html5-img
1 / 21

ANCIEN

ANCIEN. Overview of ANCIEN and classification of long-term care systems Esther Mot (Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, CPB), Peter Willem é (Federal Planning Bureau) iHEA, 8th World Congress on Health Economics , Toronto, July 10-13 2011. Long-term care for the elderly.

winter
Télécharger la présentation

ANCIEN

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. ANCIEN Overview of ANCIEN and classification of long-term care systems Esther Mot (Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, CPB), Peter Willemé (Federal Planning Bureau) iHEA, 8th World Congress on Health Economics, Toronto, July 10-13 2011

  2. Long-term care for the elderly

  3. ANCIEN, general information • Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations • research for EC in 7th Framework Programme • January 2009 – August 2012 • 21 EU-countries included

  4. Typologies of LTC systems Results of Work package 1 • managed by Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna • typology report: Kraus, M., M. Riedel, E. Mot, P. Willemé, G. Röhrling, T. Czypionka (2010), A typology of systems of Long-Term Care in Europe

  5. ANCIEN, objectives • describe and characterise systems of LTC in Europe • analyse the need for care (in relation to demography and lifestyle) • analyse developments in the supply and demand for formal and informal care • analyse the potential role of technology in solving LTC problems

  6. ANCIEN, objectives continued • analyse efforts to improve the quality of LTC • project the use of LTC on the basis of developments in need and supply • evaluate the performance of different types of LTC systems

  7. Aims of Work Package 1 • description of LTC-systems in Europe • development of typologies • designed for analysis of LTC systems (as opposed to more general welfare state typologies) • selection of countries to model • needs (demography, lifestyle) • supply (formal and informal) • use of care

  8. WP1, steps • data on LTC collected by national experts • standardised format • problems with data collection • country reports • typologies

  9. Characteristics for typology Who carries the most responsibility for LTC: formal system or family/person?: • public spending on LTC • private spending on LTC • role of formal versus informal care • support for informal care givers • is there an entitlement? • how strict are eligibility criteria?

  10. Characteristics for typology, 2 • How is formal system organised: • quality assurance • type of providers • centralised or not? • coordination and integration of care • What about freedom of choice? • role of cash benefits? • free choice of providers?

  11. WP1, two methods of clustering • mostly organisational, 21 countries • for example choice of provider, quality assurance • use and financing of care, 14 countries

  12. Use and financing typology • selection of 8 metric variables for 14 countries • factor analysis on 8 variables, 4 variables used • cluster-analysis

  13. Variables • public spending* (related to GDP and needs) • share of private expenditures* • informal care use* • IC support* • formal care use • role of cash benefits • accessibility • targeting

  14. Result

  15. Result, by cluster

  16. Star plot of LTC systems

  17. Countries to be modelled (considering data availability) • Germany • the Netherlands • Spain • Poland (simplified models)

  18. Conclusion • most new member states only to be analysed with organisational approach, but NMS not in 1 cluster (in both typologies) • 3 variables crucial for countries with better data: • needs-corrected public spending, private funding, informal care support

  19. Conclusion 2 • stable clustering of Nordic countries with generous systems with large role for formal care (under different approaches): • Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands • important role for informal care in all other clusters • distinction by private financing, IC support, use of formal care, role of cash benefits

  20. Conclusion 3 • large impact of available information • different clustering with richer dataset • clustering especially for LTC is different

  21. More information: • http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/ • general information • country reports on LTC systems • typology report • kraus@ihs.ac.at (Institute for Advanced Studies) • mot@cpb.nl (CPB) • pw@plan.be (FPB)

More Related