CONTINUOUS USERS OF LONG-TERM CARE 2.0 IN TAIWAN: PATTERNS AND HEALTH COSTS OVER TIME
Résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Taiwan has implemented the Long-Term Care 2.0 (LTC 2.0) Plan since 2017, but only about one third of users continuous to remain in the system after 6 months. The current study examined the patterns of the continuous user and their associations to older adults’ health costs overtime. This study utilized Taiwan’s LTC Plan 2.0 database and the National Health Insurance Plan claim dataset, and included 155,220 clients who continuously utilized any LTC Plan 2.0 services for six months between 2017 and 2019. These users’ health costs were examined in the 12 months after 6 months of HCBS continuous use. Latent class analysis and generalized estimating equations were used to investigate the associations between different service use patterns and the changes in health costs. Five subgroups of LTC use patterns were identified, including home-based personal care (PC) group (n= 99,163, 63.9%), home-based medical care (MC) group (n= 13,304, 8.5%), home-based personal care and medical care (PC/MC) group (n = 9,269, 6.0%), Reablement (RA) group (n= 20,132, 13.0%), and community care (CC) group (n= 13,352, 8.6%). When compared to care recipients in PC/MC group, those in the PC group ($5.84/month, p< 0.001), MC group ($8.21/month, p< 0.001), and CC group ($6.79/month, p< 0.001) had increased more health costs overtime. Such trends are more prominent among those with moderate and severe disability, except those in RA group. The integrated services (PC/MC group) and reablement (RA group) demonstrate slower growth in health costs, particularly among those with moderate and severe disabilities.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- CONTINUOUS USERS OF LONG-TERM CARE 2.0 IN TAIWAN: PATTERNS AND HEALTH COSTS OVER TIME
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2024
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.