Abstract
The cost of lost output is a major component of the total cost of illness estimates, especially those for the cost of workplace accidents and diseases. The two main methods for estimating this output, namely the human capital and the friction cost method, lead to very different results, particularly for cases of long-term absence, which makes the choice of method a critical dilemma. Two hidden assumptions, one for each method, are identified in this paper: for human capital method, the assumption that had the accident not happened the individual would remain alive, healthy and employed until retirement, and for friction cost method, the assumption that any created vacancy is covered by an unemployed person. Relevant adjustments to compensate for their impact are proposed: (a) to depreciate the estimates of the human capital method for the risks of premature death, disability or unemployment and (b) to multiply the estimates of the friction cost method with the expected number of job shifts that will be caused by a disability. The impact of these adjustments on the final estimates is very important in terms of magnitude and can lead to better results for each method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
