Effects of the 2018 Japan Floods on long-term care insurance costs in Japan: retrospective cohort study.
Claim data
Climate change
Disaster preparedness
Long-term care
Long-term care insurance service
Natural disaster
Rural health services
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 02 2022
17 02 2022
Historique:
received:
01
10
2021
accepted:
31
12
2021
entrez:
18
2
2022
pubmed:
19
2
2022
medline:
20
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Climate change has increased the frequency and severity of torrential rains and floods around the world. Estimating the costs of these disasters is one of the five global research priorities identified by WHO. The 2018 Japan Floods hit western Japan causing extensive destruction and many deaths, especially among vulnerable elderly. Such affected elderly would need long-term care due to the various health problems caused by the disaster. A Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) system provides care services in Japan. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the 2018 Japan Floods on LTCI costs and service utilization. The participants of this retrospective cohort study were all verified persons utilizing LTCI services in Hiroshima, Okayama and Ehime prefectures. The observation period was from 2 months before to 6 months after the disaster. We used Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) to examine the association between disaster status (victims or non-victims) and the monthly total costs of LTCI service (with gamma-distribution/log-link) by residential environment (home or facility). Among home residents, we also examined each service utilization (home-based service, short-stay service and facility service), using the GEEs. After the GEEs, we estimated Average Marginal Effects (AME) over all observation periods by months as the attributable disaster effect. The total number of participants was 279,578. There were 3024 flood victims. The disaster was associated with significantly higher total costs. The AME for home residents at 2 months after was $214 (Standard Error (SE): 12, p < 0.001), which was the highest through the observation period. Among facility residents, the AME immediately after the disaster increased by up to $850 (SE: 29, p < 0.001). The service utilization among home residents showed a different trend for each service. The AME of home-based services decreased by up to - 15.2% (SE:1.3, p < 0.001). The AME for short-stay service increased by up to 8.2% (SE: 0.9, p < 0.001) and the AME for facility service increased by up to 7.4% (SE: 0.7, p < 0.001), respectively. The 2018 Japan Floods caused an increase in LTCI costs and the utilization of short-stay and facility services, and a decrease in utilization of home-based services.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Climate change has increased the frequency and severity of torrential rains and floods around the world. Estimating the costs of these disasters is one of the five global research priorities identified by WHO. The 2018 Japan Floods hit western Japan causing extensive destruction and many deaths, especially among vulnerable elderly. Such affected elderly would need long-term care due to the various health problems caused by the disaster. A Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) system provides care services in Japan. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the 2018 Japan Floods on LTCI costs and service utilization.
METHODS
The participants of this retrospective cohort study were all verified persons utilizing LTCI services in Hiroshima, Okayama and Ehime prefectures. The observation period was from 2 months before to 6 months after the disaster. We used Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) to examine the association between disaster status (victims or non-victims) and the monthly total costs of LTCI service (with gamma-distribution/log-link) by residential environment (home or facility). Among home residents, we also examined each service utilization (home-based service, short-stay service and facility service), using the GEEs. After the GEEs, we estimated Average Marginal Effects (AME) over all observation periods by months as the attributable disaster effect.
RESULTS
The total number of participants was 279,578. There were 3024 flood victims. The disaster was associated with significantly higher total costs. The AME for home residents at 2 months after was $214 (Standard Error (SE): 12, p < 0.001), which was the highest through the observation period. Among facility residents, the AME immediately after the disaster increased by up to $850 (SE: 29, p < 0.001). The service utilization among home residents showed a different trend for each service. The AME of home-based services decreased by up to - 15.2% (SE:1.3, p < 0.001). The AME for short-stay service increased by up to 8.2% (SE: 0.9, p < 0.001) and the AME for facility service increased by up to 7.4% (SE: 0.7, p < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The 2018 Japan Floods caused an increase in LTCI costs and the utilization of short-stay and facility services, and a decrease in utilization of home-based services.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35177009
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12492-7
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-12492-7
pmc: PMC8855556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
341Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2021 Jan 9;397(10269):129-170
pubmed: 33278353
Health Policy. 2013 Apr;110(1):94-100
pubmed: 23312787
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):76-86
pubmed: 16422782
Arch Iran Med. 2015 Oct;18(10):713-9
pubmed: 26443254
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012 Feb;13(2):190.e1-7
pubmed: 21885350
Environ Health. 2017 Dec 5;16(Suppl 1):113
pubmed: 29219089
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019 Mar 11;5:81-88
pubmed: 30911601
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2013;229(4):287-99
pubmed: 23583960
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Jun 1;626:165-194
pubmed: 29339262
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017 Feb;11(1):31-38
pubmed: 27460161
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Oct 15;174(8):984-92
pubmed: 21841157
Environ Health Prev Med. 2021 Dec 2;26(1):113
pubmed: 34856925
Public Health Rep. 1981 Jan-Feb;96(1):67-79
pubmed: 6969897
Lancet. 2013 Jan 19;381(9862):204
pubmed: 23332962
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Apr;66(4):728-734
pubmed: 29461630
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Apr 1;29(2):222-227
pubmed: 28407094
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Apr;28(4):237-244
pubmed: 26876459
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 Oct;64:102516
pubmed: 34426781
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 26;14:82
pubmed: 24965498
Lancet. 2009 May 16;373(9676):1693-733
pubmed: 19447250
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Apr;20(3):333-342
pubmed: 30171490
Lancet. 2011 Sep 24;378(9797):1183-92
pubmed: 21885099
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Sep;68(9):874-82
pubmed: 24847089
Prev Med. 2016 Jan;82:77-82
pubmed: 26592687
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 25;14(9):e0218835
pubmed: 31553728
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011 Jun;5(2):112-6
pubmed: 21685306
JAMA. 1998 Nov 18;280(19):1690-1
pubmed: 9832001
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 03;17(5):
pubmed: 32138201
Am J Nurs. 2017 Apr;117(4):44-52
pubmed: 28333743