http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/23392/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37426/ 2012-12-01T00:00:00Z Productivity costs related to paid work are commonly calculated in economic evaluations of health technologies by multiplying the relevant number of work days lost with a wage rate estimate. It has been argued that actual productivity costs may either be lower or higher than current estimates due to compensation mechanisms and/or multiplier effects (related to team dependency and problems with finding good substitutes in cases of absenteeism). Empirical evidence on such mechanisms and their impact on productivity costs is scarce, however. This study aims to increase knowledge on how diminished productivity is compensated within firms. Moreover, it aims to explore how compensation and multiplier effects potentially affect productivity cost estimates. Absenteeism and compensation mechanisms were measured in a randomized trial among Dutch citizens examining the cost-effectiveness of reimbursement for smoking cessation treatment. Multiplier effects were extracted from published literature. Productivity costs were calculated applying the Friction Cost Approach. Regular estimates were subsequently adjusted for (i) compensation during regular working hours, (ii) job dependent multipliers and (iii) both compensation and multiplier effects. A total of 187 respondents included in the trial were useful for inclusion in this study, based on being in paid employment, having experienced absenteeism in the preceding six months and completing the questionnaire on absenteeism and compensation mechanisms. Over half of these respondents stated that their absenteeism was compensated during normal working hours by themselves or colleagues. Only counting productivity costs not compensated in regular working hours reduced the traditional estimate by 57%. Correcting for multiplier effects increased regular estimates by a quarter. Combining both impacts decreased traditional estimates by 29%. To conclude, large amounts of lost production are compensated in normal hours. Productivity costs estimates are strongly influenced by adjustment for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects. The validity of such adjustments needs further examination, however. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/19645/ 2010-06-01T00:00:00Z Background Smoking cessation can be encouraged by reimbursing the costs of smoking cessation support (SCS). The short-term efficiency of reimbursement has been evaluated previously. However, a thorough estimate of the long-term cost-utility is lacking. Objectives To evaluate long-term effects of reimbursement of SCS. Methods Results from a randomized controlled trial were extrapolated to long-term outcomes in terms of health care costs and (quality adjusted) life years (QALY) gained, using the Chronic Disease Model. Our first scenario was no reimbursement. In a second scenario, the short-term cessation rates from the trial were extrapolated directly. Sensitivity analyses were based on the trial's confidence intervals. In the third scenario the additional use of SCS as found in the trial was combined with cessation rates from international meta-analyses. Results Intervention costs per QALY gained compared to the reference scenario were approximately €1200 extrapolating the trial effects directly, and €4200 when combining the trial's use of SCS with the cessation rates from the literature. Taking all health care effects into account, even costs in life years gained, resulted in an estimated incremental cost-utility of €4500 and €7400, respectively. In both scenarios costs per QALY remained below €16 000 in sensitivity analyses using a life-time horizon. Conclusions Extrapolating the higher use of SCS due to reimbursement led to more successful quitters and a gain in life years and QALYs. Accounting for overheads, administration costs and the costs of SCS, these health gains could be obtained at relatively low cost, even when including costs in life years gained. Hence, reimbursement of SCS seems to be cost-effective from a health care perspective.