PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 105–111 | Cite as

The friction-cost method

Replacement for nothing and leisure for free?
Current Opinion

Abstract

The friction-cost method has been put forward as an alternative to the human-capital method as it allows more realistic estimates of productivity costs to be calculated for use in economic evaluations. The possibility of replacement of (long-term) absentees is at the heart of the friction-cost method. It recognises that society will restore initial production levels after some period of adaptation, the length of which may depend on the availability of labour and, hence, on unemployment.

The friction-cost method has received two main criticisms in the literature: (i) it has no theoretical underpinning; and (ii) it treats leisure time as having no value. We demonstrate in a simple ‘theoretical’ time-allocation model how time use shifts in the friction-cost method and that leisure is not treated as having no value. Rather, it is considered to be valued in terms of QALYs — as is normally the case in economic evaluation.

The time-allocation model also demonstrates that when using the friction-cost or human-capital method the changes in the amount of unpaid work and leisure time need to be valued separately. Unpaid production losses from the previously unemployed may be larger than the gain in unpaid production gain of the absentee, resulting in a societal loss of unpaid work or the sacrifice of leisure in order to make up for lost unpaid work. These changes should be incorporated into economic analyses.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review. Both authors were involved in the different stages of the conceptualisation and process of writing the paper and approved the final version.

We gratefully acknowledge the Dutch Council for Health Care Research, subsidy no 945-10-041/046, for financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, Ineveld BM van, et al. The friction-cost method for estimating the indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond MF. Cost of illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johanneson M, Karlsson G. The friction-cost method: a comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 249–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koopmanschap MA, Burdorf A, Jacob K, et al. Measuring productivity changes in economic evaluation: setting the research agenda. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (1): 47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Indirect costs: the consequences of production loss or increased costs of production. Med Care 1996; 34: DS59–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, et al. Productivity costs, time cost and health related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. Health Econ 1997; 6: 505–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Ritten FFH. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6: 511–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sculpher M. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF and Mcquire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care; merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brouwer WBF, Rutten FFH. The missing link: on the line between C and E. Health Econ 2003; 12: 629–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sendi P, Brouwer WBF. Is silence golden? A test of the incorporation of the effects of ill-health on income and leisure in health state valuations. Health Economics. In pressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, Ineveld BM van, et al. Reply to Johanneson’s and Karlsson’s comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 257–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van den Berg GJ. Search behaviour, transitions to non-participation and the duration of unemployment. Economic J 1990; 100: 842–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bloemen HG. Job search theory, labour supply and unemployment duration. J Econom 1997; 79: 305–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narendranathan W, Nickell S. Modelling the process of job search. J Econom 1985; 28: 29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 460–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus Medical Center/Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations