Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Approaches To Valuing the Lost Productivity of Patients with Migraine

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To calculate and compare the human capital approach (HCA) and friction cost approach (FCA) methods for estimating the cost of lost productivity of migraineurs after the initiation of sumatriptan from a US societal perspective.

Design: Secondary, retrospective analysis to a prospective observational study.

Setting: A mixed-model managed care organisation in western Pennsylvania, USA.

Patients: Patients with migraine using sumatriptan therapy.

Interventions: Patient-reported questionnaires collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months after initiation of sumatriptan therapy.

Outcome measures: The cost of lost productivity estimated with the HCA and FCA methods.

Results: Of the 178 patients who completed the study, 51% were full-time employees, 13% were part-time, 18% were not working and 17% changed work status. Twenty-four percent reported a clerical or administrative position. From the HCA, the estimated total cost of lost productivity for 6 months following the initiation of sumatriptan was $US117 905 (1996 values). From the FCA, the six-month estimated total cost of lost productivity ranged from $US28 329 to $US117 905 (1996 values).

Conclusions: This was the first study to retrospectively estimate lost productivity of patients with migraine using the FCA methodology. Our results demonstrate that depending on the assumptions and illustrations employed, the FCA can yield lost productivity estimates that vary greatly as a percentage of the HCAestimate. Prospective investigations are needed to better determine the components and the nature of the lost productivity for chronic episodic diseases such as migraine headache.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999; 813–8

    Google Scholar 

  2. Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Health care resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart WF, Linet MS, Van Natta M, et al. Age-and sex-specific incidence rates of migraine with and without visual aura. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1111–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celetano DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the Unites States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stang PE, Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache 1993; 33: 29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cortelli P, Dahlof C, Bouchard J, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan III: workplace productivity and non-workplace activity. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997; 11 Suppl. 1: 35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lofland JH, Johnson NE, Batenhorst AS, et al. Changes in resource use and outcomes for migraine patients treated with sumatriptan: a managed care perspective. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 857–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen JA, Beall DG, Miller DW, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996; 28: 171–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Lost workdays and decreased work effectiveness associated with headache in the workplace. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 39: 320–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stang P, Cady RK, Batenhorst AS, et al. Workplace productivity: a review of the impact of migraine and its treatment. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (3): 231–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schulman EA, Cady RK, Henry D, et al. Effectiveness of sumatriptan in reducing productivity loss due to migraine: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75: 782–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrari MD. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (6): 667–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human capital cost approach and the external costs. Health Policy 1996; 36: 231–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 (5): 460–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (6): 446–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Salkever DS. Morbidity costs: national estimates and economic determinants. NCHSR Summary ser. Washington (DC): National Centre for Health Services Research, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  17. Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 170–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson JC. Philosophical origins of the economic valuation of life. Milbank Q 1986; 64 (1): 133–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5 Pt 1) 563–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. DeLissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994; 14: 171–89

    Google Scholar 

  22. Peeples PJ, Wertheimer AI, Mackowiak JI, et al. Controversies in measuring and valuing indirect costs of productivity foregone in a cost of illness evaluation. J Res Pharm Econ 1997; 8 (3): 23–32

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 1): 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Severens JL, Laheij RJF, Jansen JBMJ, et al. Estimating the cost of lost productivity in dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 919–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health andmedicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations [letter]. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5 Pt 1): 566–9

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lofland JH, Kim SS, Batenhorst AS, et al. Cost effectiveness and cost benefit of sumatriptan for patients with migraine. Mayo Clin Proc. In press

  29. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Economics 1994; 3: 385–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational wage rates, January 1998 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/cpsaatab.htm#weekearn [Accessed Mar 1998]

    Google Scholar 

  31. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Publication directory [online]. Available from URL: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/ History/ecec.061894.news [Accessed Mar 1998]

  32. Legg RF, Sclar DA, Nemec NL, et al. Cost benefit of sumatriptan to an employer. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 39: 654–7

    Google Scholar 

  33. Andrasik F, Kabela E, Quinn S, et al. Psychological functioning of children who have recurrent migraine. Pain 1988; 34 (1): 43–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Devlen J. Anxiety and depression in migraine. J R Soc Med 1994; 87 (6): 338–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Inc.

We would like to gratefully acknowledge Alice S. Batenhorst, PharmD (GlaxoSmithKline, Inc.) and Mary Lou Chatterton, PharmD (Thomas Jefferson University, Office of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes) for their contributions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street Suite 115, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107-5099, USA

    Jennifer H. Lofland (Project Director)

  2. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Titusville, New Jersey, USA

    Julie C. Locklear

  3. John Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Kevin D. Frick

Authors
  1. Jennifer H. Lofland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie C. Locklear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin D. Frick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer H. Lofland.

Additional information

At the time of this project, Dr Locklear was an Outcomes Research Fellow in the Office of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lofland, J.H., Locklear, J.C. & Frick, K.D. Different Approaches To Valuing the Lost Productivity of Patients with Migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 917–925 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119090-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119090-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation