Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common?

Traditionally, production losses are estimated using the human capital or friction cost method. These methods base estimations of productivity costs on data on absence from work. For some diseases, like migraine, productivity losses without absence are occasionally calculated by estimating the production losses from reduced productivity at work. However, diseases typically only associated with absence may also be expected to cause reduced productivity before and after absence. In a previous study, Brouwer et al. concluded that productivity losses without absence are also very relevant in common diseases, like influenza, common cold or neck-problems. Studying a new sample of employees of a Dutch trade-firm (n = 51), who completed the questionnaire 'Ill and Recovered' upon return to work after absence due to illness, it was revealed that about 25% of the respondents experienced production losses before absence and about 20% of the respondents experience production losses after absence. This leads to an increase in estimated production losses of about 16% compared with only considering absence data. Current productivity costs estimates based solely on absence data may, therefore, underestimate real productivity costs. Compensation mechanisms in firms may reduce the underestimation.

[1]  M A Koopmanschap,et al.  INDIRECT COSTS : THE CONSEQUENCE OF PRODUCTION LOSS OR INCREASED COSTS OF PRODUCTION , 2016 .

[2]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  On the economic foundations of CEA. Ladies and gentlemen, take your positions! , 2000, Journal of health economics.

[3]  A. Verbeek,et al.  Estimating the cost of lost productivity in dyspepsia , 1998, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[4]  J Lipscomb,et al.  Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus Group. , 1997, Health economics.

[5]  G. Stoddart,et al.  Health, health care and health economics : perspectives on distribution , 1998 .

[6]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Patient and Informal Caregiver Time in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Response to the Recommendations of the Washington Panel , 1998, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. , 1997, Health economics.

[8]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[9]  M A Koopmanschap,et al.  The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. , 1995, Journal of health economics.

[10]  M A Koopmanschap,et al.  Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. , 1992, Social science & medicine.

[11]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. , 1997, Health economics.

[12]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence. , 1999, Health policy.