Table 3.
Models of Wage Pass-through Adoption, with and without Neighboring State Adoption (t – 1) (2000–2004, 1999–2004)
| With Neighboring State (2000–2004) |
Without Neighboring State (1999–2004) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variables | Beta (SE) |
Odds Ratio |
Beta (SE) |
Odds Ratio |
| Balanced Budget Act implementation | −.041 (.167) | .960 | −.058 (.142) | 0.944 |
| Neighboring state adoption (t – 1) | .026** (.014) | 1.026 | — | — |
| Elder advocacy power (strength*size) | .039 (.501) | 1.040 | −.079 (.339) | .924 |
| Industry power (strength*size) | −.086*** (.033) | .918 | −.072*** (.028) | .931 |
| Percentage nursing facilities for-profit | −.049** (.025) | .952 | −.051*** (.022) | .950 |
| Governor’s party Democratic | −.758 (.546) | .469 | −.782 (.530) | .457 |
| Gubernatorial power | −.249 (.333) | .780 | −.138 (.307) | .871 |
| Legislative professionalism | .450*** (.176) | 1.568 | .475*** (.193) | 1.608 |
| Administrative capacity | 2.633**** (.798) | 13.915 | 2.131*** (.785) | 8.423 |
| Avg. licensed nursing hours/day (t – 1) | −2.297 (1.910) | .101 | −1.731 (1.660) | .177 |
| Avg. percentage Medicaid residents (t – 1) | .088* (.066) | 1.092 | .071 (.057) | 1.074 |
| Medically needy program (t – 1) | −.462 (.962) | .630 | −.510 (.940) | .600 |
| Average per diem Medicaid rate (t – 1) | .025 (.021) | 1.025 | .013 (.021) | 1.013 |
| Home health agencies/100,000 (t – 1) | .295 (.236) | 1.343 | .012 (.162) | 1.012 |
| Percentage budgetary surplus (t – 1) | .028** (.015) | 1.028 | .037*** (.015) | 1.038 |
| Unemployment rate (t – 1) | −.717* (.490) | .488 | −.896** (.500) | .408 |
| Per capita gross state product (t – 1) (log) | −2.092 (2.866) | .123 | −2.533 (2.881) | .079 |
| Senior citizen influence (strength) | .570 (6.727) | 1.768 | 2.028 (4.576) | 7.599 |
| Nursing home influence (strength) | 4.644*** (1.741) | 103.959 | 3.832** (1.514) | 46.155 |
| Percentage population 65+ (size) | −.442** (.237) | .643 | −.386* (.221) | 0.680 |
| Beds per 1,000 65+ (size) | −.021 (.036) | 0.979 | −.010 (.033) | 0.990 |
| Year 2000 | — | — | 1.097** (.520) | 2.995 |
| Year 2001 | −.777 (.497) | .460 | .343 (.742) | 1.409 |
| Year 2002 | .579 (.845) | 1.784 | 2.022** (.814) | 7.553 |
| Year 2003 | .895 (1.267) | 2.447 | 2.952** (1.165) | 19.144 |
| Year 2004 | .776 (1.312) | 2.173 | 2.724** (1.217) | 15.241 |
| Constant | 14.922 (30.757) | 20.391 (20.889) | ||
|
N = 235, 47 states Cases scored adopt: 24% −2 log pseudo likelihood: 1247.61 |
N = 282, 47 states Cases scored adopt: 22% −2 log pseudo likelihood: 1507.14 |
|||
Notes: Cell entries are pseudo maximum likelihood estimated slopes with odds ratios to the right and robust standard errors below. Alaska, Hawaii, and Arizona were excluded from all analyses because of missing data. SE = standard error
*
p < .10;
**
p < .05;
***
p < .01;
****
p < .001
(All significance tests are one-tailed except for those of the intercept, yearly indicators, and four strength/size variables used to calculate senior advocacy and nursing home power.)