Compensation mechanisms for lost productivity: a comparison between four European countries

Productivity Loss Across Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Low Back Pain or Osteoarthritis: Estimates Using the Friction-Cost Approach in Norway

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to estimate the productivity loss (PL) among patients with low back pain (LBP) or osteoarthritis (OA) across socioeconomic groups, using the friction-cost approach (FCA).

METHODS

A total of 175,550 patients aged 18-65 years were included at their first diagnosis in specialty care between 2011 and 2016. PL was calculated for the year following diagnosis using individual wages, while adjusting for the friction length at 78 days per episode, a team production multiplier at 1.6, compensation mechanisms of 26.8%, and a chain-of-vacancies multiplier at 3.95. We included a simpler FCA model, omitting the latter three parameters, and a human capital approach (HCA) model. Socioeconomic stratifications were created based on education and income. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to assess the influence of the parameters in the full FCA model.

RESULTS

The overall mean number of absent days was 23, while it was 25.3 and 20.1 for those with low and high education levels. The per-patient friction costs were €4395 among all patients and when extending the friction length to 98 days costs were €4342. For those with low and high education levels, the costs were €3671 and €4464, respectively. The costs in the simple FCA and HCA models were €1539 and €2088.

DISCUSSION

Socioeconomic status and model design are sources of variation in PL. In health economic applications with PL and in patient populations with large socioeconomic differences, adjusting for these factors may be as important as sensitivities in parameters such as the friction length.

Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may affect productivity losses due to illness, disability, or premature death of individuals. Hence, they are important in estimating productivity losses and productivity costs in the context of economic evaluations of health interventions. This paper presents a systematic literature review of papers focusing on compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects, as well as whether and how they are included in health economic evaluations.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was performed covering EconLit and PubMed. A data-extraction form was developed focusing on compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies were included. Of these, 15 were empirical studies, three studies were methodological studies, two studies combined methodological research with empirical research, four were critical reviews, one study was a critical review combined with methodological research, and one study was a cost-benefit analysis. No uniform definition of compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects was identified. The terminology used to describe compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects varied as well. While the included studies suggest that both multipliers as well as compensation mechanisms substantially impact productivity cost estimates, the available evidence is scarce. Moreover, the generalizability as well as validity of assumptions underlying the calculations are unclear. Available measurement methods for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects differ in approaches and are hardly validated.

CONCLUSION

While our review suggests that compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may have a significant impact on productivity losses and costs, much remains unclear about their features, valid measurement, and correct valuation. This hampers their current inclusion in economic evaluation, and therefore, more research into both phenomena remains warranted.

Measurement Instruments of Productivity Loss of Paid and Unpaid Work: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Suitability for Health Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed (1) to perform a systematic literature review of instruments for measuring productivity loss of paid and unpaid work and (2) to assess the suitability (in terms of identification, measurement, and valuation) of these instruments for use in health economic evaluations from a societal perspective.

METHODS

Articles published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using 2 separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 5982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and 9 validation studies were included in the review. A total of 42 unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least 1 common valuation method. The Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form, Health and Labour Questionnaire, and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire met both criteria. Nevertheless, the developers replaced the Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form and Health and Labour Questionnaire by the more recently developed Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work.

Long-term sickness absence in a working population: development and validation of a risk prediction model in a large Dutch prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Societal expenditures on work-disability benefits is high in most Western countries. As a precursor of long-term work restrictions, long-term sickness absence (LTSA) is under continuous attention of policy makers. Different healthcare professionals can play a role in identification of persons at risk of LTSA but are not well trained. A risk prediction model can support risk stratification to initiate preventative interventions. Unfortunately, current models lack generalizability or do not include a comprehensive set of potential predictors for LTSA. This study is set out to develop and validate a multivariable risk prediction model for LTSA in the coming year in a working population aged 45-64 years.

METHODS

Data from 11,221 working persons included in the prospective Study on Transitions in Employment, Ability and Motivation (STREAM) conducted in the Netherlands were used to develop a multivariable risk prediction model for LTSA lasting ≥28 accumulated working days in the coming year. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. A full statistical model including 27 pre-selected predictors was reduced to a practical model using backward stepwise elimination in a logistic regression analysis across all imputed datasets. Predictive performance of the final model was evaluated using the Area Under the Curve (AUC), calibration plots and the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H&L) test. External validation was performed in a second cohort of 5604 newly recruited working persons.

RESULTS

Eleven variables in the final model predicted LTSA: older age, female gender, lower level of education, poor self-rated physical health, low weekly physical activity, high self-rated physical job load, knowledge and skills not matching the job, high number of major life events in the previous year, poor self-rated work ability, high number of sickness absence days in the previous year and being self-employed. The model showed good discrimination (AUC 0.76 (interquartile range 0.75-0.76)) and good calibration in the external validation cohort (H&L test: p = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

This multivariable risk prediction model distinguishes well between older workers with high- and low-risk for LTSA in the coming year. Being easy to administer, it can support healthcare professionals in determining which persons should be targeted for tailored preventative interventions.

The impact of firms' adjustments on the indirect cost of illness

Illness-related absenteeism reduces firms' output, an effect referred to as indirect cost (IC) and often included in cost-of-illness or cost-effectiveness (of health technologies) studies. The companies may foresee this effect and modify hiring or contracting policies. We present a model allowing the estimation of IC with such adjustments. We show that the risk of illness does not change the general shape and properties of the (expected) marginal productivity function. We apply our model to several illustrative examples and show that firm's adjustments impact IC in an ambiguous way, depending on detailed company/market characteristics: in some cases the company reduces the employment (further increasing IC), in another-the opposite happens. Contrary to previous findings, teamwork and shortfall penalties may reduce IC in some settings. Our analysis highlights that IC should be split into the result of companies preparing for and actually experiencing sick leaves.

The Socioeconomic Benefit to Individuals of Achieving the 2020 Targets for Five Preventive Chemotherapy Neglected Tropical Diseases

BACKGROUND

Lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (STH) and trachoma represent the five most prevalent neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). They can be controlled or eliminated by means of safe and cost-effective interventions delivered through programs of Mass Drug Administration (MDA)-also named Preventive Chemotherapy (PCT). The WHO defined targets for NTD control/elimination by 2020, reinforced by the 2012 London Declaration, which, if achieved, would result in dramatic health gains. We estimated the potential economic benefit of achieving these targets, focusing specifically on productivity and out-of-pocket payments.

METHODS

Productivity loss was calculated by combining disease frequency with productivity loss from the disease, from the perspective of affected individuals. Productivity gain was calculated by deducting the total loss expected in the target achievement scenario from the loss in a counterfactual scenario where it was assumed the pre-intervention situation in 1990 regarding NTDs would continue unabated until 2030. Economic benefits from out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) were calculated similarly. Benefits are reported in 2005 US$ (purchasing power parity-adjusted and discounted at 3% per annum from 2010). Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the influence of changes in input parameters.

RESULTS

The economic benefit from productivity gain was estimated to be I$251 billion in 2011-2020 and I$313 billion in 2021-2030, considerably greater than the total OPPs averted of I$0.72 billion and I$0.96 billion in the same periods. The net benefit is expected to be US$ 27.4 and US$ 42.8 for every dollar invested during the same periods. Impact varies between NTDs and regions, since it is determined by disease prevalence and extent of disease-related productivity loss.

CONCLUSION

Achieving the PCT-NTD targets for 2020 will yield significant economic benefits to affected individuals. Despite large uncertainty, these benefits far exceed the investment required by governments and their development partners within all reasonable scenarios. Given the concentration of the NTDs among the poorest households, these investments represent good value for money in efforts to share the world's prosperity and reduce inequity.

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: an expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

BACKGROUND

General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions.

METHODS

Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards.

RESULTS

Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness.