Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 9/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Research

Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment

Authors: T. Lehnert, O. H. Günther, A. Hajek, S. G. Riedel-Heller, H. H. König

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most people prefer to “age in place” and to remain in their homes for as long as possible even in case they require long-term care. While informal care is projected to decrease in Germany, the use of home- and community-based services (HCBS) can be expected to increase in the future. Preference-based data on aspects of HCBS is needed to optimize person-centered care.

Objective

To investigate preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services packages.

Design

Discrete choice experiment conducted in mailed survey.

Setting and participants

Randomly selected sample of the general population aged 45–64 years in Germany (n = 1.209).

Main variables studied

Preferences and marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for HCBS were assessed with respect to five HCBS attributes (with 2–4 levels): care time per day, service level of the HCBS provider, quality of care, number of different caregivers per month, co-payment.

Results

Quality of care was the most important attribute to respondents and small teams of regular caregivers (1–2) were preferred over larger teams. Yet, an extended range of services of the HCBS provider was not preferred over a more narrow range. WTP per hour of HCBS was €8.98.

Conclusions

Our findings on preferences for HCBS in the general population in Germany add to the growing international evidence of preferences for LTC. In light of the great importance of high care quality to respondents, reimbursement for services by HCBS providers could be more strongly linked to the quality of services.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
United Nations Population Division: World population ageing 2013, in ST/EAS/SER.A/348. United Nations publications, New York (2013)CrossRef
2.
Rechel, B., Grundy, E., Robine, J.M., Cylus, J., Mackenbach, J.P., Knai, C., McKee, M.: Ageing in the European Union. Lancet 381(9874), 1312–1322 (2013)CrossRef
3.
Statistisches Bundesamt.: Ältere Menschen in Deutschland und der EU. (2016)
4.
Statistisches Bundesamt.: Statistisches Jahrbuch 2016. Wiesbaden (2016)
5.
Kluge, F.A.: The fiscal impact of population aging in Germany. Public Finance Rev. 41(1), 37–63 (2013)CrossRef
6.
Hamm, I., Seitz, H., Werding, M.: Demographic change in Germany: the economic and fiscal consequences. Springer, New York (2008)
7.
Schulz, E., Leidl, R., Konig, H.H.: The impact of ageing on hospital care and long-term care–the example of Germany. Health Policy 67(1), 57–74 (2004)CrossRef
8.
Costa-Font, J., Wittenberg, R., Patxot, C., Comas-Herrera, A., Gori, C., di Maio, A., Pickard, L., Pozzi, A., Rothgang, H.: Projecting long-term care expenditure in four European Union member states: the influence of demographic scenarios. Soc. Indic. Res. 86(2), 303–321 (2008)CrossRef
9.
OECD: A good life in old age? Monitoring and improving quality in long-term care. OECD Health policy studies, Brussels (2013)
10.
Rothgang, H.: Social insurance for long-term care: an evaluation of the German model. Soc. Policy Adm. 44(4), 436–460 (2010)CrossRef
11.
Campbell, J.C., Ikegami, N., Gibson, M.J.: Lessons from public long-term care insurance in Germany and Japan. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(1), 87–95 (2010)CrossRef
12.
Statistisches Bundesamt.: Pflegestatistik 2013, Wiesbaden (2015)
13.
Rothgang, H., Kalwitzki T., Müller R., Runte R., Unger R.: Barmer GEK Pflegereport 2015 - Schwerpunktthema: Pflegen zu Hause, Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse, Bd. 36. Asgard-Verlagsservice (2015)
14.
Cvengros, J.A., Christensen, A.J., Cunningham, C., Hillis, S.L., Kaboli, P.J.: Patient preference for and reports of provider behavior: impact of symmetry on patient outcomes. Health Psychol. 28(6), 660–667 (2009)CrossRef
15.
Swift, J.K., Callahan, J.L.: The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J. Clin. Psychol. 65(4), 368–381 (2009)CrossRef
16.
Wiener, J.M., Anderson, W.L., Khatutsky, G.: Are consumer-directed home care beneficiaries satisfied? Evidence from Washington state. Gerontologist 47(6), 763–774 (2007)CrossRef
17.
Batavia, A.I.: Consumer direction, consumer choice, and the future of long-term care. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 13(2), 67–74 (2002)CrossRef
18.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M.: Discrete Choice Experiments in a Nutshell. In: Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M. (eds.) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, pp. 13–46. Springer, Netherlands (2008)CrossRef
19.
de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21(2), 145–172 (2012)CrossRef
20.
Kaambwa, B., Lancsar, E., McCaffrey, N., Chen, G., Gill, L., Cameron, I.D., Crotty, M., Ratcliffe, J.: Investigating consumers’ and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc. Sci. Med. 140, 81–94 (2015)CrossRef
21.
Sawamura, K., Sano, H., Nakanishi, M.: Japanese public long-term care insured: preferences for future long-term care facilities, including relocation, waiting times, and individualized care. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 16(4), 350 (2015)CrossRef
22.
Brau, R., Lippi Bruni, M.: Eliciting the demand for long-term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis. Health Econ. 17(3), 411–433 (2008)CrossRef
23.
Nieboer, A.P., Koolman, X., Stolk, E.A.: Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(9), 1317–1325 (2010)CrossRef
24.
Coast, J., Al-Janabi, H., Sutton, E.J., Horrocks, S.A., Vosper, A.J., Swancutt, D.R., Flynn, T.N.: Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 21(6), 730–741 (2012)CrossRef
25.
Lehnert, T., Heuchert, M., Hussain K., König, H.H.: Stated preferences for long-term care: a literature review. Ageing Soc. (2018) (in press)
26.
Heuchert, M., König, H.H., Lehnert, T.: The role of preferences in the German long-term care insurance—results from expert interviews. Gesundheitswesen 79, 1052–1057 (2016)PubMed
27.
Petrik, O., Silva, J.D., Moura, F.: Stated preference surveys in transport demand modeling: disengagement of respondents. Transp. Lett. 8(1), 13–25 (2016)CrossRef
28.
Kuhfeld, W.: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS 9.2, Toronto (2010)
29.
Kessels, R., Jones, B., Goos, P.: Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments with partial profiles. J. Choice Model. 4(3), 52–74 (2011)CrossRef
30.
Hajek, A., Lehnert, T., Wegener, A., Riedel-Heller, S.G., Konig, H.H.: Factors associated with preferences for long-term care settings in old age: evidence from a population-based survey in Germany. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17(1), 156 (2017)CrossRef
31.
32.
Alberini, A., Longo, A., Veronesi, M.: Basic statistical models for stated choice methods. In: Kanninen, B.J. (ed.) Valuing Environmental amenities Using Stated Choice Methods. Springer, Berlin (2006)
33.
Stang, A., Kluttig, A., Moebus, S., Volzke, H., Berger, K., Greiser, K.H., Stockl, D., Jockel, K.H., Meisinger, C.: Educational level, prevalence of hysterectomy, and age at amenorrhoea: a cross-sectional analysis of 9536 women from six population-based cohort studies in Germany. BMC Womens Health. 14, 10 (2014)CrossRef
34.
Müller, M.: Professionelle Pflege—Anforderungen, Inanspruchnahme und zukünftige Erwartungen, in Gesundheitsmonitor 2015. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Güterloh (2005)
35.
van den Berg, B., Bleichrodt, H., Eeckhoudt, L.: The economic value of informal care: a study of informal caregivers’ and patients’ willingness to pay and willingness to accept for informal care. Health Econ. 14(4), 363–376 (2005)CrossRef
36.
Smith, R.D., Sach, T.H.: Contingent valuation: what needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law 5(1), 91–111 (2010)CrossRef
37.
Bobinac, A., van Exel, J., Rutten, F.F.H., Brouwer, W.B.F.: The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk. Pharmacoeconomics 32(1), 75–86 (2014)CrossRef
38.
Geraedts, M., Harrington, C., Schumacher, D., Kraska, R.: Trade-off between quality, price, and profit orientation in Germany’s nursing homes. Ageing Int. 41(1), 89–98 (2016)CrossRef
39.
Hartgerink, J.M., Cramm, J.M., Bakker, T.J., Mackenbach, J.P., Nieboer, A.P.: The importance of older patients’ experiences with care delivery for their quality of life after hospitalization. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15(1), 311 (2015)CrossRef
40.
Sünderkamp, S., Weiß, C., Rothgang, H.: Analyse der ambulanten und stationären Pflegenoten hinsichtlich der Nützlichkeit für den Verbraucher. Pflege 27(5), 325–336 (2014)CrossRef
41.
ZQP: Gewaltprävention in der Pflege, in ZQP-Themenreport, p. 98. ZQP, Berlin (2015)
42.
Becker, K., Zweifel, P.: Neue Formen der ambulanten Versorgung: was wollen die Versicherten? Ein discrete-choice-experiment. In: Schumpelick, V. (ed.) Medizin zwischen Humanität und Wettbewerb: Probleme, Trends und Perspektiven, pp. 313–351. Herder Freiburg, Germany (2008)
43.
Loh, C.-P., Shapiro, A.: Willingness to pay for home- and community-based services for seniors in Florida. Home Health Care Serv. Q. 32(1), 17–34 (2013)CrossRef
44.
Ottmann, G., Allen, J., Feldman, P.: A systematic narrative review of consumer-directed care for older people: implications for model development. Health Soc. Care Community 21(6), 563–581 (2013)PubMed
45.
Geraedts, M., Brechtel, T., Zöll, R., Hermeling, P.: Beurteilungskriterien für die Auswahl einer Pflegeeinrichtung, in Gesundheitsmonitor 2011. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Güterloh (2011)
46.
Perez-Arce, F.: The effect of education on time preferences. Econ. Edu. Rev. 56, 52–64 (2017)CrossRef
47.
Lampert, T., Kroll, L., Muters, S., Stolzenberg, H.: Measurement of socioeconomic status in the german health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 56(5–6), 631–636 (2013)CrossRef
48.
Berg, N.: Non-response bias A2—Kempf–Leonard, kimberly, in encyclopedia of social measurement, pp. 865–873. Elsevier, New York (2005)
49.
Chiu, L., Tang, K.Y., Liu, Y.H., Shyu, W.C., Chang, T.P., Chen, T.R.: Consistency between preference and use of long-term care among caregivers of stroke survivors. Public Health Nurs. 15(5), 379–386 (1998)CrossRef
50.
Unroe, K.T., Hickman, S.E., Torke, A.M., Group A.R.C.W.: Care consistency with documented care preferences: methodologic considerations for implementing the measuring what matters quality indicator. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 52(4), 453–458 (2016)CrossRef
51.
Winn, K., Ozanne, E., Sepucha, K.: Measuring patient-centered care: an updated systematic review of how studies define and report concordance between patients’ preferences and medical treatments. Patient Educ. Couns. 98(7), 811–821 (2015)CrossRef
52.
Sepucha, K., Ozanne, E.M.: How to define and measure concordance between patients’ preferences and medical treatments: a systematic review of approaches and recommendations for standardization. Patient Educ. Couns. 78(1), 12–23 (2010)CrossRef
53.
Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E.R., Russell, E.M., Napper, M., Robb, C.M.: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1–186 (2001)CrossRef
54.
Magunia, P., Keller, M., Rhode, A.: Auswirkungen der qualitätsorientierten Vergütung. Der Unfallchirurg. 119(5), 454–456 (2016)CrossRef
55.
Abrahamson, K., Myers, J., Arling, G., Davila, H., Mueller, C., Abery, B., Cai, Y.: Capacity and readiness for quality improvement among home and community-based service providers. Home Health Care Serv. 35, 182–196 (2016)CrossRef
56.
Kane, R.A., Cutler, L.J.: Re-imagining long-term services and supports: towards livable environments, service capacity, and enhanced community integration, choice, and quality of life for seniors. Gerontol. 55(2), 286–295 (2015)CrossRef
57.
Van Haitsma, K., Curyto, K., Spector, A., Towsley, G., Kleban, M., Carpenter, B., Ruckdeschel, K., Feldman, P.H., Koren, M.J.: The preferences for everyday living inventory: scale development and description of psychosocial preferences responses in community-dwelling elders. Gerontologist 53(4), 582–595 (2013)CrossRef
58.
Van Haitsma, K., Crespy, S., Humes, S., Elliot, A., Mihelic, A., Scott, C., Curyto, K., Spector, A., Eshraghi, K., Duntzee, C., Heid, A.R., Abbott, K.: New toolkit to measure quality of person-centered care: development and pilot evaluation with nursing home communities. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 15(9), 671–680 (2015)CrossRef
59.
Edvardsson, D., Innes, A.: Measuring person-centered care: a critical comparative review of published tools. Gerontologist 50(6), 834–846 (2010)CrossRef
60.
Degenholtz, H.B., Resnick, A.L., Bulger, N., Chia, L.: Improving quality of life in nursing homes: the structured resident interview approach. J. Ageing Res. 2014, 8 (2014)
61.
Kunzmann, U., Little, T., Smith, J.: Perceiving ControlA double-edged sword in old age. J. Gerontol. 57(6), P484–P491 (2002)CrossRef
62.
Bakx, P., de Meijer, C., Schut, F., van Doorslaer, E.: Going formal or informal, who cares? The influence of public long-term care insurance. Health Econ. 24(6), 631–643 (2015)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment
Authors
T. Lehnert
O. H. Günther
A. Hajek
S. G. Riedel-Heller
H. H. König
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0968-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 9/2018 Go to the issue

Original Research

Some adjustments to the human capital and the friction cost methods

Original Research

Tackling the chronic disease burden: are there co-benefits from climate policy measures?

Original Research

Cost–utility analysis of an intervention designed to reduce the critical handling error of insufficient inspiratory effort

Original Paper

Examining unpriced risk heterogeneity in the Dutch health insurance market

Original Research

Health inequality indices and exogenous risk factors: an illustration on Luxembourgish workers

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of enhancing a Quit-and-Win smoking cessation program for college students