STATE LONG TERM CARE POLICIES AND ELDERLY WELL-BEING

描述（由申请人提供）：功能受限的老年人面临长期护理（LTC）政策选择，主要是在州一级确定。各国在努力将几乎完全依赖机构服务的长期护理服务系统转变为在替代环境中提供服务，包括家庭和社区服务方面存在很大差异。拟议的研究有两个广泛的目标：（1）调查长期护理使用的轨迹和老年人之间的福祉如何变化，作为州一级政策和跨队列的函数，以及（2）深入了解州长期护理政策背景。第一个目标将在第一部分的拟议研究中实现，其中集中在国家一级的LTC政策和个人层面的轨迹LTC的使用和福祉的多层次建模。该分析将使用来自健康和退休研究（HRS，1993年，1995年，1998年，2000年和2002年）和国家长期护理调查（NLTCS，1989年，1994年和1999年）的纵向数据，这些数据将与州一级的长期护理政策数据合并，使用HRS和NLTCS数据集中可用的州标识符。由于长期护理政策和需要护理的老年人群体的特征随着时间的推移而变化，第一部分还涉及汇编涵盖HRS和NLTCS调查年份的州级长期护理政策数据以及多个队列分析。第二个目标将在第二部分实现，该部分包括两个州（纽约和伊利诺伊州）的案例研究。这两个州的相似之处在于，它们都有一个人口多样化的大都市区以及北部或南部的大农村地区，但在政治背景，LTC系统，HCBS支出和提供的计划/服务方面存在显着差异。深入的国家政策背景信息将通过现场访问（与国家官员，LTC提供者协会，倡导团体代表和其他利益相关者的访谈）以及公共文件，网站和电子数据文件获得。此外，将描述和比较两个州的HRS和NLTCS受访者的LTC利用率和福祉的轨迹。第一部分和第二部分将同时进行，在整个四年的研究期间相互通报。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Elderly persons with functional limitations face long term care (LTC) policy alternatives that are largely determined at the state level. States vary greatly in their efforts to transform LTC systems that rely almost exclusively on institutional services to those that provide services in alternative settings including home and community-based services (HCBS). The proposed study has two broad objectives: (1) to investigate how trajectories of LTC use and well being among elderly persons vary, as a function of state level policies and across cohorts, and (2) to obtain in-depth understanding of state LTC policy contexts. The first objective will be achieved in Part I of the proposed study, which centers on multilevel modeling of state-level LTC policies and individual-level trajectories of LTC use and well being. The analysis will use longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS,1993, 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2002) and National Long-Term Care Survey (NLTCS, 1989, 1994, and1999), which will be merged with state-level LTC policy data, using the state identifiers available in the HRS and NLTCS data sets. Since LTC policies and the characteristics of elderly cohorts needing care change over time, Part I also involves the compilation of state-level LTC policy data that cover the survey years of HRS and NLTCS as well as multiple cohort analysis. The second objective will be achieved in Part II, which consists of case studies of 2 states (New York and Illinois). Both states are similar in that they have a major metropolitan area with diverse populations as well as large upstate or downstate rural areas, but differ markedly in terms of political background, LTC systems, HCBS expenditures, and programs/services offered. In-depth state policy contextual information will be obtained through site visits (interviews with state officials, LTC provider associations, advocacy group representatives and other stakeholders) and from public documents, websites, and electronic data files. In addition, trajectories of LTC utilization and well being among HRS and NLTCS respondents of the 2 states will be described and compared. Part I and Part II will proceed simultaneously to inform each other throughout the four-year study period.