Long-term care cost drivers and expenditure projection to 2036 in Hong Kong

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hong Kong's rapidly ageing population, characterised by one of the longest life expectancies and the lowest fertility rate in the world, is likely to drive long-term care (LTC) expenditure higher. This study aims to identify key cost drivers and derive quantitative estimates of Hong Kong's LTC expenditure to 2036.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We parameterised a macro actuarial simulation with data from official demographic projections, Thematic Household Survey 2004, Hong Kong's Domestic Health Accounts and other routine data from relevant government departments, Hospital Authority and other LTC service providers. Base case results were tested against a wide range of sensitivity assumptions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Total projected LTC expenditure as a proportion of GDP reflected secular trends in the elderly dependency ratio, showing a shallow dip between 2004 and 2011, but thereafter yielding a monotonic rise to reach 3.0% by 2036. Demographic changes would have a larger impact than changes in unit costs on overall spending. Different sensitivity scenarios resulted in a wide range of spending estimates from 2.2% to 4.9% of GDP. The availability of informal care and the setting of formal care as well as associated unit costs were important drivers of expenditure.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The "demographic window" between the present and 2011 is critical in developing policies to cope with the anticipated burgeoning LTC burden, in concert with the related issues of health care financing and retirement planning.</p

A qualitative study of patients' views on quality of primary care consultations in Hong Kong and comparison with the UK CARE Measure

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; Patients' priorities and views on quality care are well-documented in Western countries but there is a dearth of research in this area in the East. The aim of the present study was to explore Chinese patients' views on quality of primary care consultations in Hong Kong and to compare these with the items in the CARE measure (a process measure of consultation quality widely used in the UK) in order to assess the potential utility of the CARE measure in a Chinese population.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted on 21 adult patients from 3 different primary care clinics (a public primary healthcare clinic, a University health centre, and a private family physician's clinic). Topics discussed included expectations, experiences, and views about quality of medical consultations. Interviews were typed verbatim, and a thematic approach was taken to identify key issues. These identified issues were then compared with the ten CARE measure items, using a CARE framework: Connecting (Care Measure items 1–3), Assessing (item 4), Responding (items 5,6), and Empowering (items 7–10).&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results&lt;/b&gt; Patients judged doctors in terms of both the process of the consultation and the perceived outcomes. Themes identified that related to the interpersonal process of the consultation fitted well under the CARE framework; Connecting and communicating (18/21 patients), Assessing holistically (10/21 patients), Responding (18/21 patients) and Empowering (19/21 patients). Patients from the public clinic, who were generally of lower socio-economic status, were least likely to expect holistic care or empowerment. Two-thirds of patients also judged doctors on whether they performed an adequate physical examination, and three-quarters on the later outcomes of consultation (in terms of relief or cure and/or side-effects of prescribed drugs).&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusion&lt;/b&gt; These findings suggest that Chinese patients in Hong Kong value engaged, empathic primary care doctors and judge the quality of consultations largely on these human skills and the attitudes and values that underpin them, as well as on the perceived outcomes of treatment. The match between themes relating to consultation process and the CARE Measure items suggests utility of this measure in this population, but further quantitative validation is required

The experience of admission to psychiatric hospital among Chinese adult patients in Hong Kong

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The paper reports on a study to evaluate the psychometric properties and cultural appropriateness of the Chinese translation of the Admission Experience Survey (AES).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The AES was translated into Chinese and back-translated. Content validity was established by focus groups and expert panel review. The Chinese version of the Admission Experience Survey (C-AES) was administered to 135 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric patients in the Castle Peak Hospital (Hong Kong SAR, China) within 48 hours of admission. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the scores from patients admitted voluntarily versus patients committed involuntarily, and those received physical or chemical restraint versus those who did not. The relationship between admission experience and psychopathology was examined by correlating C-AES scores with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Spearman's item-to-total correlations of the C-AES ranged from 0.50 to 0.74. Three factors from the C-AES were extracted using factor analysis. Item 12 was omitted because of poor internal consistency and factor loading. The factor structure of the Process Exclusion Scale (C-PES) corresponded to the English version, while some discrepancies were noted in the Perceived Coercion Scale (C-PCS) and the Negative Pressure Scale (C-NPS). All subscales had good internal consistencies. Scores were significantly higher for patients either committed involuntarily or subjected to chemical or physical restrain, independent on severity of psychotic symptoms.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Chinese AES is a psychometrically sound instrument assessing the three different aspects of the experience of admission, namely "negative pressure, "process exclusion" and "perceived coercion". The potential of C-AES in exploring subjective experience of psychiatric admission and effects on treatment adherence should be further explored.</p

Place- and age-responsive disaster risk reduction for Hong Kong: Collaborative Place Audit and Social Vulnerability Index for elders

published_or_final_versio

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was$2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was$240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was$16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37$17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.</p