Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 359–367 | Cite as

Productivity Losses Associated with Head and Neck Cancer Using the Human Capital and Friction Cost Approaches

  • Alison M. PearceEmail author
  • Paul Hanly
  • Aileen Timmons
  • Paul M. Walsh
  • Ciaran O’Neill
  • Eleanor O’Sullivan
  • Rachael Gooberman-Hill
  • Audrey Alforque Thomas
  • Pamela Gallagher
  • Linda Sharp
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objectives

Previous studies suggest that productivity losses associated with head and neck cancer (HNC) are higher than in other cancers. These studies have only assessed a single aspect of productivity loss, such as temporary absenteeism or premature mortality, and have only used the Human Capital Approach (HCA). The Friction Cost Approach (FCA) is increasingly recommended, although has not previously been used to assess lost production from HNC. The aim of this study was to estimate the lost productivity associated with HNC due to different types of absenteeism and premature mortality, using both the HCA and FCA.

Methods

Survey data on employment status were collected from 251 HNC survivors in Ireland and combined with population-level survival estimates and national wage data. The cost of temporary and permanent time off work, reduced working hours and premature mortality using both the HCA and FCA were calculated.

Results

Estimated total productivity losses per employed person of working age were EUR253,800 using HCA and EUR6800 using FCA. The main driver of HCA costs was premature mortality (38 % of total) while for FCA it was temporary time off (73 % of total).

Conclusions

The productivity losses associated with head and neck cancer are substantial, and return to work assistance could form an important part of rehabilitation. Use of both the HCA and FCA approaches allowed different drivers of productivity losses to be identified, due to the different assumptions of the two methods. For future estimates of productivity losses, the use of both approaches may be pragmatic.

Keywords

Neck Cancer Productivity Loss Premature Mortality Wage Growth Human Capital Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the study participants and the consultants and their teams who assisted with reviewing subjects’ details. We are grateful to the following: Michal Molcho for participation in the ICE Steering Committee; Phyllis Butow for participation in the SuN Steering Committee; and National Cancer Registry Ireland staff involved in collection and processing of cancer registrations.

Financial and other support

This work was funded by a Health Research Board (HRB) Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) Award, which funds post-doctoral fellowships for Alison Pearce, Audrey Alforque Thomas and Aileen Timmons (ICE/2012/9). The SuN study survey development and data collection was funded by an HRB project grant (HRA/2009/262).

Conflicts of interest

Alison Pearce, Paul Hanly, Aileen Timmons, Paul Walsh, Ciaran O’Neill, Eleanor O’Sullivan, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Audrey Thomas, Pamela Gallagher and Linda Sharp report no conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

All authors reviewed and provided expert input to the analysis protocol, interpretation of results and drafts of the manuscript. In addition, AP cleaned the data, conducted the analysis and drafted the manuscript. PH suggested and advised on the methodology and assisted with the analysis and interpretation. AT conducted the survey of head and neck cancer patients. PW analysed the National Cancer Registry data. LS, AT, RGH, CON and PG obtained funding. LS initiated the project, she was Principal Investigator of the SuN survey study, and is the guarantor for the overall content.

Supplementary material

40258_2015_155_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Registry Ireland. Cancers of the head and neck. Cancer trends No. 10. National Cancer Registry Ireland: Cork; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1374–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adelstein DJ, Ridge JA, Gillison ML, Chaturvedi AK, D’Souza G, Gravitt PE, et al. Head and neck squamous cell cancer and the human papillomavirus: summary of a National Cancer Institute State of the Science Meeting, November 9–10, 2008, Washington, DC. Head Neck. 2009;31(11):1393–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coughlan D, Frick KD. Economic impact of human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancers in the United States. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2012;45:899–917.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckwalter AE, Karnell LH, Smith RB, Christensen AJ, Funk GF. Patient-reported factors associated with discontinuing employment following head and neck cancer treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(May):464–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van Bleek WJ, Leemans CR, de Bree R. Employment and return to work in head and neck cancer survivors. Oral Oncology. 2010;46:56–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang KP, Lai CS, Hsieh TY, Wu YC, Chang CH. Two-year quality of life after free flap reconstruction in tumor-site discrepancy among Taiwanese with moderately advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:145.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearce AM, Timmons A, O’Sullivan E, Gallagher P, Gooberman-Hill R, Thomas AA, et al. Long-term workforce participation patterns following head and neck cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2014 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Syse A, Tretli S, Kravdal O. Cancer’s impact on employment and earnings—a population-based study from Norway. J Cancer Surviv. 2008;2:149–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramirez MJF, Ferriol EE, Domenech FG, Llatas MC, Suarez-Varela MM, Martinez RL. Psychosocial adjustment in patients surgically treated for laryngeal cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(1):92–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weisbrod B. Economics of public health. Philadelphia: University of Pannsylvania Press; 1961.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper BS, Rice DP. The economic cost of illness revisited. Soc Secur Bull. 1976;39:21–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ. 1997;16:249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, Van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14:171–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJHA, Evers SMAA. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2010;13(5):519–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ekwueme DU, Chesson HW, Zhang KB, Balamurugan A. Years of potential life lost and productivity costs because of cancer mortality and for specific cancer sites where Human Papillomavirus may be a risk factor for carcinogenesis—United States, 2003. Cancer. 2008;113(10 suppl):2936–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bradley CJ, Yabroff KR, Dahman B, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A, Brown ML. Productivity costs of cancer mortality in the United States: 2000–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(24):1763–70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borget I, Abramowitz L, Mathevet P. Economic burden of HPV-related cancers in France. Vaccine. 2011;29(32):5245–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Citizens Information Board. Sick leave and sick pay. 2013. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/sick_leave.html. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  20. 20.
    Office for National Statistics. Standard occupational classification 2010. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/soc2010/index.html. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  21. 21.
    Central Statistics Office. National employment survey. NSA06: mean and median hourly earnings by employment status, sex, occupation, year and statistic. 2013. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=NSA06&PLanguage=0. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  22. 22.
    The Economic and Social Research Institute. Irish economy. 2012. http://www.esri.ie/irish_economy/. Accessed 10 July 2013.
  23. 23.
    Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. In: Health Information and Quality Authority, editor. Health Information and Quality Authority; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanly P, Koopmanschap MA, Sharp L. The friction cost approach in a changing macroeconomic environment: the case of colorectal cancer productivity costs. TBC. Draft. [under review].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanly P, Timmons A, Walsh PM, Sharp L. Breast and prostate cancer productivity costs: a comparison of the human capital approach and the friction cost approach. Value Health. 2012;15(3):429–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Central Statistics Office. Irish life tables No. 15, 2005–2007. Dublin: Central Statistics Office; 2009.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanly P, Walsh PM, Ó Céilleachair A, Skally M, Staines A, Kapur K, et al. Work-related productivity losses in an era of ageing populations: the case of colorectal cancer. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(2):128–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliva J, Lobo F, Lopez-Bastida J, Zozaya N, Romay R. Indirect costs of cervical and breast cancers in Spain. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:30–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Penner JL. Psychosocial care of patients with head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2009;25(3):231–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lensberg BR, Drummond MF, Danchenko N, Despiegel N, Francois C. Challenges in measuring and valuing productivity costs, and their relevance in mood disorders. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:565–73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams A. Cost-effectiveness analysis: is it ethical? J Med Ethics. 1992;18:7–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tranmer JE, Guerriere DN, Ungar WJ, Coyte PC. Valuing patient and caregiver time: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(5):449–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(1 (Part 1)):1–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison M. Pearce
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Hanly
    • 2
  • Aileen Timmons
    • 1
  • Paul M. Walsh
    • 1
  • Ciaran O’Neill
    • 3
  • Eleanor O’Sullivan
    • 4
  • Rachael Gooberman-Hill
    • 5
  • Audrey Alforque Thomas
    • 3
  • Pamela Gallagher
    • 6
  • Linda Sharp
    • 1
  1. 1.National Cancer Registry IrelandCorkIreland
  2. 2.National College of IrelandDublinIreland
  3. 3.National University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Cork University Dental School and HospitalCorkIreland
  5. 5.University of BristolBristolIreland
  6. 6.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations