IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i2d10.1007_s40273-020-00978-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Analysis and Results of a Modified Social Accounting Matrix Framework with Conventional Methods of Reporting Indirect Non-Medical Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Baudouin Standaert

    (HEBO bv)

  • Christophe Sauboin

    (The University Medical Center Groningen
    Boehringer Ingelheim, Global Market Access Excellence)

  • Quentin J. Leclerc

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Mark P. Connolly

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

Background Assessing the societal perspective in economic evaluations of new interventions requires estimates of indirect non-medical costs caused by the disease. Different methods exist for measuring the labor input function as a surrogate for these costs. They rarely specify the effect of health on labor and who gains and who loses money. Social accounting matrix (SAM) is an established framework that evaluates public policies with multiple perspectives that could help. Objectives We evaluated the use of a modified SAM to assess money flows between different economic agents resulting in economic transactions following policy changes of medical interventions. Methods We compared conventional methods of measuring indirect non-medical costs related to rotavirus vaccination in the Netherlands with a modified SAM framework. To compare the outcome of each method, we calculated returns on investment (ROI) as the net amount of money per euro invested in the vaccine. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out for each method, focusing on critical variables with the largest impact on indirect cost estimates. Results The ROI was higher for the modified SAM (1.33) than for the conventional methods assessing income calculations (range − 0.178 to 1.22). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed wide distributions in the ROI estimates, with variation in the variable impact on the indirect cost results per method selected. Conclusions In contrast to conventional methods, the SAM approach provides detailed and comprehensive assessments of the impact of new interventions on the indirect non-medical costs and the financial interactions between agents, disclosing useful information for different stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Baudouin Standaert & Christophe Sauboin & Quentin J. Leclerc & Mark P. Connolly, 2021. "Comparing the Analysis and Results of a Modified Social Accounting Matrix Framework with Conventional Methods of Reporting Indirect Non-Medical Costs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 257-269, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00978-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00978-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00978-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00978-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alfredo J. Mainar Causape & Emanuele Ferrari & Scott McDonald, 2018. "Social accounting matrices: basic aspects and main steps for estimation," JRC Working Papers JRC112075, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    2. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    3. Barr, Nicholas, 2012. "Economics of the Welfare State," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 5, number 9780199297818.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 15th March 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-03-15 12:00:14

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    2. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Mickael Hiligsmann & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Leonarda G. M. Bremmers, 2021. "The Relative Importance of Education and Criminal Justice Costs and Benefits in Economic Evaluations: A Best–Worst Scaling Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 99-108, January.
    3. Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2020. "After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 247-257, March.
    4. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Javier Barbero & Simone Salotti, 2021. "A general equilibrium analysis of the effects of the 2014-2020 European Cohesion policy in the Portuguese regions," JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis 2021-02, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    6. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Francesco Bandarin & Enrico Ciciotti & Marco Cremaschi & Giovanna Madera & Paolo Perulli & Diana Shendrikova, 2020. "Which Future for Cities after COVID-19 An international Survey," Reports, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, October.
    9. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    10. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.
    11. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    12. Hensher, Martin & Canny, Ben & Zimitat, Craig & Campbell, Julie & Palmer, Andrew, 2020. "Health care, overconsumption and uneconomic growth: A conceptual framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    13. Dongzhe Hong & Lei Si & Minghuan Jiang & Hui Shao & Wai-kit Ming & Yingnan Zhao & Yan Li & Lizheng Shi, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 777-818, June.
    14. Cai, Yu & Chapman, Bruce & Wang, Qing, 2019. "Repayment burdens of mortgage-style student loans in China and steps toward income-contingent loans," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 95-108.
    15. Adam Martin & Matias Petersen, 2019. "Poverty Alleviation as an Economic Problem," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 205-221.
    16. Fredrik Salvesen Haukaas & Audun Ohna & Tania Krivasi, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Obinutuzumab in Combination with Bendamustine Followed by Obinutuzumab Maintenance versus Bendamustine Alone in Treatment of Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Follicular Lymphom," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 569-577, August.
    17. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    18. Stephen Rocks & Daniela Berntson & Alejandro Gil-Salmerón & Mudathira Kadu & Nieves Ehrenberg & Viktoria Stein & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 0. "Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 0, pages 1-11.
    19. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    20. María T. Álvarez-Martínez & Alfredo J. Mainar-Causapé, 2021. "The GHG Emissions Generating Capacity by Productive Sectors in the EU: A SAM Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00978-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.