{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015065913370998116, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.109195402298851, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The consequence of production loss or increased costs of production.

The health effects resulting from healthcare programs may improve the patient's social functioning and his or her ability to work. As a further consequence, society's production may increase or production costs may fall. The former are benefits to the patient and may lead to a higher quality of life in some dimensions. The latter economic consequences are defined as changes in indirect costs of disease. Indirect costs of disease sometimes constitute a substantial part of estimated costs or savings in economic evaluations of health-care programs. Indirect costs appear in cost-of-illness studies as well as in economic appraisals of interventions, and the appropriateness of their appearance in the latter type of studies often is debated. This article attempts to clarify some methodological and policy issues and suggests how indirect costs may be measured properly. We conclude by providing some recommendations to set a standard for dealing with indirect costs in economic appraisal.