Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 585–596 | Cite as

An Examination of Downstream Effects of Bereavement on Healthcare Utilization for Surviving Spouses in a National Sample of Older Adults

  • Katherine A. OrnsteinEmail author
  • Melissa M. Garrido
  • Albert L. Siu
  • Evan Bollens-Lund
  • Omari-Khalid Rahman
  • Amy S. Kelley
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

While bereavement is associated with increased mortality, it is unclear how bereaved families utilize the healthcare system after the death of their loved ones.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the association between bereavement and healthcare expenditures for surviving spouses.

Methods

We used data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative cohort study of older adults linked to Medicare claims. We determined a spouse’s total Medicare expenditures 2 years before and after their partner’s death across six biennial interview waves. Using coarsened exact matching, we created a comparison group of non-bereaved dyads. Costs were wage index- and inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. We used generalized linear models and difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to calculate the average marginal effects of bereavement on Medicare spending by gender. We also examined subgroup differences based on caregiver status, cause of death, and length of terminal illness.

Results

Our sample consisted of 941 bereaved dyads and a comparison group of 8899 matched dyads. Surviving female spouses (68% of the sample) had a $3500 increase in spending 2 years after death (p < 0.05). Using DID analyses, bereavement was associated with a $625 quarterly increase in Medicare expenditures over 2 years for women. There was no significant increase in post-death spending for male bereaved surviving spouses. Results were consistent for spouses who survived at least 2 years after the death of their spouse (70% of the sample)

Conclusions

Bereavement is associated with increased healthcare spending for women regardless of their caregiving status, the cause of death, or length of terminal illness. Further study is required to examine why men and women have different patterns of healthcare spending relative to the death of their spouses.

Notes

Author Contributions

KO and AK developed the research question, and KO, MG, O-KR and EB-L developed the research methodology and conducted the analyses. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Katherine Ornstein, Melissa Garrido, Albert Siu, Evan Bollens-Lund, Omari-Khalid Rahman, and Amy Kelley have no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

The HRS is funded by the National Institute of Aging (NIA) [NIA U01 AG009740] and the Social Security Administration. The study investigators were supported by the National Institute on Aging (Grant Numbers K01AG047923 [Dr. Ornstein] and R01AG054540 [Dr. Kelley]), and VA HSR&D 16-140 (Dr. Garrido). The funding sources had no role in the design, conduct, and analysis of this study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

40273_2019_787_MOESM1_ESM.docx (818 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 817 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ornstein KA, et al. A national profile of end-of-life caregiving in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2003;18(2):250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buyck JF, et al. Informal caregiving and the risk for coronary heart disease: the Whitehall II Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(10):1316–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ho SC, et al. Impact of caregiving on health and quality of life: a comparative population-based study of caregivers for elderly persons and noncaregivers. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(8):873–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Son J, et al. The caregiver stress process and health outcomes. J Aging Health. 2007;19(6):871–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reeves KW, Bacon K, Fredman L. Caregiving associated with selected cancer risk behaviors and screening utilization among women: cross-sectional results of the 2009 BRFSS. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elwert F, Christakis NA. The effect of widowhood on mortality by the causes of death of both spouses. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(11):2092–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parkes CM, Benjamin B, Fitzgerald RG. Broken heart: a statistical study of increased mortality among widowers. Br Med J. 1969;1(5646):740–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stroebe M, Schut H, Stroebe W. Health outcomes of bereavement. Lancet. 2007;370(9603):1960–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan AR, Fenelon A. Patterns of widowhood mortality. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(1):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vable AM, et al. Does the “widowhood effect” precede spousal bereavement? Results from a nationally representative sample of older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23(3):283–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McHorney CA, Mor V. Predictors of bereavement depression and its health services consequences. Med Care. 1988;26(9):882–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore MJ, Zhu CW, Clipp EC. Informal costs of dementia care: estimates from the National Longitudinal Caregiver Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56(4):S219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulz R, Cook T, Hunt G. AD caregivers: healthcare utilizations and cost over 18 months. Gerontologist. 2011;51(S2):568.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grasel E. When home care ends: changes in the physical health of informal caregivers caring for dementia patients: a longitudinal study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):843–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guldin MB, et al. Healthcare utilization of bereaved relatives of patients who died from cancer. A national population-based study. Psychooncology. 2013;22(5):1152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prigerson HG, Maciejewski PK, Rosenheck RA. Preliminary explorations of the harmful interactive effects of widowhood and marital harmony on health, health service use, and health care costs. Gerontologist. 2000;40(3):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rolden HJ, van Bodegom D, Westendorp RG. Changes in health care expenditure after the loss of a spouse: data on 6,487 older widows and widowers in the Netherlands. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stephen AI, et al. The economic cost of bereavement in Scotland. Death Stud. 2015;39(1–5):151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shah SM, et al. Impact of partner bereavement on quality of cardiovascular disease management. Circulation. 2013;128(25):2745–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carey IM, et al. Increased risk of acute cardiovascular events after partner bereavement: a matched cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ornstein KA, et al. Downstream effects of end-of-life care for older adults with serious illness on health care utilization of family caregivers. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(9):736–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hurd MD, et al. Monetary costs of dementia in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(14):1326–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van den Berg B, Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA. Economic valuation of informal care. An overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5(1):36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Family Caregiver Alliance. Caregiving. 2009 [cited 19 Sep 2013]. Available at: http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=2313.
  26. 26.
    Health and Retirement Study. 2013 [cited 17 Sep 2013]. Available at: http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu/.
  27. 27.
    United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. 2018 [cited 15 Jul 2018]. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.
  28. 28.
    MEDPAC. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. [cited 15 Jul 2018]. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/.
  29. 29.
    Wennberg JE, Cooper M. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. 2013 [cited 17 Sep 2013]. Available at: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/.
  30. 30.
    Iacus CM, King G, Porro G. Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit Anal. 2011;20:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garrido MM, et al. Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(5):1701–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deb P, Norton EC. Modeling health care expenditures and use. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Katz SJ, Kabeto M, Langa KM. Gender disparities in the receipt of home care for elderly people with disability in the United States. JAMA. 2000;284(23):3022–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davydow DS, et al. Depressive symptoms in spouses of older patients with severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(8):2335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ryan AM, Burgess JF Jr, Dimick JB. Why we should not be indifferent to specification choices for difference-in-differences. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(4):1211–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang AY, Zyzanski SJ, Siminoff LA. Differential patient-caregiver opinions of treatment and care for advanced lung cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(8):1155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morgan T, et al. Gender and family caregiving at the end-of-life in the context of old age: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2016;30(7):616–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Washington KT, et al. Gender differences in caregiving at end of life: implications for hospice teams. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(12):1048–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: an updated meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2006;61(1):P33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams LA, et al. ‘Because it’s the wife who has to look after the man’: a descriptive qualitative study of older women and the intersection of gender and the provision of family caregiving at the end of life. Palliat Med. 2017;31(3):223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    DiGiacomo M, et al. Transitioning from caregiving to widowhood. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;46(6):817–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burkhauser RV, et al. Until death do us part: an analysis of the economic well-being of widows in four countries. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005;60(5):S238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    DiGiacomo M, et al. The business of death: a qualitative study of financial concerns of widowed older women. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moon JR, et al. Widowhood and mortality: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dunlay SM, et al. Patient and spousal health and outcomes in heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10(10) (pii: e004088).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Caregiving in the U.S. 2015. National Alliance for Caregiving and the AARP Public Policy Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Calasanti T, King N. Taking ‘women’s work’ ‘like a man’: husbands’ experiences of care work. Gerontologist. 2007;47(4):516–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Calasanti T. Feminist gerontology and old men. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2004;59(6):S305–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geriatrics and Palliative MedicineInstitute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Law, Policy and ManagementBoston VA Healthcare System, Boston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geriatrics and Palliative MedicineIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations