Robert L. Kane

We cannot view the future of healthcare but we can sense that big changes are afoot. Many revolve around the plans to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. We speculate on some potential areas of change in the context of a set of tenets about what care for older persons should address.

Objective This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. Setting Not applicable. Participants 76 systematic reviews. Primary and secondary outcome measures Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers. Results Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions. Conclusions We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder.

This article argues for a fresh look at how we provide long-term care (LTC) for older persons. Essentially, LTC offers a compensatory service that responds to frailty. Policy debate around LTC centers on costs, but we are paying for something we really don’t want. Building societal enthusiasm (or even support) for LTC will require re-inventing and re-branding. LTC has three basic components: personal care, housing, and health care (primarily chronic disease management). They can be delivered in a variety of settings. It is rare to find all three done well simultaneously. Personal care (PC) needs to be both competent and compassionate. Housing must provide at least minimal amenities and foster autonomy; when travel time for PC raises costs dramatically, some form of clustered housing may be needed. Health care must be proactive, aimed at preventing exacerbations of chronic disease and resultant hospitalizations. Enhancing preferences means allowing taking informed risks. Payment incentives should reward both quality of care and quality of life, but positive outcomes must be defined as slowing decline. Paying for services but not for housing under Medicaid would automatically level the playing field between nursing homes (NH) and community-based services. Regulations should achieve greater parity between NH and community care and include both positive and negative feedback. Providing post-acute care should be separate from LTC. Using the tripartite LTC framework, we can create innovative flexible approaches to providing needed services for frail older persons in formats that are both desirable and affordable. Such care will be more socially desirable and hence worth paying for.

Improving quality of nursing homes (NHs) is a major social priority, yet few studies examine the role of facility characteristics for residents’ quality of life (QOL). This study goes beyond cross-sectional analyses by examining the predictors of NH residents’ QOL on the facility level over time. We used three data sources, namely resident interviews using a multidimensional measure of QOL collected in all Medicaid-certified NHs in Minnesota (N = 369), resident clinical data from the minimum data set, and facility-level characteristics. We examined change in six QOL domains from 2007 to 2010, using random coefficient models. Eighty-one facilities improved across most domains and 85 facilities declined. Size, staffing levels (especially activities staff), and resident case mix are some of the most salient predictors of QOL over time, but predictors differ by facility performance status. Understanding the predictors of facility QOL over time can help identify facility characteristics most appropriate for targeting with policy and programmatic interventions.

Background: We examined the relationship between health literacy (HL) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well as relationship differentials by ethnicity among rural women from a Chinese poor minority area. Methods: We conducted in-person interviews with 913 rural women aged 23 – 57 (57.5% Hui minorities/42.5% Han ethnicity) enrolled in the Ningxia Women Health Project, gathering data on EQ-5D, self-designed HL, socio-demographic characteristics, and chronic diseases. The extent of impairments in the five dimensions of the EQ-5D was used to measure HRQoL. Factor analysis yielded a single HL factor, which was used as a dichotomous variable in multivariate log-binomial regression models that examined the adjusted association of HL with HRQoL. Results: Nearly half of the women had no formal education. The most prevalent impairments were pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression (42.42% and 32.09%, respectively). The Hui minorities had 1.65 times higher rates of low HL (defined as less than mean of the factor score for HL) and 1.22 and 1.25 times for pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression impairments, respectively. Low HL was associated with poor HRQoL, with a 23% increase in the prevalence of pain/discomfort impairments after adjusting for socio-demographics. This association was significant in the Hui group (PR=1.30, 95% CI=1.06-1.58) but not for the Han group (PR=0.99, 95% CI=0.76-1.30). HL-stratified analysis revealed modification for ethnic disparities in HRQoL; for pain/discomfort impairments, high HL-PR=0.88 (95% CI=0.71-1.08), low HL-PR=1.24 (95% CI = 1.01-1.52); for anxiety/depression impairments, high HL-PR=0.98 (95% CI=0.73-1.32), low HL-PR=1.44 (95% CI = 1.05-1.98). Conclusions: Low HL is associated with poor HRQoL across the entire sample and the association may be modified by ethnicity. Similarly, ethnic disparities in HRQoL may be modified by HL, larger in low HL group. Health services should address HL in vulnerable minority women to improve their HRQoL.

A study was conducted to assess change in numbers, expenditures, and case mix of nursing home residents as Medicaid investment in home- and community-based services (HCBS) 1915(c) waivers increased in seven states. The seven states provided Medicaid expenditure and utilization data from 2001 to 2005, including waiver and state plan utilization. The Minimum Data Set was used for nursing home residents. For three states, community assessment data were also used. In six states, the number of nursing home clients decreased as the numbers of HCBS clients grew. However, in most states, the number of additional waiver clients often greatly exceeded reductions in nursing home residents. Nursing home payments decreased moderately, but this decrease was offset by increases in HCBS waiver and state plan expenditures, leading to a net increase in long-term support services (LTSS) expenditures from 2001 to 2005. Increases in waiver expenditures outpaced increases in waiver clients, indicating expansion of services on top of expansion in clients. States that showed substantial increases in HCBS showed only modest increases in nursing home case mix. The case mix for nursing home residents was more acute than that for HCBS users. The expectation that greater HCBS use would siphon off less severe LTSS users and hence lead to a higher case mix in nursing homes was partially met. The more acute case mix in nursing homes suggests that HCBS serves some individuals who were previously cared for in nursing homes but many who were not. Efforts to promote substitution of HCBS for institutional care will require more proactive strategies such as diversion.