Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

The Effects of Visiting Nursing Services in Long-term Care Insurance: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis

Article information

Res Community Public Health Nurs. 2015;26(2):89-99
Publication date (electronic) : 2015 June 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2015.26.2.89
Jieun Kim, Insook Lee
College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding author: Lee, Insook. College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-799, Korea. Tel: +82-2-740-8828, Fax: +82-2-765-4103, lisook@snu.ac.kr
Received 2015 February 06; Revised 2015 May 04; Accepted 2015 June 05.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the effects of visiting nursing services in long-term care (LTC) insurance on changes in health status and physical functions among the elderly.

Methods

We analyzed survey data on the living status and welfare needs of the elderly from 2008 and 2011 using the difference-in-difference method with propensity score matching.

Results

The subjects were 76 elders including 38 visiting nursing service users(intervention group) and 38 home-based LTC service users (control group). Results from DID analysis confirmed that the subjective health status level of the intervention group was 2.2 points higher (p=.044) and the depression level was 0.3 point lower (p=.039) than the control group. In addition, the intervention group's ADL score was 1.9 (p=.027) and IADL 3.9 (p=.030), showing that their health was deteriorated less.

Conclusion

Visiting nursing service in LTC insurance was associated with delayed deterioration of subjective health status, depression, ADL and IADL. These findings suggest the need of rebuilding visiting nursing service programs focusing on prevention services, which will be more contributive to elderly health care and the reduction of social costs.

Keywords: Insurance; Long term care; Health status; Physical conditioning; Human; Propensity scores

References

1. Statistics Korea. 2013 elderly statistics [Internet] Seoul: Statistics Korea; 2013. cited 2014 December 22. Available from: http://kostat.go.kr/wnsearch/search.jsp.
2. Sun WD, Kim CW, Im HY, Kim SO, Seo DM, Yang YA, et al. Latest elderly long-term care insurance Seoul: Elderly Information Center of Korea; 2012. p. 290.
3. Park MH, Ha JC, Sihn IH, Kim HG, Lee SY, Cho JH, et al. 2008 the living status and welfare needs survey based analysis report. Analysis Report Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs; 2009. 02. Report No.: 11-1351000000316-12.
4. Long-term Care Insurance Corporation. Introduction of policy [Internet] Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2013. cited 2014 December 22. Available from: http://longtermcare.or.kr/portal/site/nydev/MENUITEM_LTCARE/.
5. Boyd CM, Reider L, Frey K, Scharfstein D, Leff B, Wolff J, et al. The effects of guided care on the perceived quality of health care for multi-morbid older persons: 18-month outcomes from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25(3):235–242. 10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5.
6. Lee YK. Evaluation of the elderly long-term care insurance: User's perspective. Health Welf Policy Forum 2010;168:25–33.
7. Hyun KR, Kwon JH, Han EJ. A study on factors and improvement related to physical function change of LTC applicants. Analysis Report Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2010. 12. 17. Report No.: 2010-20.
8. Hyun KR, Lee SM. Effects on the functional status changes of LTC (long-term care) services. J Korean Gerontol Soc 2012;32(2):593–609.
9. Kwon HJ, Cho YW, Ko JY. The effects of long-term care insurance on the life satisfaction and satisfaction in family relationships - The DD method combined with propensity score matching. Korean J Soc Welf 2011;63(4):301–326.
10. Park CJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of long term care services: Care in institutions vs in-home care. J Welf Aged 2010;50:145–171.
11. Lee KE. Health outcomes for older adults with stroke in nursing home and home care [master's thesis] [Seoul]: Yonsei University; 2013. 54.
12. Lee JS, Han EJ, Kang IO. The characteristics and service utilization of home nursing care beneficiaries under the Korean long term care insurance. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2011;22(1):33–44.
13. Lee AJ, Park YH, Hong MS, Lee PS, Choi KS, Kim CS. Performed the first anniversary of long-term care insurance visiting nursing service policy debate for the activation. Trend Analysis Report Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2009. 09. 17. Report No.: 1000028627.
14. Jung YS. A study on home visiting nursing care and medical care utilization in the elderly patients with long-term care [dissertation] [Gimhae]: Inje University; 2012. 103.
15. Kang SB, Kim HS. The relationship between home-visit nursing services and health care utilization among nursing service recommended beneficiaries of the public long-term care insurance. Health Policy Manag 2014;24(3):283–290. 10.4332/kjhpa.2014.24.3.283.
16. Kim MH. Development of home visiting nursing standards based on a long-term care insurance for the elderly program. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs 2010;24(2):285–301.
17. Moon KJ. Current status and problems of home visit nursing service within long term care insurance [master's thesis] [Seoul]: Sungshin Women's University; 2011. 71.
18. Sumg MS, Jang HJ, Kim CG, Kang KH, Nam KA, Park JD. Comparative study of home nursing care services under the long-term care insurance system in four nations. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs 2010;24(2):211–225.
19. Kim MH. Roles of visiting nurses defined based on long-term care insurance regulation for the elderly. J Korean Acad Public Health Nurs 2009;23(2):232–250.
20. Kim KH. Health needs of visiting health subjects evaluated by using RAI-MDS-HC 2.0. J Korean Soc Living Environ Syst 2008;15(1):102–111.
21. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995;36(1):1–10. 10.2307/2137284.
22. Elkan R, Kendrick D. What is the effectiveness of home visiting or home-based support for older people? Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe's Health Evidence Network (HEN); 2004. 06. 19.
23. Patorno E, Grotta A, Bellocco R, Schneeweiss S. Propensity score methodology for confounding control in health care utilization databases. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 2013;10(3):8941–8916. 10.2427/8940.
24. Lee TH, Ko YK, Kim BN, Kim HC, Kee IS, Jung SH, et al. Performance evaluation about operation the LTC insurance system: 3rd. clinical effects of LTC insurance and development of clinical indicator Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs; 2011. p. 181.
25. Lee MJ. A study on measurement issues of the quality of longterm care services for older adults. Soc Welf Policy 2011;38(1):141–165.
26. Huber M, Hennessy P. Long-term care for older people Paris: OECD Publishing; 2005. p. 138.
27. Lee JS, Han EJ, Kwon JH, Kang IO. Correlation analysis between standard LTC utilization plan and expenditures for long term care Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2008. p. 188.
28. Park JY, Lee YH, Kwon JH, Lee EM, Lee HY, Kim YH. Development of Integrated care model for LTC and medical service. Development Report Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2010. 10. Report No.: 2010-18.

Article information Continued

© 2015 Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Research frameworks based on Andersen's behavioral model of service use.

Table 1

General Characteristics Before Propensity Score Matching (N=151)

Variables Characteristics Categories Min~Max Total (n=151) CG (n=109) IG (n=42) Distance† x2 or t (w) p‡
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Predisposing characteristics Gender Male 47 (31.1) 34 (31.2) 13 (31.0) <0.01 <0.01 .571
Female 104 (68.9) 75 (68.8) 29 (69.0)
Age 60~90 75.3±6.71 75.3±6.81 75.1±6.42 -0.19 0.15 .878
Living arrangement Alone 42 (27.8) 32 (29.4) 10 (23.8) 4.58 .206
Spouse 52 (34.4) 32 (29.4) 20 (47.6) 0.18
Adult children 48 (31.8) 38 (34.9) 10 (23.8) -0.11
Etc 9 (6.0) 7 (6.4) 2 (4.8) -0.02
Enabling resources Education 0~16 4.2±4.19 4.0±3.98 4.7±4.69 0.71 2,142.50 .519
Religion Yes 102 (67.5) 70 (64.2) 32 (76.2) 0.12 1.98 .179
No 49 (32.5) 39 (35.8) 10 (23.8)
Household's monthly income 2.87~696 117.3±127.39 124.8±138.80 97.9±89.92 -26.95
Subjective life status 1~3 1.4±0.57 1.4±0.59 1.4±0.50 0.02 0.04 .849
Need Number of chronic disease 0~9 2.3±1.56 2.0±1.58 2.9±1.49 0.42 1,910.50 .109
Disabled Yes 43 (28.5) 30 (27.5) 13 (31.0) 0.03 0.18 .409
No 108 (71.5) 79 (72.5) 29 (69.0)
Cognitive function 0~30 20.8±5.22 21.3±4.49 19.6±6.50 -1.73 2,601.50 .194
Difficulty of daily living DV (Yes) 35 (23.2) 26 (23.9) 9 (21.4) -0.02 0.10 .467
DH (Yes) 28 (18.5) 18 (16.5) 10 (23.8) 0.07 1.07 .210
DM (Yes) 38 (25.2) 28 (25.7) 10 (23.8) -0.02 0.06 .495

CG=comparison group; IG=intervention group; DV=due to vision; DH=due to hearing; DM=due to mastication; †Distance of mean different between matched comparison group and matched intervention group (PSM analysis); ‡Comparison between the intervention group and the comparison group (χ2 tests for categorical variables, t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables, Cochrane-Amitage Trend test for ordinary variables).

Table 2

General Characteristics After Propensity Score Matching (N=76)

Variables Characteristics Categories Min~Max MCG (n=38) MIG (n=38) Distance† x2 or t (w) p‡
n(%) or M±SD n(%) or M±SD
Predisposing characteristics Gender Male 7 (18.4) 11 (29.0) 1.17 .421
Female 31 (81.6) 27 (71.1) 0.11
Age 63~90 75.0±6.17 75.0±5.86 0.08 0.06 .951
Living arrangement Alone 5 (13.2) 10 (26.3) 3.39 .342
Spouse 16 (42.1) 16 (42.1) <0.01
Adult children 16 (42.1) 10 (26.3) -0.16
Etc 1 (2.6) 2 (5.3) 0.03
Enabling resources Education 0~16 4.2±4.01 4.7±4.86 0.50 2,142.50 .521
Religion Yes 29 (76.3) 28 (73.7) -0.03 0.07 .996
No 9 (23.7) 10 (26.3)
Household's monthly income 2.87~586.2 122.6±131.77 96.7±93.93 -25.86 2,370.50 .740
Subjective life status 1~3 1.3±0.55 1.4±0.49 0.11 0.04 .856
Need Number of chronic disease 0~9 2.9±1.75 3.0±1.54 0.05 1,910.50 .117
Disabled Yes 12 (31.6) 13 (34.2) 0.03 0.06 .997
No 26 (68.4) 25 (65.8)
Cognitive function 0~30 20.3±4.81 20.8±5.18 0.50 2,601.50 .196
Difficulty of daily living DV (Yes) 9 (23.7) 8 (21.1) -0.03 0.08 .999
DH (Yes) 7 (18.4) 7 (18.4) <0.01 <0.01 .999
DM (Yes) 7 (18.4) 9 (23.7) 0.05 0.32 .786

MCG=matched comparison group; MIG=matched intervention group; DV=due to vision; DH=due to hearing; DM=due to mastication; †Distance of mean different between matched comparison group and matched intervention group (PSM analysis); ‡Comparison between the intervention group and the comparison group (χ2 tests for categorical variables, t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables, Cochrane-Amitage Trend test for ordinary variables).

Table 3

Difference in Difference Analysis after Propensity Score Matching (N=76)

Indicator Groups Pre-service (2008) Post-service (2011) Post-Pre p Min Max
M±SD M±SD M
Health status Subjective health status Intervention 8.4±1.55 4.3±1.23 -4.1 2 10
Comparison 8.5±1.31 2.2±1.36 -6.3
Difference 2.2 .044
Depression Intervention 8.8±4.75 10.3±4.19 1.6 0 15
Comparison 8.8±4.88 10.7±4.41 1.9
Difference -0.3 .039
Physical function Vision Intervention 2.4±0.68 2.5±0.65 0.1 1 4
Comparison 2.4±0.60 2.4±0.63 0.0
Difference 0.1 .437
Hearing Intervention 2.7±0.57 2.6±0.64 -0.1 1 4
Comparison 2.6±0.50) 2.6±0.49 0.0
Difference -0.1 .481
Mastication Intervention 2.3±0.57 2.1±0.67 -0.2 1 4
Comparison 2.1±0.53 2.0±0.57 -0.2
Difference 0.0 .880
ADL Intervention 19.4±1.48 18.7±2.21 -0.8 7 21
Comparison 19.7±2.02 17.0±3.72 -2.7
Difference 1.9 .027
IADL Intervention 28.7±5.56 27.8±5.57 -0.9 10 33
Comparison 29.3±5.50 24.5±5.15 -4.8
Difference 3.9 .030

ADL=activities of daily living; IADL=instrumental activity of daily living.