Productivity costs revisited: Toward a new us policy

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1387-1401

  Nyman, John A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

cost utility analysis; productivity costs; Washington Panel recommendations

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LEISURE; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; UNITED STATES; WELFARE;

EID: 84862803051     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1795     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M,. 2002. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21: 271-292.
2. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH,. 1997a. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Economics 6: 253-259.
3. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH,. 1997b. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Economics 6: 511-514.
4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2006. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd Edition. Author: Ottawa.
5. Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, Merlo F, Mantovani L,. 2001. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian Group of Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Drug Information Journal 35: 189-201.
6. Collège des économistes de la Santé. 2004. French Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Technologies. Collège des économistes de la Santé: Paris, France.
7. College voor zorgverzekeringen, Diemen. 2006. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Available at http://cvz.nl.
8. DeLeire T, Manning W,. 2004. Labor market costs of illness: prevalence matter. Health Economics 13: 239-250.
9. EQ-5D. 2010. Health Questionnaire, English version for the UK (validated for Ireland). http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user-upload/Documenten/PDF/ Sample-UKenglishclin-website.pdf, accessed May 12, 2010.
10. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M,. 2002. Multiattribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care 40: 113-128.
11. Gold ME, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York.
12. Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, Greiner W, Jost F, Klusen N, Kubin M, Leidl R, Mittendorf T, Rebscher H, Schoeffski O, Vauth C, Volmer T, Wahler S, Wasem J, Weber C, The Hanover Consensus Group. 2008. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover consensus. Value in Health 11 (4): 539-544.
13. Grocott R, Schoeler R, Priest V, Hall C, Metcalfe S, Brougham M, Poynton M,. 2007. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis. Methods for Cost-Utility Analysis. Wellington, New Zealand: Pharmaceutical Management Agency.
14. Johannesson M, Karlsson G,. The frictional cost method: a comment. 1997. Journal of Health Economics 16: 249-255.
15. Johannesson M, Melzer D,. 1998. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics 7: 1-7.
16. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L,. 1995. The friction cost method for estimating the indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics 14: 171-189.
17. Luttmer, EFP,. Does the minimum wage cause inefficient rationing? Discussion paper no. 2713. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (1ZA), 2007.
18. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2008. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk.
19. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. 2003. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. LFNAR 2: 1-3.
20. RF Ministry of Health. 2002. The standardization system in the Russian federation health care system. 1-20.
21. Scottish Medicines Consortium. 2007. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form (NPAF).
22. Szende A, Mogyorõsy Z, Muszbek N, Nagy J, Pallos G, Dõzsa C,. 2002. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. The European Journal of Health Economics 3: 196-206.
23. Tilling C, Krol M, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Brouwer W,. 2010. In or out? Income losses in health state valuations: a review. Value in Health 13: 298-305.
24. Walter E, Zehetmayr S,. 2006. Guidelines on health economic evaluation. Institut für Pharmaökonomische Forschung: Vienna, Austria.
25. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, Lipscomb J, Luce BR, Manning, Jr. WG, Torrance GW,. 1997. Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. Health Economics 6: 505-510.
26. Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH,. 2011. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: A critical review. Social Science in Medicine 72: 185-192.