IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/108401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Influences of service characteristics and older people’s attributes on outcomes from direct payments

Author

Listed:
  • Davey, Vanessa

Abstract

Background: Direct payments (DPs) are cash-payments that eligible individuals can receive to purchase care services by themselves. DPs are central to current social care policy in England, but their advantages remain controversial. This controversy is partly due to their lack of historical visibility: DPs were deployed in stages, bundled with other policy instruments (first individual budgets, then personal budgets), and amidst increasing budgetary constraints. As a result, little unequivocal evidence is available about the effectiveness of DPs as an instrument for older people’s care. This study aims to partially fill that gap using data obtained during an early evaluation of DP’s that took place between 2005 and 07. Methods: Semi-structured 81 face-to-face interviews with older people (and their proxies) using DPs are analyzed. DPs contribution to outcomes was measured using a standardized utility scale. Data on individual characteristics (dependency, informal support) and received services (types and amount of services) was also gathered. Multiple regression analyses were performed between measured outcome gains and individual and service characteristics. A Poisson log-functional form was selected to account for the low mean and positive skew of outcome gains. Results: Levels of met need compared very favorably to average social care outcomes in the domains of social participation, control over daily living and safety, and user satisfaction was high. Benefit from DPs was particularly affected by the role and function of unpaid care and availability of recruitment support. The freedom to combine funded care packages with self-funded care enhanced the positive impact of the former. The ability to purchase care that deviated from standardized care inputs improved service benefits. Large discrepancies between total care input and that supported through DPs negatively affected outcomes. Conclusions: The results offer clarity regarding the benefit derived from receiving DPs. They also clarify contested aspects of the policy such as the influence of unpaid care, types of care received, funding levels and the role of wider support arrangements. Tangible benefits may results from direct payments but those benefits are highly dependent on policy implementation practices. Implementation of DPs should pay special attention to the balance between DP funded care and unpaid care.

Suggested Citation

  • Davey, Vanessa, 2021. "Influences of service characteristics and older people’s attributes on outcomes from direct payments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:108401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108401/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N., 2008. "What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 111-121, July.
    2. Glasby, Jon & Littlechild, Rosemary, 2016. "Direct Payments and Personal Budgets," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9781447326755, Febrero.
    3. Bernard van den Berg & Pol Spauwen, 2006. "Measurement of informal care: an empirical study into the valid measurement of time spent on informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-460, May.
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:3503 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2010. "Microeconometrics Using Stata, Revised Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number musr, March.
    6. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eva Pattyn & Paul Gemmel & Sophie Vandepitte & Jeroen Trybou, 2023. "Do Cash-For-Care Schemes Increase Care Users’ Experience of Empowerment? A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 317-341, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juan Oliva-Moreno & Marta Trapero-Bertran & Luz Maria Peña-Longobardo & Raúl del Pozo-Rubio, 2017. "The Valuation of Informal Care in Cost-of-Illness Studies: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 331-345, March.
    2. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    3. Bou, Camille, 2023. "Factors associated with the quality-of-life of young unpaid carers: a systematic review of the evidence from 2003 to 2019," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118357, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Camille Bou, 2023. "Factors Associated with the Quality-of-Life of Young Unpaid Carers: A Systematic Review of the Evidence from 2003 to 2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-15, March.
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2013-035 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mihic, Marko M. & Todorovic, Marija Lj. & Obradovic, Vladimir Lj., 2014. "Economic analysis of social services for the elderly in Serbia: Two sides of the same coin," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 9-21.
    7. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    8. Kehl, Konstantin & Stahlschmidt, Stephan, 2013. "A new perspective on the economic valuation of informal care: The well-being approach revisited," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2013-035, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    9. Maria Gheorghe & Renske J. Hoefman & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Job Exel, 2019. "Estimating Informal Caregiving Time from Patient EQ-5D Data: The Informal CARE Effect (iCARE) Tool," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 93-103, January.
    10. Eve Wittenberg & Grant A. Ritter & Lisa A. Prosser, 2013. "Evidence of Spillover of Illness among Household Members," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 235-243, February.
    11. van den Berg, Bernard & Fiebig, Denzil G. & Hall, Jane, 2014. "Well-being losses due to care-giving," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 123-131.
    12. Bernard van den Berg & Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell, 2007. "Monetary valuation of informal care: the well‐being valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1227-1244, November.
    13. Thomas Y. Mathä & Alessandro Porpiglia & Michael Ziegelmeyer, 2014. "Wealth differences across borders and the effect of real estate price dynamics: Evidence from two household surveys," BCL working papers 90, Central Bank of Luxembourg.
    14. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    15. Jarle Aarstad & Olav Andreas Kvitastein & Stig-Erik Jakobsen, 2019. "What Drives Enterprise Product Innovation? Assessing How Regional, National, And International Inter-Firm Collaboration Complement Or Substitute For R&D Investments," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(05), pages 1-25, June.
    16. Babigumira, Ronnie & Angelsen, Arild & Buis, Maarten & Bauch, Simone & Sunderland, Terry & Wunder, Sven, 2014. "Forest Clearing in Rural Livelihoods: Household-Level Global-Comparative Evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 67-79.
    17. Gilles Grolleau & Murat C. Mungan & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2024. "Punishment menus and their deterrent effects: an exploratory analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Raza, W.A. & Panda, P. & Van de Poel, E. & Dror, D.M. & Bedi, A.S., 2013. "Healthcare Seeking Behavior among Self-help Group Households in Rural Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, India," ISS Working Papers - General Series 50172, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    19. Altorjai, Szilvia, 2013. "Over-qualification of immigrants in the UK," ISER Working Paper Series 2013-11, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    20. Tao, Miaomiao, 2024. "Dynamics between electric vehicle uptake and green development: Understanding the role of local government competition," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 227-240.
    21. Iootty De Paiva Dias,Mariana & Pop,Georgiana & Pena,Jorge O., 2020. "Corporate Market Power in Romania : Assessing Recent Trends, Drivers, and Implications for Competition," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9487, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consumer-directed care; Direct payments; older people; personal budgets; social care outcomes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E6 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:108401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.