| Literature DB >> 25528468 |
Kyung-Rae Hyun1, Sungwook Kang2, Sunmi Lee3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines the effects of long-term care insurance (LTCI) on the length of stay (LoS) of senior citizens under the national health insurance of Korea.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25528468 PMCID: PMC4297445 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0630-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Characteristics of subjects in 2007
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| Male | 1,445 (23.5%) | 1,165 (21.4%) | 3,288 (24.2%) | 5,993 (23.3%) | 1,610,861 (41.5%) | 1,616,854 (41.4%) |
| Female | 4,700 (76.5%) | 4,283 (78.6%) | 10,319 (75.8%) | 19,699 (76.7%) | 2,266,895 (58.5%) | 2,286,594 (58.6%) |
|
| 76.96 (±7.42) | 78.27 (±7.30) | 77.13 (±7.02) | 77.34 (±7.20) | 71.31 (±5.84) | 71.35 (±5.87) |
|
| ||||||
| Employee | 4,215 (68.7%) | 3,762 (69.1%) | 9,356 (68.8%) | 17,658 (68.8%) | 2,565,730 (66.3%) | 2,583,388 (66.3%) |
| Self- employed | 1,925 (31.4 %) | 1,682 (30.9%) | 4,250 (31.2%) | 8,024 (31.2%) | 1,303,302 (33.7%) | 1,311,326 (33.7%) |
|
| 9.64 (±8.56) | 9.10 (±7.79) | 9.11 (±8.52) | 9.23 (±8.36) | 8.47 (±7.65) | 8.48 (±7.66) |
|
| ||||||
| Large city | 2,801 (45.6 %) | 2,495 (45.8%) | 6,008 (44.2%) | 11,538 (44.9%) | 1,740,988 (45.0%) | 1,752,526 (45.0%) |
| Small city | 2,768 (45.1%) | 2,391 (43.9%) | 5,944 (43.7%) | 11,328 (44.1%) | 1,683,043 (43.5%) | 1,694,371 (43.5%) |
| Rural | 571 (9.3%) | 558 (10.3%) | 1,654 (12.2%) | 2,816 (11.0%) | 445,001 (11.5%) | 447,817 (11.5 %) |
|
| 24.79 (±34.81) | 26.92 (±37.62) | 37.97 (±44.20) | 32.37 (±41.16) | 34.76 (±34.80) | 34.74 (±34.85) |
|
| 2.26 (±1.56) | 2.23 (±1.62) | 2.31 (±1.57) | 2.28 (±1.58) | 1.49 (±1.34) | 1.50 (±1.34) |
|
| 6,145 (100.0%) | 5,448 (100.0%) | 13,607 (100.0%) | 25,692 (100.0%) | 3,877,756 (100.0%) | 3,903,448 (100.0%) |
*S.D.: standard deviation.
Notes: Level 1, 2, 3 beneficiaries in 2007 was recalculated with people having the same level during 2008 ~ 2010.
Figure 1Length of stay of treatment group and control group.
Effects of the LTCI program on the LoS (Difference-in-difference estimation)
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.960*** (0.011) | 0.989*** (0.010) | 0.981*** (0.010) | 0.965*** (0.010) |
|
| 1.271*** (0.059) | −8.349*** (0.130) | −2.843*** (0.114) | 0.108 (0.067) |
|
| −0.028* (0.016) | −0.018 (0.015) | 0.002 (0.015) | 0.062*** (0.015) |
|
| −0.203*** (0.027) | −0.178*** (0.025) | −0.138*** (0.025) | −0.034 (0.026) |
|
| 0.045* (0.024) | 0.023 (0.023) | 0.034 (0.023) | 0.026 (0.023) |
|
| 0.013*** (0.001) | 0.012*** (0.001) | 0.013*** (0.001) | 0.013*** (0.001) |
|
| 0.104*** (0.031) | 0.108*** (0.029) | 0.102*** (0.029) | 0.104*** (0.029) |
|
| −0.038*** (0.000) | −0.032*** (0.000) | −0.033*** (0.000) | −0.034*** (0.000) |
|
| 2.268*** (0.006) | 2.086*** (0.005) | 2.090*** (0.005) | 2.120*** (0.005) |
|
| 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
|
| n = 11,626,010 | n = 11,438,550 | n = 11,447,639 | n = 11,546,567 |
*significant at the 10% level, **significant at the 5% level, ***significant at the 1% level.
Notes: (Model 1) treatment group = LTCI users, control group = non-LTCI users; (Model 2) treatment group = LTCI users in level 1, control group = non-LTCI users; (Model 3) treatment group = LTCI users in level 2, control group = non-LTCI users; (Model 4) treatment group = LTCI users in level 3, control group = non-LTCI users.