Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore whether wealth effects of health interventions, including productivity gains and savings in other sectors, are considered in resource allocations by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and government departments. To analyze reasons for including, or not including, wealth effects.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews with decision makers and academic experts in eight countries (Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom).

Results: There is evidence suggesting that health interventions can produce economic gains for patients and national economies. However, we found that the link between health and wealth does not influence decision making in any country with the exception of Sweden. This is due to a combination of factors, including system fragmentation, methodological issues, and the economic recession forcing national governments to focus on short-term measures.

Conclusions: In countries with established HTA processes and methods allowing, in principle, the inclusion of wider effects in exceptional cases or secondary analyses, it might be possible to overcome the methodological and practical barriers and see a more systematic consideration of wealth effect in decision making. This would be consistent with principles of efficient priority setting. Barriers for the consideration of wealth effects in government decision making are more fundamental, due to an enduring separation of budgets within the public sector and current financial pressures. However, governments should consider all relevant effects from public investments, including healthcare, even when benefits can only be captured in the medium- and long-term. This will ensure that resources are allocated where they bring the best returns.

The costs of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) to the beef producer can be estimated by identifying and summing the direct and indirect costs associated with the disease. The major direct costs are attributable to the cost of the feeder, production costs and carcass disposal. The indirect costs are mainly associated with infrastructure and labour.

In this paper we develop a framework to categorize the concepts used to estimate indirect costs in economic evaluation. We apply this framework in a literature review of economic evaluation studies. We searched all English language literature from 1994–1996. Following the application of a search algorithm, which yielded 25 articles, we abstracted information from these articles to determine the methods used to identify the relative contribution of indirect costs to the cost-effectiveness ratio, the time horizon selected by the authors, the identification of those activities that were foregone, the time given up by these activities, and the valuation placed on this time. These methods were then assessed. Indirect costs, as they have been measured, significantly influence efficiency ratios. A wide variation exists among studies in how they incorporate each of the components of indirect costs. All of the four components that were identified will affect the measurement of indirect cost. Future guidelines in this area should address the entire measurement process.

Objectives: The great interest focused on home care technologies during the last decade resulted from its potential to cut costs. However, the reallocation of costs between healthcare providers and social welfare providers, and the indirect costs of informal care, are not as frequent topics of discussion. The aim of this paper is to discuss different models for estimating the costs of informal care in the home care setting in economic appraisals.

Methods: The outcome of using different models for estimating indirect costs was illustrated using empirical data regarding the time spent by informal caregivers in providing care in a group of home care patients (n = 59). The models used comprise different interpretations of the traditional human capital approach and the friction cost model.

Results and Conclusions: Informal care is an important component in home care. The inclusion of indirect costs of informal care in economic appraisals will have implications for the cost-effectiveness of home care, since it will raise costs depending on the model used for estimating indirect costs. In this study we have shown that indirect costs estimated by the friction cost model only amount to 18% to 44% of the cost when the human capital approach is used. The results indicate that, regardless of the method used to estimate indirect costs, the cost of informal care in evaluations of home care programs is often underestimated due to the exclusion of indirect costs.

Objectives: Time costs borne by women when undergoing cervical cancer screening have rarely been elucidated, although such costs may pose substantial barriers to care. The purpose of this project was to quantify the opportunity costs associated with cervical cancer screening in young women attending Planned Parenthood Clinics.

Methods: We conducted a self-report survey of 105 women from six clinics to measure travel, waiting, and exam times associated with cervical cancer screening. Respondents recorded their time of arrival and departure, length of time in the waiting room, age, income level, and hours per week they worked outside of the home. Time costs were valued three ways: through self-reported hourly wage, age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings, and national age- and gender-adjusted hourly wages.

Results: Respondents were on average 24 years old, worked 29 hours per week outside the home, and earned less than $20,000 per year. Mean time for one-way travel was 18.7 minutes; waiting room time was 16.9 minutes; and exam time was 50.8 minutes. Time costs were estimated to be $14.08 per visit based upon the self-reported hourly wage; $16.46 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted minimum earnings; and $19.63 per visit based upon age- and gender-adjusted national wage rates.

Conclusions: Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening represent an important opportunity cost and should be considered in studies attempting to identify barriers to screening adherence. Our results indicate that time costs accounted for up to 25% of cervical cancer screening costs. Time costs should be identified, measured, valued, and included in cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening.