OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of lost work days due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and the cost of this reduced productivity using reduction in household income. DESIGN AND SETTING: Using 2 years of nationally representative observational data, this study examined the effect on household income of IHD. This effect was estimated after accounting for unemployment, days lost to illness and other effects of illness on the income of workers aged 18 to 64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Previous measures of indirect costs of disease have typically not included the loss in productivity due to suboptimal work performance. Among workers in this age group, IHD was associated with a reduction of $US3013 in annual household income; this reduction was independent of occupational class, age, size of household and educational level. Such a reduction may be because of reduced on-the-job performance, employer perception of this, or unrelated lifestyle choices. It represents an estimated $US6.05 billion annual loss in productivity in 1992 dollars (or $US6.45 billion in 1996 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the indirect costs of chronic disease that do not account fully for the lost income of employees may significantly underestimate the benefits to employers and society of treatment and prevention.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of lost work days due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and the cost of this reduced productivity using reduction in household income. DESIGN AND SETTING: Using 2 years of nationally representative observational data, this study examined the effect on household income of IHD. This effect was estimated after accounting for unemployment, days lost to illness and other effects of illness on the income of workers aged 18 to 64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Previous measures of indirect costs of disease have typically not included the loss in productivity due to suboptimal work performance. Among workers in this age group, IHD was associated with a reduction of $US3013 in annual household income; this reduction was independent of occupational class, age, size of household and educational level. Such a reduction may be because of reduced on-the-job performance, employer perception of this, or unrelated lifestyle choices. It represents an estimated $US6.05 billion annual loss in productivity in 1992 dollars (or $US6.45 billion in 1996 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the indirect costs of chronic disease that do not account fully for the lost income of employees may significantly underestimate the benefits to employers and society of treatment and prevention.
Authors: Tony Blakely; Finn Sigglekow; Muhammad Irfan; Anja Mizdrak; Joseph Dieleman; Laxman Bablani; Philip Clarke; Nick Wilson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 11.069