Policy Responses To Workforce Ageing – Existing, Potential And A Report Card For New Zealand

Arguments for encouraging prolonged participation in the paid workforce by older people, based on individual, social, economic and business benefits, are set out in the literature and reflected in public policy. Individual decisions about participation are influenced by external factors and personal attributes. The ability to realise aspirations and preferences in the labour market depends on the social, economic and policy context and on employers’ actions and attitudes. Drawing on local and international literature as well as interviews with employers and representatives of public and private sector organisations, this paper examines policy responses to workforce ageing; both current and potential initiatives. Many of these relate to fiscal concerns and focus on retirement income policy; others aim to influence the behaviour of employers or to assist older workers. This leads to comment on and an evaluation of the New Zealand policy context with respect to workforce ageing

Should Paid Workforce Participation By Older People Be Encouraged? Evaluating The Pros And Cons

The policies of many developed countries now aim to encourage older people to remain longer in the paid workforce. What are the pros and cons of this position? Longer lives and better health in later life provide opportunities for prolonging workforce participation. There is considerable evidence that having meaningful and appropriate work is beneficial to the physical, psychological and financial wellbeing of older people. Demographic trends suggest that labour and skills shortages will become more pressing in the future as younger people entering the workforce do not balance the numbers retiring. Firms which understand the implications of ageing will be better placed to address its challenges. Older workers represent a valuable and often untapped source of increased productivity. But how can we ensure that their working conditions are appropriate rather than precarious? There are social and economic benefits from having an economically active older population. It will contribute to economic growth and the maintenance of living standards and also, through taxation, help to meet the costs of an ageing population. But what about the impact on the employment prospects of young workers and on voluntary work

Financial abuse of older people in New Zealand

This working paper is linked to a workshop hosted by the Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, in June 2011. Following discussion of definitional issues and exploration of what we know about FEA, we identify strategies to prevent and reduce FEA in New Zealand. Our purpose is to promote discussion and development of policies which ensure a multi-faceted response to this issue. This will help to ensure that older people are free from elder abuse in all its forms

New Zealand Retirement Income: Policy as an ‘Eco-system’

The New Zealand retirement income system involves a range of policy areas and initiatives beyond New Zealand Superannuation and KiwiSaver. These interact with each other, and with wider social and economic trends. The potential for prolonging working lives, self-funding/decumulation and trends in homeownership need to be considered alongside the sustainability of current policy settings. A unified policy approach is required to ensure the adequacy of retirement incomes for older people and also intergenerational equity

Should Paid Workforce Participation By Older People Be Encouraged? Evaluating The Pros And Cons

The policies of many developed countries now aim to encourage older people to remain longer in the paid workforce. What are the pros and cons of this position? Longer lives and better health in later life provide opportunities for prolonging workforce participation. There is considerable evidence that having meaningful and appropriate work is beneficial to the physical, psychological and financial wellbeing of older people. Demographic trends suggest that labour and skills shortages will become more pressing in the future as younger people entering the workforce do not balance the numbers retiring. Firms which understand the implications of ageing will be better placed to address its challenges. Older workers represent a valuable and often untapped source of increased productivity. But how can we ensure that their working conditions are appropriate rather than precarious? There are social and economic benefits from having an economically active older population. It will contribute to economic growth and the maintenance of living standards and also, through taxation, help to meet the costs of an ageing population. But what about the impact on the employment prospects of young workers and on voluntary work

Policy Responses To Workforce Ageing – Existing, Potential And A Report Card For New Zealand

Arguments for encouraging prolonged participation in the paid workforce by older people, based on individual, social, economic and business benefits, are set out in the literature and reflected in public policy. Individual decisions about participation are influenced by external factors and personal attributes. The ability to realise aspirations and preferences in the labour market depends on the social, economic and policy context and on employers’ actions and attitudes. Drawing on local and international literature as well as interviews with employers and representatives of public and private sector organisations, this paper examines policy responses to workforce ageing; both current and potential initiatives. Many of these relate to fiscal concerns and focus on retirement income policy; others aim to influence the behaviour of employers or to assist older workers. This leads to comment on and an evaluation of the New Zealand policy context with respect to workforce ageing

Validity and Characterization of Time to Symptom Resolution Outcome Measures in the ACTIV-2/A5401 Outpatient COVID-19 Treatment Trial

BackgroundTime to symptom resolution measures were used in outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trials without prior validation.MethodsACTIV-2/A5401 trial participants completed a COVID-19 diary assessing 13 targeted symptoms and global experience (overall COVID-19 symptoms, return to pre-COVID-19 health) daily for 29 days. We evaluated concordance of time to sustained (2 days) resolution of all targeted symptoms (TSR) with resolution of overall symptoms and return to health in participants receiving placebo.ResultsThe analysis included 77 high-risk and 81 standard-risk participants with overall median 6 days of symptoms at entry and median age 47 years, 50% female, 82% white, and 31% Hispanic/Latino. Correlation between TSR and resolution of overall symptoms was 0.80 and 0.68, and TSR and return to health, 0.66 and 0.57 for high- and standard-risk groups, respectively. Of the high- and standard-risk participants, 61% and 79%, respectively, achieved targeted symptom resolution, of which 47% and 43%, respectively, reported symptom recurrence. Requiring >2 days to define sustained resolution reduced the frequency of recurrences.ConclusionsThere was good internal consistency between TSR and COVID-19-specific global outcomes, supporting TSR as a trial end point. Requiring >2 days of symptom resolution better addresses natural symptom fluctuations but must be balanced against the potential influence of non-COVID-19 symptoms.Clinical trials registrationNCT04518410

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68