收入是芬兰老年机构护理的决定因素

E. Siljander, I. Linnosmaa, U. Hâkkinen, M. Heliovaara, S. Koskinen
{"title":"收入是芬兰老年机构护理的决定因素","authors":"E. Siljander, I. Linnosmaa, U. Hâkkinen, M. Heliovaara, S. Koskinen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1833342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim and Motivation: This paper investigates the income and socio-economic effects on institutional long-term care demand (LTC) in Finland from an economics perspective. If lessons are learned from major contributors of care needs and costs then preventative measures can be designed to answer these challenges. The motivation for this paper is that LTC costs are expected to increase in Finland by 50 percent per annum in the next 25 years due to the doubling of the 65 years old population (by 2039). Aging of populations and workforce is a European wide phenomenon. Definitions: LTC for old age people is by definition care for chronic sickness and disability in the last years of life. It can be either formal or informal care (or both) delivered to a homelike environment (home care) or given at an institution (institutional care).Methods: The economics of LTC care are reviewed based on existing literature. Next the econometric and institutional context is described. A longitudinal competing risks and multinomial logit model are estimated. The two competing risks are institutional entry or death outside institution. Data: Finnish Health2000 individual level survey data from year 2000 linked with a day-by-day care register follow-up till end of 2010. The sample consists of N=3245 over 50 year old age population.Results: It is found that higher household (OECD) and personal income reduce demand for institutional LTC care controlling for health, functional capacity and key living habits. The difference between extreme income quintiles (lowest vs. highest) is 1,3 percent for men and 0,6 percent for women. This result suggests that institutional care may include disutility from a consumer preferences point of view. The highest risks of institutional LTC care are found among small income, single living and cognitively disabled highly aged people (over 80, 90 years old). Neurological diseases and cancer are the biggest risk factors of institutional entry. For deaths outside institution the biggest risks are dementia and cancer. ADL problems and old age frailty contribute to both competing risks.Policy conclusions: There are significant socio-economic inequalities in institutional LTC care entry. Prevention of neurological and living habits diseases (smoking, weight disorders) has potential for cost savings in institutional care services.","PeriodicalId":441838,"journal":{"name":"Geographic Health Economics eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Income as a Determinants for Old Age Institutional Care in Finland\",\"authors\":\"E. Siljander, I. Linnosmaa, U. Hâkkinen, M. Heliovaara, S. Koskinen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1833342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim and Motivation: This paper investigates the income and socio-economic effects on institutional long-term care demand (LTC) in Finland from an economics perspective. If lessons are learned from major contributors of care needs and costs then preventative measures can be designed to answer these challenges. The motivation for this paper is that LTC costs are expected to increase in Finland by 50 percent per annum in the next 25 years due to the doubling of the 65 years old population (by 2039). Aging of populations and workforce is a European wide phenomenon. Definitions: LTC for old age people is by definition care for chronic sickness and disability in the last years of life. It can be either formal or informal care (or both) delivered to a homelike environment (home care) or given at an institution (institutional care).Methods: The economics of LTC care are reviewed based on existing literature. Next the econometric and institutional context is described. A longitudinal competing risks and multinomial logit model are estimated. The two competing risks are institutional entry or death outside institution. Data: Finnish Health2000 individual level survey data from year 2000 linked with a day-by-day care register follow-up till end of 2010. The sample consists of N=3245 over 50 year old age population.Results: It is found that higher household (OECD) and personal income reduce demand for institutional LTC care controlling for health, functional capacity and key living habits. The difference between extreme income quintiles (lowest vs. highest) is 1,3 percent for men and 0,6 percent for women. This result suggests that institutional care may include disutility from a consumer preferences point of view. The highest risks of institutional LTC care are found among small income, single living and cognitively disabled highly aged people (over 80, 90 years old). Neurological diseases and cancer are the biggest risk factors of institutional entry. For deaths outside institution the biggest risks are dementia and cancer. ADL problems and old age frailty contribute to both competing risks.Policy conclusions: There are significant socio-economic inequalities in institutional LTC care entry. Prevention of neurological and living habits diseases (smoking, weight disorders) has potential for cost savings in institutional care services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":441838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geographic Health Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geographic Health Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1833342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geographic Health Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1833342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的与动机:本文从经济学角度考察了收入和社会经济对芬兰机构长期护理需求的影响。如果从护理需求和费用的主要贡献者那里吸取教训,那么就可以设计预防措施来应对这些挑战。本文的动机是,由于65岁人口(到2039年)翻一番,芬兰的LTC成本预计将在未来25年内每年增加50%。人口和劳动力老龄化是欧洲普遍存在的现象。定义:老年人长期护理根据定义是在生命的最后几年对慢性疾病和残疾的护理。它可以是正式或非正式的护理(或两者兼而有之),在类似家庭的环境中提供(家庭护理)或在机构中提供(机构护理)。方法:在现有文献的基础上,对长期护理的经济学进行综述。接下来描述了计量经济学和制度背景。对纵向竞争风险和多项逻辑模型进行了估计。两个相互竞争的风险是机构进入或机构外死亡。数据:2000年芬兰卫生2000年个人水平调查数据,与截至2010年底的逐日护理登记随访相关联。样本由N=3245名50岁以上的人口组成。结果:较高的家庭(OECD)和个人收入降低了对机构LTC护理的需求,控制了健康、功能能力和关键生活习惯。极端收入五分位数(最低与最高)之间的差异,男性为1.3%,女性为0.6%。这一结果表明,从消费者偏好的角度来看,机构护理可能包括负效用。机构LTC护理的风险最高的是低收入、单身生活和认知残疾的高龄人群(80、90岁以上)。神经系统疾病和癌症是进入医疗机构的最大风险因素。对于机构外的死亡来说,最大的风险是痴呆和癌症。ADL问题和老年虚弱都是相互竞争的风险。政策结论:在机构LTC护理进入方面存在显著的社会经济不平等。预防神经系统疾病和生活习惯疾病(吸烟、体重失调)有可能节省机构护理服务的费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Income as a Determinants for Old Age Institutional Care in Finland
Aim and Motivation: This paper investigates the income and socio-economic effects on institutional long-term care demand (LTC) in Finland from an economics perspective. If lessons are learned from major contributors of care needs and costs then preventative measures can be designed to answer these challenges. The motivation for this paper is that LTC costs are expected to increase in Finland by 50 percent per annum in the next 25 years due to the doubling of the 65 years old population (by 2039). Aging of populations and workforce is a European wide phenomenon. Definitions: LTC for old age people is by definition care for chronic sickness and disability in the last years of life. It can be either formal or informal care (or both) delivered to a homelike environment (home care) or given at an institution (institutional care).Methods: The economics of LTC care are reviewed based on existing literature. Next the econometric and institutional context is described. A longitudinal competing risks and multinomial logit model are estimated. The two competing risks are institutional entry or death outside institution. Data: Finnish Health2000 individual level survey data from year 2000 linked with a day-by-day care register follow-up till end of 2010. The sample consists of N=3245 over 50 year old age population.Results: It is found that higher household (OECD) and personal income reduce demand for institutional LTC care controlling for health, functional capacity and key living habits. The difference between extreme income quintiles (lowest vs. highest) is 1,3 percent for men and 0,6 percent for women. This result suggests that institutional care may include disutility from a consumer preferences point of view. The highest risks of institutional LTC care are found among small income, single living and cognitively disabled highly aged people (over 80, 90 years old). Neurological diseases and cancer are the biggest risk factors of institutional entry. For deaths outside institution the biggest risks are dementia and cancer. ADL problems and old age frailty contribute to both competing risks.Policy conclusions: There are significant socio-economic inequalities in institutional LTC care entry. Prevention of neurological and living habits diseases (smoking, weight disorders) has potential for cost savings in institutional care services.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adoption of Mobile Money for Healthcare Utilisation and Spending in Rural Ghana The Determinants of Physicians’ Location Choice: Understanding the Rural Shortage Does Universal Health Coverage at Early Age Reduce Medical Needs at Later Age? Evidence from Vietnam How Reliable Are the Health Responses of Elders? Evidence from India Mortality in Midlife for Subgroups in Germany
×
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