Disparities in Long-Term Care Building Equity Into Market-Based Reforms
ABSTRACT A growing body of evidence documents pervasive racial, ethnic, and class disparities in long-term care in the United States. At the same time, major quality improvement initiatives are being implemented that rely on market-based incentives, many of which may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities. We review existing evidence on disparities in the use and quality of long-term care services, analyze current market-based policy initiatives in terms of their potential to ameliorate or exacerbate these disparities, and suggest policies and policy modifications that may help decrease disparities. We find that racial disparities in the use of formal long-term care have decreased over time. Disparities in quality of care are more consistently documented and appear to be related to racial and socioeconomic segregation of long-term care facilities as opposed to within-provider discrimination. Market-based incentives policies should explicitly incorporate the goal of mitigating the potential unintended consequence of increased disparities.
SourceAvailable from: Jing Guo[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives Time trade-off (TTO) methods are often used for utility assessments of different health states to measure quality of life (QOL). They have not generally been used to assess social preferences with respect to options for health care delivery, although the need for quantifying these preferences is arguably just as important. Policymakers are increasingly faced with decisions about how much to invest in, and how much to incentivize, particular modes of health care delivery, generally with little evidence about user preferences. Methods This study draws on long-term care (LTC) delivery modes as an example. Focus groups were conducted to approach this issue both qualitatively and quantitatively. In a qualitative pilot study, two focus groups discussed issues of the LTC decision-making process and preferences among different LTC options. The TTO was then used to assess QOL for each LTC option, conditional on a specific health state, and then quantified user’s LTC preferences by differential QOL between the two options. Results This study found that the TTO-elicited utilities and their differences are consistent with the LTC preferences revealed from focus group discussions. These preferences depend on levels of disability and education. Conclusions The modified TTO technique seems a feasible method to quantify preferences over LTC delivery options. These methods may be applicable to various health care alternatives in which better evidence is needed to guide funding policy.Value in Health 03/2014; 17(2):302–305. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.11.010 · 2.89 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background:Providing equitable and patient-centered care is critical to ensuring high quality of care. Although racial/ethnic disparities in quality are widely reported for nursing facilities, it is unknown whether disparities exist in consumer experiences with care and how public reporting of consumer experiences affects facility performance and potential racial disparities.Methods:We analyzed trends of consumer ratings publicly reported for Maryland nursing homes during 2007-2010, and determined whether racial/ethnic disparities in experiences with care changed during this period. Multivariate longitudinal regression models controlled for important facility and county characteristics and tested changes overall and by facility groups (defined based on concentrations of black residents). Consumer ratings were reported for: overall care; recommendation of the facility; staff performance; care provided; food and meals; physical environment; and autonomy and personal rights.Results:Overall ratings on care experience remained relatively high (mean=8.3 on a 1-10 scale) during 2007-2010. Ninety percent of survey respondents each year would recommend the facility to someone who needs nursing home care. Ratings on individual domains of care improved among all nursing homes in Maryland (P<0.01), except for food and meals (P=0.827 for trend). However, site-of-care disparities existed in each year for overall ratings, recommendation rate, and ratings on all domains of care (P<0.01 in all cases), with facilities more predominated by black residents having lower scores; such disparities persisted over time (P>0.2 for trends in disparities).Conclusions:Although Maryland nursing homes showed maintained or improved consumer ratings during the first 4 years of public reporting, gaps persisted between facilities with high versus low concentrations of minority residents.Medical Care 07/2014; 52(7):641-8. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000152 · 2.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess racial/ethnic disparities in preventive care practices among U.S. nursing home residents. To implement the Institute of Medicine definition of health care disparity, we used the rank-and-replace adjustment method to assess the disparity in receipt of eight preventive care services among residents and evaluate trends in disparities. The sampling design (stratification and clustering) was accounted for using Stata 11. The 2004 National Nursing Home Surveys data show White residents were more likely to have pain management, scheduled toilet plan/bladder retraining, influenza vaccination, and pneumococcal vaccination than Black residents. White residents were also more likely to have scheduled toilet plan/bladder retraining than residents of Other race/ethnicity. Significant Black-White disparities in receipt of influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination were found. Time trend analysis showed that disparities were neither exacerbated nor reduced. Persistent racial/ethnic disparities in preventive care among nursing home residents exist. We urge the development and implementation of targeted interventions to improve the quality of preventive care in nursing homes.Journal of Aging and Health 03/2014; 26(4). DOI:10.1177/0898264314524436 · 1.56 Impact Factor