slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Marcello Morciano Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Marcello Morciano Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Marcello Morciano Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Measuring Disability Status and Older People’s Receipt of Disability Benefit in England: A Multi-Survey Latent Variable Structural Equation Approach. Marcello Morciano Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Marcello Morciano Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia' - shadow


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Measuring Disability Status and Older People’s Receipt of Disability Benefit in England: A Multi-Survey Latent Variable Structural Equation Approach

Marcello Morciano

Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia

Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex

FAMILY RESOURCES SURVEY USER MEETING

Royal Statistical Society, London

Thursday 10 June 2010

t he role and effectiveness of disability benefits for older people

Nuffield Project

The role and effectiveness of disability benefits for older people

Ruth Hancock and Marcello Morciano

Health Economics Group, University of East AngliaStephen Pudney and Francesca Zantomio

Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex

slide3

Plan

  • Why assessing individual’s disability is important?
    • Public debate around the role of UK-disability benefits
  • How can we measure disability?
    • We use a latent factor approach
  • Does the set of disability indicator used in the analysis matter?
    • We appraise target efficiency of cash disability benefits in England;
  • Does three large UK-household surveys provide different results?
    • We use a structural equation technique
  • If yes, how much of the unexplained variance is due to survey features?
    • We use statistical matching technique
  • Conclusions/Discussion
slide5

Policy debate #1

  • “The current LTC system is underfunded, incoherent and unfair” (Keen and Bell, 2009);
  • Target efficiency of non means-tested disability benefit in England is under debate
    • “AA might not be the best vehicle to provide financial help to older and disabled people”(Wanless, 2006);
    • a significant % of those who are in receipt of AA are wealthier and healthier people (Forder and Fernandez, 2009);
    • “One in five of DLA claimants are in the top two income quintiles*” (HMG, May 2010)

A number of different reforms have been proposed bearing in mind their affordability in future years, in the context of population ageing

* when DLA is included as income and no account is taken of extra costs of disability.

slide6

Policy debate #2

  • Outgoing labour government set out its aspirations for a National Care Service (HMG 2010) where “[AA] might be integrated in the current care system to create a new offer for individual with care needs” (Green Paper on Social Care, 2009).
  • The new coalition Government has announced that it will not be implementing but “urgent reform of the social care system is top of its agenda” and it is to establish a commission which will be “tasked with delivering a sustainable settlement, which is a fair partnership between the state and the individual” (HMG, May 2010).
slide8

How can we measure disability?

  • Difficulties in surveying people with disabilities/impairments
    • in particular people with cognitive impairments, people who live alone or people in institutions;
  • (once contacted) difficulties in measuring individual’s disabilities/impairments
    • Objective tests scores:i.e. external assessment of mobility and cognitive tests;
    • Self-reported measures:(I)ADL limitations, difficulties in domains of life, presence of particular health conditions, SF-12 or SF-36, etc.
  • Disability is a multidimensional phenomenon (Manton et. al., 2000);
  • Set of indicators used in the analysis matters (Van Brakel and Officer, 2008);
  • Presence of high correlation among indicators;
  • Self-reported disability measures might be subjected to forms of measurement errors (Bound, 2004; Benitez-Silva et. al., 2004);
measurement issue

Does the set of disability indicator used in the analysis matter?

measurement issue

is more than a statistical curiosity because strong policy conclusions have often been drawn on the basis of different measures

APPLICATION:Assess empirically the relation between being in receipt of AA and

  • Disability status;
  • SES (mainly economic resources).
slide10

Attendance Allowance (AA)

  • Eligibility criteria
  • Need help with personal care because of severe physical and/or mental disabilities (i.e. help with things such as washing, dressing, eating, using the toilet, or difficulties in communication/understanding);
  • aged 65+ (if under 65 eligible for DLA);
  • no means testing;

Make a claim to DWP

Assessors examine the evidence

(Some people who make a claim for AA may be asked to have a medical examination)

Receive the Benefit

(cover the additional costs due to the disability)

2 weekly rate: Higher £70.35 and Lower £47.10 (tax year 2009-2010);

Once in receipt of AA, it might be possible to claim for extra amount of other means-tested benefits with: Housing Benefit; Council Tax Benefit and Pension Credit.

slide12

Data

We use three large household surveys:

  • British Household Panel Survey (BHPS);
  • English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA);
  • Family Resources Survey (FRS).

Sample selection rules:

  • Cs 2002/03;
  • 65+ living in private households in England.
slide13

Differences across surveys

Sample means of SES and AA receipt in FRS, ELSA and BHPS

16.5% AA recipient according official statistics (DWP).12.7-13.8% of those living in private households (MAP2030 estimates)

In bold when differences (with respect of FRS) are significant with p < 0.05

slide14

Data

FRS:collects information on difficulties in domains of life*

disdif1 : disability difficulty in mobility (moving about)

disdif2 : difficulty with lifting, carrying or moving objects

disdif3 : difficulty with manual dexterity using hands to carry out

everyday tasks

disdif4 : difficulty - continence (bladder control)

disdif5 : difficulty with communication (speech, hearing or eyesight)

disdif6 : difficulty with memory/concentration/learning/understanding)

disdif7 : difficulty with recognising when in physical danger

disdif8 : difficulty with your physical co-ordination (eg balance

Cross-correlations amongst indicators

And very detailed information on SES, receipt of Welfare State Support

* all items are self-reported and binary (1= if i has difficulty; 0 otherwise)

slide15

Data

BHPS:collects information on (some) ADL limitations and level of difficulties in performing daily activities:

Cross-correlations amongst indicators

Ahswk* : health hinders doing the housework

Astairs* : health hinders climbing the stairs

Adress* : health hinders getting dressed

Awlk* : health hinders walking more than 10 mins

A1stairs : How manages stairs

A1around : How manages to get around house

A1bed : How manages to get in/out bed

A1nail : How manages to cut toenails

A1bath : How manages to bath/shower

A1road : How manages to walk down road

1: unaided, very easy

2: unaided, fairly easy

3: unaided, fairly difficult

4: unaided, very difficult

5: only with help

6: not at all

Income is collected with details; Wealth variables are not available in all waves.

Small sample size [65+]

* Binary indicators (1= if i has difficulty; 0 otherwise)

slide16

Data

ELSA contains a rich set of self-reported measures of disease, disability, (I)ADL limitations, perceived health status + Scores from test on mobility and cognitive function.

walking 100 yards

sitting for about two hours

getting up from a chair after sitting for long periods

climbing several flights of stairs without resting

climbing one flight of stairs without resting

stooping, kneeling, or crouching

reaching or extending your arms above shoulder level

pulling or pushing large objects like a living room chair

lifting or carrying weights over 10 pounds, like a heavy bag

picking up a 5p coin from a table

dressing, including putting on shoes and socks

walking across a room

bathing or showering

eating, such as cutting up your food

getting in or out of bed

using the toilet, including getting up or down

using a map to figure out how to get around in a strange place

preparing a hot meal

shopping for groceries

making telephone calls

taking medications

doing work around the house or garden

managing money, such as paying bills and keeping track of ex

Cross-correlations amongst indicators & scales

Incomes are collected with details but data cleaning process are desirable.

* Binary indicators (1= if i has difficulty; 0 otherwise)

slide17

Method

Rather of using summing scales alternative approaches, based on the sample covariance matrix of the indicators, have long been available (e.g., Goldberger & Duncan, 1973; Jöreskog, 1973,1977; Special issue of Journal of Econometrics, 1983; Bollen,1989; Heckman …).

  • One of the most powerful approach is the latent variable approach
slide18

The latent variable approach

In the surveys we observe functional limitation indicators (y) which is caused by a disability condition η

y=f(η) [1]

we can express [1] as

y= λη [2]

Note that:

- [2] implies a deterministic relation in which y is caused by λη.

- [2] can hold only if no variables beside η can cause y. A possibility is to relax this (strong) assumption adding linearly a stochastic term :

y= λη+  [3]

We can make the usual assumption in regression analysis that:

  • E()=0;
  • Cov (y,)=0
  • But… [3] is not identified in a single equation framework because η is unobservable (i.e. latent)
slide19

Model

Measurement equations

D1

Dj

z1

Structural equation

Behavioural model

η

AA

z2

slide21

Results

Parameter and relative standard error estimates of the structural equation of the latent disability index

NOTE: ª variance of D (disability index) constrained to equal 1 for allowing defining the metrics of the latent factor. ¹ Cut-off set to 73, which is the median age observed in the pooled sample of BHPS,ELSA and FRS. ² Cut off set to exp(£513.86), which is the median pre means testing and disability benefit income observed in the pooled sample.

slide22

Results

Parameter and relative standard error estimates of the AA receipt equation

of people in receipt of aa by severity of their disability status

Results

% of people in receipt of AA by severity of their disability status

Note: AA receipt refers to the mean calculated for each survey-specific decile of the latent disability index

slide24

Results

Source: FRS

slide25

Results

Results:

  • Mobility indicators play a predominant role as indicator of η ;
  • Age and living standards gradient in disability;
  • significant and positive relation between receiving AA and disability status: AA is relatively well targeted to disabled people;
  • significant and negative relation between receiving AA and economic resources: AA mimics a means-tested benefit;
  • Consistent results in the three surveys considered;
  • heterogeneity of estimates might arise from sample design features
cross survey differences are overcame using statistical matching techniques

Post-matching Results

Cross-survey differences are overcame using statistical matching techniques
  • Based on mahalanobis distance algorithm (minimising the difference in the Z-vector of commonly observed socio-economic characteristics, thought to influence both disability and AA receipt ) ;
  • Aimed at creating survey specific sub-samples balanced along the Z.
  • We obtained 2 matched “control” sub-samples for each baseline (3 X 2 = 6 pair-wise matched couples [12 samples])
  • Overall, although matching reduces sample size (=> significance of the estimates) it reduces drastically sample differences (in term of Z).
slide27

Results

Parameter and relative standard error estimates of the structural equation of the latent disability index

NOTE: ª variance of D (disability index) constrained to equal 1 for allowing defining the metrics of the latent factor. ¹ Cut-off set to 73, which is the median age observed in the pooled sample of BHPS,ELSA and FRS. ² Cut off set to exp(£513.86), which is the median pre means testing and disability benefit income observed in the pooled sample.

slide28

Results

Parameter and relative standard error estimates of the AA receipt equation

slide29

Results # 2

  • Overall, although matching reduces precision of the estimates results are confirmed
  • Robustness of our findings is guaranteed by the contemporaneous analysis of 3 data sources + matching technique
  • When appropriate statistical tools are used to extract the underlying disability state from partial and noisy (self-reported) indicators, despite enormous differences in design and contents, the 3 surveys describe coherent patterns.