Publicly available US national surveys that capture lost productivity

References

• Kuttner R The American healthcare system- employer-sponsored health coverage. N Engl. Med 340,248–252 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations [see comments]. PharmacoEconomics 13,1–7 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Discusses the indirect costs that should be collected in investigations conducted from a societal perspective.
   Google Scholar
• Burton W Conti D. The real measure of productivity Business & Health 34–36 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• •Discusses the need to measure presenteeism as well employee absenteeism. In addition, it introduces the Worker Productivity Index, an objective measure of employee productivity.
   Google Scholar
• Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Po1436,231–244 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• •The HCA, the willingness-to-pay approach and the costs that should be included in a cost-benefit analysis are discussed.
   Google Scholar
• Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc. Sci. Med. 34, 1005–1010 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Introduces and discusses a new methodology, the FCA, for valuing indirect costs.
   Google Scholar
• Mushkin S. Health as an Investment. J. Pa/it. Econ. 70,129–157 (1962).
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari M. The economic burden of migraine to society. PharmacoEconomics Jun, 667–676 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FE Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. PharmacoEconomics 4, 446–454 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Discusses the importance of indirect cost estimates and discusses the current literature surrounding indirect cost measurement.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson JC. Philosophical origins of the economic valuation of life. Milbank Q 64, 133–155 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FE A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. PharmacoEconomics10, 460–466 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Provides a guide for quantifying and valuing the indirect costs of disease. Two methods for calculating indirect costs, the HCA and the FCA, are discussed.
   Google Scholar
• Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Health Econ. 14, 171–189 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• •The FCA is used to determine the indirect costs of disease within the Netherlands. The considerations for applying the FCA are presented.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. PhalmacoEconomics 13, 563–566 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeples P, Wertheimer A, Mackowiak J, McGhan W. Controversies in measuring and valuing indirect costs of productivity foregone in a cost of illness evalutation.1 Res. Pharmaceut. Ron. 8, 23–32 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• •Advantages and disadvantages of the HCA and the willingness-to-pay approach are discussed.
   Google Scholar
• de Lissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine. Neurology 44, 56–62 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Seigel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Fiat ed Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Salkever DS. Morbidity Costs: National Estimates and Economic Determinants. NCHSR. National Center for Health Services Research, Washington DC, USA (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Lofland JH, Kim S, Batenhorst AS et al Cost effectiveness and cost benefit of sumatriptan in patients with migraine. Mayo Clinic f3vceeclings76, 1093–1101 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Berndt ER, Finkelstein SN, Greenberg PE et al Workplace performance effects from chronic depression and its treatment. J. Health Econ. 17, 511–535 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingram H. Implementation: A Review and Suggested Framework. In: Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Lynn NB, Wildavsky A (Eds). Chatham House Press, Chatham, NJ, USA 462–480 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Sink DS. Rethinking productivity: much ado about productivity: where do we go from here? Industrial Engineering35-48 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• •Briefly discusses a workplace performance model. Productivity is the relationship between the quantities of outputs generated from a system and the quantity of inputs provided to create those outputs. Workplace performance includes six criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, productivity, quality of work life, innovation and profitability.
   Google Scholar
• Wahlqvist P, Carlsson J, Stalhammar NO, Wildund I. Validity of a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire for patients with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (WPAI-GERD)-results from a cross-sectional study. Value in Health 5, 106–113 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch W, Riedel JE. Measuring Employee Productivity: A guide to self-assessment tools. William M. Mercer Inc., Institute for Health & Productivity Management. 1–94 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Labor and Statistics. National Compensation Survey. US Dept. of Labor.Bureau of Labor Statistics. http:// data.b1s.gov/labjava/outsidejsp?survey = nc. 2002. US Dept. of Labor. 7–8–0002.
   Google Scholar
• US Dept. of Labor.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics. National Occupational Employment Data. ftp://ftp.b1s.gov/pub/ news .release/History/ecec.061894.news . 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• The Center for Health System Change. Community Tracking Study Household Survey. www.hschange.com/index.cgi?data = 02. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Current Population Survey. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• MedSTAT. MarketScan Research Databases: Health and Productivity Management. MedSTAT. www.medstat.com/products/mscan.html 1–2. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare and Mediaid Services. Meciare Current Beneficaries Survey. www.hcfa.gov/surveys/mcbs. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. www.meps.ahrq.gov. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• US Census Bureau. Overview of Indexes. www.census.gov/hhes/www/ioindex/ overview.html. 2002. 7–8–0002.
   Google Scholar
• John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development (MIDMAC). National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States. midmac.med.harvard.edu/. 2002. 6-7-0002. itt Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Interview Survey. www.cdc.govinchs/about/major/ nhis_dis/nhis_dis.htm. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. www.cdc.govinchs/ nhanes.htm. 2002. 5–29–0002.
   Google Scholar
• Margaret Reilly. Internet. www.reillyassociates.net 2-5–2002.
   Google Scholar
• Employee Health Coalition, Inc. Employer Health Coalition, Tampa. www.ehcaccess.org/survey_data.asp. 2002. 6–6–0002.
   Google Scholar
• Employer Health Coalition, Inc. Healthy People/Productive Community Survey: 1999 Survey Data. 1–22. 2002. Employer Health Coalition, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• National Committee for Quality Assurance. Quality Dividend Calculator. www.ncqacalculator.com/Ncqa/Index.asp. 2002. 6–3–0002.
   Google Scholar