The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines

Value in Health

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 519-527

  Knies, Saskia ^a   Severens, Johan L ^a,b   Ament, André J H A ^a   Evers, Silvia M A A ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

comparison; guidelines; lost productivity; transferability

Indexed keywords

ABSENTEEISM; ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LAW; NATIONAL PHARMACOECONOMIC GUIDELINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; SALARY; SOCIOLOGY; WORK;

EID: 77955345953     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00699.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Koopmanschap M, Burdorf A, Jacob K, et al. Measuring productivity changes in economic evaluation. Setting the research agenda. Pharmacoeconomics 2005 23 : 47 54.
2. Sculpher M. The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In : Drummond MF, MacGuire A, eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005.
3. Van Asselt ADI, Dirksen CD, Arntz A, Severens JL. Difficulties in calculating productivity costs: work disability associated with borderline personality disorder. Value Health 2008 11 : 637 644.
4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.
5. Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek. Methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen : College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2004.
6. Fox-Rushby J, Cairns J. Economic Evaluation. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK : Open University Press, 2005.
7. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook JR, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009 12 : 409 418.
8. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines - similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001 4 : 225 250.
9. Drummond MF, Pang F. Chapter 11: transferability of economic evaluation results. In : Drummond MF, McGuire A, eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005.
10. Byford S, Raftery J. Economic notes: perspectives in economic evaluation. BMJ 1998 316 : 1529 1530.
11. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Productivity costs measurements through quality of life? A response to the recommendations of the Washington Panel. Health Econ 1997 6 : 253 259.
12. Jacob-Tacken KHM, Koopmanschap MA, Meerding WJ, Severens JL. Correcting for compensating mechanisms related to productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care programmes. Health Econ 2005 14 : 435 443.
13. Koopmanschap MA, Meerding WJ, Evers SMAA, et al. (PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire (PRODISQ). Een modulaire vragenlijst over de relatie tussen ziekte en productiviteitskosten, toepasbaar bij economische evaluaties van gezondheidszorgprogramma's voor patiënten en werknemers. Rotterdam/Maastricht : Instituut voor Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam/Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Medisch Centrum/Beleid Economie en Organisatie van de Zorg, Universiteit Maastricht, 2004.
14. Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M-L, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996 12 : 405 416.
15. Patel N, Lofland JH, Pizzi LT. Chapter 4: health-related productivity. In : Pizzi LT, Lofland JH, eds. Economic Evaluation in US Health Care: Principles and Applications. Sudbury, MA : Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2006.
16. Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity losses. Am J Manag Care 2007 13 : 211 217.
17. Brouwer WBF, Van Exel NJA, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common. Health Policy 2002 61 : 173 187.
18. Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ 1997 16 : 249 255.
19. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. Reply to Johannesson's and Karlsson's comment. J Health Econ 1997 16 : 257 259.
20. 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 6 : 505 510.
21. Boonen A, Severens JL. Worker participation in rheumatic disease: the socioeconomic perspective. Arthritis Res Campaign 2009 3 : 1 10.
22. Escorpizo R, Bombardier C, Boonen A, et al. Worker productivity outcome measures in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007 34 : 1372 1380.
23. Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In : Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.
24. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 13 : 1 7.
25. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. The friction-cost method. Replacement for nothing and leisure for free? Pharmacoeconomics 2005 23 : 105 111.
26. Goeree R, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G, et al. The valuation of productivity costs due to premature mortality: a comparison of the human-capital and friction-cost methods for schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry 1999 44 : 455 463.
27. Hutubessy RCW, Van Tulder MW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Indirect costs of back pain in the Netherlands: a comparison of the human capital method with the friction cost method. Pain 1999 80 : 201 207.
28. Brouwer W, Koopmanschap M. Hoofdstuk 4 Overige kosten binnen en buiten de gezondheidszorg. In : Rutten-Van Mölken MPMH, Van Busschbach JJ, Rutten FFH, eds. Van Kosten Tot Effecten Een Handleiding Voor Evaluatiestudies in De Gezondheidszorg. Maarssen, The Netherlands : Elsevier gezondheidszorg, 2000.
29. Tarn TYH, Dix Smith M. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connections 2004 10 : 5 15.
30. Health Insurance Review Agency. Medical Economic Evaluation Guideline for South-Korea. Seoul, South Korea : Health Insurance Review Agency, 2006.
31. Norwegian Medicine Agency. Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Applications for Reimbursement. Oslo : Department for Pharmacoeconomics, Ministry of Health and Social Affaires, 2005.
32. Alban A, Gyldmark M, Pedersen AV, Sogaard J. The Danish approach to standards for economic evaluation methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997 12 : 627 636.
33. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) and Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy (FMCP). The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions. A Format for Submission of Clinical and Economic Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Health Care Systems in the United States. Alexandria, VA : AMCP and FMCP, 2005.
34. Boulenger S, Ulmann P. French Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Technologies. Paris : College des economistes de la sante, 2004.
35. Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J 2001 35 : 189 201.
36. College voor Zorgverzerkeringen. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research, Updated Version. Diemen, The Netherlands : College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ), 2006.
37. Da Silva EA, Pinto CG, Sampaio C, et al. Guidelines for Economic Drug Evaluation Studies. Lisbon, Portugal : INFARMED, 1998.
38. de Miello Vianna CM, Caetano R. Diretrizes Metodológicas para Estudos de Avaliação Econômica de Tecnologias para o Ministério da Saúde. Brasilia, Brazil : Ministério da Saúde, 2007.
39. Edling A, Stenberg AM. General Guidelines for Economic Evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Solna, Sweden : Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, 2003.
40. Galvez Gonzalez AM. Methodological Guidelines for Health Economic Evaluations. Havana, Cuba : Ministry of Public Health of Cuba, 2003.
41. Graf von der Schulenberg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health 2008 11 : 539 544.
42. Ministry of Health. Guidelines for Economic Evaluations of Health Care Interventions. Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 2008.
43. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Guidelines for Preparing a Health Economic Evaluation (unofficial translation). Helsinki : Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2003.
44. Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Polish Guidelines for Conducting Pharmacoeconomic Analysis. Warsaw : Polish Society for Medical Decision Making, 2000.
45. National Center for Pharmacoeconomics. Irish Healthcare Technology Assessment Guidelines. Dublin : National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.
46. Riewpaiboon A. Measurement of costs. J Med Assoc Thai 2008 91 (Suppl. 2 S28 37.
47. Rovira J, Antoñanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. A Spanish proposal for methodological standardisation. Pharmacoeconomics 1995 8 : 245 252.
48. Swiss Federal Office of Social Security. Manual for the Standardisation of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology. Bern, Switzerland : Federal Office of Social Security, 1998.
49. Russian Federation Ministry of Health. The Standardization System in the Russian Federation Health Care System. Clinico-Economic Studies. Moscow : Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2002.
50. Szende A, Mogyorosy Z, Muszbek N, et al. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur J Health Econ 2002 3 : 196 206.
51. Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines on Health Economic Evaluation. Consensus paper. Vienna : Institut fur Pharmaokonomische Forschung, 2006.
52. Behemane D, Lambot K, Irs A, et al. Baltic guideline for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis 2002.
53. Bertozzi SM, Mendoza AV, Garduno AH, Barajas ER. Guidelines for Economic Appraisal Studies for Updating the Health Sector's National Formulary in Mexico. Mexico City : Consejo de Salubridad General, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, 2008.
54. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Ottawa : Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006.
55. Cleemput I, Crott R, Vrijens F, et al. Pharmaco-Economic Guidelines. Brussels : Kenniscentrum voor de gezondheidszorg (KCE), 2008.
56. Grocott R, Schoeler R, Priest V, et al. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis. Methods for Cost-Utility Analysis. Wellington, New Zealand : Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), 2007.
57. Longson C, Longworth L, Turner K. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK : National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2008.
58. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Scottish Medicines Consortium Economic Guidance. Edinburgh, Scotland : Scottish Medicines Consortium, Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2002.