Five-year survival in a Program of All-inclusive Care for Elderly compared with alternative institutional and home- and community-based care.

dc.contributor.author

Wieland, Darryl

dc.contributor.author

Boland, Rebecca

dc.contributor.author

Baskins, Judith

dc.contributor.author

Kinosian, Bruce

dc.coverage.spatial

United States

dc.date.accessioned

2017-06-08T18:26:07Z

dc.date.available

2017-06-08T18:26:07Z

dc.date.issued

2010-07

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Community-based services are preferred to institutional care for people requiring long-term care (LTC). States are increasing their Medicaid waiver programs, although Program of All-Inclusive Care For Elderly (PACE)-prepaid, community-based comprehensive care-is available in 31 states. Despite emerging alternatives, little is known about their comparative effectiveness. METHODS: For a two-county region of South Carolina, we contrast long-term survival among entrants (n = 2040) to an aged and disabled waiver program, PACE, and nursing homes (NHs), stratifying for risk. Participants were followed for 5 years or until death; those lost to follow-up or surviving less than 5 years as on August 8, 2005 were censored. Analyses included admission descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves. To address cohort risk imbalance, we employed an established mortality risk index, which showed external validity in waiver, PACE, and NH cohorts (log-rank tests = 105.42, 28.72, and 52.23, respectively, all p < .001; c-statistics = .67, .58, .65, p < .001). RESULTS: Compared with waiver (n = 1,018) and NH (n = 468) admissions, PACE participants (n = 554) were older, more cognitively impaired, and had intermediate activities of daily living dependency. PACE mortality risk (72.6% high-to-intermediate) was greater than in waiver (58.8%), and similar to NH (71.6%). Median NH survival was 2.3 years. Median PACE survival was 4.2 years versus 3.5 in waiver (unstratified, log rank = .394; p = .53), but accounting for risk, PACE's advantage is significant (log rank = 5.941 (1); p = .015). Compared with waiver, higher risk admissions to PACE were most likely to benefit (moderate: PACE median survival = 4.7 years vs waiver 3.4; high risk: 3.0 vs 2.0). CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes of LTC alternatives warrant greater research and policy attention.

dc.identifier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20354065

dc.identifier

glq040

dc.identifier.eissn

1758-535X

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/14894

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

dc.relation.ispartof

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1093/gerona/glq040

dc.subject

Aged

dc.subject

Community Health Services

dc.subject

Comprehensive Health Care

dc.subject

Female

dc.subject

Health Services for the Aged

dc.subject

Homes for the Aged

dc.subject

Humans

dc.subject

Kaplan-Meier Estimate

dc.subject

Long-Term Care

dc.subject

Male

dc.subject

South Carolina

dc.subject

Survival Analysis

dc.title

Five-year survival in a Program of All-inclusive Care for Elderly compared with alternative institutional and home- and community-based care.

dc.type

Journal article

pubs.author-url

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20354065

pubs.begin-page

721

pubs.end-page

726

pubs.issue

7

pubs.organisational-group

Center for Population Health & Aging

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Population Research Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Sanford School of Public Policy

pubs.organisational-group

Staff

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

65

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Five-year survival in a Program of All-inclusive Care for Elderly compared with alternative institutional and home- and community-based care..pdf
Size:
450.62 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format