Search

A new approach for estimating the indirect costs of disease, which explicitly considers economic circumstances that limit production losses due to disease, is presented (the friction cost method). For the Netherlands the short-term friction costs in 1990 amount to 1.5-2.5% of net national income (NNI), depending on the extent to which short-term absence from work induces production loss and costs. The medium-term macro-economic consequences of absence from work and disability reduce NNI by an additional 0.8%. These estimates are considerably lower than estimates based on the traditional human capital approach, but they better reflect the economic impact of illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the nature of medium term consequences and the method of health estimation using Dutch macro-economic sectoral models. These models are reply to comments given by authors Magnus Johanneson and Göran Karlsson on indirect costs estimation of medical care. The controversy arises with respect to long term absence, disability and mortality of their comments. Johanneson and Karlsson argue that no indirect costs of disease will occur after the friction period. They focus on the role of internal labour reserves and the role of unemployment in their method. They find indirect costs much smaller than estimates based on human capital approach. The article presents the model to advise Dutch government and parliament on short term and medium term economic development. The economic aspects of medium term concern the influence of absence in work on labour productivity, labour costs per unit of output and the degree of international competitiveness. This also holds for the impact of disability premiums on labour supply and labour costs.

Estimates of WTP per QALY can be taken as an indication of the monetary value of health gains, which may carry information regarding the appropriate height of the cost-effectiveness threshold. Given the far-reaching consequences choosing a particular threshold, and thus the potential relevance of WTP per QALY estimates, it is important to address the validity of these estimates. This study addresses this issue. Our findings offer little support to the validity of WTP per QALY estimates obtained in this study. Implications for general WTP per QALY estimates and further research are discussed., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Besides patients' health and well-being, healthcare interventions may affect the well-being of significant others. Such 'spill over effects' in significant others may be distinguished in two distinct effects: (i) the caregiving effect and (ii) the family effect. The first refers to the welfare effects of providing informal care, i.e., the effects of caring for someone who is ill. The second refers to a direct influence of the health of a patient on others' well-being, i.e., the effects of caring about other people. Using a sample of Dutch informal caregivers we found that both effects exist and may be comparable in size. Our results, while explorative, indicate that economic evaluations adopting a societal perspective should include both the family and the caregiving effects measured in the relevant individuals.

'Extra-welfarism' has received some attention in health economics, yet there is little consensus on what distinguishes it from more conventional 'welfarist economics'. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of each in order to make a systematic comparison of the ways in which they evaluate alternative social states. The focus, though this is not intended to be exclusive, is on health. Specifically, we highlight four areas in which the two schools differ: (i) the outcomes considered relevant in an evaluation; (ii) the sources of valuation of the relevant outcomes; (iii) the basis of weighting of relevant outcomes and (iv) interpersonal comparisons. We conclude that these differences are substantive.