Table 5.
Relationship between relevant supply factors and bed density using linear regression
|
Explanatory variables
|
Dependent variables
|
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |
Overall bed-density
a
of IF 2010 Tokyo |
Change in bed-density
a
of IF 2002-2010 Tokyo |
Overall bed-density
a
of PNH 2008 Tokyo |
Overall bed-density
a
of IF 2009 NRW |
Change in bed-density
a
of 1999 -2009 NRW |
|||||
| Coefficient (95% CI) | β | Coefficient (95% CI) b | β | Coefficient (95% CI) | β | Coefficient (95% CI) | β | Coefficient (95% CI) | β | |
| Constant |
-27.85 (-211.13; 155.43) |
- |
22.69 (0.44; 44.94) |
- |
43.80 (-3.66; 91.26) |
- |
32.55 (15.18; 49.91) |
- |
39.36 (26.61; 52.10) |
- |
|
Explanatory variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs/cost relevant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average facility size (beds) |
0.47 (0.03; 0.92) |
0.20* c |
0.03 (-0.02; 0.09) |
0.10 |
0.11 (0.04; 0.18) |
0.39** c |
-0.07 (-0.19; 0.05) |
-0.15 |
Eliminated |
- |
| LTA land price (¥1000 s)/ LTA rent-level for N |
-0.08 (-0.15;-0.02) |
-0.47* |
Eliminated |
- |
-0.01 (-0.02;0.00) |
-0.23 |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
| LTA wage of elderly care nurse for T (¥1000 s)/ LTA duration for care nurse searchd for N (days) |
0.22 (-0.59; 1.04) |
0.05 |
Eliminated |
- |
-0.19 (-0.37;-0.01) |
-0.30* |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
|
Need |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LTA percent elderlye needing LTC |
-8.96 (-13.31;-4.61) |
-0.37*** |
-66.26 (-160.91; 23.40) |
-0.14 |
1.16 (0.04; 2.28) |
0.32* |
1.46 (0.63; 2.28) |
0.45*** |
Eliminated |
- |
| LTA growth rate of elderlye needing LTC |
- |
- |
-0.82 (-1.87; 0.22) |
-0.14 |
0.88 (0.03;1.74) |
0.25* |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
|
Profit/political intervention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Initial bed-densitya of IF |
- |
- |
-0.21 (-0.30;-0.13) |
-0.82*** |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.39 (-0.52;-0.26) |
-0.59** |
| LTA bed-density of IF for PNH/LTA bed-density of PNH for IF in T |
- |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Density of subsidized bedsa |
-0.64 (-1.99; 0.72) |
-0.10 |
0.52 (0.29; 0.76) |
0.19*** |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Demand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LTA percent elderlye |
6.96 (5.15; 8.77) |
0.62*** |
Eliminated |
- |
-1.26 (-2.17;-0.36) |
-0.38** |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
| LTA growth rate of elderlye |
Eliminated |
- |
-1.09 (-1.94;-0.23) |
-0.20* |
-0.99 (-2.31; 0.34) |
-0.29 |
-2.20 (-4.86; 0.48) |
-0.22 |
- 1.85 (-3.36;-0.35) |
- 0.24* |
| LTA residential tax for T (¥1000 s)/LTA disposal income for N (€1000 s) |
0.25 (-0.02; 0.52) |
0.32 |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
Eliminated |
- |
-0.98 (-1.64;-0.31) |
-0.29** |
| R2 |
0.74 |
- |
0.82 |
- |
0.56 |
- |
0.24 |
- |
0.56 |
- |
| Adjusted R2 |
0.70 |
- |
0.79 |
- |
0.48 |
- |
0.19 |
- |
0.53 |
- |
| F |
18.70*** |
- |
29.92*** |
- |
7.17*** |
- |
5.13** |
- |
20.82*** |
- |
| N | 54 | - | 51 | - | 47 | - | 54 | - | 54 | - |
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
aBed density: number of beds per 1000 elderly adults aged 65 years and over.
bRobust standard errors were computed to correct for possible heteroskedasticity.
cBoth coefficients for average facility size remained positively significant after additional adjustment for the number of elderly adults accounting for bias caused by bed density which automatically increases with decreasing number of elderly adults.
dVacancy duration for search of skilled care nurse: time taken for an employer to find a skilled elderly care nurse.
eElderly persons: those aged 65 years and over.