Roben Das Gupta1, Julian F Guest. 1. CATALYST Health Economics Consultants, 34b High Street, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 1BN, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To model the economic impact of introducing an occupational vaccination programme for influenza with an inactivated influenza subunit vaccine (Influvac) in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Using published sources, a decision tree was constructed which modelled the costs and benefits of introducing an influenza vaccine in a business in the UK from the perspective of an employer. STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: The model considered the implementation of an occupational vaccination programme with Influvac in a business employing 1000 normal healthy adults earning the national average wage in the UK. The model assumed that 95% of employees would be absent from work after contracting influenza for a mean of 5 days and that the level of productivity would be reduced by 60% for one day by 85% of sick employees returning to work. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The expected probability of an employee being absent from work following an influenza vaccination would be reduced from 5.7 to 1.8% when the incidence of influenza in the community is 6%. Accordingly, if all 1000 employees were vaccinated, a business would be expected to reduce absenteeism from work attributable to an influenza outbreak by 220 days. Moreover, the expected return on every pound invested by an employer would be UK pounds 1.03, UK pounds 3.09 and UK pounds 5.15 (2000 values) when the annual incidence of influenza in the community is 2, 6 and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an occupational vaccination programme with Influvac would be expected to reduce the incidence of influenza among a workforce leading to less absenteeism from work and averted lost productivity. Even if the incidence of influenza was as low as 2% it may be a worthwhile investment for UK employers to vaccinate their employees with Influvac.
OBJECTIVES: To model the economic impact of introducing an occupational vaccination programme for influenza with an inactivated influenza subunit vaccine (Influvac) in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Using published sources, a decision tree was constructed which modelled the costs and benefits of introducing an influenza vaccine in a business in the UK from the perspective of an employer. STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: The model considered the implementation of an occupational vaccination programme with Influvac in a business employing 1000 normal healthy adults earning the national average wage in the UK. The model assumed that 95% of employees would be absent from work after contracting influenza for a mean of 5 days and that the level of productivity would be reduced by 60% for one day by 85% of sick employees returning to work. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The expected probability of an employee being absent from work following an influenza vaccination would be reduced from 5.7 to 1.8% when the incidence of influenza in the community is 6%. Accordingly, if all 1000 employees were vaccinated, a business would be expected to reduce absenteeism from work attributable to an influenza outbreak by 220 days. Moreover, the expected return on every pound invested by an employer would be UK pounds 1.03, UK pounds 3.09 and UK pounds 5.15 (2000 values) when the annual incidence of influenza in the community is 2, 6 and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an occupational vaccination programme with Influvac would be expected to reduce the incidence of influenza among a workforce leading to less absenteeism from work and averted lost productivity. Even if the incidence of influenza was as low as 2% it may be a worthwhile investment for UK employers to vaccinate their employees with Influvac.
Authors: E Burckel; T Ashraf; J P de Sousa Filho; E Forleo Neto; H Guarino; C Yauti; B Barreto F de; L Champion Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: C B Bridges; W W Thompson; M I Meltzer; G R Reeve; W J Talamonti; N J Cox; H A Lilac; H Hall; A Klimov; K Fukuda Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272