IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Utilization of Home Healthcare Service by Medicare-Medicaid Dual Eligibles

Listed author(s):
  • Jaeun Shin


    (KDI School of Public Policy and Management)

  • Sangho Moon


    (Graduate School of Goverance, SungKyunKwan University)

Registered author(s):

    This study explores the characteristics of Medicare-only beneficiaries and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles in comparison, assess what factors determine the dual eligibility status, and examine the association between dual eligibility status and home healthcare service use. Using retrospective observational study of the U.S. 1996-2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we find that dual eligibles are disadvantaged in various personal characteristics compared to Medicare-only beneficiaries. The major predictors of dual eligibility status are race/ethnicity, family income and health conditions. Dual eligibles are likely to use more of both paid and unpaid home healthcare service, and subsequently induce higher total expenditures on home healthcare. As dual eligible population may be one contributor to the rapid growth in utilization and spending on home healthcare service in Medicare and Medicaid programs, policy makers need to precisely assess the medical need among the beneficiaries to efficiently coordinate Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Society for AEF in its journal Annals of Economics and Finance.

    Volume (Year): 6 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 1 (May)
    Pages: 89-104

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2005:v:6:i:1:p:89-104
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
    2. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2005:v:6:i:1:p:89-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Qiang Gao)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.