Informal and formal long-term care utilization and unmet needs in Europe: examining socioeconomic disparities and the role of social policies for older adults.

IF 1.5 4区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE International Journal of Health Economics and Management Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1007/s10754-024-09378-z
Viktoria Szenkurök, Daniela Weber, Marcel Bilger
{"title":"Informal and formal long-term care utilization and unmet needs in Europe: examining socioeconomic disparities and the role of social policies for older adults.","authors":"Viktoria Szenkurök, Daniela Weber, Marcel Bilger","doi":"10.1007/s10754-024-09378-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rising number of older adults with limitations in their daily activities has major implications for the demands placed on long-term care (LTC) systems across Europe. Recognizing that demand can be both constrained and encouraged by individual and country-specific factors, this study explains the uptake of home-based long-term care in 18 European countries with LTC policies and pension generosity along with individual factors such as socioeconomic status. Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe conducted in 2019, we apply a two-part multilevel model to assess if disparities in use of LTC are driven by disparities in needs or disparities in use of care when in need. While individual characteristics largely affect the use of care through its association with disparities in need, country-level characteristics are important for the use of care when in need. In particular, the better health of wealthier and more educated individuals makes them less likely to use any type of home-based personal care. At the country level, results show that the absence of a means-tested benefit scheme and the availability of cash-for-care benefits (as opposed to in-kind) are strongly associated with the use of formal care, whether it is mixed (with informal care) or exclusive. LTC policies are, however, shown to be insufficient to significantly reduce unmet needs for personal care. Conversely, generous pensions are significantly associated with lower unmet needs, underscoring the importance of considering the likely adverse effects of future pension reforms.</p>","PeriodicalId":44403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-024-09378-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rising number of older adults with limitations in their daily activities has major implications for the demands placed on long-term care (LTC) systems across Europe. Recognizing that demand can be both constrained and encouraged by individual and country-specific factors, this study explains the uptake of home-based long-term care in 18 European countries with LTC policies and pension generosity along with individual factors such as socioeconomic status. Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe conducted in 2019, we apply a two-part multilevel model to assess if disparities in use of LTC are driven by disparities in needs or disparities in use of care when in need. While individual characteristics largely affect the use of care through its association with disparities in need, country-level characteristics are important for the use of care when in need. In particular, the better health of wealthier and more educated individuals makes them less likely to use any type of home-based personal care. At the country level, results show that the absence of a means-tested benefit scheme and the availability of cash-for-care benefits (as opposed to in-kind) are strongly associated with the use of formal care, whether it is mixed (with informal care) or exclusive. LTC policies are, however, shown to be insufficient to significantly reduce unmet needs for personal care. Conversely, generous pensions are significantly associated with lower unmet needs, underscoring the importance of considering the likely adverse effects of future pension reforms.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲非正规和正规长期护理的使用情况和未满足的需求:研究社会经济差异和老年人社会政策的作用。
日常活动受限的老年人数量不断增加,这对欧洲各国长期护理(LTC)系统的需求产生了重大影响。本研究认识到需求既可能受到个人和国家特定因素的限制,也可能受到这些因素的鼓励,因此解释了 18 个欧洲国家的长期护理政策和养老金慷慨程度以及社会经济地位等个人因素对居家长期护理的吸收情况。利用 2019 年进行的欧洲健康、老龄化和退休调查的数据,我们采用了一个由两部分组成的多层次模型,以评估使用长期护理服务的差异是由需求差异还是由需要护理时使用护理服务的差异造成的。个人特征在很大程度上通过与需求差异的关联影响护理的使用,而国家层面的特征则对有需求时护理的使用非常重要。特别是,较富裕和受教育程度较高的人健康状况较好,这使得他们不太可能使用任何类型的家庭个人护理。在国家层面,结果表明,没有经济情况调查福利计划和有无现金护理福利(而不是实物福利)与使用正规护理密切相关,无论是混合使用(与非正规护理一起使用)还是完全使用。然而,长期护理政策不足以显著减少未得到满足的个人护理需求。相反,慷慨的养老金与较低的未满足需求密切相关,这强调了考虑未来养老金改革可能产生的不利影响的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The focus of the International Journal of Health Economics and Management is on health care systems and on the behavior of consumers, patients, and providers of such services. The links among management, public policy, payment, and performance are core topics of the relaunched journal. The demand for health care and its cost remain central concerns. Even as medical innovation allows providers to improve the lives of their patients, questions remain about how to efficiently deliver health care services, how to pay for it, and who should pay for it. These are central questions facing innovators, providers, and payers in the public and private sectors. One key to answering these questions is to understand how people choose among alternative arrangements, either in markets or through the political process. The choices made by healthcare managers concerning the organization and production of that care are also crucial. There is an important connection between the management of a health care system and its economic performance. The primary audience for this journal will be health economists and researchers in health management, along with the larger group of health services researchers. In addition, research and policy analysis reported in the journal should be of interest to health care providers, managers and policymakers, who need to know about the pressures facing insurers and governments, with consequences for regulation and mandates. The editors of the journal encourage submissions that analyze the behavior and interaction of the actors in health care, viz. consumers, providers, insurers, and governments. Preference will be given to contributions that combine theoretical with empirical work, evaluate conflicting findings, present new information, or compare experiences between countries and jurisdictions. In addition to conventional research articles, the journal will include specific subsections for shorter concise research findings and cont ributions to management and policy that provide important descriptive data or arguments about what policies follow from research findings. The composition of the editorial board is designed to cover the range of interest among economics and management researchers.Officially cited as: Int J Health Econ ManagFrom 2001 to 2014 the journal was published as International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. (Articles published in Vol. 1-14 officially cited as: Int J Health Care Finance Econ)
期刊最新文献
Feeling discriminated means poor self-perceived health: a gender analysis using SHARE. Vaccination strategies for different contact patterns: weighing epidemiological against economic outcomes. The effect of health facility ownership on perceived healthcare quality: evidence from Ghana Internet use, dietary habits and adolescent obesity: evidence from China. The effect of health facility births on newborn mortality in Malawi.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1