Did the Number of Older People Requiring Long-Term Care and Expenditure Increase after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake? Analysis of Changes over Six Years
1
Department of Welfare Systems and Health Science, Okayama Prefectural University, Soja, Okayama 719-1197, Japan
2
Department of Community Welfare, Niimi University, Niimi, Okayama 718-8585, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(5), 1621; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051621
Submission received: 8 January 2020
/
Revised: 28 February 2020
/
Accepted: 29 February 2020
/
Published: 3 March 2020
Abstract
:On 11 March 2011, the great earthquake hit Japan, resulting in 15,895 deaths, 6156 serious injuries, and 2539 missing persons. This event affected the health and lives of older residents, and reports showed an increase in the number of people eligible for long-term care afterward. In this study, among the places affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, we focused on 15 municipalities, including designated municipalities based on the Special Act on Nuclear Evacuation in Fukushima Prefecture, and aimed to clarify the medium-term effects (six years post-disaster) on the long-term care certification rate and expenditure for provision of services. We used the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare Monthly Status Report on Long-Term Care Insurance and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Population Register for 2011, 2014, and 2017. In 2011, we found no intergroup differences among the 15 Fukushima municipalities and other municipalities in either the long-term care certification rate or the per-person expenditure for use of services. In 2014, after the earthquake, the long-term care certification rate was 5.4% higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in other municipalities for those aged 75 years or older. The rate of 2014–2017 has not increased significantly, partly because of stability after the disaster and change in the population structure. Nevertheless, the long-term care certification rate in the 15 Fukushima municipalities is higher than that of the other two groups even after six years since the earthquake. Similarly, the per-person expenditure for use of services for one month was 11,800 yen higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in other municipalities in 2014, and this trend continued into 2017. Strong, ongoing governmental support is needed, especially for those aged 75 or older, following a disaster.
1. Introduction
Disasters cause numerous casualties [1,2,3] and negatively impact the survivors [4,5]. Previous studies indicated that besides direct injuries in the disaster, there is an increase of acute stress, depression, and heart disease [6,7,8,9]. Disasters particularly affect vulnerable older people [10,11]. On March 2011, the great earthquake hit Japan, resulting in 15,895 deaths, 6156 serious injuries, and 2539 missing persons. The Fukushima power plant incident and destruction of homes caused by the resulting tsunami left many people living in evacuation centers. These events significantly affected the health and lives of older residents [12], and reports showed an increase in the number of people eligible for long-term care [13].
Areas in the Fukushima, Iwate, and Miyagi prefectures that were devastated by the tsunami had a higher long-term care certification rate from 2011 to 2014 compared to other areas [14,15]. In the 190 municipalities to which the Disaster Relief Act applied, the number of residents aged 75 years and older who required medium-term care increased after the earthquake (2009 vs. 2011) [16]. We examined the change in the number of people certified for long-term care over the three-year period from 2011 to 2014 in 15 municipalities in Fukushima, including designated municipalities based on the Special Act on Nuclear Evacuation, (Iwaki city, Soma city, Tamura city, Minami-Soma city, Kawamata town, Hirono town, Naraha town, Tomioka town, Kawauchi village, Okuma town, Futaba town, Namie town, Katsurao village, Shinchi town, and Iitate village) that were particularly destroyed by the tsunami, and found that the number of people requiring minor or medium care increased [17].
Studies to date have examined changes for about three years after the earthquake, but the impact of the earthquake may not have been short-lived and may have affected the health and behavior of residents over the medium to long term. Therefore, studying the number of people certified for long-term care and other factors from a medium- to long-term perspective would be useful.
In this study, among the places affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, we focused on 15 coastal municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture that were particularly devastated by the tsunami, and aimed to clarify the medium-term effects (six years post-disaster) of a major disaster, a tsunami, on the long-term care certification rate and expenditure for provision of services.
2. Method
2.1. Data
In this study, we used the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare Monthly Status Report on Long-Term Care Insurance for January 2011, 2014, and 2017, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Population Register for 2011, 2014, and 2017. The Monthly Status Report on Long-term Care Insurance data and Population Register data for 2011, 2014, and 2017 were combined. The number of people certified for long-term care and the number of people receiving services were obtained from the Monthly Status Report on Long-Term Care Insurance. The per-person expenditure for use of services was calculated by dividing the total cost of each service (home-based services, community, facility) by the total number of users. Long-term care certification rate was calculated by dividing the number of people certified for long-term care by the population aged 65 and over. The ratio of people aged 75 or older was calculated by dividing the population 75 years or older in the population by the population 65 years or older. The population data was obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
The municipalities were divided into three groups for inter-regional comparison: (1) 15 municipalities in Fukushima that were severely impacted by the tsunami (“15 Fukushima municipalities”), (2) municipalities in Fukushima other than those mentioned in (1) and municipalities in the Miyagi and Iwate prefectures that neighbor Fukushima (“nearby municipalities”), and (3) municipalities in other prefectures (“other municipalities”).
2.2. Long-Term Care Insurance Program in Japan
Medical insurance and long-term insurance are operated by the national insurance program in Japan. Medical insurance was founded in 1961. Additionally, Japan has provided a long-term care insurance program since 2000 (social insurance system) for the increasing older population. Long-term care insurance is broadly divided into institutional services and home-based services. Receiving long-term care services requires long-term care certification. The long-term care certification process begins with an application by the individual, followed by examination of their mental and physical condition by certification screening personnel and a diagnosis from their primary physician. Based on those results, the municipality that is their insurer conducts a screening by its long-term care certification screening committee and makes the final decision on the level of care required. Aside from noneligibility, seven levels of care are available: levels 1 and 2 (support needs) and levels 3 to 7 (long-term care needs) [18]. As of the end of 2017, roughly 18% (6.42 million people) of the 34.85 million residents aged 65 years or older have been certified for long-term care need. About 86% of long-term care recipients are aged 75 years or older. With long-term care certification, the service can be paid for by insurance. Service user copayments at the rate of 10%–20% depending on their income are collected as part of the multitiered funding mechanism for the long-term care insurance program.
3. Analysis Method
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
To determine the status before the earthquake, the number of people eligible by care level and number of people receiving services in January 2011 were examined for the (1) 15 Fukushima municipalities, (2) nearby municipalities, and (3) other municipalities, and the rate of increase from 2011 to 2017 was examined. Care level was divided into minor (support need levels 1 or 2, long-term care need level 3), medium (long-term care levels 4 or 5), and major (long-term care levels 6 or 7), and each group was then divided into the ratio of those aged 65 years or older (population aging rate) and the ratio of those aged 75 years or older.
3.2. Analysis of Repeated Measures ANOVA
A repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was performed to test for differences among the three groups, considering between the effects of time (2011, 2014, 2017) and the effects of earthquake and tsunami. The items for analysis included the long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of long-term care insurance services for 2011, 2014, and 2017. As the long-term care certification rate generally increases with increasing age, the long-term care certification rate was higher in municipalities with a larger ratio of individuals aged 75 years or older in the 65 years and older population. To eliminate the effect of that factor, the ratio of those aged 75 years or older was used as a covariate in the analysis. Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, and therefore, a Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Ver. 24 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for the analysis.
4. Results
4.1. Numbers of People Eligible for Long-Term Care and People Receiving Services
The population aging rate before the earthquake (January 2011) was lower in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (26.5%) than in the nearby municipalities (28.1%) and other municipalities (27.4%). A similar trend was observed in 2014 and 2017. The ratio of old-old in the population in 2011 was the highest in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (57.6%). The ratio was next highest in the nearby municipalities (56.2%), followed by the other municipalities (52.5%). In 2017, the ratio was 53.5% in the 15 Fukushima municipalities, 54.2% in the nearby municipalities, and 51.8% in the other municipalities (Table 1).
The number of people certified for long-term care increased from 2011 to 2014 more in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in the nearby municipalities and other municipalities among both the young-old (those aged 65–74 years) and the old-old (those aged 75 years or older) for those with minor or medium need. The ratio of those with minor needs increased more among the 15 Fukushima municipalities (increase of 25.4% for the young-old and 31.7% for the old-old) than the nearby municipalities (increase of 13.2% for the young-old and 21.8% for the old-old) and other municipalities (increase of 19.0% for the young-old and 22.6% for the old-old). The ratio of those with medium need also increased more among the 15 Fukushima municipalities (increase of 12.5% for the young-old and 30.0% for the old-old) than the nearby municipalities (increase of 3.7% for the young-old and 16.5% for the old-old) and other municipalities (increase of 6.1% for the young-old and 14.6% for the old-old). However, the ratio of those with major need for the entire 65+ population increased the least in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (3.6% increase) compared to the nearby municipalities (7.5%) and other municipalities (8.5%), and actually decreased by 10.7% among the young-old in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (Table 1).
From 2014 to 2017, the increase in the ratio was about the same or slightly lower in the 15 Fukushima municipalities for those with minor (increase of 6.8% for the young-old and 9.7% for the old-old) and medium needs (increase of 8.6% for the young-old and 8.9% for the old-old) compared to the nearby and other municipalities. For the entire 65+ population, the ratio of those with major need increased 3.2% in the nearby municipalities and 4.1% in the other municipalities, and decreased 2.1% in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (Table 1).
The number of those receiving services increased more from 2011 to 2014 in the 15 Fukushima municipalities for those with minor need (24.6% increase) and medium need (25.0%) compared with the nearby municipalities (18.5% increase for those with minor need and 17.4% increase for those with medium need) and other municipalities (21.3% increase for those with minor need and 15.8% increase for those with medium need). Although the increase slowed leading up to 2017, the ratio was still higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities for those with minor (19.5% increase) and medium needs (22.6%) compared to the nearby municipalities (14.8% increase for those with minor need and 18.4% increase for those with medium need) and other municipalities (16.1% increase for those with minor need and 20.9% increase for those with medium need). The ratio of those with major need increased less in 2014 in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (2.7%) than in the nearby municipalities (9.6%) and other municipalities (12.9%). A similar trend was seen in 2017 (Table 1).
4.2. Results of Repeated Measures ANOVA
We examined intergroup differences among the 15 Fukushima municipalities, the nearby municipalities, and the other municipalities in the long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of long-term care insurance services (Table 2).
The long-term care certification rate of the people aged 75 years or older was lower in the 15 Fukushima municipalities in 2011 (25.8%) compared to the other two groups (26.1% for nearby municipalities, 28.2% for other municipalities). In contrast, it was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in the other two groups in both 2014 (34.7% for the 15 Fukushima municipalities, 29.3% for the nearby municipalities, 30.3% for the other municipalities) and 2017 (36.5% for the 15 Fukushima municipalities, 30.4% for the nearby municipalities, 30.6% for the other municipalities).
Per-person expenditure for use of services over one month did not differ among the three groups in 2011, but was higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (155,900 yen) compared to the nearby municipalities (144,100 yen) and other municipalities (145,500 yen) in 2014. Although overall expenditure was lower in 2017 than in 2014 in all three groups, it was higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (147,000 yen) compared to the other two groups (138,900 yen and 134,900 yen, respectively) in 2017.
Moreover, a post hoc test was conducted after we completed an RM-ANOVA in order to determine which groups differed from each other. On the long-term care certification rate of all and per-person expenditure for use of services, there was a significant effect of time (2011, 2014, 2017) and time×groups (the 15 Fukushima municipalities, the nearby municipalities, the other municipalities) (p < 0.05; Table 3).
5. Discussion
In this study, among the places affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, we focused on 15 municipalities in the Fukushima Prefecture that were particularly devastated in 2011, and tested the medium-term effects (six years) of the major disaster and the tsunami on the long-term care certification rate and expenditure for provision of long-term care services.
5.1. Long-Term Care Certification Rate Spiked in Disaster Areas and Remained Higher Six Years Later
RM-ANOVA revealed the long-term care certification rate to be roughly the same or lower in the 15 Fukushima municipalities compared to the nearby municipalities and other municipalities in 2011, but 4.4% to 5.4% higher compared with the nearby and other municipalities after the earthquake, remaining 5.9% to 6.1% higher in 2017, six years after the earthquake. The per-person expenditure for use of services over one month did not differ among the three groups in 2011, but was higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities (155,900 yen) compared to the nearby municipalities (143,100 yen) and other municipalities (145,500 yen) in 2014, with a similar trend observed in 2017 (Figure 1). The higher expenditure in 15 Fukushima municipalities can be due to the growth of the number of people with medium-level certification for long-term care, and due to the declining availability of a family caregiver than in the other two groups.
In particular, the long-term care certification rate of the old-old in the 15 Fukushima municipalities was 25.9% in 2011, 34.7% in 2014, and 36.5% in 2017, rising 10.7% higher six years after the earthquake and 6.4% to 8.3% higher than the nearby municipalities (4.3% increase) and other municipalities (2.4% increase) (Figure 2). We did statistical comparisons that were stratified by long-term care level; however, we did not find unconventional views.
Dividing by type of need revealed that the ratio of those with mild or medium need increased more after the earthquake in the 15 Fukushima municipalities compared to the nearby municipalities and other municipalities in both the young-old and the old-old. From 2011 to 2014, the increase was especially pronounced among the old-old, who showed a 31.7% increase in the ratio of those with mild need (9.9% increase for nearby municipalities and 9.1% increase for other municipalities) and a 30% increase in the ratio of those with medium need (13.5% increase for nearby municipalities and 15.4% increase for other municipalities). The increase in the 15 Fukushima municipalities from 2014 to 2017 was roughly equal to that of the other two groups. For all aged 65 or over, a sharp increase in the long-term care certification rate in the 15 Fukushima municipalities has disappeared since 2014. The baby boomers after World War Ⅱ (born between 1947 and 1949) in Japan, which have a particularly large population by age group, have been included in the aged 65–74 since 2014. The proportion of young-old people (aged 65–74) with lower long-term care risk increased, while the proportion of old-old (aged 75 or older) with high long-term care risk decreased. Therefore, the long-term care certification rate of 2011–2014 has increased significantly, but the rate of 2014–2017 has not increased as much, partly because of stability after the disaster and change in the population structure. Nevertheless, the long-term care certification rate in the 15 Fukushima municipalities is higher than that of the other two groups even after six years since the earthquake. In particular, the certification rate and the long-term care certification for the old-old remain higher than the other two groups. The phenomenon that the certification rate increases after the earthquake might continue in the medium term.
In contrast, the ratio of those with major need decreased or only increased a small amount. The reason for this might be that the in-patient long-term care facilities used by many people with major care needs were damaged by the tsunami and staff at the facilities were affected by the tsunami [19,20], so the facilities for those who needed major care could not operate normally and those individuals were admitted to hospitals or long-term care facilities in areas not destroyed by the tsunami.
5.2. Factors Causing Increase in Long-Term Care Certification Rate and Countermeasures
The increase in those with mild or medium needs among those aged 75 years or older was dramatic in disaster-affected areas after the earthquake, and various studies have been conducted to examine the health impacts on people resulting from this earthquake.
A systematic review revealed psychological burdens such as a deterioration in mental health [21] and an increase in prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [22], as well as deterioration in health due to living in an evacuation center or a worse living environment [23], an increase in frailty risk [24], spread of pneumonia [25], and an increase in the number of people with subjective symptoms such as gastrointestinal and/or musculoskeletal symptoms [26].
Although a positive correlation was observed between the provision of medical and nursing care services and the long-term care certification rate [27], 10% of medical institutions were destroyed or closed due to the earthquake in disaster-affected areas [28], and the number of people at the hospitals decreased by 25.1% [29]. As the nursing care facilities themselves also sustained structural damage [19,20], it is unlikely that the increase in the long-term care certification rate was due to an increase in the amount of services provided.
Disaster survivors, and especially those aged 75 years or older, sustained not only direct injuries from the earthquake, but also deterioration in their living environments and psychological effects such as PTSD, as mentioned earlier. Informal care from family and others also declined [23], resulting in activity limitations. Together, these may have led to an increase in long-term care requirements for those with minor and medium need. This situation continued for a medium- to long-term duration. In other words, when a major disaster strikes, deterioration in the environment may lead to the need for long-term care. This suggests that strong and ongoing governmental support is needed to provide assistance with the tasks of daily living and promote social participation [30] to prevent those aged 75 years or older, who are particularly vulnerable to functional disability from losing physical and/or cognitive function, from requiring long-term care.
5.3. Study Limitations and Future Challenges
This study is one of the few studies that used national data from throughout Japan. However, the data used in this study do not provide any information on how individuals who were newly certified for long-term care after the earthquake were affected by the disaster, or their environment following the earthquake. The unreleased health data from Fukushima were a further limitation in this study. Further studies are needed to clarify the factors linked with functional decline and analyze the duration of the effects of a major disaster.
6. Conclusions
In this study, among the places affected by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, we focused on 15 coastal municipalities in the Fukushima Prefecture and analyzed the changes of the effects of a major disaster and tsunami on the long-term care certification rate and expenditure for provision of services over six years after the occurrence.
In 2011, we found no intergroup differences among the 15 Fukushima, nearby, and other municipalities in either the long-term care certification rate or per-person expenditure for use of services. In 2014, after the earthquake, the long-term care certification rate was 6.6% to 8.1% higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in the nearby municipalities and other municipalities for those aged 75 years or older. Similarly, monthly per-person expenditure for use of services was 9900 to 11,800 yen higher in the 15 Fukushima municipalities than in the nearby and other municipalities in 2014, and this trend continued into 2017.
Previous studies indicated that people became certified for long-term care not only due to direct injuries in the earthquake, but also due to deterioration in their living environment after the earthquake and post-traumatic stress, and the adverse effects may be particularly notable in those aged 75 years or older, leading to mild or medium need for long-term care. Strong, ongoing governmental support is needed to assist older people, especially those aged 75 years or older, following a disaster.
Author Contributions
Funding acquisition, Y.I.; Methodology, S.J.; Project administration, Y.I.; Writing—original draft, Y.I.; Writing—review & editing, S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by KAKENHI: 15K17232, 17K04305.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- Nagata, S.; Teramoto, C.; Okamoto, R.; Koide, K.; Nishida, M.; Suzuki, R.; Nomura, M.; Tada, T.; Kishi, E.; Sakai, Y.; et al. The tsunami’s impact on mortality in a town severely damaged by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Disasters 2014, 38 (Suppl. 2), S111–S122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chou, Y.J.; Huang, N.; Lee, C.H.; Tsai, S.L.; Chen, L.S.; Chang, H.J. Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 160, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nomura, S.; Gilmour, S.; Tsubokura, M.; Yoneoka, D.; Sugimoto, A.; Oikawa, T.; Kami, M.; Shibuya, K. Mortality risk amongst nursing home residents evacuated after the Fukushima nuclear accident: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kolves, K.; Kolves, K.E.; De Leo, D. Natural disasters and suicidal behaviours: A systematic literature review. J. Affect. Disord. 2013, 146, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orui, M.; Sato, Y.; Tazaki, K.; Kawamura, I.; Harada, S.; Hayashi, M. Delayed increase in male suicide rates in tsunami disaster-stricken areas following the great east japan earthquake: A three-year follow-up study in Miyagi Prefecture. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2015, 235, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayman, K.G.; Sharma, D.; Wardlow, R.D.; Singh, S. Burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality following humanitarian emergencies: A systematic literature review. Prehosp. Disaster Med. 2015, 30, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edmondson, D.; Gamboa, C.; Cohen, A.; Anderson, A.H.; Kutner, N.; Kronish, I.; Mills, M.A.; Muntner, P. Association of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality and hospitalization among Hurricane Katrina survivors with end-stage renal disease. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, e130–e137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, C.S.; Pfefferbaum, B. Mental health response to community disasters: A systematic review. JAMA 2013, 310, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uscher-Pines, L. Health effects of relocation following disaster: A systematic review of the literature. Disasters 2009, 33, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngo, E.B. When disasters and age collide: Reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2001, 2, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, L.S.; Byard, D.; Lin, C.C.; Benson, S.; Barbera, J.A. Frail elderly as disaster victims: Emergency management strategies. Prehosp. Disaster Med. 2002, 17, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nakamura, M.; Tanaka, K.; Tanaka, F.; Matsuura, Y.; Komi, R.; Niiyama, M.; Kawakami, M.; Koeda, Y.; Sakai, T.; Onoda, T.; et al. Long-Term Effects of the 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on Incidence of Fatal and Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 2017, 120, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fukushima University. Report on a Program to Study the Need for Support Based on Analysis of Factors that Increase the Rate of Long-Term Care Certification in Fukushima Prefecture (FY 2014 Subsidy for Costs of a Program to Promote Geriatric Health Care—Program to Promote Geriatric Health); Fukushima University: Fukushima, Japan, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Tomata, Y.; Kakizaki, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Hashimoto, S.; Kawado, M.; Tsuji, I. Impact of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on functional disability among older people: A longitudinal comparison of disability prevalence among Japanese municipalities. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 530–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tomata, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Kawado, M.; Yamada, H.; Murakami, Y.; Mieno, M.N.; Shibata, Y.; Ojima, T.; Hashimoto, S.; Tsuji, I. Long-term impact of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on functional disability among older people: A 3-year longitudinal comparison of disability prevalence among Japanese municipalities. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 147, 296–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Osawa, R. The effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake on the long-term care certification rate in municipalities. J. Health Welf. Stat. 2015, 62, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
- Inoue, Y.; Jeong, S. Analysis of temporal changes in the long-term care certification rate in 15 Municipalities in Fukuoka. In Report on a Program to Study the Need for Support Based on Analysis of Factors that Increase the Rate of Long-Term Care Certification in Fukushima Prefecture (FY 2014 Subsidy for Costs of a Program to Promote Geriatric Health Care—Program to Promote Geriatric Health); Fukushima University: Fukushima, Japan, 2015; pp. 4–12. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Long-Term Care Certification. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/hukushi_kaigo/kaigo_koureisha/nintei/index.html (accessed on 7 January 2020).
- Japan Institute of Healthcare Architecture. Research Report on the State of Facilities for Older Adults after the Great East Japan Earthquake; Japan Institute of Healthcare Architecture: Tokyo, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Yamaguchi, K.; Ishii, S.; Inoue, Y. A study on damage to facilities for older adults in the Great East Japan Earthquake and the state of program continuity. J. Archit. Plan. 2013, 78, 1733–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murakami, A.; Sasaki, H.; Pascapurnama, D.N.; Egawa, S. Noncommunicable Diseases After the Great East Japan Earthquake: Systematic Review, 2011–2016. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2018, 12, 396–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ando, S.; Kuwabara, H.; Araki, T.; Kanehara, A.; Tanaka, S.; Morishima, R.; Kondo, S.; Kasai, K. Mental Health Problems in a Community After the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011: A Systematic Review. Harvard Rev. Psychiatry 2017, 25, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasegawa, M.; Murakami, M.; Nomura, S.; Takebayashi, Y.; Tsubokura, M. Worsening Health Status among Evacuees: Analysis of Medical Expenditures after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster in Fukushima. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2019, 248, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsubota-Utsugi, M.; Yonekura, Y.; Tanno, K.; Nozue, M.; Shimoda, H.; Nishi, N.; Sakata, K.; Kobayashi, S. Association between health risks and frailty in relation to the degree of housing damage among elderly survivors of the great East Japan earthquake. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasaki, K. Challenges in geriatric dental health care after a large-scale disaster. Geriatr. Med. 2012, 50, 305–308. [Google Scholar]
- Watanabe, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Tsuboya, T.; Tomota, Y.; Sugahara, Y.; Kanemura, S.; Kakizaki, M.; Tsuji, I. Change in the rate of those with subjective symptoms following the Great East Japan Earthquake: Comparison of health examinations on disaster survivors and the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions. J. Health Welf. Stat. 2013, 60, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Nakamura, H. The effects of care receipt on regional differences in long-term care certification rate. J. Health Welf. Stat. 2006, 53, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Kawado, M.; Mieno, M.; Murakami, Y.; Yamada, H.; Hashimoto, S. Destruction and closure of medical institutions after the Great East Japan Earthquake based on the Survey of Medical Institutions. J. Health Welf. Stat. 2015, 62, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
- Mieno, M.; Kawado, M.; Murakami, Y.; Yamada, H.; Hashimoto, S. Change in the number of patients at hospitals after the Great East Japan Earthquake based on hospital reports. J. Health Welf. Stat. 2016, 63, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, S.; Inoue, Y.; Kondo, K.; Ide, K.; Miyaguni, Y.; Okada, E.; Takeda, T.; Ojima, T. Correlations between Forgetfulness and Social Participation: Community Diagnosing Indicators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
The change of long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of services for 6 years.
Figure 1.
The change of long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of services for 6 years.
Figure 2.
The change of long-term care certification rate for 6 years by age group.
Table 1.
Number of people eligible for long-term care and number of people receiving services.
| 15 Fukushima Municipalities (n = 15) | Nearby Municipalities (n = 103) | Other Municipalities (n = 1460) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2014 | 2017 | 2011 | 2014 | 2017 | 2011 | 2014 | 2017 | ||||
| Number of people certified for long-term care | Minor need | All | No. people | 9379 | 12,283 | 13,437 | 87,798 | 106,002 | 117,273 | 2,073,450 | 2,531,699 | 2,827,512 |
| Rate of increase | 31.0% | 9.4% | 20.7% | 10.6% | 22.1% | 11.7% | ||||||
| Aged 65–74 | No. people | 1104 | 1384 | 1478 | 10,985 | 12,434 | 13,225 | 290,945 | 346,169 | 367,262 | ||
| Rate of increase | 25.4% | 6.8% | 13.2% | 6.4% | 19.0% | 6.1% | ||||||
| Aged 75+ | No. people | 8275 | 10,899 | 11,959 | 76,813 | 93,568 | 104,048 | 1,782,505 | 2,185,530 | 2,460,250 | ||
| Rate of increase | 31.7% | 9.7% | 21.8% | 11.2% | 22.6% | 12.6% | ||||||
| Medium need | All | No. people | 8410 | 10,746 | 11,696 | 64,677 | 74,352 | 79,502 | 1,445,858 | 1,640,433 | 1,785,245 | |
| Rate of increase | 27.8% | 8.8% | 15.0% | 6.9% | 13.5% | 8.8% | ||||||
| Aged 65–74 | No. people | 1051 | 1182 | 1284 | 7630 | 7912 | 8133 | 194,663 | 206,530 | 213,040 | ||
| Rate of increase | 12.5% | 8.6% | 3.7% | 2.8% | 6.1% | 3.2% | ||||||
| Aged 75+ | No. people | 7359 | 9564 | 10,412 | 57,047 | 66,440 | 71,369 | 1,251,195 | 1,433,903 | 1,572,205 | ||
| Rate of increase | 30.0% | 8.9% | 16.5% | 7.4% | 14.6% | 9.6% | ||||||
| Major need | All | No. people | 7717 | 7997 | 7829 | 53,191 | 57,191 | 59,036 | 1,112,758 | 1,207,547 | 1,257,004 | |
| Rate of increase | 3.6% | −2.1% | 7.5% | 3.2% | 8.5% | 4.1% | ||||||
| Aged 65–74 | No. people | 854 | 763 | 800 | 5771 | 5580 | 5815 | 131,903 | 137,186 | 138,034 | ||
| Rate of increase | −10.7% | 4.8% | −3.3% | 4.2% | 4.0% | 0.6% | ||||||
| Aged 75+ | No. people | 6863 | 7234 | 7029 | 48,197 | 51,611 | 53,221 | 980,800 | 1,070,361 | 1,118,970 | ||
| Rate of increase | 5.4% | −2.8% | 7.1% | 3.1% | 9.1% | 4.5% | ||||||
| Number of people receiving services | Minor need | No. people | 7013 | 8735 | 10,441 | 64,333 | 76,203 | 87,489 | 1,510,199 | 1,831,646 | 2,127,178 | |
| Rate of increase | 24.6% | 19.5% | 18.5% | 14.8% | 21.3% | 16.1% | ||||||
| Medium need | No. people | 8017 | 10,018 | 12,283 | 60,420 | 70,905 | 83,985 | 1,362,305 | 1,576,896 | 1,906,050 | ||
| Rate of increase | 25.0% | 22.6% | 17.4% | 18.4% | 15.8% | 20.9% | ||||||
| Major need | No. people | 7242 | 7441 | 7847 | 49,352 | 54,105 | 58,922 | 1,005,550 | 1,134,855 | 1,247,783 | ||
| Rate of increase | 2.7% | 5.5% | 9.6% | 8.9% | 12.9% | 10.0% | ||||||
| Aging rate | % (range) | 26.5 (18.9–34.7) | 28.4 (21.0–35.7) | 31.3 (23.8–39.2) | 28.1 (13.2–53.7) | 29.6 (15.4–55.8) | 32.3 (18.0–58.2) | 27.4 (1.5–56.7) | 29.4 (13.0–57.8) | 32.0 (15.0–60.6) | ||
| Ratio of people aged 75 or older * | % (range) | 57.6 (51.4–65.9) | 56.5 (51.1–65.5) | 53.5 (48.2–60.0) | 56.2 (37.6–70.6) | 56.2 (37.9–72.6) | 54.2 (38.7–69.2) | 52.5 (32.5–74.3) | 52.1 (33.8–74.6) | 51.8 (35.6–74.3) | ||
* Ratio of people aged 75 years or older = over-75 population/over-65 population.
Table 2.
Long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of services (analysis of RM-ANOVA).
Table 2.
Long-term care certification rate and per-person expenditure for use of services (analysis of RM-ANOVA).
| Item | Year | 15 Fukushima Municipalities (n = 15) | Nearby Municipalities (n = 103) | Other Municipalities (n = 1460) | Time | Time ×Group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | F | F | |||
| Long-Term Care Certification Rate | All ※ | 2011 | 16.5% | 16.4% | 16.7% | 24.0 ** | 40.13 ** |
| 2014 | 21.5% | 18.1% | 18.2% | ||||
| 2017 | 21.5% | 17.7% | 17.7% | ||||
| Aged 65–74 | 2011 | 3.9% | 3.9% | 3.9% | 2.90 ** | 1.10 ** | |
| 2014 | 4.4% | 3.9% | 3.9% | ||||
| 2017 | 4.1% | 3.6% | 3.7% | ||||
| Aged 75+ | 2011 | 25.8% | 26.1% | 28.2% | 377.8 ** | 62.8 ** | |
| 2014 | 34.7% | 29.3% | 30.3% | ||||
| 2017 | 36.5% | 30.4% | 30.6% | ||||
| Per-Person Expenditure for Use of Services※ (1000 yen) | 2011 | 146.2 | 143.4 | 144.8 | 48.9 ** | 7.7 ** | |
| 2014 | 155.9 | 144.1 | 145.5 | ||||
| 2017 | 147.0 | 138.9 | 134.9 | ||||
※ Covariates were assessed based on the value for the ratio of people aged 75 years or older for each year. Long-term care certification rate = Number of people certified for long-term care/Number of people aged 65 or older. ** p < 0.001.
Table 3.
The result of post hoc test of RM-ANOVA.
| Time | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I) | (J) | (I−J) | Lower | Upper | ||
| Long−Term Care Certification Rate | All | 2011 | 2014 * | −0.025 | −0.028 | −0.022 |
| 2017 * | −0.026 | −0.030 | −0.022 | |||
| 2014 | 2011 * | 0.025 | 0.022 | 0.028 | ||
| 2017 * | −0.001 | −0.004 | 0.002 | |||
| 2017 | 2011 * | 0.026 | 0.022 | 0.030 | ||
| 2014 * | 0.001 | −0.002 | 0.004 | |||
| Aged 65−74 | 2011 | 2014 * | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.002 | |
| 2017 * | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | |||
| 2014 | 2011 * | −0.001 | −0.002 | 0.000 | ||
| 2017 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | |||
| 2017 | 2011 * | −0.001 | −0.002 | −0.001 | ||
| 2014 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.000 | |||
| Aged 75+ | 2011 | 2014 * | −0.002 | −0.005 | 0.000 | |
| 2017 * | −0.004 | −0.007 | −0.001 | |||
| 2014 | 2011 * | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.005 | ||
| 2017 | −0.001 | −0.003 | 0.001 | |||
| 2017 | 2011 * | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.007 | ||
| 2014 | 0.001 | −0.001 | 0.003 | |||
| Per-Person Expenditure for Use of Services (1000 yen) | 2011 | 2014 * | −3.346 | −5.427 | −1.266 | |
| 2017 * | 5.411 | 2.523 | 8.299 | |||
| 2014 | 2011 * | 3.346 | 1.266 | 5.427 | ||
| 2017 * | 8.757 | 6.258 | 11.256 | |||
| 2017 | 2011 * | −5.411 | −8.299 | −2.523 | ||
| 2014 * | −8.757 | −11.256 | −6.258 | |||
* p < 0.05.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Inoue, Y.; Jeong, S. Did the Number of Older People Requiring Long-Term Care and Expenditure Increase after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake? Analysis of Changes over Six Years. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051621
AMA Style
Inoue Y, Jeong S. Did the Number of Older People Requiring Long-Term Care and Expenditure Increase after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake? Analysis of Changes over Six Years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(5):1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051621
Chicago/Turabian StyleInoue, Yusuke, and Seungwon Jeong. 2020. "Did the Number of Older People Requiring Long-Term Care and Expenditure Increase after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake? Analysis of Changes over Six Years" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 5: 1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051621
APA StyleInoue, Y., & Jeong, S. (2020). Did the Number of Older People Requiring Long-Term Care and Expenditure Increase after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake? Analysis of Changes over Six Years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051621
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
