1 / 11

Nursing Home Quality in New York State by Patricia Loubeau

ZEW Long-Term-Care Conference Mannheim, 2005. Nursing Home Quality in New York State by Patricia Loubeau. Discussion by Kristin J. Kleinjans, University of Aarhus and RAND. Summary – Objective of Study.  to better understand what influences quality of care, specifically influence of

hfuentes
Télécharger la présentation

Nursing Home Quality in New York State by Patricia Loubeau

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ZEW Long-Term-Care Conference Mannheim, 2005 Nursing Home Quality in New York Stateby Patricia Loubeau Discussion by Kristin J. Kleinjans, University of Aarhus and RAND

  2. Summary – Objective of Study  to better understand what influences quality of care, specifically influence of • staff hours • ownership (profit vs. nonprofit) • chain membership • bed size • (area) competition

  3. Summary – Data and Variables • Data from 7 counties in New York State • big sample: 184 nursing homes (1/3 of beds) • 3 measures of quality: • Facility rating by state department of health • # of state health code deficiencies • Composite level of harm

  4. Summary - Results •  no quality differences based on • staffing (results only for state health code standards) • ownership/ chain membership (measures?) • size (measure?) •  lower quality with higher competition (all 3 measures)

  5. Summary – Data Shortcomings • No data on health status of residentsquality measure means different things for different types of health problems (Ex.: staffing) • No data on cost of individual nursing homerelation between quality and cost cannot be investigated • Not generalizablevery different ownership and quality in NY state

  6. Comments • Interesting and important subject • Comparable data, big sample • Interesting conclusions, discussion of institutions and possible interpretations

  7. Comments: Methods • Unclear methods: From what are conclusions derived? Tables with coefficients, st errors, etc. needed • by dependent variable ordered logit/ probit with covariates Xi as regressorsReport results of sensitivity analysis & specification tests

  8. Comments: Outcome Measures • Explanation of quality measures needed: What are the exact deficiencies? (Table) • Not all deficiencies equally important & might confound results e.g., # of state health deficiencies incl. personnel policies (potential for reversal causation – staffing measure) • (Seem to) only concern health care quality≠ quality (surroundings, social/ mental care,…) also excludes outside provision of services (such as hospice care)

  9. Comments: Prices • Missing prices can explain some of the results product differentiation: cheap and low quality vs. expensive and high quality • Ex.: New York City; cost betw. $220 & $423 per day •  individual choose according to preferences  higher quality not (always) better • Problem: no price information in data maybe something to proxy? (room size, facilities, average income of zipcode)

  10. Comment: Lack of Info on Health Status •  Results are more interesting if health status of residents is known (otherwise, meaning of coefficients is unclear) • Omitted variable bias if correlated with independent variables, e. g. staffing, size • not in data, but maybe a proxy to be used as IV? • Some potential candidates: • ratio of personnel at night/day facilities (types of beds, … )

  11. Minor Comments • Table 2 needs units, min and max, explanation of variables (especially categories of quality measures) • Table 3: source • Table 4: sums do not all sum up to 100% (even with rounding) • Table 5: Misleading title, comparison of average deficiencies in sample, state, and US as a whole

More Related