Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Economics Review 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey

Published in: Health Economics Review | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

In health economic evaluation studies, to value productivity loss due to absenteeism, existing methods use wages as a proxy value for marginal productivity. This study is the first to test the equality between wage and marginal productivity losses due to absenteeism separately for team workers and non-team workers. Our estimates are based on linked employer-employee data from Canada. Results indicate that team workers are more productive and earn higher wages than non-team workers. However, the productivity gap between these two groups is considerably larger than the wage gap. In small firms, employee absenteeism results in lower productivity and wages, and the marginal productivity loss due to team worker absenteeism is significantly higher than the wage loss. No similar wage-productivity gap exists for large firms. Our findings suggest that productivity loss or gain is most likely to be underestimated when valued according to wages for team workers. The findings help to value the burden of illness-related absenteeism. This is important for economic evaluations that seek to measure the productivity gain or loss of a health care technology or intervention, which in turn can impact policy makers’ funding decisions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For example, older workers are assumed to be equally represented among team workers and non-team workers; the distribution of absence rate is the same across different worker types.
 
2
For instance, the relative marginal productivity of older workers versus younger workers among team workers is assumed to be the same as those among non-team workers.
 
3
We have also estimated the equations in first differences to remove the firm-level fixed effects. The estimates were similar to the NLS estimates but very imprecise due to the large number of implied firm effects relative to the sample size. The results are included in Appendix C.
 
4
For example, when dropping the restriction between sex and team participation, we allow the proportion of team workers to differ in female and male employees. The new specification includes the proportion of female team workers, proportion of male team workers and proportion of female non-team workers as the independent variables.
 
5
Only employers were surveyed in 2006.
 
6
Employers in Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories are excluded from the survey, as are those operating in crop production, animal production, fishing, hunting and trapping, private households, religious organizations and public administration.
 
7
We do not use data from even-numbered years for two reasons. First, employee attrition is high in their second survey year and is likely nonrandom [56]. Second, many sampled workers change employers between survey years and only limited information is collected about their new employer.
 
8
Using value added as an output measure helps address the potential endogeneity of materials by avoiding estimation of a coefficient on materials [27, 50, 51]. Another advantage of a value-added specification is that it improves comparability of data across industries and across workplaces within industries when their degree of vertical integration differs [27].
 
9
The total number of usual workdays equals to the number of days per week that employees usually work multiplied by the number of weeks per year they usually work.
 
10
More information on self-directed work group was provided in the question, i.e., “In such systems, part of your pay is normally related to group performance. Self-directed work groups: 1) Are responsible for production of a fixed product or service, and have a high degree of autonomy in how they organize themselves to produce that product or service. 2) Act almost as ‘businesses within businesses’. 3) Often have incentives related to productivity, timeliness and quality. 4) While most have a designated leader, other members also contribute to the organization of the group’s activities.”
 
11
Although firms in the WES are classified into industries according to 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (a total of 837 unique industries), the capital stock information provided by Statistics Canada is only available for 247 industries at varying levels of NAICS detail (2–6 digits, depending on industry). The 247 industries are not exclusive because both higher level and lower level of their NACIS are included for some industries. Eventually, a total of exclusive 201 NACISs are used: 2 in 2 digits, 70 in 3 digits, 107 in 4 digits, 20 in 5 digits and 2 in 6 digits. Hence, to impute a net stock estimate, we had to impute some firm’s capital stock using the average value in a higher-level aggregate of the firm’s industry.
 
12
Note the output elasticity of labour is 0.95.
 
13
Results are not presented but will be available upon request.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
2.
go back to reference Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
3.
go back to reference Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W. Do productivity costs matter?: the impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:601–19.PubMed Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W. Do productivity costs matter?: the impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:601–19.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Krol M, Papenburg J, Tan SS, Brouwer W, Hakkaart L. A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17:391–402.CrossRefPubMed Krol M, Papenburg J, Tan SS, Brouwer W, Hakkaart L. A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17:391–402.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Jönsson L, Kobelt G, Zethraeus N. Why should economic evaluations of medical innovations have a societal perspective? London: Office of Health Economics; 2009. Report No.: No. 51. Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Jönsson L, Kobelt G, Zethraeus N. Why should economic evaluations of medical innovations have a societal perspective? London: Office of Health Economics; 2009. Report No.: No. 51.
6.
go back to reference Jönsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:357–9.CrossRefPubMed Jönsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:357–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Berger ML, Murray JF, Xu J, Pauly M. Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43:18–24.CrossRefPubMed Berger ML, Murray JF, Xu J, Pauly M. Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43:18–24.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy. 1996;36:231–44.CrossRefPubMed Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy. 1996;36:231–44.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Xu J, Polsky D, Danzon PM, Murray JF, et al. A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Econ. 2002;11:221–31.CrossRefPubMed Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Xu J, Polsky D, Danzon PM, Murray JF, et al. A general model of the impact of absenteeism on employers and employees. Health Econ. 2002;11:221–31.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: A critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:185–92.CrossRefPubMed Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: A critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:185–92.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Polsky D, Berger ML, Sharda C. Valuing reductions in on-the-job illness: “presenteeism” from managerial and economic perspectives. Health Econ. 2008;17:469–85.CrossRefPubMed Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Polsky D, Berger ML, Sharda C. Valuing reductions in on-the-job illness: “presenteeism” from managerial and economic perspectives. Health Econ. 2008;17:469–85.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Brown C, Medoff J. The Employer Size-Wage Effect. J Polit Econ. 1989;97:1027–59.CrossRef Brown C, Medoff J. The Employer Size-Wage Effect. J Polit Econ. 1989;97:1027–59.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fox JT. Firm‐Size Wage Gaps, Job Responsibility, and Hierarchical Matching. J Labor Econ. 2009;27:83–126.CrossRef Fox JT. Firm‐Size Wage Gaps, Job Responsibility, and Hierarchical Matching. J Labor Econ. 2009;27:83–126.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Goux D, Maurin E. Persistence of Interindustry Wage Differentials: A Reexamination Using Matched Worker‐Firm Panel Data. J Labor Econ. 1999;17:492–533.CrossRef Goux D, Maurin E. Persistence of Interindustry Wage Differentials: A Reexamination Using Matched Worker‐Firm Panel Data. J Labor Econ. 1999;17:492–533.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Groshen EL. Sources of Intra-Industry Wage Dispersion: How Much Do Employers Matter? Q J Econ. 1991;106:869–84.CrossRef Groshen EL. Sources of Intra-Industry Wage Dispersion: How Much Do Employers Matter? Q J Econ. 1991;106:869–84.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Krueger AB, Summers LH. Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure. Econometrica. 1988;56:259–93.CrossRef Krueger AB, Summers LH. Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure. Econometrica. 1988;56:259–93.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Coles M, Lanfranchi J, Skalli A, Treble J. Pay, Technology, and the Cost of Worker Absence. Econ Inq. 2007;45:268–85.CrossRef Coles M, Lanfranchi J, Skalli A, Treble J. Pay, Technology, and the Cost of Worker Absence. Econ Inq. 2007;45:268–85.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA, Owan H. Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation. J Polit Econ. 2003;111:465–97.CrossRef Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA, Owan H. Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation. J Polit Econ. 2003;111:465–97.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Card D, Lemieux T, Riddell WC. Unions and wage inequality. J Labor Res. 2004;25:519–59.CrossRef Card D, Lemieux T, Riddell WC. Unions and wage inequality. J Labor Res. 2004;25:519–59.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Freeman RB, Medoff JL, Feeman RB. What Do Unions Do? New York: HarperCollins Canada / Basic Books; 1984. Freeman RB, Medoff JL, Feeman RB. What Do Unions Do? New York: HarperCollins Canada / Basic Books; 1984.
21.
22.
go back to reference Dustmann C, Glitz A, Vogel T. Employment, wages, and the economic cycle: Differences between immigrants and natives. Eur Econ Rev. 2010;54:1–17.CrossRef Dustmann C, Glitz A, Vogel T. Employment, wages, and the economic cycle: Differences between immigrants and natives. Eur Econ Rev. 2010;54:1–17.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Borjas GJ, Ramey VA. Foreign Competition, Market Power, and Wage Inequality. Q J Econ. 1995;110:1075–110.CrossRef Borjas GJ, Ramey VA. Foreign Competition, Market Power, and Wage Inequality. Q J Econ. 1995;110:1075–110.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Guadalupe M. Product Market Competition, Returns to Skill, and Wage Inequality. J Labor Econ. 2007;25:439–74.CrossRef Guadalupe M. Product Market Competition, Returns to Skill, and Wage Inequality. J Labor Econ. 2007;25:439–74.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Fortin NM, Lemieux T. Institutional Changes and Rising Wage Inequality: Is there a Linkage? J Econ Perspect. 1997;11:75–96.CrossRef Fortin NM, Lemieux T. Institutional Changes and Rising Wage Inequality: Is there a Linkage? J Econ Perspect. 1997;11:75–96.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Koeniger W, Leonardi M, Nunziata L. Labor Market Institutions and Wage Inequality. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2007;60:340–56.CrossRef Koeniger W, Leonardi M, Nunziata L. Labor Market Institutions and Wage Inequality. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2007;60:340–56.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Hellerstein JK, Neumark D, Troske KR. Wages, Productivity, and Worker Characteristics: Evidence from Plant‐Level Production Functions and Wage Equations. J Labor Econ. 1999;17:409–46.CrossRef Hellerstein JK, Neumark D, Troske KR. Wages, Productivity, and Worker Characteristics: Evidence from Plant‐Level Production Functions and Wage Equations. J Labor Econ. 1999;17:409–46.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hellerstein JK, Neumark D. Sex, Wages, and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Israeli Firm-Level Data. Int Econ Rev. 1999;40:95–123.CrossRef Hellerstein JK, Neumark D. Sex, Wages, and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Israeli Firm-Level Data. Int Econ Rev. 1999;40:95–123.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hægeland T, Klette TJ. Do higher wages reflect higher productivity? Education, gender and experience premiums in a matched plant-worker data set. In: Haltiwanger JC, Lane JI, Spletzer JR, Theeuwes JJM, Troske KR, editors. The creation and analysis of employer-employee matched data. New York: Elsevier; 1999. p. 231–59.CrossRef Hægeland T, Klette TJ. Do higher wages reflect higher productivity? Education, gender and experience premiums in a matched plant-worker data set. In: Haltiwanger JC, Lane JI, Spletzer JR, Theeuwes JJM, Troske KR, editors. The creation and analysis of employer-employee matched data. New York: Elsevier; 1999. p. 231–59.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Brown S, Sessions JG. The Economics of Absence: Theory and Evidence. J Econ Surv. 1996;10:23–53.CrossRef Brown S, Sessions JG. The Economics of Absence: Theory and Evidence. J Econ Surv. 1996;10:23–53.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Dionne G, Dostie B. New Evidence on the Determinants of Absenteeism Using Linked Employer-Employee Data. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2007;61:108–20.CrossRef Dionne G, Dostie B. New Evidence on the Determinants of Absenteeism Using Linked Employer-Employee Data. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2007;61:108–20.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Heywood JS, Jirjahn U. Teams, Teamwork and Absence. Scand J Econ. 2004;106:765–82. Heywood JS, Jirjahn U. Teams, Teamwork and Absence. Scand J Econ. 2004;106:765–82.
34.
go back to reference Markussen S, Røed K, Røgeberg OJ, Gaure S. The anatomy of absenteeism. J Health Econ. 2011;30:277–92.CrossRefPubMed Markussen S, Røed K, Røgeberg OJ, Gaure S. The anatomy of absenteeism. J Health Econ. 2011;30:277–92.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
go back to reference Darr W, Johns G. Work strain, health, and absenteeism: a meta-analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13:293–318.CrossRefPubMed Darr W, Johns G. Work strain, health, and absenteeism: a meta-analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13:293–318.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, Hees H. Incidence rates of sickness absence related to mental disorders: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, Hees H. Incidence rates of sickness absence related to mental disorders: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Keech M, Beardsworth P. The impact of influenza on working days lost: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:911–24.CrossRefPubMed Keech M, Beardsworth P. The impact of influenza on working days lost: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:911–24.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Neovius K, Johansson K, Kark M, Neovius M. Obesity status and sick leave: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2009;10:17–27.CrossRefPubMed Neovius K, Johansson K, Kark M, Neovius M. Obesity status and sick leave: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2009;10:17–27.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
go back to reference Mefford RN. The Effect of Unions on Productivity in a Multinational Manufacturing Firm. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 1986;40:105–14.CrossRef Mefford RN. The Effect of Unions on Productivity in a Multinational Manufacturing Firm. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 1986;40:105–14.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Cobb CW, Douglas PH. A theory of production. Am Econ Rev. 1928;18:139–65. Cobb CW, Douglas PH. A theory of production. Am Econ Rev. 1928;18:139–65.
43.
go back to reference Zhang W, Sun H, Woodcock S, Anis A. Illness related wage and productivity losses: Valuing “presenteeism.”. Soc Sci Med. 2015;147:62–71.CrossRefPubMed Zhang W, Sun H, Woodcock S, Anis A. Illness related wage and productivity losses: Valuing “presenteeism.”. Soc Sci Med. 2015;147:62–71.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Levinsohn J, Petrin A. Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables. Rev Econ Stud. 2003;70:317–41.CrossRef Levinsohn J, Petrin A. Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables. Rev Econ Stud. 2003;70:317–41.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Petrin A, Poi BP, Levinsohn J. Production Function Estimation in STATA using Inputs to Control for Unobservables. Stata J. 2004;4:113–23. Petrin A, Poi BP, Levinsohn J. Production Function Estimation in STATA using Inputs to Control for Unobservables. Stata J. 2004;4:113–23.
50.
go back to reference Turcotte J, Rennison LW. The Link between Technology Use, Human Capital, Productivity and Wages: Firm-level Evidence. Int Productivity Monit. 2004;9:25–36. Turcotte J, Rennison LW. The Link between Technology Use, Human Capital, Productivity and Wages: Firm-level Evidence. Int Productivity Monit. 2004;9:25–36.
52.
go back to reference Aubert P, Crépon B. La productivité des salariés âgés: une tentative d’estimation. Économie et Statistique. 2003;368:95–119.CrossRef Aubert P, Crépon B. La productivité des salariés âgés: une tentative d’estimation. Économie et Statistique. 2003;368:95–119.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological Bias, Confounding, and Effect Modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:269–74.CrossRefPubMed Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological Bias, Confounding, and Effect Modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:269–74.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Zhang W, Bansback N, Boonen A, Severens JL, Anis AH. Development of a composite questionnaire, the valuation of lost productivity, to value productivity losses: application in rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2012;15:46–54.CrossRefPubMed Zhang W, Bansback N, Boonen A, Severens JL, Anis AH. Development of a composite questionnaire, the valuation of lost productivity, to value productivity losses: application in rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2012;15:46–54.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Pendakur K, Woodcock S. Glass ceilings or glass doors? Wage disparity within and between Firms. J Bus Econ Stat. 2010;28:181–9.CrossRef Pendakur K, Woodcock S. Glass ceilings or glass doors? Wage disparity within and between Firms. J Bus Econ Stat. 2010;28:181–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey
Publication date
01-12-2017
Published in
Health Economics Review / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2191-1991
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0138-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health Economics Review 1/2017 Go to the issue