PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 47–54

Measuring productivity changes in economic evaluation

Setting the research agenda
  • Marc Koopmanschap
  • Alex Burdorf
  • Karin Jacob
  • Willem Jan Meerding
  • Werner Brouwer
  • Hans Severens
Practical Application

Abstract

Productivity costs related to illness may be relevant in assessing healthcare programmes for patients, as well as occupational interventions for workers. When performing an economic evaluation for both types of programmes, a sound methodology for measuring and valuing these productivity costs is essential. This article reviews research questions related to productivity and health, focusing on the costs of short-term absence from work, productivity costs without absence (‘presenteeism’) and possible compensation mechanisms and circumstances that may affect productivity costs. Furthermore, the important but under-explored relationship between productivity and QOL is analysed.

Strategies for better answers on these research questions, such as developing more valid measurement instruments, are discussed. It is stressed that the analysis of productivity costs should not be restricted to the level of the individual patient and worker but extended to the level of teams of workers and firms. It may be advisable to explore several issues such as compensation mechanisms and efficiency losses in detail using employee questionnaires and consecutively applying the key elements in patient settings. It seems advisable to develop flexible, modular instruments for measuring and valuing absence from work, compensation mechanisms, efficiency loss and details of jobs and organisation in an integrative and consistent way. Further, it seems crucial to identify what determinants of jobs and organisations are the key factors in estimating productivity costs. This list of determinants could be mapped with a classification of jobs, to be used as a screener in patient questionnaires.

References

  1. 1.
    Ten years of working conditions in the European Union. Dublin: European Foundation, 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brouwer WBF, Schut FT. Priority care for employees: a blessing in disguise? Health Econ 1999 Feb; 8 (1): 65–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 2nd ed. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 1997Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services, 1995Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riteco JA, De Heij LJM, van Luijn JCF, et al. Dutch guidelines: pharmacoeconomic research guidelines. Amstelveen: CvZ, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johanneson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998 Feb; 7 (1): 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 15: 171–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (9): 1005–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borghouts JAJ, Koes BW, Vondeling H, et al. Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 1999; 80: 629–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000; 84: 95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, et al. Work status and productivity costs due to ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 429–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFIL Productivity costs measurement through QOL? A response to the recommendation of the Washington panel. Health Econ 1997; 6: 253–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFIL Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6: 511–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Xu J, et al. A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Econ 2002; 11: 221–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sculpher M. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Severens JL, Laheij RJF, Jansen JBMJ, et al. Estimating the cost of lost productivity in dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 919–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFIL Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common? Health Policy 2002; 61: 173–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFIL Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence. Health Policy 1999; 48: 13–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 1996; 12: 405–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hagberg M, Wigaeus-Torngvist E, Toomingas A. Self-report reduced productivity due to musculoskeletal symptoms: associations with workplace and individual factors among whitecollar computer users. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 151–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5 Pt 1): 563–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berger ML, Murray JF, Xu J, et al. Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43 (1): 18–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Severens JL, Mulder J, Laheij RJF, et al. Precision and accuracy in measuring absence from work as a basis for calculating productivity costs in The Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 243–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Severens JL, Mulder J, Laheij RJF, et al. Validity of measuring compensation mechanisms for absence from work as a basis for calculating productivity costs. 15th Annual International Society of Technology Assessment in Healthcare (ISTAHC) Meeting; June 1999, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFIL van Ineveld BM, et al. Reply to Johannesson’s and Karlsson’s comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 257–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lamers LM, Meerding WY, Severen JL et al. The relationship between productivity and health related QOL: a empirical exploration in persons with low back pain. QOL Research. In pressGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osterhaus IT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Health care resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH, et al. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 2001; 39 (1): 72–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Koopmanschap
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alex Burdorf
    • 3
  • Karin Jacob
    • 4
  • Willem Jan Meerding
    • 3
  • Werner Brouwer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hans Severens
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Policy, Economy and Care OrganisationUniversity MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations