1:
2: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{harvard}
8: \usepackage{lscape}
9:
10: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
11: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
12: %TCIDATA{Version=4.10.0.2359}
13: %TCIDATA{Created=Mon Dec 26 18:36:17 2005}
14: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Friday, April 07, 2006 11:52:07}
15: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
16: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="DocumentShell" CONTENT="General\Blank Document">}
17: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
18: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=LaTeX article (bright).cst}
19:
20: \topmargin -0.8in
21: \oddsidemargin -0.2in
22: \evensidemargin -0.2in
23: \textheight 9.3in
24: \textwidth 6.7in
25: \setcounter{totalnumber}{5}
26: \floatsep -0.5in
27: \input{tcilatex}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Incidence-based Estimates of Healthy Life Expectancy for the United
32: Kingdom: Coherence between Transition Probabilities and Aggregate Life Tables%
33: \thanks{%
34: Corresponding author:\ Ehsan Khoman, E-mail: e.khoman@niesr.ac.uk. This
35: paper is an adaptation of a more detailed report entitled, \textquotedblleft
36: Healthy Life Expectancy in the EU Member States\textquotedblright\ by the
37: same authors which has been recently published by the European Commission,
38: see www.enepri.org . We wish to thank A. Bebbington and J. Shapiro for
39: making available their estimates of the ordered probit model.}}
40: \author{Ehsan Khoman and Martin Weale \\
41: %EndAName
42: \\
43: National Institute of Economic and Social Research\\
44: 2, Dean Trench Street,\\
45: London SW1P 3HE}
46: \maketitle
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: Will the United Kingdom's ageing population be fit and independent, or
50: suffer from greater chronic ill health? Healthy life expectancy is commonly
51: used to assess this: it is an estimate of how many years are lived in good
52: health over the lifespan. This paper examines a means of generating
53: estimates of healthy and unhealthy life expectancy consistent with exogenous
54: population mortality data. The method takes population transition matrices
55: and adjusts these in a statistically coherent way so as to render them
56: consistent with aggregate life tables. It is applied to estimates of healthy
57: life expectancy for the United Kingdom.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: %\vspace*{0.5in}
61:
62: \vspace*{0.5in} \textbf{\noindent Keywords}: Healthy Life Expectancy,
63: Least-squares Adjustment, Health State Transitions
64:
65: \vspace*{0.5in}
66:
67: \baselineskip0.27in
68:
69: \newpage
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72:
73: \qquad While it is plain that life expectancy has increased considerably
74: over the last thirty years or so in many advanced countries, it is much less
75: clear how healthy life expectancy has developed. Questions have therefore
76: arisen about the quality of life. Are we living longer but in worse health?
77: Are the increases in life expectancy at older ages because we are keeping
78: sick or disabled people alive longer or because we are saving people from
79: death but leaving them in states of disability? These are important
80: questions both for individuals and also for government policies on social
81: and health services provision for the elderly.
82:
83: \qquad A shift in emphasis, from increasing survival to improving both the
84: length and quality of people's lives, has led to a greater policy interest
85: in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Europe as a whole in summary measures
86: of population health. The government projects that the overall number and
87: proportion of older people in the United Kingdom will rise significantly in
88: the coming decades (\citeasnoun{Wanless2002}). However, there is a debate
89: over whether these people will live longer, healthier lives, longer but more
90: disabled lives, or something in between. The UK Treasury's long-term
91: projections of the costs of an ageing population assume that the proportion
92: of life spent in long-term care will remain constant but acknowledge that
93: this is a cautious assumption and do not rule out an expansion of morbidity
94: for the United Kingdom (\citeasnoun{Treasury2004}).
95:
96: \qquad A crucial question therefore is whether the proportion of life spent
97: in disability is expanding or decreasing. Existing data can be used to
98: support either case. While there have been clear rises in overall life
99: expectancy over time, there are concerns that not all years gained are in
100: good health and that the proportion of extra years lived are being spent in
101: ill-health (\citeasnoun{Bissett2002} and \citeasnoun{Breakwell2005}).
102: Therefore, the general consensus view in the academic community seems to be
103: that these trends reflect increased years of mild disability, and a decline
104: in severe disability (\citeasnoun{Bajekal2004} and \citeasnoun{Kelly2000}).
105:
106: \qquad Existing calculations of healthy life expectancy are compiled from
107: the proportion of people reporting different health states (Sullivan's
108: method)- see appendix A for a comprehensive outline of Sullivan's method and
109: its uses. Health states of old people may reflect damage done in the past-
110: such as injuries sustained by soldiers and civilians during the Second World
111: War. They may therefore be a poor reflection of the risks of poor health
112: faced by young people. \citeasnoun{Bebbington1996} therefore argues that
113: healthy life expectancy should be calculated from the incidence of poor
114: health rather than its prevalence. In terms of acceptability, the fact that
115: transitions explicitly include return from poor to better states is
116: important. This enables a distinction to be made between a recurrent health
117: condition which allows for recovery, and one of steady decline to death.
118: Estimates of transition rates can be used for the prediction of lifetime
119: risk to individuals of particular states of ill-health, whereas prevalence
120: based measures cannot do this.
121:
122: \qquad In order to produce measures of healthy life expectancy on this
123: basis, information is needed on transition matrices between different health
124: states. Such information may be available from household panel surveys such
125: as the European Community Household Panel (ECHP), carried out in the fifteen
126: countries of the pre-2005 European Union between 1994 and 2001. However,
127: such surveys are typically conducted on relatively small populations, and,
128: without further attention, the estimates of healthy and unhealthy life
129: expectancy generated by them are unlikely to be consistent with life tables
130: constructed from population mortality data.
131:
132: \qquad In this paper we draw on a study of annual probabilities of
133: transition between health states by \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005}. We describe
134: a means of generating estimates of healthy and unhealthy life expectancy
135: consistent with exogenous population mortality data. The method takes
136: population transition matrices estimated from the ordered probit equations
137: in \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} and adjusts these in a statistically coherent
138: way so as to render the transition matrices consistent with the mortality
139: data. It is applied to estimates of healthy life expectancy for the United\
140: Kingdom.
141:
142: \qquad Since, health expectancy is a complex, multi-faceted concept, this
143: paper essentially aims to analyse the dynamics of health relating to the
144: transition of health states in the ECHP data. This paper answers the
145: following two questions. First, what the probability that an individual will
146: be in the same health state next year, be free of disability, be in worse
147: health or be dead? Secondly, what is the expected time spent in each health
148: state given that an individual is initially in a given health category?
149:
150: \section{Data and Methodology}
151:
152: \subsection{The ECHP}
153:
154: \qquad This paper draws on the results of \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005}
155: presented in appendix B. They make use of the ECHP, the major innovative
156: attempt at a harmonised household (longitudinal) panel across the member
157: states of the European Union. The ECHP is essentially a standardised
158: multi-purpose annual longitudinal survey carried out between 1994 (wave 1)
159: to 2001 (wave 8) on each member state. Three characteristics make the ECHP a
160: unique source of information. These are (i) its multi-dimensional coverage
161: of a range of topics simultaneously; (ii) a standardised methodology and
162: procedures yielding comparable information across countries; and (iii) a
163: longitudinal or panel design in which information on the same set of
164: households and persons is gathered to study changes over time at the micro
165: level.
166:
167: \qquad \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} modelled the annual probabilities of
168: transition between health states for the EU\ member states including the
169: United Kingdom using pooled ordered probit equations from the ECHP. Separate
170: formulae were used for people above and below 65. Here we focus on the
171: results for the United Kingdom.
172:
173: \subsection{Choice of Health Measures}
174:
175: \qquad From the range of health status variables available in the ECHP, two
176: in particular were chosen. These are self-assessed health (SAH) (indicator
177: PiH001) and the existence of a chronic health or disability problem (PiH002)
178: combined with the degree of hampering health (HH) (PiH003).
179:
180: \subsubsection{Self-Assessed Health}
181:
182: \qquad In the ECHP users' database (UDB), self-assessed health (SAH) is
183: asked as `Please think back over the last 12 months about how your health
184: has been. Compared to people of your own age, would you say that your health
185: has on the whole been (i) excellent; (ii) good; (iii) fair; (iv) bad; or (v)
186: very bad? (PiH001)'. \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} took the decision, after
187: considering the responses to PiH001 to combine `bad' and `very bad' health
188: states. Although this may remove some potential information, it avoids a
189: serious problem arising from the small numbers found in the worst category
190: in even the highest age groups.\ Therefore we can think of death as a fifth
191: state ranked below bad/very bad health.
192:
193: \subsubsection{Hampering Health Condition}
194:
195: \qquad The second measure of health is derived from the hampering health
196: (HH) condition. This indicator derives from two questions. Firstly, `Do you
197: have any chronic physical or mental health problem, illness or disability?
198: (PiH002)' and secondly, `Are you hampered in your daily activities by this
199: physical or mental health problem, illness or disability? (PiH003)'. The
200: three possible resulting states are (i) no such condition or a chronic
201: condition, but not hampered; (ii) hampered to some extent; or (iii) hampered
202: severely. Death is, as mentioned previously, an additional state.
203:
204: \qquad \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} ran into several serious problems
205: concerning the consistency and interpretation of the British data regarding
206: health, which are supplied to the ECHP as `clone' data from the British
207: Household Panel Survey (BHPS). A trial of three waves of parallel household
208: surveys, national and the ECHP, showed this was too much of a strain, with
209: high non-response rates, and as a result the sample size was reduced by
210: about a half from the fourth wave forwards. A conclusion from this is that
211: for HH, the category `to some extent' hampered was only used in the parallel
212: survey and then again in just wave 6 of the BHPS. The effect of this
213: seriously changed the distribution. In consequence %
214: \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} made a decision to limit the analysis of the UK
215: sample by omitting the `to some extent' category, and on the evidence of the
216: UK parallel survey, results for this health definition will be incompatible
217: with other countries. As a result, only two health states were examined for
218: the HH measure of healthy life, namely, `no hampered condition' and
219: `hampered severely' with the additional absorbing state, death.
220:
221: \qquad It is widely recognised that this indicator is less prone to
222: subjectivity than SAH and more immediately connected with disability,
223: dependency and a need for long-term care (\citeasnoun{Robine1998} and %
224: \citeasnoun{vandenBerg2001}). The European Commission considers this to be
225: an indicator for disability (\citeasnoun{Eurostat2001}). Also %
226: \citeasnoun{Bajekal2004} recently surveyed a variety of questions on
227: disability for the UK Department of Work and Pensions, and noted that a
228: similar census question which first made its appearance in 1991 had been
229: validated as a disability measure.
230:
231: \section{Initial Transition Matrix Estimates}
232:
233: \qquad For both of the domains distinguished, therefore, an ordered ranking
234: was generated running from the most healthiest state, `very good' for SAH,
235: and `not hampered to any degree' for HH, to the least favourable value, i.e.
236: death, the only absorbing state. The fact that the health states can be
237: ranked, a natural way to estimate transition probabilities as a function of
238: age and gender is by fitting an ordered probit model. Here we draw on the
239: models estimated by \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} as mentioned above (see also %
240: \citeasnoun{Contoyannis2004a}), one for men and women aged under sixty-five
241: and the other for those aged sixty-five or older (Appendix B presents
242: estimates of the ordered probit equations for the United Kingdom derived
243: from \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005}).
244:
245: \qquad The underlying probit function applied follows %
246: \citeasnoun{Wooldridge2002} and was used for example by %
247: \citeasnoun{Contoyannis2004b} in a similar analysis of health transitions
248: with the ECHP. A modelling approach to estimating transitions that makes use
249: of the latent variable specification can be written as%
250: \begin{equation}
251: h_{i}^{\ast }=\beta _{k}+x_{i}^{\prime }\cdot \gamma _{k}+e_{i}
252: \end{equation}%
253: where $\mathit{h}_{i}^{\ast }$ is some underlying continuous latent variable
254: for the$~\mathit{i}$th individual that underlies reported SAH and HH; $\beta
255: _{k}$ is a constant depending on the starting health state $k$; $e_{i}$
256: denotes a random, independently distributed component following a normal $N$%
257: (0,1) distribution. The variable $x_{i}$ is a vector of covariates including
258: age and gender coefficients and $\gamma _{k}$ a vector of parameters, which
259: again are assumed specific to the starting health state. If there is a
260: general trend, \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} suggest that gender coefficients,
261: applying to women, tend to be positive at initial good states of health,
262: negative at bad states of health. This implies that women are more likely to
263: decline from good states of health, but men are more likely to decline or
264: die once in a bad state of health. \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} have also
265: argued that it is plausible to drop the time-dependence $t$ in the present
266: case, and pool across waves 1 to 8 (i.e. 1994-2001), since there is no
267: discernible evidence of trends in the transitions. Since $\mathit{h}%
268: _{i}^{\ast }$ is not observed, \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} in effect
269: partition it into the observed states, $\mathit{h}_{i}$,\ by a set of
270: unknown cut points, $\alpha $, (or threshold parameters), such that%
271: \begin{equation}
272: h_{i}=j\text{ if }\alpha _{j,k}<\mathit{h}_{i}^{\ast }\leq \alpha
273: _{j+1,k}~,~j=1,...,n
274: \end{equation}%
275: where $\alpha _{0}=-\infty $; $\alpha _{j}\leq \alpha _{j+1}$\ and $\alpha
276: _{J}=\infty $. Thus each observed health state corresponds to a value range
277: within the unobserved, latent distribution for health, such that the entire
278: range of the distribution is covered by one and only one health state. The
279: transition probabilities derive from the conditional distribution of $%
280: h_{i,t+1}$ given the state $k$ at time $t$:%
281: \begin{equation}
282: P(h_{i,t+1}=j\mid k)=\Phi (\alpha _{j+1,k}-\beta _{k})-\Phi (\alpha
283: _{j,k}-\beta _{k})
284: \end{equation}%
285: where $\Phi $ denotes the cumulative standardised normal distribution.
286:
287: \qquad From these probit equations we calculate transition matrices as a
288: function of age and gender. We denote these \textbf{M}$_{\mathbf{0}}$ to
289: \textbf{M}$_{\mathbf{99}}$\textbf{. }\ For an initial population vector
290: \textbf{x}$_{i}$ whose $\emph{j}$th element, $x_{ij}$ shows the number of
291: people in health state $j$ on their $i$th birthday. It then follows that $%
292: \mathbf{x}_{i+1}=\mathbf{M}_{i}\mathbf{x}_{i}.$ If we denote by \textbf{i} a
293: vector of 1s with length equal to the number of health states, then from an
294: initial population \textbf{x}$_{0}$ the proportion surviving to their $i+1$%
295: st birthday is given as%
296: \begin{equation}
297: s_{i}=\frac{\mathbf{i}^{\prime }\Pi _{k=0}^{i-1}\mathbf{M}_{k}\mathbf{x}_{0}%
298: }{\mathbf{i}^{\prime }\mathbf{x}_{0}}
299: \end{equation}%
300: while we denote the proportion surviving to their $i$th birthday in the life
301: table as $s_{i}^{\ast }.$ Given our initial estimates of the transition
302: matrices, we wish to find new transition matrices, \textbf{M}$_{k}^{\ast }$
303: such that%
304: \begin{equation}
305: s_{i}^{\ast }=\frac{\mathbf{i}^{\prime }\Pi _{k=0}^{i-1}\mathbf{M}_{k}^{\ast
306: }\mathbf{x}_{0}}{\mathbf{i}^{\prime }\mathbf{x}_{0}}
307: \end{equation}%
308: where the $\mathbf{M}_{k}^{\ast }$ are reasonably close to the initial
309: estimates \textbf{M}$_{k}$. It is obvious that $s_{i}$ can be driven to $%
310: s_{i}^{\ast }$ only by adjusting the transition matrices \textbf{M}$_{k}$
311: where $k\leq i-1$. But an adjustment to one of these matrices has
312: implications for $s_{m}$ for all $m>i$. Thus, although it is obviously
313: possible to address the problem sequentially, it is unlikely that sequential
314: adjustment will offer the most satisfactory solution.
315:
316: \section{A Least-Squares Approach}
317:
318: \qquad Following from \citeasnoun{Deming1940} who first proposed the use of
319: a proportional fitting procedure to estimate cell probabilities in a
320: contingency table subject to certain marginal constraints, we set out here a
321: least-squares solution to the problem of adjusting the transition matrices
322: in order for them to be consistent with exogenous mortality data. Our
323: approach however differs somewhat from the original methods of %
324: \citeasnoun{Deming1940}, and that later extended by %
325: \citeasnoun{Friedlander1961}, in that while they concentrated on a linear
326: model in which the solution is derived exactly, the constraints that we face
327: are non-linear functions of the transition probabilities.
328:
329: \qquad We denote by the vector \textbf{n}$_{k}$ the vector constructed from
330: the four columns of transition matrix \textbf{M}$_{k}$ stacked in order and
331: further consider the vector%
332: \begin{equation}
333: \mathbf{n}^{0}\mathbf{=}\left[
334: \begin{array}{c}
335: \mathbf{n}_{0} \\
336: ... \\
337: \mathbf{n}_{k} \\
338: ... \\
339: \mathbf{n}_{99}%
340: \end{array}%
341: \right]
342: \end{equation}%
343: \qquad We write the vector of survival proportions generated by the vector $%
344: \mathbf{n}$ as $\mathbf{s(n)}$ with its $i$th element $s_{i}(\mathbf{n}%
345: )=s_{i}$ and the observed survival proportions as $\mathbf{s}^{\ast }.$ We
346: then aim to find $\mathbf{n}^{\ast }=\mathbf{n}^{0}\mathbf{+\Delta n}$ to
347: minimise
348: \begin{equation}
349: \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{\prime }\mathbf{V}^{-1}\mathbf{\Delta n}+%
350: \mathbf{\lambda }\left\{ \mathbf{s}^{\ast }-\mathbf{s}\left( \mathbf{n}%
351: ^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}\right) \right\}
352: \end{equation}%
353: where $\mathbf{V}^{-1}$\ is a weighting matrix with $V_{ij}$ indicating the $%
354: i$th row and $j$th column of $\mathbf{V}$ with $n_{i}$ the $i$th element of $%
355: \mathbf{n}^{0}$. We set $V_{ii}=n_{i}^{2}$ and $V_{ij}=0$ ($i\neq j$) .\
356: Differentiating with respect to the elements of $\mathbf{n}$
357: \begin{equation}
358: \mathbf{V}^{-1}\mathbf{\Delta n}-\left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial
359: \mathbf{n}}\right) ^{\prime }\mathbf{\lambda =0}
360: \end{equation}%
361: where $\frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}}$ denotes a matrix
362: whose $i$th row and $j$th column consists of $\frac{\partial s_{i}}{\partial
363: n_{j}}.$ This gives
364: \begin{equation}
365: \mathbf{\Delta n}=\mathbf{V}\left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial
366: \mathbf{n}}\right) ^{\prime }\mathbf{\lambda }
367: \end{equation}
368:
369: We also note that by applying a Taylor series expansion we have%
370: \begin{equation}
371: \mathbf{s}^{\ast }-\mathbf{s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}\right)
372: \cong \mathbf{s}^{\ast }-\mathbf{s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{0}\right) -\left(
373: \frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}}%
374: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
375: %BeginExpansion
376: {\vert}%
377: %EndExpansion
378: _{\mathbf{n}^{0}}\right) \mathbf{\Delta n}
379: \end{equation}%
380: \qquad
381:
382: Given that%
383: \begin{equation}
384: \mathbf{s}^{\ast }-\mathbf{s(n}^{0})-\left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{%
385: \partial \mathbf{n}}%
386: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
387: %BeginExpansion
388: {\vert}%
389: %EndExpansion
390: _{\mathbf{n}^{0}}\right) \mathbf{\Delta n\cong 0}
391: \end{equation}%
392: \qquad The exogenous survival rates will be approximately delivered if%
393: \begin{equation}
394: \mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{0}\right) \cong \left( \frac{%
395: \partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}}%
396: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
397: %BeginExpansion
398: {\vert}%
399: %EndExpansion
400: _{\mathbf{n}^{0}}\right) \mathbf{\Delta n}
401: \end{equation}
402:
403: We then set $\frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}}%
404: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
405: %BeginExpansion
406: {\vert}%
407: %EndExpansion
408: _{\mathbf{n}^{0}}=\mathbf{S}_{0}$ and $\lambda _{0}\mathbf{=}\left\{ \mathbf{%
409: S}_{0}\mathbf{VS}_{0}^{\prime }\right\} ^{-1}\left( \mathbf{s}^{\ast }%
410: \mathbf{-s}\left( \mathbf{n}_{0}\right) \right) $. Therefore
411: \begin{equation}
412: \mathbf{\Delta n}_{0}\mathbf{=VS}_{0}^{\prime }\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{0}\mathbf{%
413: VS}_{0}^{\prime }\right\} ^{-1}\left( \mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left(
414: \mathbf{n}_{0}\right) \right)
415: \end{equation}%
416: This finalises the first stage of the iteration process.
417:
418: \qquad We now put $\mathbf{n}^{1}=\mathbf{n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{0}$ and
419: seek to find a vector $\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\mathbf{\ }$to minimise
420: \begin{equation}
421: \frac{1}{2}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\right)
422: ^{\prime }\mathbf{V}^{-1}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}%
423: ^{1}\right) +\mathbf{\lambda }\left\{ \mathbf{s}^{\ast }-\mathbf{s}\left(
424: \mathbf{n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) \right\}
425: \end{equation}
426:
427: Thus, with $\frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}}%
428: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
429: %BeginExpansion
430: {\vert}%
431: %EndExpansion
432: _{\mathbf{n}^{1}}=\mathbf{S}_{1}$. We then have%
433: \begin{equation}
434: \mathbf{V}^{-1}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) -%
435: \mathbf{S}_{1}^{\prime }\mathbf{\lambda =}0
436: \end{equation}%
437: and approximately
438: \begin{equation}
439: \mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) \cong \mathbf{S}%
440: _{1}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{1}
441: \end{equation}
442:
443: This then yields
444: \begin{equation}
445: \mathbf{S}_{1}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) =%
446: \mathbf{S}_{1}\mathbf{V\mathbf{S}_{1}^{\prime }\lambda }
447: \end{equation}%
448: whence we have
449: \begin{equation}
450: \left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) =\mathbf{VS}%
451: _{1}^{\prime }\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{1}\mathbf{VS}_{1}^{\prime }\right\}
452: ^{-1}\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{1}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s%
453: }\left( \mathbf{n}^{1}\right) \right\}
454: \end{equation}
455:
456: A further increment $\Delta \mathbf{n}^{2}$ is chosen to satisfy
457:
458: \begin{equation}
459: \mathbf{V}^{-1}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}+\Delta
460: \mathbf{n}^{2}\right) -\mathbf{S}_{2}^{\prime }\mathbf{\lambda =0}
461: \end{equation}%
462: and approximately
463: \begin{equation}
464: \mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{2}\right) \cong \mathbf{S}%
465: _{2}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{2}
466: \end{equation}%
467: giving
468: \begin{equation}
469: \left( \mathbf{\Delta n}^{0}+\Delta \mathbf{n}^{1}+\Delta \mathbf{n}%
470: ^{2}\right) =\mathbf{VS}_{2}^{\prime }\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{2}\mathbf{VS}%
471: _{2}^{\prime }\right\} ^{-1}\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{2}\left( \mathbf{\Delta n}%
472: ^{0}+\mathbf{\Delta n}^{1}\right) +\mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left(
473: \mathbf{n}^{2}\right) \right\}
474: \end{equation}
475:
476: A recursive algorithm can be constructed
477: \begin{equation}
478: \mathbf{\Delta n}^{j}=\mathbf{VS}_{j}^{\prime }\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{j}\mathbf{%
479: VS}_{j}^{\prime }\right\} ^{-1}\left\{ \mathbf{S}_{j}\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\mathbf{%
480: \Delta n}^{i}+\mathbf{s}^{\ast }\mathbf{-s}\left( \mathbf{n}^{j}\right)
481: \right\} -\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{i}
482: \end{equation}%
483: with $\mathbf{n}^{j}\mathbf{=n}^{0}+\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\mathbf{\Delta n}^{i}$
484: and subsequently, for any $j$ $\frac{\partial \mathbf{s}}{\partial \mathbf{n}%
485: }%
486: %TCIMACRO{\U{a6}}%
487: %BeginExpansion
488: {\vert}%
489: %EndExpansion
490: _{\mathbf{n}^{j}}=\mathbf{S}_{j}$. Since the least-squares minimand is
491: evaluated afresh at each value of $\mathbf{n}^{j}$ an optimum is reached as $%
492: \mathbf{\Delta n}^{j}$ converges towards zero and the iterations can be
493: stopped when it is close to zero as defined by an appropriate tolerance
494: level. The adjusted vector $\mathbf{n}^{j}$ provides the transition matrices
495: at the $j$th iteration and when these are consistent with observed survival
496: rates, so too will be the healthy and unhealthy life expectancies derived
497: from them.
498:
499: \section{Application to the United Kingdom}
500:
501: \qquad Healthy life expectancy is given as the probability of being in
502: either a `very good' or `good' state given the condition of being in a `very
503: good' health state to begin with for SAH. For HH, healthy life expectancy is
504: simply given as the probability of being in a `none/slight' state
505: conditional on the probability of being in a `none/slight' state initially.
506: The table below provides estimates of healthy and unhealthy life expectancy
507: using both SAH and HH for men and women at age sixty-five in the United
508: Kingdom averaged between the period 1994 (wave 1) to 2001 (wave 8). The
509: unadjusted estimates are derived from the transition probabilities computed
510: with the ordered probit equations prior to the alignment having taken place.
511: The data published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) are derived
512: from interim life tables based on three adjacent years provided by the
513: Government Actuary's Department. The life tables from \citeasnoun{GAD2005}
514: are available for three year windows in which the central year was chosen as
515: the average, for example, the year 1994 was computed from the window years
516: 1993 to 1995.
517:
518: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h]\centering}}%
519: %BeginExpansion
520: \begin{table}[h]\centering%
521: %EndExpansion
522:
523: \begin{center}
524: $%
525: \begin{tabular}{|cc|c|cc|c|}
526: \hline
527: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Unadjusted Estimates}}
528: & \textbf{ONS Estimates} \\ \hline
529: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & Life & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Healthy life} & Life \\
530: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & expectancy & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{expectancy} &
531: expectancy \\ \hline
532: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & & & \% of & \\
533: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Years} & Years & Years & lifetime in & Years \\
534: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & & & healthy life & \\ \hline
535: Men & SAH & 16.4 & 9.6 & 58.5 & 15.2 \\
536: Women & SAH & 14.9 & 9.2 & 61.7 & 18.5 \\
537: Men & HH & 17.3 & 12.0 & 69.3 & 15.2 \\
538: Women & HH & 15.6 & 11.0 & 70.5 & 18.5 \\ \hline\cline{6-6}
539: \end{tabular}%
540: $
541: \end{center}
542:
543: \caption{Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy estimates using both
544: SAH and HH at age 65 for men and women between 1994 and 2001 in the United Kingdom calculated from the transition probabilities\label{key}}%
545: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
546: %BeginExpansion
547: \end{table}%
548: %EndExpansion
549:
550: \qquad Table 1 clearly sets out the problem. Whilst the transition
551: probabilities were pooled over the eight waves of the ECHP and thus life
552: expectancy using the unadjusted estimates is taken as an average over the
553: eight years (i.e. 1994-2001), life expectancy from the official data were
554: computed by taking the average from each wave for the sample year of the
555: ECHP. Therefore, life expectancy calculated from the transition
556: probabilities given by the unadjusted estimates suggests an apparent
557: discrepancy with the official data. The clear conclusion that can be
558: identified from table 1 is that the unadjusted estimates do not appear to
559: deliver the results of life expectancy provided by the official data,
560: casting doubt on the use of the associated estimates of healthy life
561: expectancy.
562:
563: \qquad By using the alignment process derived by means of an least-squares
564: approach (as discussed in section 4), healthy life expectancy consistent
565: with official life expectancy data was calculated for a time-series of eight
566: years between 1994-2001, which are given in tables 2 and 3 below for men and
567: women at age sixty-five in the United Kingdom. The results depend, of
568: course, on the assumed mix of health states at age sixty-five. We have
569: generated this using the adjusted transition probabilities from birth. The
570: health state mix at age sixty-five is insensitive to that used at birth to
571: start the process. ONS estimates, based on Sullivan's method, for the same
572: period are also presented in order to give a comparison with our alignment
573: results. As one would expect from these tables, both measures of healthy
574: life expectancy tend to increase steadily with time for men and women. The
575: implementation of the adjustment process has meant, of course, that life
576: expectancy figures are identical to the ONS estimates since they are derived
577: from mortality tables provided by the Government Actuary's Department
578: projections which are taken for cohorts aged sixty-five between 1981 and
579: 2054 (\citeasnoun{GAD2005}).
580: \begin{landscape}
581: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
582: %BeginExpansion
583: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
584: %EndExpansion
585:
586: \begin{center}
587: $%
588: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|ccc|}
589: \hline
590: & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Self-Assessed Health - SAH}} &
591: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Hampering Health - HH}} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{%
592: \textbf{ONS Estimates}} \\ \hline
593: & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Healthy life} & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{
594: Healthy life} & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Healthy life} \\
595: & expectancy & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy} & expectancy &
596: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy} & expectancy & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy
597: } \\ \hline
598: & & & \% of & & & \% of & & & \% of \\
599: Year & Years & Years & lifetime in & Years & Years & lifetime in & Years &
600: Years & lifetime in \\
601: & & & healthy life & & & healthy life & & & healthy life \\ \hline
602: 1994 & 14.5 & 8.9 & 61.4 & 14.5 & 10.4 & 71.7 & 14.5 & 11.0 & 75.9 \\
603: 1995 & 14.7 & 8.9 & 60.5 & 14.7 & 10.5 & 71.4 & 14.7 & 11.3 & 76.9 \\
604: 1996 & 14.8 & 9.0 & 60.8 & 14.8 & 10.6 & 71.6 & 14.8 & ... & ... \\
605: 1997 & 15.0 & 9.1 & 60.7 & 15.0 & 10.7 & 71.3 & 15.0 & 11.7 & 78.0 \\
606: 1998 & 15.2 & 9.2 & 60.5 & 15.2 & 10.8 & 71.1 & 15.2 & ... & ... \\
607: 1999 & 15.4 & 9.3 & 60.4 & 15.5 & 11.0 & 71.0 & 15.4 & 11.5 & 74.7 \\
608: 2000 & 15.7 & 9.5 & 60.5 & 15.7 & 11.1 & 70.7 & 15.7 & ... & ... \\
609: 2001 & 15.9 & 9.6 & 60.4 & 15.9 & 11.2 & 70.4 & 15.9 & 11.6 & 73.0 \\
610: Increase from & 1.4 & 0.7 & -1.0 & 1.4 & 0.9 & -1.3 & 1.4 & 0.6 & -2.9 \\
611: 1994 to 2001 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
612: \end{tabular}%
613: $
614: \end{center}
615:
616: \caption{Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy estimates at age 65 for
617: men between 1994 and 2001 in the United Kingdom\label{keya}}%
618: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
619: %BeginExpansion
620: \end{table}%
621: %EndExpansion
622: \end{landscape}
623:
624: \begin{landscape}
625: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
626: %BeginExpansion
627: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
628: %EndExpansion
629:
630: \begin{center}
631: $%
632: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|ccc|}
633: \hline
634: & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Self-Assessed Health - SAH}} &
635: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Hampering Health - HH}} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{%
636: \textbf{ONS Estimates}} \\ \hline
637: & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Healthy life} & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{
638: Healthy life} & Life & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Healthy life} \\
639: & expectancy & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy} & expectancy &
640: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy} & expectancy & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{expectancy
641: } \\ \hline
642: & & & \% of & & & \% of & & & \% of \\
643: Year & Years & Years & lifetime in & Years & Years & lifetime in & Years &
644: Years & lifetime in \\
645: & & & healthy life & & & healthy life & & & healthy life \\ \hline
646: 1994 & 18.1 & 11.3 & 62.4 & 18.1 & 12.9 & 71.3 & 18.1 & 12.9 & 71.3 \\
647: 1995 & 18.2 & 11.3 & 62.1 & 18.2 & 12.9 & 70.9 & 18.2 & 13.0 & 71.4 \\
648: 1996 & 18.3 & 11.4 & 62.3 & 18.3 & 13.0 & 71.0 & 18.3 & ... & ... \\
649: 1997 & 18.4 & 11.4 & 62.0 & 18.4 & 13.0 & 70.7 & 18.4 & 13.1 & 71.2 \\
650: 1998 & 18.5 & 11.4 & 61.6 & 18.5 & 13.1 & 70.8 & 18.5 & ... & ... \\
651: 1999 & 18.6 & 11.5 & 61.8 & 18.6 & 13.2 & 71.0 & 18.6 & 13.1 & 70.4 \\
652: 2000 & 18.8 & 11.6 & 61.7 & 18.8 & 13.4 & 71.3 & 18.8 & ... & ... \\
653: 2001 & 19.0 & 11.7 & 61.6 & 19.0 & 13.4 & 70.5 & 19.0 & 13.2 & 69.5 \\
654: Increase from & 0.9 & 0.4 & -0.8 & 0.9 & 0.4 & -0.8 & 0.9 & 0.3 & -1.8 \\
655: 1994 to 2001 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
656: \end{tabular}%
657: $
658: \end{center}
659:
660: \caption{Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy estimates at age 65 for
661: women between 1994 and 2001 in the United Kingdom\label{keyb}}%
662: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
663: %BeginExpansion
664: \end{table}%
665: %EndExpansion
666: \end{landscape}
667:
668: \qquad The last row of tables 2 and 3 demonstrates how life expectancy and
669: healthy life expectancy estimates have changed over the eight year time
670: span. It appears to be the case that HH estimates of healthy life expectancy
671: are markedly higher than those given by SAH estimates for both men and
672: women. This could be due to a number of reasons, for instance, the health
673: categories of the two healthy life measures could be interpreted differently
674: by different individuals and hence therefore more people stating a healthy
675: state of wellbeing for the HH estimate. In other words, since the HH
676: definition of healthy life expectancy is much more wider (i.e. less health
677: categories and thus more chance of being placed in a healthy state), so that
678: many conditions count as healthy, relative to the much narrower SAH
679: definition where many people are classed as unhealthy, healthy life
680: expectancy using HH may give the impression that the time spent in healthy
681: life will be relatively long, and will tend towards total life expectancy if
682: very few people are counted as unhealthy. As an aside, it is interesting to
683: note that though the HH estimates of healthy life expectancy are higher than
684: that given by the SAH measure, the percentage of time spent in healthy life
685: for HH tends to be decreasing at a higher rate than that of SAH for both men
686: and women.
687:
688: \qquad In general, although life expectancy has risen for both men and women
689: using both measures of healthy life, the percentage of the lifetime spent in
690: ill-health tends to be increasing for both men and women. This suggests that
691: people are now living to ages in which they are more likely to experience
692: chronic diseases and disability, supporting the expansion of morbidity
693: hypothesis whereby as life expectancy increases, older people become more
694: vulnerable to chronic diseases and spend more time in ill-health and thus a
695: higher proportion of people with health problems survive to an advanced age (%
696: \citeasnoun{Gruenberg1977} and \citeasnoun{Olshansky1991}).
697:
698: \qquad The last three columns present data published by the ONS of life
699: expectancy and healthy life expectancy between 1994 and 2001. The ONS
700: defines healthy life expectancy (HLE) from the age-specific prevalence
701: (proportions) of the population (rather than in incidence terms) in healthy
702: and unhealthy conditions and age-specific mortality information. Data for
703: 1996, 1998 and 2000 were not published by the Statistical Office.
704:
705: \qquad The method applied (discussed in \citeasnoun{Kelly2000}) uses the
706: General Household Survey (GHS) to provide estimates of healthy life
707: expectancy using the Sullivan method. The GHS asks a similar \ question to
708: that of the SAH measure used in the ECHP; `Over the last 12 mths would you
709: say your health has on the whole been good, fairly good or not good?'. From
710: tables 2 and 3 it appears that the ONS estimates of healthy life expectancy
711: are somewhat higher for both men and women relative to our measures, except
712: for HH for women, in which our estimates are slightly higher. One
713: explanation of this discrepancy between our healthy life estimates and the
714: ONS data could well be due to the fact that our estimates are based on
715: incidence rates (i.e. represent current health conditions and can help
716: predict future health care requirements) whilst ONS figures are more
717: prevalence based (i.e. dependent on past history). Prevalenced based
718: measures may underestimate (or overestimate) health expectancy, because the
719: prevalence of ill-health at a given age in the population reflect the past
720: probabilities of becoming ill at each younger age (\citeasnoun{Jagger2001}).
721: Moreover, while both our findings and the ONS figures tend to support an
722: expansion in morbidity, it is clear that our results suggest a slight
723: increase in healthy life expectancy relative to the ONS estimates based on
724: the Sullivan method.
725:
726: \qquad In sum, one apparent conclusion from the analysis appears to be that
727: though there is some variation in our measures of healthy life expectancy
728: and that of ONS estimates, the alignment procedure significantly reduces the
729: dispersion of healthy life expectancy for both men and women. This could
730: suggest that the unadjusted results derived from the probit equations may
731: appear to give inaccurate estimates of healthy life expectancy whilst by
732: adjusting the transition matrices to render them statistically coherent with
733: exogenous population mortality data tends to have produce much more precise
734: estimates of healthy life expectancy.
735:
736: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
737:
738: \qquad Since this paper outlines a longitudinal health study different from
739: that performed using cross-sectional data and Sullivan's method, this has
740: meant we have the novel advantage of being able to take account of
741: transitions into and out of various health states over time for the United
742: Kingdom. This multistate approach has the advantage over Sullivan's method
743: of providing health expectancy estimates based on current rather than
744: historical morbidity prevalence rates. The multistate life tables of the
745: transition probabilities and the expected time spent in each health state
746: also provides a clearer basis on which to predict service needs.
747:
748: \qquad The results of this paper lend themselves to support the expansion of
749: morbidity hypothesis; where the additional gains in life expectancy are
750: spent in bad health while the number of years spent in good health remains
751: constant. Also, our results do indeed point to a slower worsening in healthy
752: life expectancy than the ONS estimates based on Sullivan's method.
753: Therefore, whilst our results and ONS estimates appear to suggest an
754: expansion in morbidity, our findings propose an improvement in healthy life
755: expectancy relative to the Sullivan method.
756:
757: \qquad However, it has to be recalled that when using healthy life
758: expectancy measures, such as, SAH and HH, estimates can change over time
759: simply due to changes in individuals' subjective perceptions rather than a
760: true deterioration or improvement in the population's health. Hence, since
761: SAH and HH are subjective measures, meanings attached by respondents to the
762: categories may have changed over time due to medical advances. Also, both
763: health measures differ between different subgroups of the population.
764: Therefore account must be taken for individual's interpretation of the
765: different health states which may be affected by individuals age, gender and
766: socio-economic circumstances. The same issue of perception and
767: interpretation do not apply to total life expectancy, hence, the difference
768: between quality and quantity health measures.\qquad
769:
770: \bibliographystyle{agsm}
771: \bibliography{hle}
772:
773: \appendix
774:
775: \section{Appendix: Estimation of Healthy Life Expectancy}
776:
777: \qquad The estimation of healthy life expectancy is based on the concept of
778: a closed population within a given period of time, in this case, using the
779: ECHP data between 1994 and 2001. Thus, this population does not account for
780: immigration or emigration. At the end of the period in question, the
781: population can be partitioned into those who die within the period and those
782: who are still alive. Of those still alive, the majority are expected to be
783: healthy, and some are expected to be unhealthy. Hence, a model can be built
784: that measures the health status of individuals who are alive at the same
785: time it accounts for those who die in the period in question. This section
786: reviews the techniques used to incorporate healthy life expectancy, namely,
787: prevalence-based life tables (Sullivan's method) based on the prevalence of
788: disability that is a stock that is dependent on past history) and
789: incidence-based life tables (multistate method which can adjust to represent
790: current health problems). Many researchers have indeed commented on the
791: differences between the Sullivan and multistate methods (%
792: \citeasnoun{Bebbington1991} and \citeasnoun{vandeWater1995}).
793:
794: \qquad On the whole, experience has shown that Sullivan's method can,
795: generally, be recommended for its simplicity, relative accuracy, ease of
796: interpretation and suitability for long-term trends and comparisons between
797: populations and subgroups. Yet although most empirical research has used
798: Sullivan's method, its limitations are now well understood. In particular,
799: Sullivan's method is not suitable for detecting recent abrupt changes in
800: trends, nor for estimating incidence rates, prognosis, or life-time risk. It
801: is therefore better in principle to base future estimates of health care
802: needs on the current incidence of ill-health, rather than on current
803: prevalence. Incidence rates provide estimates of \ the current state of
804: health needs, and thus offer more accurate forecast of future health care
805: needs. Hence, the reason to apply incidence based measures here to predict
806: precise measures of healthy life expectancy.
807:
808: \subsection{Sullivan's Method}
809:
810: \qquad Sullivan's method (see \citeasnoun{Sullivan1966} and %
811: \citeasnoun{Sullivan1971}) requires only a population life table (which can
812: be constructed for a population using the observed mortality rates at each
813: age for a given time period) and prevalence data for the health states of
814: interest. Such prevalence rates can be obtained readily from cross-sectional
815: health or disability surveys carried out for a population at a point in
816: time. Surveys of this type are carried out regularly in the United Kingdom,
817: both at the national (\citeasnoun{Robine1991} and \citeasnoun{Matthews2006})
818: and regional level (\citeasnoun{Congdon2006}), and indeed across the EU
819: member states (\citeasnoun{Robine2003} and \citeasnoun{Robine2004}). Its
820: interest lies in its simplicity, the availability of its basic data and its
821: independence of the size and age structure of the population. The health
822: status of a population is inherently difficult to measure because it is
823: often defined differently among individuals, populations, cultures, and even
824: across time periods.
825:
826: \qquad The objective of the Sullivan method is essentially to calculate the
827: expected life expectancy of groups of individuals currently at specified
828: ages if they lived the rest of their lives experiencing the age-specific
829: mortality rates observed for the population at a specific time. Thus the
830: technique essentially uses the age-specific mortality to calculate the
831: proportion of individuals alive at the beginning of an age interval that die
832: before reaching the next age group. Hence, this technique is a powerful tool
833: for estimating the remaining years of life that a group of individuals can
834: expect to live once they reach a certain age. The procedure for calculating
835: Sullivan's method is outlined below:
836:
837: 1. For each age/gender group obtain the life table schedules and the
838: expectation of life for the year of interest. Then calculate%
839: \begin{equation}
840: _{n}L_{x}=e_{x}l_{x}-e_{x+n}l_{x+n} \tag{A1}
841: \end{equation}%
842: where $_{n}L_{x}$is the conventional life table measure of the average
843: number of person years lived in the age interval $x$ an $x+n$ (alternatively
844: this may be calculated from mortality rates).
845:
846: 2. Obtain the ill-health rate $_{n}d_{x}$ in each age-group observed in a
847: survey or census. If they are excluded, add the numbers in communal
848: establishments catering for the sick and disabled. Calculate the average
849: number of persons aged $x$ to $x+n$ living without ill-health in each
850: age/gender group as%
851: \begin{equation}
852: _{n}LWD_{x}=_{n}L_{x}(1-_{n}d_{x}) \tag{A2}
853: \end{equation}
854:
855: 3. Calculate life expectancy without ill-health as%
856: \begin{equation}
857: HLE_{x}=(\dsum ~_{n}LWD_{x})/l_{x} \tag{A3}
858: \end{equation}%
859: where the summation is from age $x$ upwards. Hence equation (A3) presents
860: the proportion of years lived in a healthy state.
861:
862: \qquad However, given the overall usefulness of the Sullivan method, it is
863: better in principle to base future estimates on health care needs on the
864: current incidence of ill-health, rather than on current prevalence.
865: Prevalence of chronic health conditions is affected only by past history in
866: that it is seen as a stock variable reflecting past flows, rather than
867: current health risks (\citeasnoun{Robine1999}). For example, past wars may
868: continue to affect current disablement rates, as may the past state of
869: health care, as conditions such as polio and thalidomide illustrate.
870: Therefore, if public health is changing, present prevalence may be a poor
871: guide to the future. This is one reason why it is inadvisable simply to
872: project current average age-specific expenditure rates to predict future
873: long term care needs. Incidence is a better guide to the current state of
874: health needs, and hence to predictions of future health. In this case
875: though, the Sullivan health expectancy remains a meaningful indicator of the
876: state of health at a population, rather than prediction at an individual,
877: level.
878:
879: \qquad Consequently, although Sullivan's method fails to be a good predictor
880: of changes in the years an individual can expect to live in healthy years,
881: it does remain a meaningful indicator of the state of health of a population
882: at a starting point in time. Hence, it reflects the healthy years an
883: individual can expect to live only if current patterns of prevalences apply
884: during an entire lifetime.
885:
886: \subsection{The Multistate Method}
887:
888: \qquad Although empirical research has mainly used Sullivan's method of
889: calculating healthy expectancies, the approach used here applies the
890: multistate life table method for calculating healthy life expectancy.
891: Multistate life table methods for calculating health expectancies were first
892: proposed by \citeasnoun{Rogers1990} and \citeasnoun{Crimmins1996} to take
893: into account reversible transitions between one health state and another.
894: This approach is theoretically attractive since it allows one to calculate
895: health expectancies for population subgroups in a specific health state at a
896: given age, for example, those in a `very good' health state at age
897: sixty-five, whereas the Sullivan method gives only the average health
898: expectancy for the entire population at a given age. Hence the multistate
899: method is based on incidence rates that represent current health conditions.
900: The procedure therefore carried out in this study which is outlined below
901: generalises the multistate life table, which analyses the transition from a
902: given health state to another state or to the absorbing state, death.
903:
904: \qquad The approach applied here therefore provides the critical link
905: between information on mortality and information on the spectrum of
906: non-fatal health experiences among the living. As an alternative to %
907: \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005}, where the results were divided between under
908: sixty-five year olds and people aged sixty-five or older, an attempt was
909: made to compute gender specific values for all age groups between 0 and 99
910: for each Member State.
911:
912: \qquad The initial stage of out model consisted of calculating transition
913: probabilities by constructing normal distributions from the $\alpha $
914: coefficients derived from the probit equations in \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005}%
915: , for each health state and for each of the two measures of health
916: expectancy. We denote by $\mathbf{M}^{i}$ the transition matrix for an
917: individual aged $i$. Each element $\mathbf{M}_{j,k}^{i}$ shows the
918: probability that an individual in health state $k$ in year $i$ will be in
919: health state $j$ in year $i+1$. So the transition probabilities for each
920: Member States are therefore given by%
921: \begin{eqnarray}
922: \mathbf{N}_{j,k}^{1} &=&\mathbf{M}_{j,k}^{1} \TCItag{A4} \\
923: \mathbf{N}_{j,k}^{i+1} &=&\mathbf{M}_{j,k}^{i+1}\cdot \mathbf{N}_{j,k}^{i}
924: \TCItag{A5}
925: \end{eqnarray}%
926: where $\mathbf{N}_{j,k}^{i}~$is the probability that an individual is state $%
927: j$ conditional on him or her being in state $k$ at birth.
928:
929: \qquad The next step consisted of simply computing the expected time in each
930: health state given that the individual was in a specific health category to
931: begin with, as a function of age and gender. It is apparent for all the
932: countries examined that as the age of the individual increases the expected
933: time spent in good health deteriorates and the time spent in bad health or
934: dying rises. It should also be noted that although the figures are presented
935: for ages 0 to 99, the oldest age reported for any country is 91, so beyond
936: this point figures may be of doubtful value. In order to calculate expected
937: time spent in each of the health states, denoted by $\mathbf{Z}_{j,k}^{i}$,
938: we have%
939: \begin{eqnarray}
940: \mathbf{Z}_{j,k}^{99} &=&\mathbf{M}_{j,k}^{99} \TCItag{A6} \\
941: \mathbf{Z}_{j,k}^{99-i} &=&\mathbf{M}_{j,k}^{99-i}\cdot \mathbf{Z}%
942: _{j,k}^{100-i}+\mathbf{Z}_{j,k}^{100-i} \TCItag{A7}
943: \end{eqnarray}%
944: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
945:
946: \qquad Equations (A6) and (A7) therefore provide the basis for determining
947: the expected number of years that an individual will spend state $j$
948: conditional on him or her being in state $k$ to begin with for each men and
949: women in the United Kingdom. In order to conclude this section it is
950: worthwhile recalling that while the Sullivan method of calculating healthy
951: life expectancy is based on prevalence rates, i.e. the prevalence of
952: disability that is a stock that is dependent on past history, the multistate
953: method applied here is based on incidence rates and thus can adjust to
954: represent current health conditions.
955:
956: \section{Appendix: Ordered Probit Equations used to Construct Transition
957: Probabilities}
958:
959: \qquad The tables below provide estimates of health transition rates
960: estimated from the ordered probit equations given in %
961: \citeasnoun{Bebbington2005} for the United Kingdom. Standard errors of
962: coefficients are shown in brackets. * denotes coefficients (age, gender) not
963: statistically significant (5\% level). The tables also exclude admissions to
964: a health-care institution.
965:
966: (a) People under 65
967:
968: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
969: %BeginExpansion
970: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
971: %EndExpansion
972:
973: \begin{center}
974: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|}
975: \hline
976: Initial Health & $\alpha _{1}$ & $\alpha _{2}$ & $\alpha _{3}$ & $\alpha
977: _{4} $ & Age (years) & Gender \\ \hline
978: Very Good & 0.264 & 1.490 & 2.221 & 3.143 & -0.001* & 0.078 \\
979: & (0.045) & (0.046) & (0.055) & (0.138) & (0.001) & (0.027) \\ \hline
980: Good & -0.779 & 1.064 & 2.097 & 3.444 & 0.002 & 0.108 \\
981: & (0.032) & (0.033) & (0.037) & (0.116) & (0.001) & (0.019) \\ \hline
982: Fair & -1.093 & 0.311 & 1.733 & 3.141 & 0.013 & -0.002* \\
983: & (0.053) & (0.050) & (0.054) & (0.085) & (0.001) & (0.029) \\ \hline
984: Bad/Very Bad & -1.284 & -0.246 & 0.699 & 2.880 & 0.019 & -0.107 \\
985: & (0.106) & (0.100) & (0.101) & (0.121) & (0.002) & (0.053) \\ \hline
986: \end{tabular}
987: \end{center}
988:
989: \caption{Ordered probit formulae coefficients of transition
990: probabilities for self-reported health (SAH) from the ECHP (all waves, pooled)\label{key1}}%
991: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
992: %BeginExpansion
993: \end{table}%
994: %EndExpansion
995:
996: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
997: %BeginExpansion
998: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
999: %EndExpansion
1000:
1001: \begin{center}
1002: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccc|}
1003: \hline
1004: Initial Health & $\alpha _{1}$ & $\alpha _{2}$ & Age (years) & Gender \\
1005: \hline
1006: None/Slight & 2.381 & 3.622 & 0.015 & 0.113 \\
1007: & (0.067) & (0.080) & (0.001) & (0.037) \\ \hline
1008: Severe & 0.336 & 3.229 & 0.022 & -0.217 \\
1009: & (0.142) & (0.187) & (0.003) & (0.067) \\ \hline
1010: \end{tabular}
1011: \end{center}
1012:
1013: \caption{Ordered probit formulae coefficients of transition
1014: probabilities for hampering health condition (HH) from the ECHP (all waves, pooled)\label{key2}}%
1015: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
1016: %BeginExpansion
1017: \end{table}%
1018: %EndExpansion
1019:
1020: \newpage
1021:
1022: (b) People 65 and over
1023:
1024: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
1025: %BeginExpansion
1026: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
1027: %EndExpansion
1028:
1029: \begin{center}
1030: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|}
1031: \hline
1032: Initial Health & $\alpha _{1}$ & $\alpha _{2}$ & $\alpha _{3}$ & $\alpha
1033: _{4} $ & Age (years) & Gender \\ \hline
1034: Very Good & 1.955 & 3.110 & 3.687 & 3.924 & 0.026 & 0.007* \\
1035: & (0.664) & (0.658) & (0.634) & (0.614) & (0.009) & (0.078) \\ \hline
1036: Good & 0.515 & 2.302 & 3.220 & 3.644 & 0.023 & 0.079* \\
1037: & (0.323) & (0.326) & (0.32) & (0.310) & (0.004) & (0.045) \\ \hline
1038: Fair & -0.629 & 0.705 & 2.131 & 2.962 & 0.017 & -0.076* \\
1039: & (0.319) & (0.318) & (0.316) & (0.308) & (0.004) & (0.054) \\ \hline
1040: Bad/Very Bad & -1.250 & -0.285 & 0.738 & 2.244 & 0.017 & -0.285 \\
1041: & (0.525) & (0.506) & (0.505) & (0.495) & (0.007) & (0.089) \\ \hline
1042: \end{tabular}
1043: \end{center}
1044:
1045: \caption{Ordered probit formulae coefficients of transition
1046: probabilities for self-reported health (SAH) from the ECHP (all waves, pooled)\label{key3}}%
1047: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
1048: %BeginExpansion
1049: \end{table}%
1050: %EndExpansion
1051:
1052: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[h] \centering}}%
1053: %BeginExpansion
1054: \begin{table}[h] \centering%
1055: %EndExpansion
1056:
1057: \begin{center}
1058: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccc|}
1059: \hline
1060: Initial Health & $\alpha _{1}$ & $\alpha _{2}$ & Age (years) & Gender \\
1061: \hline
1062: None/Slight & 3.977 & 4.882 & 0.040 & 0.025* \\
1063: & (0.393) & (0.386) & (0.005) & (0.063) \\ \hline
1064: Severe & 0.612 & 2.795 & 0.020 & -0.210 \\
1065: & (0.503) & (0.497) & (0.007) & (0.098) \\ \hline
1066: \end{tabular}
1067: \end{center}
1068:
1069: \caption{Ordered probit formulae coefficients of transition
1070: probabilities for hampering health condition (HH) from the ECHP (all waves, pooled)\label{key4}}%
1071: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}%
1072: %BeginExpansion
1073: \end{table}%
1074: %EndExpansion
1075:
1076: \end{document}
1077: