Trajectories of disability and long-term care utilization after acute health events

Funding Information: Judite Gonçalves acknowledges funding from the Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research, and Technology (FCT, grant number CEECIND/03117/2018) and Luís Filipe from the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their institutions. We appreciate comments from two anonymous reviewers, Joana Pestana, France Weaver, Joan Costa-Font, Helena Telles, Álvaro Almeida, Pedro Pita Barros, and participants at the Conference of the Portuguese Health Economics Association, a Lisbon Microgroup meeting, the European Health Economics Association Conference, the Workshop of the Portuguese Health Economics Association, and the Public Sector Economics Conference on Ageing and Long-Term Care. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Hip fractures, strokes, and heart attacks are common acute health events that can lead to long-term disability, care utilization, and unmet needs. However, such impacts, especially in the long term, are not fully understood. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study, 1992–2018, this study examines the long-term trajectories of individuals suffering such health shocks, comparing with individuals not experiencing health shocks. Hip fracture, stroke, and heart attack are confirmed to have severe implications for disability. In most cases of stroke and heart attack, informal caregivers provide the daily support needed by survivors, whereas following hip fracture, nursing home care is more relevant. These health shocks put individuals on worse trajectories of disability, care utilization, and unmet needs. There is no long-term recovery or convergence with individuals who do not suffer shocks. Unmet need is prevalent, even pre-shock and among individuals who do not experience health shocks, emphasizing the importance of preventative care measures. These findings support policy action to ensure hospitalized individuals, especially those aged 50 and above, receive rehabilitative services and other post-acute care. Furthermore, hospitalization is an event that requires the detection and addressing of unmet care needs beyond the short run.publishersversioninpres

Correction to: Medicaid expansion and the mental health of spousal caregivers

Correction to: Review of Economics of the Household https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-023-09673-7 The original version of this article unfortunately contained errors in Author group, Abstract and in the text

Rural-Urban Differences in Preventable Hospitalizations Among Community-Dwelling Veterans With Dementia

Alzheimer’s patients living in rural communities may face significant barriers to effective outpatient medical care

Early Mobility in the Hospital: Lessons Learned from the STRIDE Program

Immobility during hospitalization is widely recognized as a contributor to deconditioning, functional loss, and increased need for institutional post-acute care. Several studies have demonstrated that inpatient walking programs can mitigate some of these negative outcomes, yet hospital mobility programs are not widely available in U.S. hospitals. STRIDE (assiSTed eaRly mobIlity for hospitalizeD older vEterans) is a supervised walking program for hospitalized older adults that fills this important gap in clinical care. This paper describes how STRIDE works and how it is being disseminated to other hospitals using the Replicating Effective Programs (REP) framework. Guided by REP, we define core components of the program and areas where the program can be tailored to better fit the needs and local conditions of its new context (hospital). We describe key adaptations made by four hospitals who have implemented the STRIDE program and discuss lessons learned for successful implementation of hospital mobility programs

Efficacy of BETTER transitional care intervention for diverse patients with traumatic brain injury and their families: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Objective The purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of BETTER (Brain Injury, Education, Training, and Therapy to Enhance Recovery) vs. usual transitional care management among diverse adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) discharged home from acute hospital care and families. Methods This will be a single-site, two-arm, randomized controlled trial (N = 436 people, 218 patient/family dyads, 109 dyads per arm) of BETTER, a culturally- and linguistically-tailored, patient- and family-centered, TBI transitional care intervention for adult patients with TBI and families. Skilled clinical interventionists will follow a manualized protocol to address patient/family needs. The interventionists will co-establish goals with participants; coordinate post-hospital care, services, and resources; and provide patient/family education and training on self- and family-management and coping skills for 16 weeks following hospital discharge. English- and Spanish-speaking adult patients with mild-to-severe TBI who are discharged directly home from the hospital without inpatient rehabilitation or transfer to other settings (community discharge) and associated family caregivers are eligible and will be randomized to treatment or usual transitional care management. We will use intention-to-treat analysis to determine if patients receiving BETTER have a higher quality of life (primary outcome, SF-36) at 16-weeks post-hospital discharge than those receiving usual transitional care management. We will conduct a descriptive, qualitative study with 45 dyads randomized to BETTER, using semi-structured interviews, to capture perspectives on barriers and facilitators to participation. Data will be analyzed using conventional content analysis. Finally, we will conduct a cost/budget impact analysis, evaluating differences in intervention costs and healthcare costs by arm. Discussion Findings will guide our team in designing a future, multi-site trial to disseminate and implement BETTER into clinical practice to enhance the standard of care for adults with TBI and families. The new knowledge generated will drive advancements in health equity among diverse adults with TBI and families. Trial registration NCT05929833

An organizing framework for informal caregiver interventions: detailing caregiving activities and caregiver and care recipient outcomes to optimize evaluation efforts

Abstract Background Caregiver interventions may help improve the quality of informal care. Yet the lack of a systematic framework specifying the targets and outcomes of caregiver interventions hampers our ability to understand what has been studied, to evaluate existing programs, and to inform the design of future programs. Our goal was to develop an organizing framework detailing the components of the caregiving activities and the caregiver and care recipient outcomes that should be affected by an intervention. In so doing, we characterize what has been measured in the published literature to date and what should be measured in future studies to enable comparisons across interventions and across time. Methods Our data set comprises 121 reports of caregiver interventions conducted in the United States and published between 2000 and 2009. We extracted information on variables that have been examined as primary and secondary outcomes. These variables were grouped into categories, which then informed the organizing framework. We calculated the frequency with which the interventions examined each framework component to identify areas about which we have the most knowledge and under-studied areas that deserve attention in future research. Results The framework stipulates that caregiver interventions seek to change caregiving activities, which in turn affect caregiver and care recipient outcomes. The most frequently assessed variables have been caregiver psychological outcomes (especially depression and burden) and care recipient physical and health care use outcomes. Conclusions Based on the organizing framework, we make three key recommendations to guide interventions and inform research and policy. First, all intervention studies should assess quality and/or quantity of caregiving activities to help understand to what extent and how well the intervention worked. Second, intervention studies should assess a broad range of caregiver and care recipient outcomes, including considering whether expanding to economic status and health care use of the caregiver can be accommodated, to ease subsequent economic evaluations of caregiving. Third, intervention studies should measure a common set of outcomes to facilitate cross-time and cross-study comparisons of effectiveness

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Long-Term Care in the United States

The United States (US) currently has the most confirmed cases of COVID-19 of any country. Yet, adequate testing for the virus remains a major issue. Approximately 51.6 million Americans are over the age of 65 and 56 percent of adults over 65 are living with two or more chronic conditions (23 percent have 3 or more). Given the higher risk of death and complications associated with advanced age and underlying health conditions, COVID-19 has had an immense impact upon LTC in the United States. Yet, the level and intensity of impact has been sporadic in application. This is due in part to a highly disparate and fractured long-term care system and perennial systemic challenges that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In terms of financing care, the US relies on a mix of public and private funding sources. Further, individual states and the federal government have overlapping responsibility for funding and regulation of care. Meanwhile, fragmentation between financing and ownership of health care entities versus long-term care entities hinders coordinated delivery of care across sectors; and social sectors and health care sectors are also not integrated. The challenges of the system’s design suggest that both a near-term and long-term response is needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the approximately 13 million Americans who require long-term care. This report provides an overview of the current challenges facing LTC and outlines several potential policy responses to the pandemic as well as for life post-pandemic

Trajectories of Disability and Long-Term Care Utilization After Acute Health Events

Hip fractures, strokes, and heart attacks are common acute health events that can lead to long-term disability, care utilization, and unmet needs. However, such impacts, especially in the long term, are not fully understood. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study, 1992–2018, this study examines the long-term trajectories of individuals suffering such health shocks, comparing with individuals not experiencing health shocks. Hip fracture, stroke, and heart attack are confirmed to have severe implications for disability. In most cases of stroke and heart attack, informal caregivers provide the daily support needed by survivors, whereas following hip fracture, nursing home care is more relevant. These health shocks put individuals on worse trajectories of disability, care utilization, and unmet needs. There is no long-term recovery or convergence with individuals who do not suffer shocks. Unmet need is prevalent, even pre-shock and among individuals who do not experience health shocks, emphasizing the importance of preventative care measures. These findings support policy action to ensure hospitalized individuals, especially those aged 50 and above, receive rehabilitative services and other post-acute care. Furthermore, hospitalization is an event that requires the detection and addressing of unmet care needs beyond the short run

Older Adults Post-Incarceration: Restructuring Long-Term Services and Supports in the Time of COVID-19.

Objectives: To describe long-term care services and supports (LTSS) in the United States, note their limitations in serving older adults post-incarceration, and offer potential solutions, with special consideration for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. Design: Narrative review. Setting and Participants: LTSS for older adults post-incarceration. Methods: Literature review and policy analysis. Results: Skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, assisted living, adult foster homes, and informal care from family and friends compose LTSS for older adults, but their utilization suffers from access and payment complexities, especially for older adults post-incarceration. A combination of public-private partnerships, utilization of health professional trainees, and unique approaches to informal caregiver support, including direct compensation to caregivers, could help older adults reentering our communities following prison. Conclusions and Implications: Long-standing gaps in US LTSS are revealed by the coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic. Older adults entering our communities from prison are particularly vulnerable and need unique solutions to aging care as they face stigma and access challenges not typically encountered by the general population. Our review and discussion offer guidance to systems, practitioners, and policy makers on how to improve the care of older adults after incarceration

COVID-19: the Time for Collaboration Between Long-Term Services and Supports, Health Care Systems, and Public Health is Now

Policy Points To address systemic problems amplified by COVID-19, we need to restructure US long-term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near-term and long-term policy solutions. Seven near-term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations. Long-term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system