2001). Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 18–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer, W., van Exel, N., Baltussen, R., & Rutten, F. (2006). A dollar is a dollar is a dollar—Or is it? Value in Health, 9, 341–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryson, A. (2013). Do temporary agency workers affect workplace performance? Journal of Productivity Analysis, 39, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, W., Morrison, A., & Wertheimer, A. (2003). Pharmaceuticals and worker productivity loss: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45, 610–621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Capri, S., Ceci, A., Terranova, L., Merlo, F., & Mantovani, L. (2001). Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Italy%20PE%20guidelines_Italy.
  8. College Voor Zorgverzekeringen (2006). Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesNLupdated2006.
  9. DeLeire, T., & Manning, W. (2004). Labor market costs of illness: Prevalence matters. Health Economics, 13, 239–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Knies, S., Boonen, A., Candel, M., Evers, S., & Severens, J. (2013). Compensation mechanisms for lost productivity: A comparison between four European countries. Value in Health, 16, 740–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Koopmanschap, M., Rutten, F., van Ineveld, B., & van Roijen, L. (1995). The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics, 14, 171–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Koopmanschap, M., & van Ineveld, B. (1992). Towards a new approach for estimating indirect cost of disease. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 1005–1010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Krol, M., Brouwer, W., & Rutten, F. (2013). Productivity costs in economic evaluations: Past, present, future. Pharmacoeconomics, 31, 537–549.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Krol, M., Brouwer, W., Severens, J., Kaper, J., & Evers, S. (2012). Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: Correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects. Social Science and Medicine, 75, 1981–1988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leigh, J. P. (1981). The effects of union membership on absence from work due to illness. Journal of Labor Research, 2, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liljas, B. (1998). How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics, 13, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loeppke, R., Hohn, T., Baase, C., Bunn, W., Burton, W., Eisenberg, B., et al. (2015). Integrating health and safety in the workplace: How closely aligning health and safety strategies can yield measurable benefits. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 585–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pauly, M., Nicholson, S., Polsky, D., Berger, M., & Sharda, C. (2008). Valuing reductions in on-the-job illness: ‘Presenteeism’ from managerial and economic perspectives. Health Economics, 17, 469–485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pauly, M., Nicholson, S., Xu, P. D. J., Danzon, P., Murray, J., & Berger, M. (2002). A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Economics, 11, 221–231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Australia-Guidelines-for-preparing-submissions-to-the-Pharmaceutical-Benefits-Advisory-Committee-2008.
  21. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (2003). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the pharmaceutical benefits board. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Guidelines_in_Sweden.
  22. Suhrcke, M., Sauto Arce, R., McKee, M., & Rocco, L. (2012). Economic costs of ill health in the European region. In J. Figueras & M. McKee (Eds.), Health systems, health, wealth and societal well-being: Assessing the case for investing in health systems (European Observatory on Health Care Systems). New York: Mcgraw Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Walter, W., & Zehetmayr, S. (2006). Guidelines on health economic evaluation:consensus paper. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Guidelines_Austria.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Analysis and Support UnitSGH Warsaw School of EconomicsWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Analysis and StrategyMinistry of HealthWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations