Living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy in the United States

Living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy in the United States a1111111111 No studies have investigated the association between living arrangements and disability- a1111111111 free life expectancy in the United States, nor worldwide. This study aims to examine the dif- a1111111111 ferences in total and disability-free life expectancy among older Americans according to liv- a1111111111 a1111111111 ing arrangements. Data from the Health and Retirement Study (1998 to 2014) for non- Hispanic whites aged 50 and over (N = 21,612). Disability-free life expectancy by gender, liv- ing arrangement, and education are obtained from incidence-based multistate life tables. Overall, those who live only with their spouses/partners live 1–19 years longer with 3–25 OPENACCESS more years without disability and 1–7 fewer years with disability than do those with other liv- ing arrangements. Among those with the same living arrangement, the higher educated live Citation: Chiu C-T (2019) Living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy in the United States. up to 6 years longer with up to 8 more years in a disability-free state and up to 2 fewer years PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211894. https://doi.org/ in a disabled state. The study shows strong association between living arrangement and dis- 10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 ability-free life expectancy by gender and education. Long-term care policy should take into Editor: Stefano Federici, Università degli Studi di account the length of life with/without disability by living arrangements and socioeconomic Perugia, ITALY status and make use of the potential family resources. Received: July 17, 2018 Accepted: January 22, 2019 Published: February 8, 2019 Introduction Copyright:© 2019 Chi-Tsun Chiu. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Rapid increases in the proportion of the population that is elderly is a global phenomenon. In Creative Commons Attribution License, which the United States, the number and proportion of the elderly population, aged 65 and above, permits unrestricted use, distribution, and have increased over time and are projected to grow in the near future [1]. Meanwhile, family reproduction in any medium, provided the original structures and household composition have gradually evolved over the past few decades, and author and source are credited. the living arrangements of older Americans have changed as well. Household size decrease, Data Availability Statement: All Health and and the proportion of one-person households has increased during the past decades [2,3]. In Retirement Study public use data files are available 2003, over 30% (10.5 million) of Americans aged 65 and above were living alone; among those from http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu. who live alone, only one-quarter were men [4]. This is explained, mainly, by the fact that Funding: CC was supported by the Ministry of women have longer life expectancies than men. Older women are more likely than their male Science and Technology, https://www.most.gov. counterparts to be widowed, and older men are more likely to live with their spouse compared tw/, MOST 107-2410-H-001-054-MY2. The to older women [3,4]. funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of Previous studies have provided possible explanations for why there is a significant associa- the manuscript. tion between living arrangement and health/mortality, including availability of resources (including social support and financial resources), degree of difficulty of living situations, regu- Competing interests: The authors have declared lation of health behavior, and demands on individual roles [5–9]. Most studies show that those that no competing interests exist. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 1 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. who live alone are at greater risk of cognitive decline, poor physical/mental health, mortality incidence, and nursing home admissions compared to those not doing so [7,9–12], because liv- ing alone, compared to other co-residence living arrangements, is less favorable to social/finan- cial support and adopting a healthy lifestyle [5,6,8,9]. There may also be psychological consequences to living alone, such as negative perceptions of health, depression, and loneliness [13,14]. However, living alone does not always mean being lonely or feeling lonely [15]. A previ- ous study using data from China shows that older women living alone have fewer health prob- lems compared to older women living with children and others, but the same does not apply to men; a possible explanation for this is the traditional caregiving role of women [16]. Since living arrangements are associated with health and mortality, it is crucial to know whether older Americans are living more healthily as well as longer in these new living arrangements. This study aims to examine these matters by investigating the association between living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy. Despite extended life expectancy, older per- sons may suffer from disability and illness during their later years [17,18]. Living longer does not necessarily signify living healthier. Therefore, it is important to consider not only length of life, but also the quality of life (e.g., disability-free life expectancy) of older Americans in terms of population health and policy implications for public health. Disability-free expectancy–the average number of years that a person can expect to live without disability–combines informa- tion about both mortality and disability, and indicates a potential future need for health care [17,19,20]. Living arrangements represent a person’s immediate social environment and often imply how and where older people will receive formal and informal care [21,22]. It is worth examining how different types of living arrangements are associated with health, mortality and disability-free life expectancy. Methods Data This study employs the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a biennial survey spanning the years 1992 to 2014, primarily sponsored by the National Institute of Aging (NIA) and con- ducted by the University of Michigan. The HRS is a nationally representative longitudinal sur- vey of Americans aged 51 years and older, and their spouses, in the United States. The institutionalized population was not initially included in the HRS sample in the baseline inter- view, but respondents were followed into institutions, so institutional respondents are also included in the current data. Since the HRS is a longitudinal survey, survival status is available from both National Death Index and follow-up interviews. In order to calculate life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy according to different living arrangements (including living in nursing homes), this study includes an institutional sample and uses the weight that is the combined individual-level weight and the nursing home weight. This study makes use of the HRS Rand file (version P) and Rand Core fat files (1998–2014), and the analytical sample com- prises individuals aged 50 and over. The study only includes HRS data from 1998–2014 because of the consistency of disability measurement [23,24]. Disability measures the gap between personal capability and environmental demands, and can be mitigated on either side, by increasing capability or reducing demand [25]. In the study, disability is measured by difficulties encountered in undertaking the activities of daily living (ADL) that are necessary for survival [25], and with a composite summary measure for ADL, (RwADLA, wherein "w" refers to the wave number) provided by Rand which is used here [23]. The ADL measure includes items such as dressing, bathing, eating, walking, and get- ting in and out of bed. Respondents with any ADL disability will be coded as disabled. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 2 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Other socio-demographic measures include age, gender, and education. Age is recorded at the time of interview for those who are 50 and over. Gender is an important variable for this study because living arrangements have a stronger impact for men than women in terms of health/mortality [5,16]. All analyses are stratified by gender. Education is often viewed as a fundamental cause [26,27] of health/mortality disparities and is highly correlated with living arrangements. It may be that income, wealth, and/or edu- cation are the reasons for differences in life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy between cohabiting and single older adults rather than living arrangements per se. Therefore, education, as the key socioeconomic status, is considered in the model. Educational attainment at the time of the interview was measured according to each respondent’s level of education in each survey. This study uses a binary version of the education variable based on previous research showing that high school (HS) graduates and those with a higher degree have signifi- cantly better health/mortality profile compared to those with less than a high school degree [28,29]. Due to small cell sizes, this study is not able to use a refined education variable. All analyses in the study are restricted to non-Hispanic white respondents aged 50 and older with complete information on age, gender, education, living arrangement, and valid sample weights in 1998–2014. Those with information missing regarding these variables are excluded. Focusing on non-Hispanic whites is not only to avoid small cell sizes of other races and Hispanic groups, but also to improve data quality and to reduce population heterogeneity. Differing living arrangements imply different demands and resources facing older Ameri- cans [7,30]. This is so for three reasons: 1. spouses/partners are oftentimes the immediate informal primary caregiver in the household [16,31]; 2. living alone is strongly associated with health/mortality [5–11,13,14,16] and 3. nursing home admissions are associated with severe health problems [12]. The study distinguishes between five types of living arrangements and accounts for the changes in living arrangements during the survey period. Therefore, living arrangements at the beginning of the interval are not necessarily the same as those at the end of the interval. 1. Couple only: married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners only. 2. Couple with children/others: married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners, and children and/or others in the same household. 3. Single only: people (who are separated, widowed, divorced, never married, or not cohabit- ing) living alone. 4. Single with children/others: people (who are separated, widowed, divorced, never married, or not cohabiting) living with children/others in the same household. 5. Nursing home: people living in nursing homes. The married and cohabiters are viewed as couples in the study because previous work has found no significant mortality differences between married and cohabitating couples [32]. Couples or singles who are living with their children may also be living with others. Previous studies have shown the significance of children’s socioeconomic status on parents’ health and mortality [33–36] and family members’ caregiving roles, especially spouses/partners not pres- ent in the same household [37]. Older adults who are single and live with children and/or oth- ers may in poor health [16]. Single adults living with others include a substantial fraction of older Americans living in another’s household [30]. Living arrangements could change across PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 3 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. waves. The living arrangements framework in this study is inspired by the designs of previous studies [7,30]. In their studies using the first one or two waves of the HRS there were almost no cases of individuals living in nursing homes. However, as the HRS follows respondents into institutions, and this study makes use of HRS waves four through twelve, respondents living in nursing homes are included from the analysis. Analytic approach Total life expectancy (TLE), disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) and disabled life expectancy (DLE) are obtained from incidence-based multistate life tables (MSLTs) that are estimated using a relatively recent algorithm, Stochastic Population Analysis for Complex Events (SPACE) [38]. The SPACE is composed from SAS macros with SAS IML and CONNECT components. The SPACE approach offers some advantages over traditional ways of estimating MSLTs, namely, the use of microsimulation and the bootstrap method to estimate the sam- pling variability of MSLT functions. Here, a simulation cohort size of 100,000 is used along with 300 bootstrap samples. Via the bootstrap technique, statistically testing whether differ- ences between groups are statistically significant becomes possible. Confidence intervals of 95% are constructed for the distribution of the between-group difference in estimates, which is from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. The analyses are stratified by gender, with living arrangements and education serving as covariates in the model. Below are models to estimate age-specific state-dependent transition probabilities using multinomial logistic regression: Model 1: age + living arrangement Model 2: Model 1 + education + interaction of living arrangement and education The possible six transitions are listed as follow: 1. Disability-free to disability-free 2. Disability-free to disabled 3. Disability-free to dead 4. Disabled to disabled 5. Disabled to disability-free 6. Disabled to dead Living arrangement is treated as a time-varying covariate in the model. Within each respon- dent in the long-form analysis data file input to the SPACE program, each respondent is allowed to have different living arrangement states across different rows since living arrange- ments of respondents could change across waves. Therefore, the analysis is able to capture the changing nature of living arrangements and to reflect the complicated association between liv- ing arrangements and health expectancy. SPACE calculates disability-free life expectancy with the input data and settings. SPACE provides both population-based and status-based MSLTs. For more detailed technical infor- mation about the SPACE program, please refer to Cai and colleagues’ work [38]. Results There are 21,612 non-Hispanic whites included in the analysis sample during the last observa- tions. Among these, 5,941 men and 7,798 women are alive; 3,771 men and 4,102 women are dead. Among 9,712 men, 1,708 have less than a high school degree, while 8,004 have a high PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 4 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 1. The numbers of interview records of living arrangement by gender for non-Hispanic whites. Living Arrangements Men Women Total # % # % # % Couple only 30,191 51.8 29,146 41.1 59,337 46.0 Couple with children/others 9,566 22.7 7,752 14.2 17,318 18.1 Single alone 7,578 16.6 19,420 28.9 26,998 23.3 Single with children/others 3,703 7.9 9,098 13.6 12,801 11.0 Nursing home 715 1.0 1,936 2.2 2,651 1.7 Total 51,753 100.0 67,352 100.0 119,105 100.0 Note. Numbers of interview records (#) are unweighted, but proportions (%) are weighted. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t001 school degree or above; among 11,900 women, 2,167 have less than a high school degree while 9,733 have a high school degree or above. There are 10,120 non-Hispanic whites (4,127 men and 5,993 women) who change their living arrangements during the analysis period. Table 1 displays the numbers of interview records of time-varying living arrangements by gender for non-Hispanic whites. Among interview records of non-Hispanic white men, the most common living arrangement is married/cohabiters living only with their spouses/part- ners (30,191, 51.8%); followed by married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners and children and/or others (9,566, 22.7%) and single men living alone (7,578, 16.6%); the least common is living in a nursing home (715, 1.0%). For non-Hispanic white women, the most common living arrangement is also married/cohabiters living only with their spouses/partners (29,146, 41.1%); followed by single women living alone (19,420, 28.9%) and married/cohabi- ters living with their spouses/partners and children and/or others (7,752, 14.2%); the least common is living in a nursing home (1,936, 2.2%). Table 2 shows the numbers of interview records by gender for non-Hispanic whites across waves. Among the total 119,105 interview records, about 9% - 13% of interview records appear in each wave for men, women, and both men and women combined. Table 3 compares vital statistics and estimated results by gender for Americans at age 50. The estimated total life expectancies are 29.02, and 32.86 years for non-Hispanic white men and women respectively, while life expectancies from vital statistics at age 50 for non-Hispanic white men and women are 28.96, and 32.63 years respectively. The differences between vital Table 2. The numbers of interview records by gender for non-Hispanic whites across waves. Interview Waves Men Women Total # % # % # % 1998 6,779 9.9 8,529 10.0 15,308 10.0 2000 6,209 9.4 8,038 9.7 14,247 9.6 2002 5,672 9.0 7,461 9.5 13,133 9.3 2004 6,159 11.7 8,062 11.7 14,221 11.7 2006 5,664 11.2 7,471 11.2 13,135 11.2 2008 5,204 10.5 6,916 10.6 12,120 10.6 2010 5,906 13.4 7,618 13.1 13,524 13.2 2012 5,446 12.8 7,081 12.6 12,527 12.7 2014 4,714 12.1 6,176 11.7 10,890 11.9 Total 51,753 100.0 67,352 100.0 119,105 100.0 Note. Numbers of interview records (#) are unweighted, but proportions (%) are weighted. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t002 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 5 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 3. Vital statistics of life expectancy and estimated total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gen- der for Americans at age 50. Vital Statistics Estimated Gender TLE TLE 95% CI Men 28.96 29.02 (28.6–29.4) Women 32.63 32.86 (32.5–33.3) Note. The vital statistics are from the life table in 2006 from Tables 2 and 3 of Arias (2010) [51] with tables updated using revised intercensal populations. TLE = total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t003 statistics and estimated total life expectancies are all within a half year, and vital statistics fall within 95% conference intervals. Tables 4–6 presents total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50, and different patterns can be seen according to gender and initial health state. In Table 4 for population-based estimates, among men, those living in a couple only survive the longest (TLE = 30.8), followed by those living in a couple with children/others (TLE = 29.8), single only (TLE = 28.6), single with children/others (TLE = 26.8), and nursing home (TLE = 15.2). Compared to couple only, living arrangements of singles and nursing home have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05). Sin- gles living with children or others also have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05) than couples living with children or others. Men living with spouses/partners enjoys the longest years of total life and disability-free life (DFLE = 27.3) and the shortest disabled life (DLE = 3.4), where men in nursing homes are the opposite. Among women, those living in a couple only arrangement live the longest (TLE = 35.9), followed by single only (TLE = 34.8), couple with children/others (TLE = 32.7), single with children/others (TLE = 30.0), and nurs- ing home (TLE = 16.6). Slightly different patterns are observed compared to men. Compared to couple only, all other living arrangements have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05). Women living with spouses/partners enjoy the longest years of total life and disabil- ity-free life (DFLE = 31.5) and the shortest disabled life (DLE = 4.5), where women in nursing Table 4. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 30.8 (0.27) 27.4 (0.31) 3.4 (0.12) 89.0 Couple with children/others 29.8 (0.64) 26.0 (0.60) 3.9 (0.32) 87.2 Single only 28.6 (0.57) ab 24.3 (0.61) ab 4.3 (0.26) ab 85.0 Single with children/others 26.8 (0.62) ab 22.0 (0.58) ab 4.8 (0.39) a 82.1 Nursing home 15.2 (0.88) a 4.6 (0.72) a 10.6 (0.68) a 30.3 Women Couple only 35.9 (0.34) 31.5 (0.34) 4.5 (0.17) 87.7 Couple with children/others 32.7 (0.87) a 28.1 (0.70) a 4.6 (0.40) 85.9 Single only 34.8 (0.34) ab 29.0 (0.33) ab 5.8 (0.19) ab 83.3 Single with children/others 30.0 (0.41) ab 23.3 (0.51) ab 6.7 (0.37) ab 77.7 Nursing home 16.6 (0.81) a 3.9 (0.57) a 12.8 (0.70) a 23.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t004 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 6 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 5. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates: Sta- tus-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 30.9 (0.26) 27.7 (0.28) 3.2 (0.11) 89.6 Couple with children/others 30.0 (0.64) 26.4 (0.60) 3.6 (0.30) 88.0 Single only 28.7 (0.56) a 24.7 (0.57) a 4.0 (0.24) a 86.1 Single with children/others 27.0 (0.61) ab 22.7 (0.56) ab 4.4 (0.36) a 84.1 Nursing home 16.3 (0.79) a 7.0 (0.74) a 9.3 (0.59) a 42.9 Women Couple only 36.0 (0.33) 31.8 (0.33) 4.3 (0.16) 88.3 Couple with children/others 32.8 (0.86) a 28.5 (0.68) a 4.4 (0.40) 86.9 Single only 35.0 (0.33) a 29.4 (0.31) a 5.5 (0.18) a 84.0 Single with children/others 30.4 (0.40) ab 24.1 (0.48) ab 6.3 (0.34) ab 79.3 Nursing home 17.9 (0.74) a 6.3 (0.64) a 11.6 (0.63) a 35.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t005 home are the opposite. Very similar patterns by gender can be observed in status-based esti- mates, whether initial health states are disability-free or disabled (Tables 5 and 6). Tables 7–9 presents total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period. Due to very small sample size for those staying in nursing homes for entire period, institutionalized respondents are excluded in the analysis for Tables 7–9. Statistical significance (p<0.05) is seen in Tables 7–9, and the pattern is very similar com- pared to that in Tables 4–6. However, all the TLE and DFLE are much lower. Tables 10–12 exhibits total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50. These tables are large, and allow for summarizing the findings below. Table 6. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates: Sta- tus-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 29.2 (0.45) 23.0 (0.59) 6.2 (0.29) 78.8 Couple with children/others 27.6 (0.71) a 20.6 (0.75) a 7.0 (0.53) 74.6 Single only 27.1 (0.75) a 19.7 (0.94) a 7.4 (0.41) a 72.7 Single with children/others 25.3 (0.72) ab 17.6 (0.81) ab 7.6 (0.55) a 69.6 Nursing home 14.3 (0.96) a 2.8 (0.66) a 11.5 (0.73) a 19.6 Women Couple only 34.4 (0.44) 27.4 (0.46) 7.0 (0.24) 79.7 Couple with children/others 31.2 (0.95) a 23.9 (0.82) a 7.3 (0.52) 76.6 Single only 33.2 (0.48) 24.6 (0.57) a 8.6 (0.28) a 74.1 Single with children/others 27.6 (0.54) ab 17.9 (0.67) ab 9.8 (0.51) ab 64.9 Nursing home 15.8 (0.85) a 2.2 (0.40) a 13.6 (0.73) a 13.9 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t006 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 7 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 7. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Population-based estimates. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 27.7 (0.40) 25.0 (0.40) 2.8 (0.15) 90.3 Couple with children/others 23.9 (0.96) a 21.4 (0.85) a 2.5 (0.33) 89.5 Single only 24.0 (0.83) ab 21.5 (0.79) ab 2.5 (0.27) 89.6 Single with children/others 21.9 (0.96) a 18.5 (0.98) ab 3.4 (0.63) 84.5 Women Couple only 31.6 (0.37) 28.5 (0.38) 3.2 (0.20) 90.2 Couple with children/others 24.8 (0.93) a 22.5 (0.89) a 2.4 (0.41) 90.7 Single only 31.6 (0.57) 27.3 (0.63) 4.3 (0.22) a 86.4 Single with children/others 25.9 (0.52) a 20.4 (0.61) ab 5.5 (0.48) ab 78.8 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t007 1. Within each gender and living arrangement group, people with a higher level education have a better life expectancy profile compared to those of lower education, and most differ- ences between education groups are statistically significant (p<0.05). 2. Among men with the same education, the patterns are very similar to those of Tables 4–6. This is true for TLE, DFLE, DLE, and %DFLE from both population-based and status- based results. 3. Among women with education of less than HS, couple only, single only, and couple with children/others have similar TLE or DFLE (p>0.05) from both population-based and sta- tus-based results. The pattern differs from that in Tables 4–6. 4. Among women with education of HS and above, couple only have the highest TLE or DFLE compared to other living arrangements, and the differences of TLE or DFLE between couple only and single only (the second highest) become larger than those of Tables 4–6. Table 8. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 27.9 (0.39) 25.2 (0.39) 2.6 (0.14) 90.3 Couple with children/others 24.0 (0.96) a 21.7 (0.85) a 2.3 (0.31) 90.4 Single only 24.1 (0.82) ab 21.8 (0.77) ab 2.4 (0.25) 90.5 Single with children/others 22.1 (0.95) a 19.1 (0.93) ab 3.0 (0.57) 86.4 Women Couple only 31.7 (0.37) 28.7 (0.38) 3.0 (0.20) 90.5 Couple with children/others 25.0 (0.92) a 22.8 (0.87) a 2.2 (0.40) 91.2 Single only 31.7 (0.56) 27.6 (0.60) 4.1 (0.21) a 87.1 Single with children/others 26.1 (0.50) a 21.0 (0.57) ab 5.2 (0.45) ab 80.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t008 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 8 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 9. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 24.9 (0.88) 19.5 (1.02) 5.3 (0.46) 78.3 Couple with children/others 22.2 (1.15) a 17.1 (1.07) a 5.1 (0.59) 77.0 Single only 22.2 (1.24) ab 17.1 (1.36) ab 5.1 (0.57) 77.0 Single with children/others 20.4 (1.20) a 13.3 (1.83) a 7.1 (1.41) 65.2 Women Couple only 29.6 (0.71) 24.0 (0.73) 5.6 (0.35) 81.1 Couple with children/others 22.6 (1.26) a 18.1 (1.19) a 4.5 (0.61) 80.1 Single only 30.4 (0.89) 23.5 (1.03) 6.9 (0.44) ab 77.3 Single with children/others 24.0 (0.85) a 15.4 (0.93) ab 8.6 (0.68) ab 64.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t009 5. As for DLE of women with same education, the pattern remains the same with two educa- tional groups combined in Tables 4–6. 6. Among people in nursing homes, statistically significant differences (p<0.05) are shown in TLE and DFLE for men, but not for women. Men of differing education have different % DFLE, but women of differing education have almost the same %DFLE. Discussion The results show the significance of living arrangement for total and disability-free life expec- tancy in the United States. Overall, those who live only with their spouses/partners live 1–19 years longer with 3–25 more years without disability and 1–7 fewer years with disability than do those with other living arrangements. Among those with the same living arrangement, the higher educated have lives of up to 6 years longer along with up to 8 more years in a disability- free state and up to 2 fewer years in a disabled state. The study also reveals gender specific pat- terns by living arrangement. For both genders, those living with their spouses or partners have longest TLE (ie., lowest mortality rates) and longest DFLE compared to the other living arrangements, which is consis- tent with previous studies which show that living with a spouse/partner is associated with reduced mortality incidence and difficulty of ADL [7,8,30]. The results underscore the impor- tance of living with spouses/partners in the same household, especially as spouses/partners are oftentimes the immediate informal primary caregiver in the household [16,31]. Therefore, people living alone have shorter TLE and DFLE compared to those living with their spouses/ partners, which confirms previous studies’ findings that living alone is strongly associated with poor health and higher mortality rates compared to living as couples [7,10,11]. Previous stud- ies have shown that families may rearrange themselves to take care of disabled members. Those in ill health are more likely to live with their children or others, and living with children or others may encourage dependence in the elderly, which causes a loss of physical vitality that leads to increased mortality risks [8,39]. However, there is a gender difference. The difference in TLE and DFLE between living alone and living with a spouse/partner for women is smaller compared to that of men. In other words, for women, living alone and living with a spouse/ partner are more similar compared to men in terms of TLE and DFLE. In fact, if comparing PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 9 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 10. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 27.3 (0.50) 23.4 (0.55) 4.0 (0.29) 85.7 HS and above 31.5 (0.35) c 28.2 (0.38) c 3.4 (0.15) 89.5 Couple with children/others Less than HS 25.3 (1.09) 20.4 (0.94) a 5.0 (0.74) 80.6 HS and above 31.1 (0.78) c 27.3 (0.74) c 3.8 (0.32) 87.8 Single only Less than HS 24.8 (1.14) a 19.6 (1.17) a 5.2 (0.56) a 79.0 HS and above 29.4 (0.58) ac 25.2 (0.64) ac 4.2 (0.28) a 85.7 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.5 (0.90) a 19.2 (1.04) a 5.3 (0.66) a 78.4 HS and above 27.2 (0.80) abc 22.5 (0.74) abc 4.7 (0.44) a 82.7 Nursing home Less than HS 13.0 (1.04) a 2.0 (0.60) a 10.9 (0.98) a 15.4 HS and above 15.6 (1.01) ac 5.1 (0.93) ac 10.5 (0.79) a 32.7 Women Couple only Less than HS 30.7 (0.73) 24.7 (0.75) 6.0 (0.52) 80.5 HS and above 37.0 (0.40) c 32.8 (0.39) c 4.3 (0.19) c 88.6 Couple with children/others Less than HS 29.6 (1.92) 23.7 (1.82) 5.9 (1.04) 80.1 HS and above 33.4 (1.02) a 29.0 (0.80) ac 4.4 (0.46) 86.8 Single only Less than HS 31.6 (0.72) 25.1 (0.70) 6.5 (0.40) 79.4 HS and above 35.6 (0.42) ac 29.8 (0.36) ac 5.8 (0.25) a 83.7 Single with children/others Less than HS 26.7 (0.65) a 18.1 (0.83) ab 8.6 (0.60) ab 67.8 HS and above 31.0 (0.51) abc 24.7 (0.60) abc 6.3 (0.44) abc 79.7 Nursing home Less than HS 15.5 (1.00) a 3.2 (0.76) a 12.3 (0.94) a 20.6 HS and above 16.7 (0.86) a 3.6 (0.56) a 13.1 (0.70) a 21.6 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05). b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t010 TLE and DFLE, living alone is the second best living arrangement for women right after couple only. For men, living alone is the third best living arrangement right after living with a spouse/ partner with/without children or others. One possible explanation is the traditional caregiving role of women [16]. The other possible reason is that women who live alone are more likely to maintain their social network ties and level of social engagement, which are beneficial to health and lower mortality [5,40]. In sum, the hazard of living alone is stronger for men than for women. For men, whether living with their spouses/partners is an important factor, but less so for women. A man living with a spouse/partner having health problems are more likely to receive care from his spouse/partner, and when this assistance is available, children/others may stay away [16]. For women, even they live with their spouses/partners, those in poor health or having disability are more likely to move in with and stay living with their children or others compared to those in better health or having no disability [16]. Our results confirm this. Women who live with children/others, no matter whether living with spouses/partners or not, have worse profiles of TLE, DFLE, and DLE compared to women who do not live with children/others. Among those who never change their living arrangement during the analysis period, their TLE and DFLE are much lower. This is an interesting phenomenon. Why do they maintain the same living arrangement for a relatively long time? There are two explanatory groups. One is that their lives are stable without any major life events, such as severe health problems, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 10 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 11. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 27.5 (0.50) 23.9 (0.56) 3.6 (0.27) 86.9 HS and above 31.7 (0.34) c 28.5 (0.35) c 3.2 (0.13) 89.9 Couple with children/others Less than HS 25.7 (1.09) 21.2 (0.91) a 4.4 (0.68) 82.5 HS and above 31.3 (0.78) c 27.8 (0.73) c 3.5 (0.29) 88.8 Single only Less than HS 25.0 (1.15) a 20.3 (1.13) a 4.7 (0.52) a 81.2 HS and above 29.5 (0.56) ac 25.7 (0.61) ac 3.9 (0.26) a 87.1 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.8 (0.91) a 20.2 (1.00) a 4.6 (0.60) 81.5 HS and above 27.4 (0.80) abc 23.1 (0.72) abc 4.3 (0.41) a 84.3 Nursing home Less than HS 14.2 (0.95) a 4.2 (0.86) a 10.0 (0.97) a 29.6 HS and above 16.8 (0.91) ac 7.6 (0.93) ac 9.2 (0.70) a 45.2 Women Couple only Less than HS 31.0 (0.71) 25.5 (0.71) 5.5 (0.50) 82.3 HS and above 37.1 (0.40) c 33.1 (0.38) c 4.1 (0.19) c 89.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 29.9 (1.90) 24.4 (1.78) 5.4 (0.99) 81.6 HS and above 33.5 (1.01) a 29.3 (0.79) ac 4.2 (0.45) 87.5 Single only Less than HS 31.9 (0.70) 25.9 (0.67) 6.1 (0.37) 81.2 HS and above 35.7 (0.41) ac 30.2 (0.34) ac 5.5 (0.24) a 84.6 Single with children/others Less than HS 27.4 (0.60) a 19.6 (0.73) ab 7.8 (0.53) a 71.5 HS and above 31.3 (0.50) abc 25.5 (0.57) abc 5.9 (0.41) abc 81.5 Nursing home Less than HS 16.8 (0.94) a 5.6 (0.92) a 11.1 (0.91) a 33.3 HS and above 17.9 (0.79) a 6.0 (0.65) a 12.0 (0.63) a 33.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t011 changes in marital status or partnership. Therefore, they maintain their living arrangement whether or not they could change it. The other group does not have the option to change, even they wish to. For example, singles who do not have spouses/partners or children/others to live with, and therefore, they may have fewer resources, such as network or social support, than people who have spouses/partners or children/others. Those living with children/others may have health problems so that they are not able to live on their own. Although the study is not able to estimate TLE and DFLE of institutionalized people who never return to community, one can expect that their TLE and DFLE must be lower than those who ever return to commu- nity because they become institutionalized due to severe health problems. Among people of the same gender and with the same living arrangements, the more edu- cated have better life expectancy profiles compared to those with less education. This is expected and consistent with the well-known education-health/mortality association [26–29]. There are also gender specific patterns. After accounting for education, men with the same level of education remain similar patterns as those without accounting for education. How- ever, the results for women with the same education show different patterns than the results without counting for education. Similar to the results without accounting for education, among women with higher educa- tion, those living only with their spouses/partners have best health/mortality profiles compared to other living arrangements. The difference between living only with their spouses/partners PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 11 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 12. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 26.0 (0.58) 19.5 (0.67) 6.4 (0.44) 75.0 HS and above 29.8 (0.53) c 23.6 (0.68) c 6.2 (0.31) 79.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 23.6 (1.20) 15.9 (1.24) a 7.7 (1.00) 67.4 HS and above 28.7 (0.83) c 21.7 (0.90) c 7.0 (0.55) 75.6 Single only Less than HS 23.8 (1.18) a 15.6 (1.44) a 8.2 (0.78) a 65.5 HS and above 28.0 (0.77) ac 20.7 (0.97) ac 7.3 (0.47) 73.9 Single with children/others Less than HS 23.5 (1.00) a 15.8 (1.35) a 7.7 (0.84) 67.2 HS and above 25.8 (0.89) abc 18.1 (0.94) ab 7.6 (0.63) a 70.2 Nursing home Less than HS 12.4 (1.10) a 1.0 (0.52) a 11.4 (1.00) a 8.1 HS and above 14.9 (1.09) ac 3.4 (0.89) ac 11.5 (0.84) a 22.8 Women Couple only Less than HS 28.9 (0.91) 20.0 (1.03) 8.9 (0.64) 69.2 HS and above 35.7 (0.47) c 29.0 (0.48) c 6.8 (0.27) c 81.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 28.5 (1.98) 20.3 (1.88) 8.2 (1.17) 71.2 HS and above 31.9 (1.15) a 24.8 (0.95) a 7.1 (0.58) 77.7 Single only Less than HS 30.1 (0.80) 21.2 (0.78) 9.0 (0.49) 70.4 HS and above 34.1 (0.57) ac 25.5 (0.63) ac 8.6 (0.33) a 74.8 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.5 (0.91) a 13.0 (1.08) ab 11.4 (0.69) ab 53.1 HS and above 28.8 (0.63) abc 19.6 (0.79) abc 9.3 (0.60) abc 68.1 Nursing home Less than HS 14.9 (1.02) a 2.1 (0.59) a 12.9 (0.94) a 14.1 HS and above 15.9 (0.89) a 2.1 (0.39) a 13.8 (0.75) a 13.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t012 and other living arrangements are much larger. There is one potential explanation. People tend to have spouses/partners of similar age and education (ie., positive assortative mating) [41]. A couple composed of two highly educated people will share more health-related sources capable of enhancing health and leading to a decline in mortality than will a single highly edu- cated person [42]. Differing from the results without accounting for education, among lower educated women, living alone is associated with similar (slightly better, but not statistically sig- nificantly different) TLE and DLFE compared to living with spouses/partners. This is likely because women with less education will likely live with spouses/partners with less education [41] and have fewer health-related resources; if caregiving roles must be played in these house- holds, they will likely have fewer resources available compared to the more educated. In such a situation, a woman living alone would be better off than if living with her spouse/partner. People in nursing homes have the worst TLE, DFLE, and DLE among all living arrange- ments, and this is expected from previous studies as those who become severely disabled may go to nursing homes. However, the study further shows how many years they can live and in different states of disability, and the gaps between living in a nursing home and other living arrangements are enormous. After considering education, educational gaps appear among men but not for women. The is a very interesting phenomenon. The common understood linkages between education and health/mortality include occupation, income/wealth, health behaviors, and social support/connection. However, it is less likely to explain the educational PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 12 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. difference in health/mortality for older adults in nursing homes through the mechanism of occupation, health behaviors, and social support/connection. Therefore, income/wealth may provide possible reasons for the gender differential in educational gaps in TLE and DFLE for people in nursing homes. Previous research shows that a lifetime of lower income for women, including the gendering of work and family roles, limits women’s ability to accumulate wealth over the life course [43,44]. This leads to the gender wealth gap persisting into later life, and therefore the ability in the choices of nursing home services. However, this is only one possible explanation, and there may be some other, as yet unknown, reason responsible for this phenomenon. The study has both strengths and limitations. A major strength is the use of 16-year large nationally representative panel data in the United States. In addition, no studies have investi- gated the association between living arrangements and DFLE in the United States, nor world- wide. Using the DFLE approach enables us to quantify the association between living arrangements and disability and mortality jointly. Living arrangements are modeled as time- varying covariates, which allows the analyses to capture the changes in living arrangements throughout older life. The study also further investigates DFLE of those who never change their living arrangement during the analysis period. The results clearly show the significance of living arrangement on DFLE. Several issues should be considered when interpreting the results. All analyses in the study are restricted to non-Hispanic white respondents. This is not only to avoid small cell sizes of other races and Hispanic groups, but also to improve data quality and to reduce population heterogeneity. Due to small cell sizes, this study is not able to use a refined education variable. However, clear educational gaps in TLE and DFLE by living arrangements are observed, and the gaps are differentiated by gender. Cohousing is a new form of accommodation [45]. This study is not able to further discuss the association between this living arrangement and DFLE due to data limitation. Also, the study fails to distinguish between those living with children or others due to small cell sizes. The MSLT approach used in the study cannot model the life expected living in different types of living arrangements and life expected living in different health states in the same analysis. Analyses using the MSLT approach have to focus on one of two angles at a time. Treating DFLE as outcome and living arrangements as covariates does not assume a causal relationship between living arrangements and DFLE. In fact, the MSLT approach cannot measure or guarantee causality. The way to interpret the results is to consider whether there is an association between living arrangements and DFLE. Life expectancy esti- mates are expected values at the moment when people enter a certain living arrangement, and this does not mean that living arrangements cannot change. In fact, living arrangement is time-varying in the analyses. The above discussion also discusses possible changes in living arrangements due to disability. DFLE and DLE provide information for estimating potential lifetime health costs for older population, and cost is an important indicator of economic well- being of countries with established social security and health services [17]. Treating DFLE as an outcome is one means of investigating whether older Americans are living more healthily as well as longer in different types of living arrangements given the rapid population aging and changing living arrangements during the past decades in the United States [1–3]. Despite these limitations, the analyses provide compelling statistical evidence of strong association between changes of living arrangements and DFLE among older non-Hispanic whites in the United States, which suggests that people should look closely at living arrange- ments as key social contexts in which disability may be created or avoided, and informal/for- mal care needs may be provided and unmet [7,21]. Living arrangements often suggest where older persons receive long-term care. Studies have shown that living arrangements are not PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 13 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. only important indicators of health outcomes, but also crucial for understanding informal and formal care needs [21,46]. People who need long-term care would generally prefer receiving care in their homes/com- munities rather than going to institutions such as nursing homes [47,48]. The Medicaid pro- gram adopted a “money follows the person” policy such that people with long-term care needs have the right to choose to receive cares at home or in the community instead of going to nurs- ing homes. The home and community-based care alternatives to institutional long-term care during the past two decades have accompanied by the growing demand to remain at home rather than to live in institutions [49] and the increasing welfare and quality of life of long- term care receivers [47,50]. Different types of living arrangements are strongly associated with quantity and quality of life. Long-term care policy should take into account the length of life for people with/without disability by living arrangements and socioeconomic status and make use of the potential family resources. This not only can gather all available resources to provide the best assist for the informal/formal care of the older adults, but also can better estimate future long-term care costs and policy choices. The findings of this study contribute to the cur- rent knowledge of older adults’ DFLE and their demands for care among different societal contexts of changing living arrangements, which have significant policy implications for the targeting of health interventions and financing of long-term care systems. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Data curation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Formal analysis: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Funding acquisition: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Investigation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Methodology: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Project administration: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Resources: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Software: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Supervision: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Validation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Visualization: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Writing – original draft: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Writing – review & editing: Chi-Tsun Chiu. References 1. Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H. An aging nation: the older population in the United States: United States Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Department of Commerce; 2014. 2. Vespa J, Lewis JM, Kreider RM. America’s families and living arrangements: 2012. Current Population Reports. 2013; 20(2013):P570. 3. Tomassini C, Glaser K, Wolf DA, van Groenou MB, Grundy E. Living arrangements among older peo- ple: an overview of trends in Europe and the USA. POPULATION TRENDS-LONDON-. 2004:24–35. 4. He W, Sengupta M, Velkoff VA, DeBarros KA. 65+ in the United States: 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau; 2005. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 14 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. 5. Ng TP, Jin A, Feng L, Nyunt MS, Chow KY, Feng L, et al. Mortality of older persons living alone: Singa- pore Longitudinal Ageing Studies. BMC Geriatr. 2015; 15:126–135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877- 015-0128-7 PMID: 26470796 6. Haslbeck JW, McCorkle R, Schaeffer D. Chronic illness self-management while living alone in later life: a systematic integrative review. Res Aging. 2012; 34(5):507–547. 7. Waite LJ, Hughes ME. At Risk on the Cusp of Old Age: Living Arrangements and Functional Status Among Black, White and Hispanic Adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1999; 54B(3): S136–S144. 8. Li LW, Zhang J, Liang J. Health among the oldest-old in China: which living arrangements make a differ- ence? Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68(2):220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.013 PMID: 9. Lund R, Due P, Modvig J, Holstein BE, Damsgaard MT, Andersen PK. Cohabitation and marital status as predictors of mortality—an eight year follow-up study. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(4):673–679. PMID: 10. Kharicha K, Iliffe S, Harari D, Swift C, Gillmann G, Stuck AE. Health risk appraisal in older people 1: are older people living alone an ‘at-risk’group? The British Journal of General Practice. 2007; 57(537):271– 276. PMID: 17394729 11. van Gelder BM, Tijhuis M, Kalmijn S, Giampaoli S, Nissinen A, Kromhout D. Marital status and living sit- uation during a 5-year period are associated with a subsequent 10-year cognitive decline in older men: the FINE Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2006; 61(4):P213–P219. PMID: 16855033 12. Gaugler JE, Duval S, Anderson KA, Kane RL. Predicting nursing home admission in the US: a meta- analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2007; 7(1):13. 13. Chou K-L, Chi I. Comparison between elderly Chinese living alone and those living with others. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2000; 33(4):51–66. 14. Routasalo PE, Savikko N, Tilvis RS, Strandberg TE, Pitka ¨ la ¨ KH. Social contacts and their relationship to loneliness among aged people–a population-based study. Gerontology. 2006; 52(3):181–187. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091828 PMID: 16645299 15. Victor C, Scambler S, Bond J, Bowling A. Being alone in later life: loneliness, social isolation and living alone. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2000; 10(4):407–417. 16. Zimmer Z. Health and living arrangement transitions among China’s oldest-old. Res Aging. 2005; 27 (5):526–555. 17. Crimmins EM, Beltra ´ n-Sa ´ nchez H. Mortality and Morbidity Trends: Is There Compression of Morbidity? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011; 66B(1):75–86. 18. Smith AK, Walter LC, Miao Y, Boscardin WJ, Covinsky KE. Disability during the last two years of life. J Am Med Assoc. 2013; 173:1506–1513. 19. Yong V, Saito Y. Trends in healthy life expectancy in Japan: 1986–2004. Demographic Research. 2009; 20(19):467–494. 20. Crimmins EM, Hayward MD, Hagedorn A, Saito Y, Brouard N. Change in disability-free life expectancy for Americans 70-years-old and older. Demography. 2009; 46(3):627–46. PMID: 19771948 21. Hays JC. Living Arrangements and Health Status in Later Life: A Review of Recent Literature. Public Health Nurs. 2002; 19(2):136–151. PMID: 11860599 22. Kaye HS, Harrington C, LaPlante MP. Long-term care: Who gets it, who provides it, who pays, and how much? Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(1):11–21. 23. RAND HRS Data. Version P. Produced by the RAND Center for the Study of Aging, with funding from the National Institute on Aging and the Social Security Administration. Santa Monica, CA (August 2016). 2016. 24. Health and Retirement Study. Public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the University of Michi- gan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI, 2016. 2016. 25. Verbrugge LM. Disability Experience and Measurement. J Aging Health. 2016; 28(7):1124. https://doi. org/10.1177/0898264316656519 PMID: 27590795 26. Link BG, Phelan JC. Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995; 35(Extra Issue: Forty Years of Medical Sociology: The State of the Art and Directions for the Future (1995)):80–94. 27. Link BG, Phelan JC, Miech R, Westin EL. The resources that matter: fundamental social causes of health disparities and the challenge of intelligence. J Health Soc Behav. 2008; 49(1):72–91. https://doi. org/10.1177/002214650804900106 PMID: 18418986 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 15 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. 28. Rogers RG, Everett BG, Zajacova A, Hummer RA. Educational degrees and adult mortality risk in the United States. Biodemography Soc Biol. 2010; 56(1):80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19485561003727372 PMID: 20589989 29. Zajacova A, Hummer RA, Rogers RG. Education and health among US working-age adults: a detailed portrait across the full educational attainment spectrum. Biodemography Soc Biol. 2012; 58(1):40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2012.666122 PMID: 22582892 30. Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Health in household context: Living arrangements and health in late middle age. J Health Soc Behav. 2002; 43(1):1. PMID: 11949193 31. Barbosa A, Figueiredo D, Sousa L, Demain S. Coping with the caregiving role: Differences between pri- mary and secondary caregivers of dependent elderly people. Aging & Mental Health. 2011; 15(4):490– 32. Liu H, Reczek C. Cohabitation and US adult mortality: An examination by gender and race. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74(4):794–811. 33. Friedman EM, Mare RD. The schooling of offspring and the survival of parents. Demography. 2014; 51 (4):1271–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0303-z PMID: 24917296 34. Zimmer Z, Hanson HA, Smith KR. Offspring Socioeconomic Status and Parent Mortality Within a Histor- ical Population. Demography. 2016; 53(5):1583–1603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0502-x PMID: 27664009 35. Zimmer Z, Hermalin AI, Lin H-S. Whose Education Counts? The Added Impact of Adult-Child Education on Physical Functioning of Older Taiwanese. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002; 57(1):S23–S32. PMID: 11773230 36. Zimmer Z, Martin LG, Ofstedal MB, Chuang Y-L. Education of adult children and mortality of their elderly parents in Taiwan. Demography. 2007; 44(2):289–305. PMID: 17583306 37. Rogers RG, Hummer RA, Nam CB. Living and dying in the USA: Behavioral, health, and social differen- tials of adult mortality: Elsevier; 1999. 38. Cai L, Hayward M, Saito Y, Lubitz J, Hagedorn A, Crimmins E. Estimation of multi-state life table func- tions and their variability from complex survey data using the SPACE Program. Demographic Research. 2010; 22(6):129–158. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.6 PMID: 20463842 39. Wang H, Chen K, Pan Y, Jing F, Liu H. Associations and Impact Factors between Living Arrangements and Functional Disability among Older Chinese Adults. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1). 40. Michael YL, Berkman LF, Colditz GA, Kawachi I. Living arrangements, social integration, and change in functional health status. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 153(2):123–131. PMID: 11159156 41. Jepsen LK, Jepsen CA. An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography. 2002; 39(3):435–453. PMID: 12205751 42. Brown DC, Hummer RA, Hayward MD. The importance of spousal education for the self-rated health of married adults in the United States. Population research and policy review. 2014; 33(1):127–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9305-6 PMID: 24511172 43. Denton M, Boos L. The gender wealth gap: Structural and material constraints and implications for later life. J Women Aging. 2007; 19(3–4):105–120. https://doi.org/10.1300/J074v19n03_08 PMID: 44. Ruel E, Hauser RM. Explaining the gender wealth gap. Demography. 2013; 50(4):1155–1176. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0182-0 PMID: 23264038 45. Williams J. Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures. 2008; 40(3):268–286. 46. Lafreniere SA, Carriere Y, Martel L, Belanger A. Dependent seniors at home—formal and informal help. Health Rep. 2003; 14(4):31–40. PMID: 14608794 47. Simon SE, Hodges MR. Money follows the person: Change in participant experience during the first year of community living. The National Evaluation of the Money Follows the Person Demonstration Grant Program, Reports from the Field. 2011(6). 48. Guo J, Konetzka RT, Manning WG. The Causal Effects of Home Care Use on Institutional Long-Term Care Utilization and Expenditures. Health Econ. 2015; 24:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3155 PMID: 25760579 49. Kitchener M, Ng T, Miller N, Harrington C. Medicaid home and community-based services: National pro- gram trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; 24(1):206–212. 50. Grabowski DC. The cost-effectiveness of noninstitutional long-term care services: Review and synthe- sis of the most recent evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2006; 63(1):3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077558705283120 PMID: 16686071 51. Arias E. United States life tables, 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010; 58(21):1–40. PMID: 21043319 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 16 / 16 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journal

Living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy in the United States

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/public-library-of-science-plos-journal/living-arrangements-and-disability-free-life-expectancy-in-the-united-Xd4RKbQx2G
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

a1111111111 No studies have investigated the association between living arrangements and disability- a1111111111 free life expectancy in the United States, nor worldwide. This study aims to examine the dif- a1111111111 ferences in total and disability-free life expectancy among older Americans according to liv- a1111111111 a1111111111 ing arrangements. Data from the Health and Retirement Study (1998 to 2014) for non- Hispanic whites aged 50 and over (N = 21,612). Disability-free life expectancy by gender, liv- ing arrangement, and education are obtained from incidence-based multistate life tables. Overall, those who live only with their spouses/partners live 1–19 years longer with 3–25 OPENACCESS more years without disability and 1–7 fewer years with disability than do those with other liv- ing arrangements. Among those with the same living arrangement, the higher educated live Citation: Chiu C-T (2019) Living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy in the United States. up to 6 years longer with up to 8 more years in a disability-free state and up to 2 fewer years PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211894. https://doi.org/ in a disabled state. The study shows strong association between living arrangement and dis- 10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 ability-free life expectancy by gender and education. Long-term care policy should take into Editor: Stefano Federici, Università degli Studi di account the length of life with/without disability by living arrangements and socioeconomic Perugia, ITALY status and make use of the potential family resources. Received: July 17, 2018 Accepted: January 22, 2019 Published: February 8, 2019 Introduction Copyright:© 2019 Chi-Tsun Chiu. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Rapid increases in the proportion of the population that is elderly is a global phenomenon. In Creative Commons Attribution License, which the United States, the number and proportion of the elderly population, aged 65 and above, permits unrestricted use, distribution, and have increased over time and are projected to grow in the near future [1]. Meanwhile, family reproduction in any medium, provided the original structures and household composition have gradually evolved over the past few decades, and author and source are credited. the living arrangements of older Americans have changed as well. Household size decrease, Data Availability Statement: All Health and and the proportion of one-person households has increased during the past decades [2,3]. In Retirement Study public use data files are available 2003, over 30% (10.5 million) of Americans aged 65 and above were living alone; among those from http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu. who live alone, only one-quarter were men [4]. This is explained, mainly, by the fact that Funding: CC was supported by the Ministry of women have longer life expectancies than men. Older women are more likely than their male Science and Technology, https://www.most.gov. counterparts to be widowed, and older men are more likely to live with their spouse compared tw/, MOST 107-2410-H-001-054-MY2. The to older women [3,4]. funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of Previous studies have provided possible explanations for why there is a significant associa- the manuscript. tion between living arrangement and health/mortality, including availability of resources (including social support and financial resources), degree of difficulty of living situations, regu- Competing interests: The authors have declared lation of health behavior, and demands on individual roles [5–9]. Most studies show that those that no competing interests exist. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 1 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. who live alone are at greater risk of cognitive decline, poor physical/mental health, mortality incidence, and nursing home admissions compared to those not doing so [7,9–12], because liv- ing alone, compared to other co-residence living arrangements, is less favorable to social/finan- cial support and adopting a healthy lifestyle [5,6,8,9]. There may also be psychological consequences to living alone, such as negative perceptions of health, depression, and loneliness [13,14]. However, living alone does not always mean being lonely or feeling lonely [15]. A previ- ous study using data from China shows that older women living alone have fewer health prob- lems compared to older women living with children and others, but the same does not apply to men; a possible explanation for this is the traditional caregiving role of women [16]. Since living arrangements are associated with health and mortality, it is crucial to know whether older Americans are living more healthily as well as longer in these new living arrangements. This study aims to examine these matters by investigating the association between living arrangements and disability-free life expectancy. Despite extended life expectancy, older per- sons may suffer from disability and illness during their later years [17,18]. Living longer does not necessarily signify living healthier. Therefore, it is important to consider not only length of life, but also the quality of life (e.g., disability-free life expectancy) of older Americans in terms of population health and policy implications for public health. Disability-free expectancy–the average number of years that a person can expect to live without disability–combines informa- tion about both mortality and disability, and indicates a potential future need for health care [17,19,20]. Living arrangements represent a person’s immediate social environment and often imply how and where older people will receive formal and informal care [21,22]. It is worth examining how different types of living arrangements are associated with health, mortality and disability-free life expectancy. Methods Data This study employs the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a biennial survey spanning the years 1992 to 2014, primarily sponsored by the National Institute of Aging (NIA) and con- ducted by the University of Michigan. The HRS is a nationally representative longitudinal sur- vey of Americans aged 51 years and older, and their spouses, in the United States. The institutionalized population was not initially included in the HRS sample in the baseline inter- view, but respondents were followed into institutions, so institutional respondents are also included in the current data. Since the HRS is a longitudinal survey, survival status is available from both National Death Index and follow-up interviews. In order to calculate life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy according to different living arrangements (including living in nursing homes), this study includes an institutional sample and uses the weight that is the combined individual-level weight and the nursing home weight. This study makes use of the HRS Rand file (version P) and Rand Core fat files (1998–2014), and the analytical sample com- prises individuals aged 50 and over. The study only includes HRS data from 1998–2014 because of the consistency of disability measurement [23,24]. Disability measures the gap between personal capability and environmental demands, and can be mitigated on either side, by increasing capability or reducing demand [25]. In the study, disability is measured by difficulties encountered in undertaking the activities of daily living (ADL) that are necessary for survival [25], and with a composite summary measure for ADL, (RwADLA, wherein "w" refers to the wave number) provided by Rand which is used here [23]. The ADL measure includes items such as dressing, bathing, eating, walking, and get- ting in and out of bed. Respondents with any ADL disability will be coded as disabled. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 2 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Other socio-demographic measures include age, gender, and education. Age is recorded at the time of interview for those who are 50 and over. Gender is an important variable for this study because living arrangements have a stronger impact for men than women in terms of health/mortality [5,16]. All analyses are stratified by gender. Education is often viewed as a fundamental cause [26,27] of health/mortality disparities and is highly correlated with living arrangements. It may be that income, wealth, and/or edu- cation are the reasons for differences in life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy between cohabiting and single older adults rather than living arrangements per se. Therefore, education, as the key socioeconomic status, is considered in the model. Educational attainment at the time of the interview was measured according to each respondent’s level of education in each survey. This study uses a binary version of the education variable based on previous research showing that high school (HS) graduates and those with a higher degree have signifi- cantly better health/mortality profile compared to those with less than a high school degree [28,29]. Due to small cell sizes, this study is not able to use a refined education variable. All analyses in the study are restricted to non-Hispanic white respondents aged 50 and older with complete information on age, gender, education, living arrangement, and valid sample weights in 1998–2014. Those with information missing regarding these variables are excluded. Focusing on non-Hispanic whites is not only to avoid small cell sizes of other races and Hispanic groups, but also to improve data quality and to reduce population heterogeneity. Differing living arrangements imply different demands and resources facing older Ameri- cans [7,30]. This is so for three reasons: 1. spouses/partners are oftentimes the immediate informal primary caregiver in the household [16,31]; 2. living alone is strongly associated with health/mortality [5–11,13,14,16] and 3. nursing home admissions are associated with severe health problems [12]. The study distinguishes between five types of living arrangements and accounts for the changes in living arrangements during the survey period. Therefore, living arrangements at the beginning of the interval are not necessarily the same as those at the end of the interval. 1. Couple only: married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners only. 2. Couple with children/others: married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners, and children and/or others in the same household. 3. Single only: people (who are separated, widowed, divorced, never married, or not cohabit- ing) living alone. 4. Single with children/others: people (who are separated, widowed, divorced, never married, or not cohabiting) living with children/others in the same household. 5. Nursing home: people living in nursing homes. The married and cohabiters are viewed as couples in the study because previous work has found no significant mortality differences between married and cohabitating couples [32]. Couples or singles who are living with their children may also be living with others. Previous studies have shown the significance of children’s socioeconomic status on parents’ health and mortality [33–36] and family members’ caregiving roles, especially spouses/partners not pres- ent in the same household [37]. Older adults who are single and live with children and/or oth- ers may in poor health [16]. Single adults living with others include a substantial fraction of older Americans living in another’s household [30]. Living arrangements could change across PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 3 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. waves. The living arrangements framework in this study is inspired by the designs of previous studies [7,30]. In their studies using the first one or two waves of the HRS there were almost no cases of individuals living in nursing homes. However, as the HRS follows respondents into institutions, and this study makes use of HRS waves four through twelve, respondents living in nursing homes are included from the analysis. Analytic approach Total life expectancy (TLE), disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) and disabled life expectancy (DLE) are obtained from incidence-based multistate life tables (MSLTs) that are estimated using a relatively recent algorithm, Stochastic Population Analysis for Complex Events (SPACE) [38]. The SPACE is composed from SAS macros with SAS IML and CONNECT components. The SPACE approach offers some advantages over traditional ways of estimating MSLTs, namely, the use of microsimulation and the bootstrap method to estimate the sam- pling variability of MSLT functions. Here, a simulation cohort size of 100,000 is used along with 300 bootstrap samples. Via the bootstrap technique, statistically testing whether differ- ences between groups are statistically significant becomes possible. Confidence intervals of 95% are constructed for the distribution of the between-group difference in estimates, which is from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. The analyses are stratified by gender, with living arrangements and education serving as covariates in the model. Below are models to estimate age-specific state-dependent transition probabilities using multinomial logistic regression: Model 1: age + living arrangement Model 2: Model 1 + education + interaction of living arrangement and education The possible six transitions are listed as follow: 1. Disability-free to disability-free 2. Disability-free to disabled 3. Disability-free to dead 4. Disabled to disabled 5. Disabled to disability-free 6. Disabled to dead Living arrangement is treated as a time-varying covariate in the model. Within each respon- dent in the long-form analysis data file input to the SPACE program, each respondent is allowed to have different living arrangement states across different rows since living arrange- ments of respondents could change across waves. Therefore, the analysis is able to capture the changing nature of living arrangements and to reflect the complicated association between liv- ing arrangements and health expectancy. SPACE calculates disability-free life expectancy with the input data and settings. SPACE provides both population-based and status-based MSLTs. For more detailed technical infor- mation about the SPACE program, please refer to Cai and colleagues’ work [38]. Results There are 21,612 non-Hispanic whites included in the analysis sample during the last observa- tions. Among these, 5,941 men and 7,798 women are alive; 3,771 men and 4,102 women are dead. Among 9,712 men, 1,708 have less than a high school degree, while 8,004 have a high PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 4 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 1. The numbers of interview records of living arrangement by gender for non-Hispanic whites. Living Arrangements Men Women Total # % # % # % Couple only 30,191 51.8 29,146 41.1 59,337 46.0 Couple with children/others 9,566 22.7 7,752 14.2 17,318 18.1 Single alone 7,578 16.6 19,420 28.9 26,998 23.3 Single with children/others 3,703 7.9 9,098 13.6 12,801 11.0 Nursing home 715 1.0 1,936 2.2 2,651 1.7 Total 51,753 100.0 67,352 100.0 119,105 100.0 Note. Numbers of interview records (#) are unweighted, but proportions (%) are weighted. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t001 school degree or above; among 11,900 women, 2,167 have less than a high school degree while 9,733 have a high school degree or above. There are 10,120 non-Hispanic whites (4,127 men and 5,993 women) who change their living arrangements during the analysis period. Table 1 displays the numbers of interview records of time-varying living arrangements by gender for non-Hispanic whites. Among interview records of non-Hispanic white men, the most common living arrangement is married/cohabiters living only with their spouses/part- ners (30,191, 51.8%); followed by married/cohabiters living with their spouses/partners and children and/or others (9,566, 22.7%) and single men living alone (7,578, 16.6%); the least common is living in a nursing home (715, 1.0%). For non-Hispanic white women, the most common living arrangement is also married/cohabiters living only with their spouses/partners (29,146, 41.1%); followed by single women living alone (19,420, 28.9%) and married/cohabi- ters living with their spouses/partners and children and/or others (7,752, 14.2%); the least common is living in a nursing home (1,936, 2.2%). Table 2 shows the numbers of interview records by gender for non-Hispanic whites across waves. Among the total 119,105 interview records, about 9% - 13% of interview records appear in each wave for men, women, and both men and women combined. Table 3 compares vital statistics and estimated results by gender for Americans at age 50. The estimated total life expectancies are 29.02, and 32.86 years for non-Hispanic white men and women respectively, while life expectancies from vital statistics at age 50 for non-Hispanic white men and women are 28.96, and 32.63 years respectively. The differences between vital Table 2. The numbers of interview records by gender for non-Hispanic whites across waves. Interview Waves Men Women Total # % # % # % 1998 6,779 9.9 8,529 10.0 15,308 10.0 2000 6,209 9.4 8,038 9.7 14,247 9.6 2002 5,672 9.0 7,461 9.5 13,133 9.3 2004 6,159 11.7 8,062 11.7 14,221 11.7 2006 5,664 11.2 7,471 11.2 13,135 11.2 2008 5,204 10.5 6,916 10.6 12,120 10.6 2010 5,906 13.4 7,618 13.1 13,524 13.2 2012 5,446 12.8 7,081 12.6 12,527 12.7 2014 4,714 12.1 6,176 11.7 10,890 11.9 Total 51,753 100.0 67,352 100.0 119,105 100.0 Note. Numbers of interview records (#) are unweighted, but proportions (%) are weighted. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t002 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 5 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 3. Vital statistics of life expectancy and estimated total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gen- der for Americans at age 50. Vital Statistics Estimated Gender TLE TLE 95% CI Men 28.96 29.02 (28.6–29.4) Women 32.63 32.86 (32.5–33.3) Note. The vital statistics are from the life table in 2006 from Tables 2 and 3 of Arias (2010) [51] with tables updated using revised intercensal populations. TLE = total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t003 statistics and estimated total life expectancies are all within a half year, and vital statistics fall within 95% conference intervals. Tables 4–6 presents total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50, and different patterns can be seen according to gender and initial health state. In Table 4 for population-based estimates, among men, those living in a couple only survive the longest (TLE = 30.8), followed by those living in a couple with children/others (TLE = 29.8), single only (TLE = 28.6), single with children/others (TLE = 26.8), and nursing home (TLE = 15.2). Compared to couple only, living arrangements of singles and nursing home have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05). Sin- gles living with children or others also have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05) than couples living with children or others. Men living with spouses/partners enjoys the longest years of total life and disability-free life (DFLE = 27.3) and the shortest disabled life (DLE = 3.4), where men in nursing homes are the opposite. Among women, those living in a couple only arrangement live the longest (TLE = 35.9), followed by single only (TLE = 34.8), couple with children/others (TLE = 32.7), single with children/others (TLE = 30.0), and nurs- ing home (TLE = 16.6). Slightly different patterns are observed compared to men. Compared to couple only, all other living arrangements have shorter TLE, shorter DFLE, and longer DLE (p<0.05). Women living with spouses/partners enjoy the longest years of total life and disabil- ity-free life (DFLE = 31.5) and the shortest disabled life (DLE = 4.5), where women in nursing Table 4. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 30.8 (0.27) 27.4 (0.31) 3.4 (0.12) 89.0 Couple with children/others 29.8 (0.64) 26.0 (0.60) 3.9 (0.32) 87.2 Single only 28.6 (0.57) ab 24.3 (0.61) ab 4.3 (0.26) ab 85.0 Single with children/others 26.8 (0.62) ab 22.0 (0.58) ab 4.8 (0.39) a 82.1 Nursing home 15.2 (0.88) a 4.6 (0.72) a 10.6 (0.68) a 30.3 Women Couple only 35.9 (0.34) 31.5 (0.34) 4.5 (0.17) 87.7 Couple with children/others 32.7 (0.87) a 28.1 (0.70) a 4.6 (0.40) 85.9 Single only 34.8 (0.34) ab 29.0 (0.33) ab 5.8 (0.19) ab 83.3 Single with children/others 30.0 (0.41) ab 23.3 (0.51) ab 6.7 (0.37) ab 77.7 Nursing home 16.6 (0.81) a 3.9 (0.57) a 12.8 (0.70) a 23.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t004 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 6 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 5. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates: Sta- tus-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 30.9 (0.26) 27.7 (0.28) 3.2 (0.11) 89.6 Couple with children/others 30.0 (0.64) 26.4 (0.60) 3.6 (0.30) 88.0 Single only 28.7 (0.56) a 24.7 (0.57) a 4.0 (0.24) a 86.1 Single with children/others 27.0 (0.61) ab 22.7 (0.56) ab 4.4 (0.36) a 84.1 Nursing home 16.3 (0.79) a 7.0 (0.74) a 9.3 (0.59) a 42.9 Women Couple only 36.0 (0.33) 31.8 (0.33) 4.3 (0.16) 88.3 Couple with children/others 32.8 (0.86) a 28.5 (0.68) a 4.4 (0.40) 86.9 Single only 35.0 (0.33) a 29.4 (0.31) a 5.5 (0.18) a 84.0 Single with children/others 30.4 (0.40) ab 24.1 (0.48) ab 6.3 (0.34) ab 79.3 Nursing home 17.9 (0.74) a 6.3 (0.64) a 11.6 (0.63) a 35.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t005 home are the opposite. Very similar patterns by gender can be observed in status-based esti- mates, whether initial health states are disability-free or disabled (Tables 5 and 6). Tables 7–9 presents total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period. Due to very small sample size for those staying in nursing homes for entire period, institutionalized respondents are excluded in the analysis for Tables 7–9. Statistical significance (p<0.05) is seen in Tables 7–9, and the pattern is very similar com- pared to that in Tables 4–6. However, all the TLE and DFLE are much lower. Tables 10–12 exhibits total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50. These tables are large, and allow for summarizing the findings below. Table 6. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates: Sta- tus-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Gender Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 29.2 (0.45) 23.0 (0.59) 6.2 (0.29) 78.8 Couple with children/others 27.6 (0.71) a 20.6 (0.75) a 7.0 (0.53) 74.6 Single only 27.1 (0.75) a 19.7 (0.94) a 7.4 (0.41) a 72.7 Single with children/others 25.3 (0.72) ab 17.6 (0.81) ab 7.6 (0.55) a 69.6 Nursing home 14.3 (0.96) a 2.8 (0.66) a 11.5 (0.73) a 19.6 Women Couple only 34.4 (0.44) 27.4 (0.46) 7.0 (0.24) 79.7 Couple with children/others 31.2 (0.95) a 23.9 (0.82) a 7.3 (0.52) 76.6 Single only 33.2 (0.48) 24.6 (0.57) a 8.6 (0.28) a 74.1 Single with children/others 27.6 (0.54) ab 17.9 (0.67) ab 9.8 (0.51) ab 64.9 Nursing home 15.8 (0.85) a 2.2 (0.40) a 13.6 (0.73) a 13.9 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t006 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 7 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 7. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Population-based estimates. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 27.7 (0.40) 25.0 (0.40) 2.8 (0.15) 90.3 Couple with children/others 23.9 (0.96) a 21.4 (0.85) a 2.5 (0.33) 89.5 Single only 24.0 (0.83) ab 21.5 (0.79) ab 2.5 (0.27) 89.6 Single with children/others 21.9 (0.96) a 18.5 (0.98) ab 3.4 (0.63) 84.5 Women Couple only 31.6 (0.37) 28.5 (0.38) 3.2 (0.20) 90.2 Couple with children/others 24.8 (0.93) a 22.5 (0.89) a 2.4 (0.41) 90.7 Single only 31.6 (0.57) 27.3 (0.63) 4.3 (0.22) a 86.4 Single with children/others 25.9 (0.52) a 20.4 (0.61) ab 5.5 (0.48) ab 78.8 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t007 1. Within each gender and living arrangement group, people with a higher level education have a better life expectancy profile compared to those of lower education, and most differ- ences between education groups are statistically significant (p<0.05). 2. Among men with the same education, the patterns are very similar to those of Tables 4–6. This is true for TLE, DFLE, DLE, and %DFLE from both population-based and status- based results. 3. Among women with education of less than HS, couple only, single only, and couple with children/others have similar TLE or DFLE (p>0.05) from both population-based and sta- tus-based results. The pattern differs from that in Tables 4–6. 4. Among women with education of HS and above, couple only have the highest TLE or DFLE compared to other living arrangements, and the differences of TLE or DFLE between couple only and single only (the second highest) become larger than those of Tables 4–6. Table 8. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 27.9 (0.39) 25.2 (0.39) 2.6 (0.14) 90.3 Couple with children/others 24.0 (0.96) a 21.7 (0.85) a 2.3 (0.31) 90.4 Single only 24.1 (0.82) ab 21.8 (0.77) ab 2.4 (0.25) 90.5 Single with children/others 22.1 (0.95) a 19.1 (0.93) ab 3.0 (0.57) 86.4 Women Couple only 31.7 (0.37) 28.7 (0.38) 3.0 (0.20) 90.5 Couple with children/others 25.0 (0.92) a 22.8 (0.87) a 2.2 (0.40) 91.2 Single only 31.7 (0.56) 27.6 (0.60) 4.1 (0.21) a 87.1 Single with children/others 26.1 (0.50) a 21.0 (0.57) ab 5.2 (0.45) ab 80.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t008 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 8 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 9. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender and living arrangement for non-Hispanic whites at age 50 among those who never change their living arrangement during analysis period: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Sex Living Arrangement TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE DFLE(%) Men Couple only 24.9 (0.88) 19.5 (1.02) 5.3 (0.46) 78.3 Couple with children/others 22.2 (1.15) a 17.1 (1.07) a 5.1 (0.59) 77.0 Single only 22.2 (1.24) ab 17.1 (1.36) ab 5.1 (0.57) 77.0 Single with children/others 20.4 (1.20) a 13.3 (1.83) a 7.1 (1.41) 65.2 Women Couple only 29.6 (0.71) 24.0 (0.73) 5.6 (0.35) 81.1 Couple with children/others 22.6 (1.26) a 18.1 (1.19) a 4.5 (0.61) 80.1 Single only 30.4 (0.89) 23.5 (1.03) 6.9 (0.44) ab 77.3 Single with children/others 24.0 (0.85) a 15.4 (0.93) ab 8.6 (0.68) ab 64.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements separately (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t009 5. As for DLE of women with same education, the pattern remains the same with two educa- tional groups combined in Tables 4–6. 6. Among people in nursing homes, statistically significant differences (p<0.05) are shown in TLE and DFLE for men, but not for women. Men of differing education have different % DFLE, but women of differing education have almost the same %DFLE. Discussion The results show the significance of living arrangement for total and disability-free life expec- tancy in the United States. Overall, those who live only with their spouses/partners live 1–19 years longer with 3–25 more years without disability and 1–7 fewer years with disability than do those with other living arrangements. Among those with the same living arrangement, the higher educated have lives of up to 6 years longer along with up to 8 more years in a disability- free state and up to 2 fewer years in a disabled state. The study also reveals gender specific pat- terns by living arrangement. For both genders, those living with their spouses or partners have longest TLE (ie., lowest mortality rates) and longest DFLE compared to the other living arrangements, which is consis- tent with previous studies which show that living with a spouse/partner is associated with reduced mortality incidence and difficulty of ADL [7,8,30]. The results underscore the impor- tance of living with spouses/partners in the same household, especially as spouses/partners are oftentimes the immediate informal primary caregiver in the household [16,31]. Therefore, people living alone have shorter TLE and DFLE compared to those living with their spouses/ partners, which confirms previous studies’ findings that living alone is strongly associated with poor health and higher mortality rates compared to living as couples [7,10,11]. Previous stud- ies have shown that families may rearrange themselves to take care of disabled members. Those in ill health are more likely to live with their children or others, and living with children or others may encourage dependence in the elderly, which causes a loss of physical vitality that leads to increased mortality risks [8,39]. However, there is a gender difference. The difference in TLE and DFLE between living alone and living with a spouse/partner for women is smaller compared to that of men. In other words, for women, living alone and living with a spouse/ partner are more similar compared to men in terms of TLE and DFLE. In fact, if comparing PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 9 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 10. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Population-based estimates. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 27.3 (0.50) 23.4 (0.55) 4.0 (0.29) 85.7 HS and above 31.5 (0.35) c 28.2 (0.38) c 3.4 (0.15) 89.5 Couple with children/others Less than HS 25.3 (1.09) 20.4 (0.94) a 5.0 (0.74) 80.6 HS and above 31.1 (0.78) c 27.3 (0.74) c 3.8 (0.32) 87.8 Single only Less than HS 24.8 (1.14) a 19.6 (1.17) a 5.2 (0.56) a 79.0 HS and above 29.4 (0.58) ac 25.2 (0.64) ac 4.2 (0.28) a 85.7 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.5 (0.90) a 19.2 (1.04) a 5.3 (0.66) a 78.4 HS and above 27.2 (0.80) abc 22.5 (0.74) abc 4.7 (0.44) a 82.7 Nursing home Less than HS 13.0 (1.04) a 2.0 (0.60) a 10.9 (0.98) a 15.4 HS and above 15.6 (1.01) ac 5.1 (0.93) ac 10.5 (0.79) a 32.7 Women Couple only Less than HS 30.7 (0.73) 24.7 (0.75) 6.0 (0.52) 80.5 HS and above 37.0 (0.40) c 32.8 (0.39) c 4.3 (0.19) c 88.6 Couple with children/others Less than HS 29.6 (1.92) 23.7 (1.82) 5.9 (1.04) 80.1 HS and above 33.4 (1.02) a 29.0 (0.80) ac 4.4 (0.46) 86.8 Single only Less than HS 31.6 (0.72) 25.1 (0.70) 6.5 (0.40) 79.4 HS and above 35.6 (0.42) ac 29.8 (0.36) ac 5.8 (0.25) a 83.7 Single with children/others Less than HS 26.7 (0.65) a 18.1 (0.83) ab 8.6 (0.60) ab 67.8 HS and above 31.0 (0.51) abc 24.7 (0.60) abc 6.3 (0.44) abc 79.7 Nursing home Less than HS 15.5 (1.00) a 3.2 (0.76) a 12.3 (0.94) a 20.6 HS and above 16.7 (0.86) a 3.6 (0.56) a 13.1 (0.70) a 21.6 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05). b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t010 TLE and DFLE, living alone is the second best living arrangement for women right after couple only. For men, living alone is the third best living arrangement right after living with a spouse/ partner with/without children or others. One possible explanation is the traditional caregiving role of women [16]. The other possible reason is that women who live alone are more likely to maintain their social network ties and level of social engagement, which are beneficial to health and lower mortality [5,40]. In sum, the hazard of living alone is stronger for men than for women. For men, whether living with their spouses/partners is an important factor, but less so for women. A man living with a spouse/partner having health problems are more likely to receive care from his spouse/partner, and when this assistance is available, children/others may stay away [16]. For women, even they live with their spouses/partners, those in poor health or having disability are more likely to move in with and stay living with their children or others compared to those in better health or having no disability [16]. Our results confirm this. Women who live with children/others, no matter whether living with spouses/partners or not, have worse profiles of TLE, DFLE, and DLE compared to women who do not live with children/others. Among those who never change their living arrangement during the analysis period, their TLE and DFLE are much lower. This is an interesting phenomenon. Why do they maintain the same living arrangement for a relatively long time? There are two explanatory groups. One is that their lives are stable without any major life events, such as severe health problems, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 10 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 11. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disability-free. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 27.5 (0.50) 23.9 (0.56) 3.6 (0.27) 86.9 HS and above 31.7 (0.34) c 28.5 (0.35) c 3.2 (0.13) 89.9 Couple with children/others Less than HS 25.7 (1.09) 21.2 (0.91) a 4.4 (0.68) 82.5 HS and above 31.3 (0.78) c 27.8 (0.73) c 3.5 (0.29) 88.8 Single only Less than HS 25.0 (1.15) a 20.3 (1.13) a 4.7 (0.52) a 81.2 HS and above 29.5 (0.56) ac 25.7 (0.61) ac 3.9 (0.26) a 87.1 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.8 (0.91) a 20.2 (1.00) a 4.6 (0.60) 81.5 HS and above 27.4 (0.80) abc 23.1 (0.72) abc 4.3 (0.41) a 84.3 Nursing home Less than HS 14.2 (0.95) a 4.2 (0.86) a 10.0 (0.97) a 29.6 HS and above 16.8 (0.91) ac 7.6 (0.93) ac 9.2 (0.70) a 45.2 Women Couple only Less than HS 31.0 (0.71) 25.5 (0.71) 5.5 (0.50) 82.3 HS and above 37.1 (0.40) c 33.1 (0.38) c 4.1 (0.19) c 89.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 29.9 (1.90) 24.4 (1.78) 5.4 (0.99) 81.6 HS and above 33.5 (1.01) a 29.3 (0.79) ac 4.2 (0.45) 87.5 Single only Less than HS 31.9 (0.70) 25.9 (0.67) 6.1 (0.37) 81.2 HS and above 35.7 (0.41) ac 30.2 (0.34) ac 5.5 (0.24) a 84.6 Single with children/others Less than HS 27.4 (0.60) a 19.6 (0.73) ab 7.8 (0.53) a 71.5 HS and above 31.3 (0.50) abc 25.5 (0.57) abc 5.9 (0.41) abc 81.5 Nursing home Less than HS 16.8 (0.94) a 5.6 (0.92) a 11.1 (0.91) a 33.3 HS and above 17.9 (0.79) a 6.0 (0.65) a 12.0 (0.63) a 33.5 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t011 changes in marital status or partnership. Therefore, they maintain their living arrangement whether or not they could change it. The other group does not have the option to change, even they wish to. For example, singles who do not have spouses/partners or children/others to live with, and therefore, they may have fewer resources, such as network or social support, than people who have spouses/partners or children/others. Those living with children/others may have health problems so that they are not able to live on their own. Although the study is not able to estimate TLE and DFLE of institutionalized people who never return to community, one can expect that their TLE and DFLE must be lower than those who ever return to commu- nity because they become institutionalized due to severe health problems. Among people of the same gender and with the same living arrangements, the more edu- cated have better life expectancy profiles compared to those with less education. This is expected and consistent with the well-known education-health/mortality association [26–29]. There are also gender specific patterns. After accounting for education, men with the same level of education remain similar patterns as those without accounting for education. How- ever, the results for women with the same education show different patterns than the results without counting for education. Similar to the results without accounting for education, among women with higher educa- tion, those living only with their spouses/partners have best health/mortality profiles compared to other living arrangements. The difference between living only with their spouses/partners PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 11 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. Table 12. Total, disability-free, and disabled life expectancy by gender, living arrangement, and education for non-Hispanic whites at age 50: Status-based estimates with initial health state being disabled. Gender Living Arrangement Education TLE SE DFLE SE DLE SE %DFLE Men Couple only Less than HS 26.0 (0.58) 19.5 (0.67) 6.4 (0.44) 75.0 HS and above 29.8 (0.53) c 23.6 (0.68) c 6.2 (0.31) 79.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 23.6 (1.20) 15.9 (1.24) a 7.7 (1.00) 67.4 HS and above 28.7 (0.83) c 21.7 (0.90) c 7.0 (0.55) 75.6 Single only Less than HS 23.8 (1.18) a 15.6 (1.44) a 8.2 (0.78) a 65.5 HS and above 28.0 (0.77) ac 20.7 (0.97) ac 7.3 (0.47) 73.9 Single with children/others Less than HS 23.5 (1.00) a 15.8 (1.35) a 7.7 (0.84) 67.2 HS and above 25.8 (0.89) abc 18.1 (0.94) ab 7.6 (0.63) a 70.2 Nursing home Less than HS 12.4 (1.10) a 1.0 (0.52) a 11.4 (1.00) a 8.1 HS and above 14.9 (1.09) ac 3.4 (0.89) ac 11.5 (0.84) a 22.8 Women Couple only Less than HS 28.9 (0.91) 20.0 (1.03) 8.9 (0.64) 69.2 HS and above 35.7 (0.47) c 29.0 (0.48) c 6.8 (0.27) c 81.2 Couple with children/others Less than HS 28.5 (1.98) 20.3 (1.88) 8.2 (1.17) 71.2 HS and above 31.9 (1.15) a 24.8 (0.95) a 7.1 (0.58) 77.7 Single only Less than HS 30.1 (0.80) 21.2 (0.78) 9.0 (0.49) 70.4 HS and above 34.1 (0.57) ac 25.5 (0.63) ac 8.6 (0.33) a 74.8 Single with children/others Less than HS 24.5 (0.91) a 13.0 (1.08) ab 11.4 (0.69) ab 53.1 HS and above 28.8 (0.63) abc 19.6 (0.79) abc 9.3 (0.60) abc 68.1 Nursing home Less than HS 14.9 (1.02) a 2.1 (0.59) a 12.9 (0.94) a 14.1 HS and above 15.9 (0.89) a 2.1 (0.39) a 13.8 (0.75) a 13.2 Note. TLE = total life expectancy. DFLE = disability-free life expectancy. DLE = disabled life expectancy. %DFLE = the proportion of disability-free life expectancy over total life expectancy. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. HS = High school graduates. Data from Health and Retirement Study. a = statistically significant difference compared to “Couple only” within same education category (p < .05) b = statistically significant difference between Couple and Single for “only” and “with children/others” living arrangements within same education category (p < .05) c = statistically significant difference between education with same living arrangement category (p < .05) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894.t012 and other living arrangements are much larger. There is one potential explanation. People tend to have spouses/partners of similar age and education (ie., positive assortative mating) [41]. A couple composed of two highly educated people will share more health-related sources capable of enhancing health and leading to a decline in mortality than will a single highly edu- cated person [42]. Differing from the results without accounting for education, among lower educated women, living alone is associated with similar (slightly better, but not statistically sig- nificantly different) TLE and DLFE compared to living with spouses/partners. This is likely because women with less education will likely live with spouses/partners with less education [41] and have fewer health-related resources; if caregiving roles must be played in these house- holds, they will likely have fewer resources available compared to the more educated. In such a situation, a woman living alone would be better off than if living with her spouse/partner. People in nursing homes have the worst TLE, DFLE, and DLE among all living arrange- ments, and this is expected from previous studies as those who become severely disabled may go to nursing homes. However, the study further shows how many years they can live and in different states of disability, and the gaps between living in a nursing home and other living arrangements are enormous. After considering education, educational gaps appear among men but not for women. The is a very interesting phenomenon. The common understood linkages between education and health/mortality include occupation, income/wealth, health behaviors, and social support/connection. However, it is less likely to explain the educational PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 12 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. difference in health/mortality for older adults in nursing homes through the mechanism of occupation, health behaviors, and social support/connection. Therefore, income/wealth may provide possible reasons for the gender differential in educational gaps in TLE and DFLE for people in nursing homes. Previous research shows that a lifetime of lower income for women, including the gendering of work and family roles, limits women’s ability to accumulate wealth over the life course [43,44]. This leads to the gender wealth gap persisting into later life, and therefore the ability in the choices of nursing home services. However, this is only one possible explanation, and there may be some other, as yet unknown, reason responsible for this phenomenon. The study has both strengths and limitations. A major strength is the use of 16-year large nationally representative panel data in the United States. In addition, no studies have investi- gated the association between living arrangements and DFLE in the United States, nor world- wide. Using the DFLE approach enables us to quantify the association between living arrangements and disability and mortality jointly. Living arrangements are modeled as time- varying covariates, which allows the analyses to capture the changes in living arrangements throughout older life. The study also further investigates DFLE of those who never change their living arrangement during the analysis period. The results clearly show the significance of living arrangement on DFLE. Several issues should be considered when interpreting the results. All analyses in the study are restricted to non-Hispanic white respondents. This is not only to avoid small cell sizes of other races and Hispanic groups, but also to improve data quality and to reduce population heterogeneity. Due to small cell sizes, this study is not able to use a refined education variable. However, clear educational gaps in TLE and DFLE by living arrangements are observed, and the gaps are differentiated by gender. Cohousing is a new form of accommodation [45]. This study is not able to further discuss the association between this living arrangement and DFLE due to data limitation. Also, the study fails to distinguish between those living with children or others due to small cell sizes. The MSLT approach used in the study cannot model the life expected living in different types of living arrangements and life expected living in different health states in the same analysis. Analyses using the MSLT approach have to focus on one of two angles at a time. Treating DFLE as outcome and living arrangements as covariates does not assume a causal relationship between living arrangements and DFLE. In fact, the MSLT approach cannot measure or guarantee causality. The way to interpret the results is to consider whether there is an association between living arrangements and DFLE. Life expectancy esti- mates are expected values at the moment when people enter a certain living arrangement, and this does not mean that living arrangements cannot change. In fact, living arrangement is time-varying in the analyses. The above discussion also discusses possible changes in living arrangements due to disability. DFLE and DLE provide information for estimating potential lifetime health costs for older population, and cost is an important indicator of economic well- being of countries with established social security and health services [17]. Treating DFLE as an outcome is one means of investigating whether older Americans are living more healthily as well as longer in different types of living arrangements given the rapid population aging and changing living arrangements during the past decades in the United States [1–3]. Despite these limitations, the analyses provide compelling statistical evidence of strong association between changes of living arrangements and DFLE among older non-Hispanic whites in the United States, which suggests that people should look closely at living arrange- ments as key social contexts in which disability may be created or avoided, and informal/for- mal care needs may be provided and unmet [7,21]. Living arrangements often suggest where older persons receive long-term care. Studies have shown that living arrangements are not PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 13 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. only important indicators of health outcomes, but also crucial for understanding informal and formal care needs [21,46]. People who need long-term care would generally prefer receiving care in their homes/com- munities rather than going to institutions such as nursing homes [47,48]. The Medicaid pro- gram adopted a “money follows the person” policy such that people with long-term care needs have the right to choose to receive cares at home or in the community instead of going to nurs- ing homes. The home and community-based care alternatives to institutional long-term care during the past two decades have accompanied by the growing demand to remain at home rather than to live in institutions [49] and the increasing welfare and quality of life of long- term care receivers [47,50]. Different types of living arrangements are strongly associated with quantity and quality of life. Long-term care policy should take into account the length of life for people with/without disability by living arrangements and socioeconomic status and make use of the potential family resources. This not only can gather all available resources to provide the best assist for the informal/formal care of the older adults, but also can better estimate future long-term care costs and policy choices. The findings of this study contribute to the cur- rent knowledge of older adults’ DFLE and their demands for care among different societal contexts of changing living arrangements, which have significant policy implications for the targeting of health interventions and financing of long-term care systems. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Data curation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Formal analysis: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Funding acquisition: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Investigation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Methodology: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Project administration: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Resources: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Software: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Supervision: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Validation: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Visualization: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Writing – original draft: Chi-Tsun Chiu. Writing – review & editing: Chi-Tsun Chiu. References 1. Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H. An aging nation: the older population in the United States: United States Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Department of Commerce; 2014. 2. Vespa J, Lewis JM, Kreider RM. America’s families and living arrangements: 2012. Current Population Reports. 2013; 20(2013):P570. 3. Tomassini C, Glaser K, Wolf DA, van Groenou MB, Grundy E. Living arrangements among older peo- ple: an overview of trends in Europe and the USA. POPULATION TRENDS-LONDON-. 2004:24–35. 4. He W, Sengupta M, Velkoff VA, DeBarros KA. 65+ in the United States: 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau; 2005. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 14 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. 5. Ng TP, Jin A, Feng L, Nyunt MS, Chow KY, Feng L, et al. Mortality of older persons living alone: Singa- pore Longitudinal Ageing Studies. BMC Geriatr. 2015; 15:126–135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877- 015-0128-7 PMID: 26470796 6. Haslbeck JW, McCorkle R, Schaeffer D. Chronic illness self-management while living alone in later life: a systematic integrative review. Res Aging. 2012; 34(5):507–547. 7. Waite LJ, Hughes ME. At Risk on the Cusp of Old Age: Living Arrangements and Functional Status Among Black, White and Hispanic Adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1999; 54B(3): S136–S144. 8. Li LW, Zhang J, Liang J. Health among the oldest-old in China: which living arrangements make a differ- ence? Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68(2):220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.013 PMID: 9. Lund R, Due P, Modvig J, Holstein BE, Damsgaard MT, Andersen PK. Cohabitation and marital status as predictors of mortality—an eight year follow-up study. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(4):673–679. PMID: 10. Kharicha K, Iliffe S, Harari D, Swift C, Gillmann G, Stuck AE. Health risk appraisal in older people 1: are older people living alone an ‘at-risk’group? The British Journal of General Practice. 2007; 57(537):271– 276. PMID: 17394729 11. van Gelder BM, Tijhuis M, Kalmijn S, Giampaoli S, Nissinen A, Kromhout D. Marital status and living sit- uation during a 5-year period are associated with a subsequent 10-year cognitive decline in older men: the FINE Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2006; 61(4):P213–P219. PMID: 16855033 12. Gaugler JE, Duval S, Anderson KA, Kane RL. Predicting nursing home admission in the US: a meta- analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2007; 7(1):13. 13. Chou K-L, Chi I. Comparison between elderly Chinese living alone and those living with others. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2000; 33(4):51–66. 14. Routasalo PE, Savikko N, Tilvis RS, Strandberg TE, Pitka ¨ la ¨ KH. Social contacts and their relationship to loneliness among aged people–a population-based study. Gerontology. 2006; 52(3):181–187. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091828 PMID: 16645299 15. Victor C, Scambler S, Bond J, Bowling A. Being alone in later life: loneliness, social isolation and living alone. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2000; 10(4):407–417. 16. Zimmer Z. Health and living arrangement transitions among China’s oldest-old. Res Aging. 2005; 27 (5):526–555. 17. Crimmins EM, Beltra ´ n-Sa ´ nchez H. Mortality and Morbidity Trends: Is There Compression of Morbidity? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011; 66B(1):75–86. 18. Smith AK, Walter LC, Miao Y, Boscardin WJ, Covinsky KE. Disability during the last two years of life. J Am Med Assoc. 2013; 173:1506–1513. 19. Yong V, Saito Y. Trends in healthy life expectancy in Japan: 1986–2004. Demographic Research. 2009; 20(19):467–494. 20. Crimmins EM, Hayward MD, Hagedorn A, Saito Y, Brouard N. Change in disability-free life expectancy for Americans 70-years-old and older. Demography. 2009; 46(3):627–46. PMID: 19771948 21. Hays JC. Living Arrangements and Health Status in Later Life: A Review of Recent Literature. Public Health Nurs. 2002; 19(2):136–151. PMID: 11860599 22. Kaye HS, Harrington C, LaPlante MP. Long-term care: Who gets it, who provides it, who pays, and how much? Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(1):11–21. 23. RAND HRS Data. Version P. Produced by the RAND Center for the Study of Aging, with funding from the National Institute on Aging and the Social Security Administration. Santa Monica, CA (August 2016). 2016. 24. Health and Retirement Study. Public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the University of Michi- gan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI, 2016. 2016. 25. Verbrugge LM. Disability Experience and Measurement. J Aging Health. 2016; 28(7):1124. https://doi. org/10.1177/0898264316656519 PMID: 27590795 26. Link BG, Phelan JC. Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995; 35(Extra Issue: Forty Years of Medical Sociology: The State of the Art and Directions for the Future (1995)):80–94. 27. Link BG, Phelan JC, Miech R, Westin EL. The resources that matter: fundamental social causes of health disparities and the challenge of intelligence. J Health Soc Behav. 2008; 49(1):72–91. https://doi. org/10.1177/002214650804900106 PMID: 18418986 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 15 / 16 Living arrangements and DFLE in the U.S. 28. Rogers RG, Everett BG, Zajacova A, Hummer RA. Educational degrees and adult mortality risk in the United States. Biodemography Soc Biol. 2010; 56(1):80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19485561003727372 PMID: 20589989 29. Zajacova A, Hummer RA, Rogers RG. Education and health among US working-age adults: a detailed portrait across the full educational attainment spectrum. Biodemography Soc Biol. 2012; 58(1):40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2012.666122 PMID: 22582892 30. Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Health in household context: Living arrangements and health in late middle age. J Health Soc Behav. 2002; 43(1):1. PMID: 11949193 31. Barbosa A, Figueiredo D, Sousa L, Demain S. Coping with the caregiving role: Differences between pri- mary and secondary caregivers of dependent elderly people. Aging & Mental Health. 2011; 15(4):490– 32. Liu H, Reczek C. Cohabitation and US adult mortality: An examination by gender and race. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74(4):794–811. 33. Friedman EM, Mare RD. The schooling of offspring and the survival of parents. Demography. 2014; 51 (4):1271–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0303-z PMID: 24917296 34. Zimmer Z, Hanson HA, Smith KR. Offspring Socioeconomic Status and Parent Mortality Within a Histor- ical Population. Demography. 2016; 53(5):1583–1603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0502-x PMID: 27664009 35. Zimmer Z, Hermalin AI, Lin H-S. Whose Education Counts? The Added Impact of Adult-Child Education on Physical Functioning of Older Taiwanese. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002; 57(1):S23–S32. PMID: 11773230 36. Zimmer Z, Martin LG, Ofstedal MB, Chuang Y-L. Education of adult children and mortality of their elderly parents in Taiwan. Demography. 2007; 44(2):289–305. PMID: 17583306 37. Rogers RG, Hummer RA, Nam CB. Living and dying in the USA: Behavioral, health, and social differen- tials of adult mortality: Elsevier; 1999. 38. Cai L, Hayward M, Saito Y, Lubitz J, Hagedorn A, Crimmins E. Estimation of multi-state life table func- tions and their variability from complex survey data using the SPACE Program. Demographic Research. 2010; 22(6):129–158. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.6 PMID: 20463842 39. Wang H, Chen K, Pan Y, Jing F, Liu H. Associations and Impact Factors between Living Arrangements and Functional Disability among Older Chinese Adults. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1). 40. Michael YL, Berkman LF, Colditz GA, Kawachi I. Living arrangements, social integration, and change in functional health status. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 153(2):123–131. PMID: 11159156 41. Jepsen LK, Jepsen CA. An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography. 2002; 39(3):435–453. PMID: 12205751 42. Brown DC, Hummer RA, Hayward MD. The importance of spousal education for the self-rated health of married adults in the United States. Population research and policy review. 2014; 33(1):127–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9305-6 PMID: 24511172 43. Denton M, Boos L. The gender wealth gap: Structural and material constraints and implications for later life. J Women Aging. 2007; 19(3–4):105–120. https://doi.org/10.1300/J074v19n03_08 PMID: 44. Ruel E, Hauser RM. Explaining the gender wealth gap. Demography. 2013; 50(4):1155–1176. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0182-0 PMID: 23264038 45. Williams J. Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures. 2008; 40(3):268–286. 46. Lafreniere SA, Carriere Y, Martel L, Belanger A. Dependent seniors at home—formal and informal help. Health Rep. 2003; 14(4):31–40. PMID: 14608794 47. Simon SE, Hodges MR. Money follows the person: Change in participant experience during the first year of community living. The National Evaluation of the Money Follows the Person Demonstration Grant Program, Reports from the Field. 2011(6). 48. Guo J, Konetzka RT, Manning WG. The Causal Effects of Home Care Use on Institutional Long-Term Care Utilization and Expenditures. Health Econ. 2015; 24:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3155 PMID: 25760579 49. Kitchener M, Ng T, Miller N, Harrington C. Medicaid home and community-based services: National pro- gram trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; 24(1):206–212. 50. Grabowski DC. The cost-effectiveness of noninstitutional long-term care services: Review and synthe- sis of the most recent evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2006; 63(1):3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077558705283120 PMID: 16686071 51. Arias E. United States life tables, 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010; 58(21):1–40. PMID: 21043319 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211894 February 8, 2019 16 / 16

Journal

PLoS ONEPublic Library of Science (PLoS) Journal

Published: Feb 8, 2019

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off