Abstract
Background: There has been considerable debate on whether productivity costs should be captured in the numerator or the denominator of the cost-effectiveness ratio. That debate cannot be resolved on the basis of theoretical arguments alone because the final choice also depends on what is incorporated in health-state valuations by respondents and how this influences outcomes. At the moment, little is known about whether the effects of ill health on income are included in health-state valuations, and how instructions on including or excluding the effects on income influence health-state valuations.
Aim: To conduct an empirical study of health-state valuations to test: (i) whether or not respondents spontaneously include the effect of ill health on income and leisure time; (ii) the impact on the valuation of inclusion (or exclusion) of such effects; and (iii) the influence of explicit instructions on this matter.
Methods: Three questionnaires were developed and administered to the general public. Health-state valuations were conducted by visual analogue scale scoring of three health states of differing severity taken from the EQ-5D. Version 1 had no directions regarding inclusion/exclusion of effects of ill health on income. Those respondents who spontaneously included effects on income were subsequently asked to value the same three health states again, excluding these effects. Version 2 had explicit instructions to incorporate the effects on income. Version 3 stated that income was assumed to not change as a result of ill health. Respondents for versions 2 and 3 were also questioned about inclusion of effects on leisure time.
Results: Giving explicit instructions on the incorporation or exclusion of effects of ill health on income did not lead to significant differences in subsequent health-state valuations. In the absence of instruction, 36% of respondents included and 64% excluded effects on income, but the health-state valuations of the two groups were not significantly different. Eighty-four percent of respondents included the effects of ill health on leisure activities, and again this had no significant impact on the resulting health-state valuations.
Conclusions: It appears that neither spontaneous differences in incorporation of effects on income, nor explicit instructions will yield significantly different health-state valuations. This may suggest that QALY measures are insensitive to concerns regarding effects on income even when these are (explicitly) incorporated, and these effects may therefore be best placed on the cost side of the cost-effectiveness ratio.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In fact, even the definition of the term productivity costs differs in the literature. Brouwer et al.[1] refer to productivity costs as “costs associated with production loss and replacement costs due to illness, disability and death of productive persons both paid and unpaid,” while the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine refers to productivity costs as “the cost associated with lost or impaired ability to work or engage in leisure activities due to morbidity and lost economic productivity due to death.”[2]
Note that the perspective of the study is relevant here as well. Income losses will be incorporated to the extent that the individual experiences them, while from a societal perspective this may not be a valid approach to measuring and valuing productivity costs.[1]
References
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FR. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Econ 1997; 3: 253–259
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ 1993; 2: 59–64
Olsen JA, Richardson J. Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 17–26
Russell LB. Is prevention better than cure? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1986
Sculpher M. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 94–112
Brouwer WBF, Rutten FFH, Koopmanschap MA. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FR. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator. A further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6: 511–514
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. On the economic foundations of CEA: ladies and gentlemen, take your positions! J Health Econ 2000; 19: 439–459
Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and mxlicine. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 371–377
Rothermich EA, Pathak DS. Productivity-cost controversies in cost-effectiveness analysis: review and research agenda. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 255–267
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, et al. Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. Health Econ 1997; 5: 505–510
Brouwer WBF, Meerding WJ, Lamers L, et al. Productivity and health related quality of life: an exploration. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (3): 209–218
Brouwer WBF, Rutten FR. The missing link: on the line between C and E. Health Econ 2003; 12: 629–636
Johannesson M. Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 385–388
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. The friction cost method: leisure for nothing and replacement for free? Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (2): 105–111
Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 249–256
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–189
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. Reply to Johannesson’s and Karlsson’s comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 257–259
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2003
Meltzer DO, Weckerle CE, Chang LM. Do people consider financial effects in answering quality of life questions? [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 517
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 Econ 2005 Jun; 14 (6): 643–647
Sendi P, Brouwer WBF. Leisure time in economic evaluation: theoretical and practical considerations. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2004; 4 (1): 665–667
EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095–1108
Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 329–334
Statistics Netherlands [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbs.nl. [Accessed 2005 Dec 12]
Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between SG and TTO utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11: 447–456
Acknowledgements
This study was not funded and the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Marieke Krol and Werner Brouwer were involved in all stages of the study, and Pedram Sendi was involved in the statistical analyses, interpretation of results and the preparation of the manuscript.
We are grateful to Marc Koopmanschap and Ken Redekop for their useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krol, M., Brouwer, W. & Sendi, P. Productivity Costs in Health-State Valuations. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 401–414 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00009
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00009