| Literature DB >> 21575260 |
Pedro Olivares-Tirado1, Nanako Tamiya, Masayo Kashiwagi, Kimikazu Kashiwagi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Japan, as the number of elderly covered by the Long-term Care Insurance (LTCI) system has increased, demand for long-term care services has increased substantially and consequently growing expenditures are threatening the sustainability of the system. Understanding the predictive factors associated with long-term care expenditures among the elderly would be useful in developing future strategies to ensure the sustainability of the system. We report a set of predictors of the highest long-term care expenditures in a cohort of elderly persons who received consecutive long-term care services during a year in a Japanese city.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21575260 PMCID: PMC3119177 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Benefits limits standard amount for in-home services.
| Level of long-term care need | Benefit limit standard amounts |
|---|---|
| Requiring Support 1 | |
| Requiring Support 2 | |
| Requiring Long-term Care 1 | |
| Requiring Long-term Care 2 | |
| Requiring Long-term Care 3 | |
| Requiring Long-term Care 4 | |
| Requiring Long-term Care 5 |
1 unit = ¥ 10 to ¥ 11.05 (subject to region and kinds of service) Source: Annual Health, Labour and Welfare Report 2008-2009 MHLW.Japan
Descriptive characteristics of the study population (n:862)
| Long-term Care Expenditures | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | higher (n: 216) | non-higher (n: 646) | Total |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
Test for statistical differences between high expenditures and non-high expenditures groups were conducted using X2 test. * p < 0.0001
Estimated coefficients, Standard errors, p-values and 95% Confidences Intervals for the final logistic regression model for high expenditures in city A (n:861)
| parameters | coeff | Wald | C.I. (95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.418 | 0.3387 | 1.52 | 0.217 | (-0.246, 1.082) | |
| 1.666 | 0.4995 | 11.13 | (0.687, 2.645) | ||
| 1.340 | 0.4966 | 7.28 | (0.367, 2.313) | ||
| 1.567 | 0.6179 | 6.43 | (0.356, 2.778) | ||
| -0.452 | 0.4059 | 1.24 | 0.266 | (-1.248, 0.344) | |
| -0.156 | 0.5564 | 0.08 | 0.780 | (-1.246, 0.935) | |
| 0.703 | 0.3146 | 4.99 | (0.086, 1.320) | ||
| 3.187 | 0.4702 | 45.93 | (2.265, 4.108) | ||
| 1.044 | 0.1673 | 38.92 | (0.716, 1.372) | ||
| 1.592 | 0.3363 | 22.39 | (0.932, 2.250) | ||
| 3.624 | 0.3864 | 87.96 | (2.867, 4.382) | ||
| 0.400 | 0.3296 | 1.48 | 0.225 | (-0.246, 1.046) | |
| 1.414 | 0.3461 | 16.69 | (0.736, 2.093) | ||
| -2.765 | 0.6524 | 17.96 | (-4.044, -1.486) |
URB†: Utilization Rate Insurances Benefits
Estimated adjusted Odds ratio, 95% Confidences intervals for odds ratio, and delta-p statistics for the final logistic regression model for high expenditures in city A (n:861).
| covariates | odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00 | |||
| (0.80, 3.02) | |||
| 1.00 | |||
| (2.03, 14.45) | |||
| (1.46, 10,31) | |||
| (1.44, 16.15) | |||
| 1.00 | |||
| (0.29, 1.41) | |||
| (0.28, 2.49) | |||
| 1.00 | |||
| (9.62, 63.99) | |||
| 1.00 | |||
| (1.10, 3.77) | |||
| 1.00 | |||
| (7.85, 106.77) | |||
| (41.5, 268.7) | |||
| (17.6, 77.9) |
URB†:Utilization Rate Insurances Benefits