IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i1d10.1007_s40273-020-00986-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Productivity Loss/Gain in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Drugs: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Akira Yuasa

    (Pfizer Japan Inc.
    International University of Health and Welfare)

  • Naohiro Yonemoto

    (Pfizer Japan Inc.)

  • Michael LoPresti

    (INTAGE Healthcare Inc)

  • Shunya Ikeda

    (International University of Health and Welfare)

Abstract

Background Inclusion of productivity losses and gains in cost-effectiveness analyses for drugs is recommended by pharmacoeconomic guidelines in some countries and is considered optional in others. Often guidelines recommend analysis based on the payer perspective, but suggest that a supplemental analysis based on the societal perspective may be submitted that includes productivity losses/gains. However, there is no universally recognized framework for the approach to including productivity losses and gains in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Objectives This study aimed to systematically review literature on cost-effectiveness analyses of drug interventions that included costs associated with productivity losses/gains and to summarize the types cost elements included and cost calculation methods employed. Moreover, this study examines variations in the calculation of productivity losses/gains by target disease type, geographic region, income group, period of analysis, and analysis time horizon—as well as the impact of their inclusion on the study outcomes. Methods A search of three databases was performed, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses that included indirect costs such as productivity losses/gains. Publications from January 2010 to October 2019 were examined and selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. In addition to the citation details, data on the country of analysis, country income group, target disease area, study sponsorship, type of analysis, study design, time horizon, analysis perspective, productivity loss/gain elements included, the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, and the impact of their inclusion on the study outcome—namely the incremental cost effectiveness ratio—were extracted and summarized. Results The search strategy identified 5038 unique studies, and 208 were included in the final analysis. Among the studies reviewed, 165 (79%) were conducted in high-income countries and 160 (77%) were conducted for North American and European/Central Asian countries. The productivity loss/gain elements included in the analysis were reported for 169 studies (81%). Absenteeism only was included for 98 studies (47%), and absenteeism plus presenteeism was included for 29 studies (14%). Absenteeism plus some other element such as costs associated with unemployment and/or early retirement was included for 32 studies (15%) examined. Only one out of four of the studies reviewed included information on the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, which was predominantly the human capital approach. One-hundred forty-four studies (69%) reported the impact of including productivity losses/gains on the ICER, with 110 studies (53%) reporting that their inclusion contributed to more favorable cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Although inclusion of productivity losses/gains was shown to have a favorable impact on evaluations for many studies, their impact and method of calculation was often not reported or was unclear. Further examination and discussion is needed to consider the optimal framework for considering productivity losses/gains in cost-effectiveness analyses, including the appropriate cost elements to include (e.g., patient absenteeism, caregiver absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment, etc.) and how those costs should be estimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Akira Yuasa & Naohiro Yonemoto & Michael LoPresti & Shunya Ikeda, 2021. "Use of Productivity Loss/Gain in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Drugs: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 81-97, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00986-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00986-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00986-4
    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/s40273-020-00986-4?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. Magnus Johannesson;Bengt Jonsson;Linus Jonsson;Gisela Kobelt;Niklas Zethraeus, 2009. "Why Should Economic Evaluations of Medical Innovations Have a Societal Perspective?," Briefing 000228, Office of Health Economics.
    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 18th January 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-01-18 12:00:03

    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. Hansen, Kristian S. & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars P., 2023. "Productivity and quality-adjusted life years: QALYs, PALYs and beyond," Working Papers 11-2023, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    2. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    3. Wei Zhang & Huiying Sun & Simon Woodcock & Aslam H. Anis, 2017. "Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Bengt Jönsson, 2009. "Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 357-359, October.
    5. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    6. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Mónica Hernández-Alava & Simon Dixon & Roberta Ara, 2017. "Predicting Productivity Losses from Health-Related Quality of Life Using Patient Data," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 597-614, October.
    7. Zhang, Wei & Bansback, Nick & Anis, Aslam H., 2011. "Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 185-192, January.
    8. Krol, Marieke & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Unpaid work in health economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 127-137.
    9. 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.
    10. Office of Health Economics, 2010. "Innovation in Medicines: Can We Value Progress?," Seminar Briefing 000219, Office of Health Economics.

    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:1:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00986-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.