Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing patient and caregiver time

A review of the literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, financial pressures have resulted in a desire for countries to shift resources away from traditional areas of spending. The consequent devolution and reform have resulted in increased care being provided and received within homes and communities, and in an increased reliance on unpaid caregivers. Recent empirical work indicates that costs incurred by care recipients and unpaid caregivers, including time and productivity costs, often account for significant proportions of total healthcare expenditures. However, many economic evaluations do not include these costs. Moreover, when indirect costs are assessed, the methods of valuation are inconsistent and frequently controversial.

This paper provides an overview and critique of existing valuation methods. Current methods such as the human capital method, friction cost method and the Washington Panel approach are presented and critiqued according to criteria such as potential for inaccuracy, ease of application, and ethical and distributional concerns. The review illustrates the depth to which the methods have been theoretically examined, and highlights a paucity of research on costs that accrue to unpaid caregivers and a lack of research on time lost from unpaid labour and leisure. To ensure accurate and concise reporting of all time costs, it is concluded that a broad conceptual approach for time costing should be developed that draws on and then expands upon theoretical work to date.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond MF, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson A, Levin L, Emtinger B. The economic burden of informal care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (1): 46–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coyte PC, Asche CV, Croxford R, et al. The economic cost of musculoskeletal disorders in Canada. Arthritis Care Res 1998; 11 (5): 315–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Econ 1994; 3 (6: 385–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rothermich EA, Pathak DS. Productivity-cost controversies in cost-effectiveness analysis: review and research agenda. Clin Ther 1999; 21 (1): 255–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. van den Berg B, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. Economic valuation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Ear J Health Econ 2004; 5 (1): 36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Olsen JA, Richardson J. Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 17–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Patient and informal caregiver time in cost-effectiveness analysis: a response to the recommendations of the Washington Panel. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (3): 505–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6 (5): 511–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glied S. Estimating the indirect cost of illness: an assessment of the foregone earnings approach. Am J Public Health 1996; 86 (12): 1723–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (5): 455–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutubessy RC, Van Tulder MW, Vondeling H et al. Indirect costs of back pain in The Netherlands: a comparison of human capital method with the friction cost method. Pain 1999; 80 (12): 201–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs P, Fassbender K. The measurement of indirect costs in the health economics evaluation literature: a review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (4): 799–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (6): 446–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 460–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimation indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Liljas D. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lofland III, Locklear JC, Frick KD. Different approaches to valuing the lost productivity of patients with migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (9): 917–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Manning WG. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine recommendations: identifying costs. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; 60 Suppl. 3: 54–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1253–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hodgson TA, Meiners MR. Cost-of-illness methodology: a guide to current practices and procedures. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1982; 60: 429–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Marcotte DE, Wilcox-Gok V. Estimating the employment and earnings costs of mental illness: recent developments in the United States. Soc Sci Med 2001; 53 (1): 21–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mincer J, Polachek S. Family Investments in human capital: earnings of women. In: Schultz T, editor. Economics of the family: marriage, children, and human capital. Chicago (IL): National Bureau of Economic Research, The University of Chicago Press, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  24. Becker GS. Human capital. Vol. 2. New York (NY): National Bureau of Economic Research, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  25. Becker GS. A theory on the allocation of time. Econ J 1965; 75 (299): 493–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Borghouts JA, Koes BW, Vondeling H, et al. Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 1999; 80 (3): 629–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. de Lissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994; 44 (6 Suppl. 4): S56–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Evers SM, Engel GL, Ament AJ. Cost of stroke in The Netherlands from a societal perspective. Stroke 1997; 28 (7): 1375–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, et al. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16 (1): 111–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 253–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Leigh JP, Romano PS, Schenker MB, et al. Costs of occupational COPD and asthma. Chest 2002; 121 (1): 264–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ungar WJ, Coyle PC. Measuring productivity loss days in asthma patients. The Pharmacy Medication Monitoring Program and Advisory Board. Health Econ 2000; 9 (1): 37–46

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Johannesson M, Karlsson G. The friction cost method: a comment. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 249–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hutubessy RC, van Tulder MW, Vondeling H, et al. Indirect costs of back pain in The Netherlands: a comparison of the human capital method with the friction cost method. Pain 1999; 80 (1-2): 201–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Peeples PJ, Wertheimer AI, Mackowiak JI, et al. Controversies in measuring and valuing indirect costs of productivity foregone in a cost of illness evaluation. J Res Pharm Econ 1997; 8: 23–32

    Google Scholar 

  37. Posnett J, Jan S. Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid input. Health Econ 1996; 5: 13–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pritchard C, Sculpher M. Productivity costs: principles and practice in economic evaluation. London: The Office of Health Economics, 2000 Nov

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weinstein MC, Seigel 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: 505–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. Reply to Johanesson’s and Karlsson’s comment [reply]. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 257–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Decis Making 1999; 19 (4): 371–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Severens JL, Laheij RJ, Jansen JB, et al. Estimating the cost of lost productivity in dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998 Sep; 12 (9): 919–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Brouwer WBF, van Excel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, et al. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal. a consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15 (1): 147–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented, in part, at the Canadian Health Economics Research Association meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia in May 2002. The authors would like to thank conference participants for their contributions, especially C. Donaldson, S. Hadad, A. Shiell and W. Tholl. In addition, comments from Bernie O’Brien were also much appreciated, as was funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Grant number 37883). The author has no real or potential conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Jennifer E. Tranmer, Denise N. Guerriere, Wendy J. Ungar & Peter C. Coyte

  2. Population Health Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Wendy J. Ungar

  3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Wendy J. Ungar & Peter C. Coyte

  4. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation/Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health Service Chair, Department of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Peter C. Coyte

  5. Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Peter C. Coyte

Authors
  1. Jennifer E. Tranmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise N. Guerriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendy J. Ungar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter C. Coyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer E. Tranmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tranmer, J.E., Guerriere, D.N., Ungar, W.J. et al. Valuing patient and caregiver time. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 449–459 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523050-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523050-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation