#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Metodika prístupu frikčných nákladov vo farmakoekonomických analýzach


Authors: Dominik Grega 1;  Jozef Kolář 2
Authors‘ workplace: Department of Applied Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Masaryk University, Czech Republic 1;  Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Czech Republic 2
Published in: Čes. slov. Farm., 2021; 70, 109-113
Category: Original article
doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5817/CSF2021-3-107

Overview

Využitie spoločenskej perspektívy vo farmako-ekonomických analýzach je široko diskutovanou témou. Jedným zo základných problémov využívania spoločenskej perspektívy je nejednotnosť výpočtu nepriamych nákladov. V analýzach sa najčastejšie využívajú dva prístupy na hodnotenie nepriamych nákladov: Human capital approach (HCA) a Friction cost approach (FCA). Zatiaľ čo HCA má pomerne jasnú a jednoduchú metodiku, FCA takúto zjednotenú široko uznávanú metodiku nemá. Vyhľadávali sme publikované články o používaní a rozdielnosti postupov HCA a FCA pomocou databázy Web of Science pomocou kľúčových slov. Analyzovali sme získané informácie z relevantných publikácii. Získali sme prehľad odporúčaní pre využívanie spoločenskej perspektívy vo svete. Zhrnuli a zdôraznili sme základné informácie o rozdielnosti medzi postupmi FCA a HCA. Identifikovali sme kľúčové premenné, ktoré by mali vystupovať v metóde FCA pri ohodnocovaní productivity cost, a navrhli sme postup ich získania. Odporúčame vytvorenie jednotnej metodiky, ktorá by mohla zvýšiť porovnávanie jednotlivých analýz z rôznych štátov a prispieť k prenositeľnosti dát.

Klíčová slova:

ľudský kapitál – frikčná perióda – strata produktivity – spoločenská perspektíva – nepriame náklady


Sources

1. Mycka J. M., et al. Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost Effectiveness Analyses: An Industry Perspective: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report – Part V. Value Health 2010; 13(1), 25–27.

2. Drummond M., et al. Transferability of Economic Evaluations Across Jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2009; 12(4), 409–418.

3. Garrison L. P., et al. Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Societal Perspective: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report – Part II. Value Health 2010; 13(1), 8–13.

4. Brouwer W. B., Koopmanschap M. A., Rutten F. F. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Econ. 1997; 6(3), 253–259.

5. Koopmanschap M. A., Rutten F. F. H. Indirect Costs: The Consequence of Production Loss or Increased Costs of Production. Med. Care 1996; 34(12), DS59–DS68.

6. Pearce A. CREST Resources. www.uts.edu.au [Online] 11 2016. [Cited: 15 8 2020.] https://www.uts.edu.au/research- and-teaching/our-research/cancer-research-economics- support-team/crest-resources

7. ISPOR. Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around The World. www.ispor.org [Online] ISPOR, 2020 [Cited: 02 09 2020]. https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/

8. Kattan M. W., Cowen M. E. Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making. California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2009.

9. Knies S., et al. The Transferability of Valuing Lost Productivity across Jurisdictions. Differences between National Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines. Value Health 2010; 13(5), 519–527.

10. Koopmanschap M. A., van Ineveld B. M. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc. Sci. Med. 1992; 34(9), 1005–1010.

11. Koopmanschap M. A., et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J. Health Econ. 1995; 14(2), 171–189.

12. Pritchard C., Sculpher M. Productivity costs: Principles and practice in economic evaluation. London: Office of Health Economics 2000; 97.

13. Drost R. M. W. A., et al. Conceptualizations of the societal perspective within economic evaluations: a systematic review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2017; 33(2), 251–260.

14. Goeree R., 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), 455–463.

15. Hutubessy R. C., 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– 207.

16. Huscher D., et al. Evolution of cost structures in rheumatoid arthritis over the past decade. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2015; 74(4), 738–745.

17. Kigozi J., et al. Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2016; 17, 31–44.

18. Batko B., Rolska-Wójcik P., Władysiuk M. Indirect Costs of Rheumatoid Arthritis Depending on Type of Treatment – A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019; 16.

19. Franke L. C., et al. Cost-of-illness of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2009; 27(4), 118–123.

20. Raciborski F., Kłak A., Kwiatkowska B. Indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis. Reumatologia 2015; 53(5), 268– 275.

21. Krol M., et al. Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: Correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012; 75(11), 1981–1988.

22. Pike J., Grosse S. D. Friction cost estimates of productivity costs in cost-of-illness studies in comparison with human capital estimates: a review. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2018; 16(6), 765–778.

23. Drost R. M. W. A., Paulus A. T. G., Evers S. M. A. A. Five pillars for societal perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2020; 36(2), 72–74.

Labels
Pharmacy Clinical pharmacology
Topics Journals
Login
Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#