Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:20:20.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future costs of dementia-related long-term care: exploring future scenarios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2010

Adelina Comas-Herrera ,
Sara Northey ,
Raphael Wittenberg ,
Martin Knapp ,
Sarmishtha Bhattacharyya  and
Alistair Burns
Adelina Comas-Herrera*
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, U.K.
Sara Northey
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, U.K.
Raphael Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, U.K.
Martin Knapp
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, U.K. Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, U.K.
Sarmishtha Bhattacharyya
Affiliation:
Centre for the Economics of Mental Health, King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, London, U.K.
Alistair Burns
Affiliation:
Memory Clinic and Early Onset Dementia Penn Hospital, Wolverhampton, U.K.
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Adelina Comas-Herrera, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, U.K. Phone: +44 (0)2079557306; Fax: +44 (0) 2070556131. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: This study explores how the views of a panel of experts on dementia would affect projected long-term care expenditure for older people with dementia in England in the year 2031.

Methods: A Delphi-style approach was used to gather the views of experts. The projections were carried out using a macro-simulation model of future demand and associated expenditure for long-term care by older people with dementia.

Results: The panel chose statements that suggested a small reduction in the prevalence of dementia over the next fifty years, a freeze in the numbers of people in care homes, and an increase in the qualifications and pay of care assistants who look after older people with dementia. Projections of expenditure on long-term care that seek to capture the views of the panel suggest that future expenditure on long-term care for this group will rise from 0.6% of GDP in 2002 to between 0.82% and 0.96% of GDP in 2031. This range is lower than the projected expenditure of 0.99% of GDP in 2031 obtained under a range of base case assumptions.

Conclusions: This paper attempts to bridge the gap between qualitative forecasting methods and quantitative future expenditure modelling and has raised a number of important methodological issues. Incorporating the panel's views into projections of future expenditure in long-term care for people with dementia would result in projected expenditure growing more slowly than it would otherwise.

Keywords

dementiaAlzheimer's diseaselong-term careexpenditureprojections
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 20 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armon, K. (2001). An evidence and consensus based guideline for acute diarrhea management. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 85, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S. and Wittenberg, R. (2009). Clinical and cost effectiveness of services for early diagnosis and intervention in dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 748–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookmeyer, R., Gray, S. and Kawas, C. (1998). Projections of Alzheimer's disease in the United States and the public health impact of delaying disease onset. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1337–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comas-Herrera, A., Wittenberg, R., Pickard, L., Knapp, M. and MRC-CFAS. (2003). Cognitive impairment in older people: its implications for future demand for services and costs. PSSRU Discussion paper 1728, London School of Economics: London.Google Scholar
Comas-Herrera, A., Wittenberg, R., Pickard, L. and Knapp, M. (2007). Cognitive impairment in older people: future demand for long-term care services and the associated costs. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 1037–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, L. and Netten, A. (2004). Unit Costs of Health & Social Care 2004. PSSRU: University of Kent: Canterbury.Google Scholar
Dalkey, N. C. (1967). Delphi. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2009a). Living Well with Dementia: A National Dementia Strategy. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_094051.pdf; last accessed 3 November 2009.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2009b). Shaping the Future of Care Together. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Ferri, C. P. et al. (2005). Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet, 366, 2112–2117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagger, C. et al. (2009). The effect of dementia trends and treatments on longevity and disability: a simulation model based on the MRC Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (MRC CFAS). Age and Ageing, 38, 319–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, A. F., Dear, K. B. G. and Burgess, N. M. (2005). Projections of future numbers of dementia cases in Australia with and without prevention. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 959–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M. et al. (2007). Dementia UK. London: Alzheimer's Society.Google Scholar
Laing, W. (2004). Calculating the Costs of Efficient Care Homes: Findings. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
McNamee, P., Gregson, B. A., Buck, D., Bamford, C. H., Bond, J. and Wright, K. (1999). Cost of formal care for frail older people in England: the resource implications study of the MRC cognitive function and ageing study. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNamee, P., Bond, J. and Buck, D. (2001). Costs of dementia in England and Wales in the 21st century. British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melzer, D., McWilliams, B., Brayne, C., Johnson, T. and Bond, J. (1999). Profile of disability in elderly people: estimates from a longitudinal population study. BMJ, 318, 1108–1111.Google ScholarPubMed
MRC CFAS (1998). Cognitive function and dementia in six areas of England and Wales: the distribution of MMSE and prevalence of GMS organicity level in the MRC CFA Study. Psychological Medicine, 28, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. K. et al. (1998). Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2, 1–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloane, P. D. et al. (2002). The public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, 2002–2050: potential implication of treatment advances. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. (1999). Identifying appropriate tasks for the preregistration year: modified Delphi technique. BMJ, 319, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimo, A., Jonsson, L. and Winblad, B. (2006). An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and direct costs of dementia, 2003. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 21, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittenberg, R., Pickard, L., Comas-Herrera, A., Davies, B. and Darton, R. (1998). Demand for Long-Term Care: Projections of Long-Term Care Finance for Elderly People, Canterbury. U.K.: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., King, D., Malley, J., Pickard, L and Darton, R. (2006). Future Demand for Long-Term Care, 2002 to 2041: Projections of Demand for Long-Term Care for Older People in England, PSSRU Discussion Paper 2330, March 2006. Canterbury. U.K.: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent.Google Scholar