Minimum income for healthy living

2007 ◽  
pp. 139-153
Author(s):  
Alan Dangour ◽  
Jerry Morris ◽  
Christopher Deeming ◽  
Astrid Fletcher ◽  
Paul Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Living ◽  
Minimum Income

scholarly journals Minimum income for healthy living and frailty in adults over 65 years old in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing: a population-based cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Nicholas Watts ◽  
David Blane ◽  
Gopalakrishnan Netuveli
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Healthy Living ◽  
Age And Gender ◽  
Minimum Income ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
And Gender ◽  
English Longitudinal Study

ObjectiveTo test whether minimum income for healthy living of a person aged 65 years or older (MIHL65) is associated with frailty in older adults.Design and settingSecondary analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a multiwave prospective cohort study in England, UK.ParticipantsA subset (n=1342) of English Longitudinal Study of Ageing participants, who at wave 1 in 2002 were aged 65 years or older, without any limiting long-standing illnesses, and who had the information required to calculate MIHL65in 2002, 2004 and 2006 and two measures of frailty in 2008.Main outcome measuresFrailty defined using Fried’s phenotype criteria and Rockwood’s Index of deficits.ResultsThe odds of frailty in 2008 were significantly higher for participants living below MIHL65in 2002, both on Fried’s phenotype criteria (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.19) and Rockwood’s Index (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.60). These associations remained after adjustment for age and gender for both Fried’s phenotype (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.90) and Rockwood’s Index (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.35). Compared with those whose income during 2002–2006 was always above MIHL65, the odds of frailty in 2008 for those below MIHL65were two-to-three times higher, with a tendency for the ORs to increase in line with the length of time spent below MIHL65(ORs (95% CIs) were: Fried’s phenotype, below MIHL65once: 2.02 (1.23 to 3.34); twice: 2.52 (1.37 to 4.62); thrice: 3.53 (1.65 to 7.55). Rockwood’s Index: once: 2.34 (1.41 to 3.86); twice: 3.06 (1.64 to 5.71); thrice: 2.56 (1.22 to 5.34)). These associations remained after adjustment for age and gender on Rockwood’s Index, but not Fried’s phenotype.ConclusionsThese results provide some support for the idea that frailty at older ages is associated with not having sufficient income to lead a healthy life.

A minimum income for healthy living (MIHL) – older New Zealanders

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
JESSICA O'SULLIVAN ◽  
TONI ASHTON
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Living Alone ◽  
London School ◽  
Ageing Population ◽  
Healthy Living ◽  
Minimum Income ◽  
State Pension ◽  
Demand For Health ◽  
New Zealanders

ABSTRACTGovernments around the developed world are seeking to meet the challenges of the ageing population through strategies which promote a holistic approach to ageing, captured in catch-phrases such as ‘successful’, ‘active’, ‘positive’ and ‘healthy’ ageing. These strategies are supported by a growing body of research, with a particular emphasis on the prerequisites for health and quality of life. Drawing on that research, and using a methodology developed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the ‘Minimum Income for Healthy Living (MIHL): Older New Zealanders’ study used a health lens to investigate the retirement income needs of older New Zealanders living independently in the community. The MIHL was estimated for people living alone, couples, renters and debt-free home owners. In each case, the MIHL estimates were appreciably higher than the universal state pension paid to older New Zealanders. People living alone and those renting their homes were shown to be worse off than couples and debt-free home owners, respectively. The results highlight that many older New Zealanders are living on an income which may not be enough to support a healthy life. This has important implications for the demand for health, residential and social services and brings life to the question of what level of income might be needed in retirement.

scholarly journals Defining a minimum income for healthy living (MIHL): older age, England

2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1300-1307 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Morris ◽  
P. Wilkinson ◽  
A. D Dangour ◽  
C. Deeming ◽  
A. Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Older Age ◽  
Healthy Living ◽  
Minimum Income

New minimum healthy living budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Saunders ◽  
Megan Bedford
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Wage ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Living Standard ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Family Status ◽  
Healthy Living ◽  
Minimum Income ◽  
Budget Standards

A budget standard indicates how much a particular family living in a particular place at a particular time needs in order to achieve a particular standard of living. This article presents new estimates that build on the earlier budget standards produced by the Social Policy Research Centre in the 1990s. The new budgets incorporate increases in consumer prices and community standards and reflect changes in item availability, retail practices and shopping behaviour, as well as improved research methods, 20 years of use and experience, and new data. They are designed to achieve a minimum income for healthy living standard and apply to families with a breadwinner who is either in full-time work and receiving the minimum wage, or unemployed and receiving Newstart Allowance. The estimates suggest that although the minimum wage is adequate for single people, it is not adequate to meet the needs of many couple families with and without children, while Newstart Allowance does not provide an adequate safety net for the unemployed, whatever their family status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document