IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v6y1997i3p253-259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity Costs Measurement Through Quality of Life? A Response to the Recommendation of the Washington Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Werner B. F. Brouwer

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Marc A. Koopmanschap

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Frans F. H. Rutten

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This paper comments on the recently published guidelines of the Washington Panel on incorporation of indirect non-medical costs, or productivity costs, in economic evaluations of health care. Traditionally the human capital or more recently the friction cost method is used to measure these costs. The Panel, however, recommends incorporating productivity costs as health effects in the denominator of the C|E ratio. This paper argues that incorporation of productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis expressed as health effects is not correct. Only direct health related effects on quality of life that cannot be meaningfully monetarized should be considered as health effects. Furthermore, measuring productivity costs in terms of quality of life may lead to misrepresentation of these costs from a societal viewpoint. This misrepresentation occurs because of the existence of social security systems and private insurance compensating for income reductions from disease. Furthermore, the patient's viewpoint is useful for quality of life measurement, but not for measuring productivity costs from a societal perspective. Finally, alternative recommendations are formulated for incorporating societal productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner B. F. Brouwer & Marc A. Koopmanschap & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1997. "Productivity Costs Measurement Through Quality of Life? A Response to the Recommendation of the Washington Panel," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 253-259.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:3:p:253-259
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199705)6:3<253::AID-HEC266>3.0.CO;2-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeff Richardson & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2009. "Do quality-adjusted life years take account of lost income? Evidence from an Australian survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 103-109, February.
    2. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251.
    3. Brouwer, W. B. F. & Koopmanschap, M. A. & Rutten, F. F. H., 1999. "Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 13-27, July.
    4. Pedram Sendi & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2005. "Is silence golden? A test of the incorporation of the effects of ill-health on income and leisure in health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 643-647.
    5. Thomas DeLeire & Willard Manning, 2004. "Labor market costs of illness: prevalence matters," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 239-250.
    6. Krol, Marieke & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Unpaid work in health economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 127-137.
    7. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2004. "Generalized Cost-Analysis Of Screening Programs," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-18, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Carmen Herrero & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2009. "Estimating production costs in the economic evaluation of health-care programs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 21-35.
    9. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
    11. repec:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0416-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Werner B.F. Brouwer & Frans F.H. Rutten, 2003. "The missing link: on the line between C and E," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 629-636.
    13. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:12:p:1249-1262 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Brouwer, W. B. F. & van Exel, N. J. A. & Koopmanschap, M. A. & Rutten, F. F. H., 2002. "Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 173-187, August.
    16. Jesse Kigozi & Sue Jowett & Martyn Lewis & Pelham Barton & Joanna Coast, 2016. "Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 31-44, January.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:3:p:253-259. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    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.