Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:08:26.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Patient and Informal Caregiver Time in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Response to the Recommendations of the Washington Panel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Werner B. F. Brouwer
Affiliation:
Rutten Erasmus University Rotterdam
Marc A. Koopmanschap
Affiliation:
Rutten Erasmus University Rotterdam
Frans F. H. Rutten
Affiliation:
Rutten Erasmus University Rotterdam

Abstract

The time invested by patients and informal caregivers in treatment and rehabilitation should be valued in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The Washington Panel gives recommendations on incorporation of time costs that may misrepresent true societal costs. This article provides alternative recommendations for incorporating costs of time in CEA. Following an opportunity costs approach, time is separated into three parts, each with its own valuation methods: time spent on paid work, unpaid work, and leisure.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Brouwer, W. B. F., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H.Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? Health Economics, 1997, 6, 253–59.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Brouwer, W. B. F., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: Numerator or denominator. A further discussion. Health Economics, in press.Google Scholar
3.Drummond, M. F., Stoddard, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
4.Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (eds.). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Johannesson, M.Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics, 1997, 11, 385–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Johannesson, M., & Karlsson, G.The friction cost method: A comment. Journal of Health Economics, 1997, 16, 249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H.A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics, 1996, 10, 460–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F. F. H., Van Ineveld, B. M., & Van Roijen, L.Reply to Johannesson's and Karlsson's comment. Journal of Health Economics, 1997,16,257–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F. F. H., Van Ineveld, B. M., & Van Roijen, L.The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics, 1995, 14, 171–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Posnett, J., & Jan, S.Indirect cost in economic evaluation: The opportunity cost of unpaid input. Health Economics, 1996, 5, 1323.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Smith, K., & Wright, K.Informal care and economic appraisal: A discussion of possible methodological approaches. Health Economics, 1994, 3, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Garber, A. M., et al. Productivity costs, time costs and health related quality of life: A response to the Erasmus Group. Health Economics, in press.Google Scholar
13.Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E, Gold, M. R., et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 1996, 276, 1253–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed