Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer.
Cancer
Equity
Productivity costs
Prostate cancer
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
27
03
2019
accepted:
09
08
2019
pubmed:
25
8
2019
medline:
14
4
2020
entrez:
25
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Standardised integration of productivity costs into health economic evaluations is hindered by equity and distributional concerns. Our aim was to explore the distributive impact of productivity cost methodological variation, describing the consequences for different groups. 527 prostate cancer survivors (2-5 years post-diagnosis) completed questions on work patterns since diagnosis. Productivity loss, categorised into temporary/permanent absenteeism, reduced hours and presenteeism, were costed in €2012. Valuation approaches included the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA), with wage multipliers (WM) applied in additional analyses. Both national and self-reported wages were used. Costs were compared across socio-demographic and economic characteristics using non-parametric tests. The estimated base case (HCA, using national wages) total productivity cost was €44,201 per prostate cancer survivor. Permanent absenteeism accounted for the largest cost (€18,537), followed by reduced work hours (€11,130), presenteeism (€8148) and temporary absenteeism (€6386). Alternative valuation estimates ranged from - 90% (FCA Our results indicate that the distributional impact of productivity costs varies by socio-economic and demographic characteristics. We advocate that: productivity loss should be reported in physical units where possible; cost estimation should be subject to sensitivity analysis, and only where this is not feasible, that the HCA and national wages be used to value productivity loss where equity concerns are paramount.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Standardised integration of productivity costs into health economic evaluations is hindered by equity and distributional concerns. Our aim was to explore the distributive impact of productivity cost methodological variation, describing the consequences for different groups.
METHODS
METHODS
527 prostate cancer survivors (2-5 years post-diagnosis) completed questions on work patterns since diagnosis. Productivity loss, categorised into temporary/permanent absenteeism, reduced hours and presenteeism, were costed in €2012. Valuation approaches included the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA), with wage multipliers (WM) applied in additional analyses. Both national and self-reported wages were used. Costs were compared across socio-demographic and economic characteristics using non-parametric tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The estimated base case (HCA, using national wages) total productivity cost was €44,201 per prostate cancer survivor. Permanent absenteeism accounted for the largest cost (€18,537), followed by reduced work hours (€11,130), presenteeism (€8148) and temporary absenteeism (€6386). Alternative valuation estimates ranged from - 90% (FCA
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that the distributional impact of productivity costs varies by socio-economic and demographic characteristics. We advocate that: productivity loss should be reported in physical units where possible; cost estimation should be subject to sensitivity analysis, and only where this is not feasible, that the HCA and national wages be used to value productivity loss where equity concerns are paramount.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31444674
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01098-3
pii: 10.1007/s10198-019-01098-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1399-1408Subventions
Organisme : Health Research Board Ireland
ID : HRA_HSR/2010/17)
Organisme : Prostate Cancer UK
ID : NI-PG13-001
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 17;5(4):e006851
pubmed: 25888474
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jul;49(1):17-26
pubmed: 10414837
Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Jul;18(6):697-701
pubmed: 27418338
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Oct;10(4):357-9
pubmed: 19618224
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A627
pubmed: 27202220
Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26(12):1862-1868
pubmed: 28449329
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 Jun;17(5):553-61
pubmed: 26022915
J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):1-30
pubmed: 10311607
Value Health. 2017 Sep;20(8):1058-1064
pubmed: 28964437
Value Health. 2006 Sep-Oct;9(5):341-7
pubmed: 16961552
Glob Public Health. 2017 Oct;12(10):1269-1281
pubmed: 27141969
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 Jan;17(1):31-44
pubmed: 25387561
J Med Ethics. 1992 Mar;18(1):7-11
pubmed: 1573655
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Jul;31(7):537-49
pubmed: 23620213
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(5):449-59
pubmed: 15896097
Health Policy. 2006 Jun;77(1):51-63
pubmed: 16139925
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 May;17(4):391-402
pubmed: 25876834
Health Econ. 2006 Feb;15(2):111-23
pubmed: 16200550
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Jul;29(7):601-19
pubmed: 21545189
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Dec;147:62-71
pubmed: 26547046
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(11):1981-8
pubmed: 22925428
J Health Econ. 1995 Jun;14(2):171-89
pubmed: 10154656
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):335-44
pubmed: 24504850
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Jan;72(2):185-92
pubmed: 21146909
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):496-506
pubmed: 28292496