JOURNAL OF THE CZECH PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY AND THE SLOVAK PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY

Čes. slov. farm. 2021, 70(3):107-111 | DOI: 10.5817/CSF2021-3-107

Friction cost approach methodology in pharmacoeconomic analyses

Dominik Grega1,*, Jozef Kolář2
1 Department of Applied Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
2 Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Czech Republic

The use of a societal perspective in pharmacoeconomic analyses is a widely discussed topic. One of the fundamental problems of using the social perspective is the inconsistency of indirect costs calculation. We searched published articles on the use and differences of Human capital approach (HCA) and Friction cost approach (FCA) methods using the Web of Science database using keywords. We analyzed the information obtained from relevant publications. We obtained an overview of recommendations for the use of a social perspective in the world. We summarized and highlighted the necessary information about the differences between the FCA and HCA procedures. We have identified the key variables used in the FCA method when evaluating productivity cost, and we have proposed a procedure for obtaining them. We recommend creating a uniform methodology that could increase the comparison of individual analyses from different countries and contribute to data transferability.

Keywords: Human capital; Indirect costs; friction period; productivity loss; societal perspective

Received: March 3, 2021; Accepted: May 5, 2021; Published: March 1, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Grega D, Kolář J. Friction cost approach methodology in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Čes. slov. farm. 2021;70(3):107-111. doi: 10.5817/CSF2021-3-107.
Download citation

References

  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source...
  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. Go to original source...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Koopmanschap M. A., et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J. Health Econ. 1995; 14(2), 171-189. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Huscher D., et al. Evolution of cost structures in rheumatoid arthritis over the past decade. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2015; 74(4), 738-745. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...




Czech and Slovak Pharmacy

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.