, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 460–466 | Cite as

A Practical Guide for Calculating Indirect Costs of Disease

Review Article


There may be some discussion about whether indirect costs should be taken into account at all in an economic appraisal, but there is certainly considerable debate about the proper way of estimating these costs.

This reviews offers a practical guide for quantifying and valuing these indirect costs of disease, both at an aggregated level of general cost of illness studies, and in an economic appraisal of specific healthcare programmes.

Two methods of calculating these costs are considered: the traditional human capital approach, and the more recently developed friction cost method. The former method estimates the potential value of lost production as a result of disease, whereas the latter method intends to derive more realistic estimates of indirect costs, taking into account the degree of scarcity of labour in the economy. All necessary steps in the estimation procedure and the data required at various points will be described and discussed in detail.


Indirect Cost Production Loss Human Capital Approach Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee Economic Appraisal 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Draft guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. Ottawa, Canada: CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for estimating the indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 446–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond MF. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerard K, Donaldson C, Maynard AK. The cost of diabetes. Diabet Med 1989; 6: 164–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindgren B. Costs of illness in Sweden 1964–1975. Lund: Liber, 1981Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams A. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. BMJ 1985; 291: 326–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Koning J, Tuyl FAWM. The relation between labour time, production and employment [In Dutch]. Rotterdam: Netherlands Economic Institute, 1984Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Labour and health status in economic evaluation of health care: the health and labour questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. In pressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ours J, Ridder G. Cyclical variation in vacancy durations and vacancy flows, an empirical analysis. Eur Econ Rev 1991; 35: 1143–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Econ 1994; 3: 385–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical FacultyInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations