L Garattini1, F Tediosi, S Ghislandi, L Orzella, C Rossi. 1. CESAV--Center for Health Economics AA Valenti, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Ranica (Bergamo), Italy. liviogarattini@tiscalinet.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate how indirect costs are evaluated in pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy and the attitude of Italian pharmacoeconomists toward indirect costs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted, specifically focused on pharmacoeconomic studies including indirect costs carried out in Italy, and a suevey among Italian pharmacoeconomics experts. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were available for review. Although the methods used to calculate the value of production loss due to morbidity were all based on the Human Capital Approach (HCA), there was a wide variability among studies in practical methods. The parameters used to value production losses varied widely too. Of the 25 survey responders, 20 considered it important to include indirect costs in pharmacoeconomic studies; 56% of those interviewed stated that health authorities should require indirect cost evaluations. Most of these experts would include indirect cost estimates in drug-pricing calculation. CONCLUSIONS: In Italy studies evaluating indirect costs are still only few, although there is evidence of an increase. Italian pharmacoeconomists are far from reaching any consensus on methods for evaluating these costs. Methods need to be standardized particularly with respect to the parameters used to quantify productive time lost in monetary terms.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate how indirect costs are evaluated in pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy and the attitude of Italian pharmacoeconomists toward indirect costs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted, specifically focused on pharmacoeconomic studies including indirect costs carried out in Italy, and a suevey among Italian pharmacoeconomics experts. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were available for review. Although the methods used to calculate the value of production loss due to morbidity were all based on the Human Capital Approach (HCA), there was a wide variability among studies in practical methods. The parameters used to value production losses varied widely too. Of the 25 survey responders, 20 considered it important to include indirect costs in pharmacoeconomic studies; 56% of those interviewed stated that health authorities should require indirect cost evaluations. Most of these experts would include indirect cost estimates in drug-pricing calculation. CONCLUSIONS: In Italy studies evaluating indirect costs are still only few, although there is evidence of an increase. Italian pharmacoeconomists are far from reaching any consensus on methods for evaluating these costs. Methods need to be standardized particularly with respect to the parameters used to quantify productive time lost in monetary terms.