Jing Guo1, R Tamara Konetzka2, Elizabeth Magett3, William Dale3. 1. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA (JG) 2. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA (RTK) 3. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA (WD, EM)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: . Current policies redirecting long-term care (LTC) delivery away from institutional care to home- and community-based services are being made in the absence of crucial evidence on preferences. Studies indicate that the shift to home care is generally not cost-saving; thus, an empirical assessment of effectiveness is needed to evaluate policies incenting home care investment. This study quantifies LTC preferences between different delivery modes. DESIGN: . This study extended the time tradeoff method to elicit utilities and LTC preferences associated with the receipt of different modes of LTC services, conditional on health states defined by varying levels of functional and cognitive impairment. Users' LTC preferences are measured as differential utilities between alternative LTC options for each health state. RESULTS: . For the same health state, respondents (n = 81) significantly preferred home care over institutional care, except for the most impaired health state. The preference for home care over institutional care is quantified as 0.30 quality-of-life (QOL) weight when people need help with only 1 activity of daily living (ADL). The preference for home care depends significantly on levels of disability and was weaker once the need for help became greater. Under the most severe health state of having moderate to severe dementia and needing help with 6 ADLs, the quantified home care preference was only 0.03 QOL weight and was not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: . Because the sample is mostly composed of African Americans, the results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: . People do not always strongly prefer home care over institutional care, as is often assumed. The costs of expanding home- and community-based care should be weighed against these preferences.
BACKGROUND: . Current policies redirecting long-term care (LTC) delivery away from institutional care to home- and community-based services are being made in the absence of crucial evidence on preferences. Studies indicate that the shift to home care is generally not cost-saving; thus, an empirical assessment of effectiveness is needed to evaluate policies incenting home care investment. This study quantifies LTC preferences between different delivery modes. DESIGN: . This study extended the time tradeoff method to elicit utilities and LTC preferences associated with the receipt of different modes of LTC services, conditional on health states defined by varying levels of functional and cognitive impairment. Users' LTC preferences are measured as differential utilities between alternative LTC options for each health state. RESULTS: . For the same health state, respondents (n = 81) significantly preferred home care over institutional care, except for the most impaired health state. The preference for home care over institutional care is quantified as 0.30 quality-of-life (QOL) weight when people need help with only 1 activity of daily living (ADL). The preference for home care depends significantly on levels of disability and was weaker once the need for help became greater. Under the most severe health state of having moderate to severe dementia and needing help with 6 ADLs, the quantified home care preference was only 0.03 QOL weight and was not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: . Because the sample is mostly composed of African Americans, the results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: . People do not always strongly prefer home care over institutional care, as is often assumed. The costs of expanding home- and community-based care should be weighed against these preferences.
Authors: Sijiu Wang; Helena Temkin-Greener; Adam Simning; R Tamara Konetzka; Shubing Cai Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Valerie A Smith; Karen M Stechuchak; Katherine E M Miller; Susan Nicole Hastings; Gilbert Darryl Wieland; Maren K Olsen; Margaret Kabat; Jennifer Henius; Margaret Campbell-Kotler; Courtney Harold Van Houtven Journal: Inquiry Date: 2018 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 1.730