U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Final Report on the "Own Your Future" Consumer Survey

Long Term Care Group, Inc.

LifePlans, Inc.

November 30, 2006

PDF Version (43 PDF pages)

This report was prepared under contract #HHS-100-03-0009 between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy (DALTCP) and Market Strategies. For additional information about this subject, you can visit the DALTCP home page at http://aspe.hhs.gov/_/office_specific/daltcp.cfm or contact the ASPE Project Officer, Hunter McKay, at HHS/ASPE/DALTCP, Room 424E, H.H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201. His e-mail address is: Hunter.McKay@hhs.gov.

This survey was conducted in conjunction with Phase I of the Pilot Long-Term Care Awareness Campaign. The opinions and views expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the contractor or any other funding organization.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW

A. Introduction

B. About the Campaign

C. Campaign Results

D. Survey Methodology

E. Research Questions

II. FINDINGS: COMPARING KIT RESPONDERS AND NON-RESPONDERS

A. Demographic Differences

B. Long-Term Care Experiences

C. Attitudes about Planning and the Need for Long-Term Care

D. Paying for Long-Term Care

E. Exposure to Long-Term Care Information

F. Long-Term Care Planning Actions

G. Multivariate Analysis

III. FINDINGS: COMPARING PRE-CAMPAIGN AND POST-CAMPAIGN RESPONSES

IV. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Percentage of Target Population Requesting Kit by State

FIGURE 2: Long-Term Care Experience by Responder Status

FIGURE 3: Attitudes toward Planning by Responder Status

FIGURE 4: Exposure to Campaign Elements

FIGURE 5: Planning Actions Taken by Responder Status

FIGURE 6: Bought Long-Term Care Insurance After Campaign, Total and by State

FIGURE 7: Planning Actions Taken by Recall of Governor’s Letter

FIGURE 8: Planning Actions Taken by Exposure to Television Ad

FIGURE 9: Planning Actions Taken by Exposure to Radio Ad

FIGURE 10: Planning Actions Taken by Whether or Not Read Kit

FIGURE 11: Planning Actions Taken by Whether or Not Used CD

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Demographics

TABLE 2: Respondent’s Long-Term Care Experience

TABLE 3: Attitude About Planning for Long-Term Care

TABLE 4: Respondent’s Knowledge of Who Pays for Long-Term Care

TABLE 5: Exposure to Long-Term Care Information

TABLE 6: Campaign Exposure

TABLE 7: Respondent’s Awareness to Long-Term Care Planning Steps

TABLE 8: Respondent’s Action of Long-Term Care Planning Steps

TABLE 9: Logistic Regression Model for Understanding the Probability of Ordering a Kit

TABLE 10: Awareness of Planning Options: Percent Change Pre vs. Post-Survey

TABLE 11: Considered Planning Options: Percent Change Pre vs. Post-Survey

TABLE 12: Taken Planning Step: Percent Change Pre vs. Post-Survey

I. OVERVIEW

A. Introduction

This report summarizes key findings of a research initiative to survey consumers about their long-term care knowledge, attitudes and behavior both prior to and after a comprehensive consumer education campaign conducted in five states.

The Long-Term Care Awareness Campaign, called “Own Your Future,” is the first large scale effort of its kind to attempt to increase public awareness of the need to plan for future long-term care needs. Evaluation activities were conducted to identify the impact that the communication strategies in the various campaign states had on consumer knowledge, attitudes and awareness of long-term care planning options, as well as on consumers’ willingness to consider or take specific planning steps.

The consumer survey was conducted both prior to and following implementation of the Awareness Campaign. The pre-campaign survey instrument was designed to measure baseline levels of knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behavior about long-term care planning. Selected respondents included 4,500 individuals between the ages of 50 and 70 in the five campaign states of Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey and Virginia. Subsequent to the pre-campaign survey, these 4,500 individuals, along with approximately two million additional consumers in these states, were exposed to a broad-based awareness campaign (see campaign summary below).

The pre-campaign survey, which was conducted in November and December 2004, gathered baseline data regarding consumers’:

• understanding of long-term care issues and concepts;
• personal experiences with long-term care and caregiving;
• financial planning options such as reverse mortgages and long-term care insurance; and
• lifestyle choices, such as home modification and relocation.

The campaign activities varied by state, and were designed to increase consumer awareness and knowledge of long-term care options, and the need for advance lifestyle and financial planning to effectively meet long-term care needs as people age.

B. About the Campaign

Before presenting survey findings, we briefly summarize the Campaign Components and interventions which were the subject of this analysis.

Campaign Summary

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) designed and implemented the Phase I Long-Term Care Pilot Awareness Campaign, “Own Your Future,” to promote increased awareness about the importance of planning ahead for future long-term care needs. Specifically, in January 2005, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Administration on Aging (AoA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working closely with the National Governors Association, launched the “Own Your Future” Pilot Long-Term Care Awareness Campaign in five states: Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey and Virginia.

Many people today do not think about their future long-term care needs and therefore fail to plan appropriately. If individuals and families are more aware of their potential need for long-term care, they are more likely to take steps to prepare for the future. From a public policy perspective, increased planning for long-term care is likely to increase private financing, which may in turn reduce the burden on public financing sources.

Campaign Materials and Activities

The Campaign used materials that were developed, tested and approved by the HHS as part of an earlier project. These included:

• Letter from the Governor with a brochure offering a Long-Term Care Planning Kit.
• Television and Radio spot featuring a woman who is thinking about her elderly father’s long-term care needs when she realizes that she should begin to plan ahead for herself as well.
• Follow-up postcard reminding consumers to order the Kit.
• The Long-Term Care Planning Kit, which featured:
  • A 28-page brochure describing what is and what is not covered by public programs related to long-term care. The brochure also describes several ways to plan ahead, addressing legal issues, assessing services and private financing options for long-term care.
  • An audio CD with interviews of persons engaged in different types of planning activities such as obtaining a reverse mortgage, making home modifications, or buying long-term care insurance.

The core components of the Campaign were the direct mail initiative and a media initiative. The direct mail component included a letter from the Governor of each state to every household with a member between the ages of 50 and 70.  The letter included the tri-fold brochure described above as well as a toll free number through which the Long-Term Care Planning Kit could be requested.  Over 2.1 million letters were sent to households across the five pilot states.  Follow-up postcards to remind those in the target group of the availability of the Planning Kit were also used in all of the campaign states. 

The second component of the campaign was a series of paid media spots and Public Service Announcements to further publicize the toll free number for ordering the Planning Kit.  Paid media included television and radio spots selected to maximize exposure in the target audience of 50-70 year-olds.  Due both to both budget constraints and a desire to test various approaches, the media used varied across the five pilot states. In three of the states, the Governors filmed an introduction to the media spot, expanding it to a 60-second spot. In those states, the media buy included a mix of both 30 and 60-secoond spots.

The overall objective of the media campaign was to achieve market delivery of 175 general television rating points per week in all markets and 50 direct response radio rating points per week in Idaho and New Jersey for a sustained period of eight weeks. The result is 1,400 total target rating points in television and 400 total radio target rating points in Idaho and New Jersey over the eight weeks. The table below shows the mix of communications used in each campaign state.

C. Campaign Results

Over all the campaign states, the response rate was 7.7%. This means that 7.7% of the individual households that received the Governors’ letters requested the Planning Kit. Duplicate Kit orders were removed in calculating these response rates. The total number of Kits distributed represents a larger number because it includes both duplicate requests as well as requests from individuals not receiving the Governors’ letters (e.g., agents, government officials, residents of other states, and the like.)

While response rates were highest in Virginia (9.1%), in all states, the response rate met or exceeded our baseline estimate of 5% which is considered an appropriate response rate for a social marketing campaign. These response rates are also significantly higher than comparable private sector direct mail campaigns on this topic (which might see responses of 0.1%-2.0%).

FIGURE 1: Percentage of Target Population Requesting Kit by State

An initial analysis was completed of the campaign based solely on response rates and demographic data that was appended to the direct mail file for a sample (10%) of both respondents and non-respondents. Those results can be found in the Final Report for Phase I which is posted at http://www.aoa.gov/ownyourfuture. The materials used in the Phase I campaign can also be viewed on that website.

D. Survey Methodology

Specifically, the survey sample for the pre-campaign baseline survey included 4,500 respondents across the five pilot states.

As Phase I concluded in these five states, a post-campaign interview was conducted with as many of the same group of 4,500 respondents as were willing to participate, in order to measure the impact of the campaign in terms of any changes in their long-term care knowledge, attitudes and planning behaviors. The survey explored changes in key attitudes or planning activities as well as exposure to and opinions of the campaign activities. The post-campaign survey also included a “replacement sample” of individuals who requested the Long-Term Care Planning Kit but who were not included in the baseline interview. Including these “Kit respondents” better enabled us to evaluate differences between “Kit responders” and “non-responders” to the initial campaign message -- which was a simple “call to action” to order the Long-Term Care Planning Kit. Thus, the survey design enables us to both examine changes over time among the same population as well as differences between “Kit responders” and “non-responders.”

The post-campaign survey included the same questions asked in the pre-campaign survey, with the addition of a special series of questions designed to evaluate the impact of specific communication and media strategies used in campaign states. The post-campaign questions were designed to learn more about the usefulness of specific media messages and channels to specific segments of the target populations.

Fielding for the post-campaign survey began on October 27, 2005 and was completed on December 20, 2005. Individuals were surveyed about their recall and reaction to the “Own Your Future” Campaign roughly 5-7 months after completion of the campaign. While our ability to measure recall of specific campaign elements could have been enhanced by fielding the survey sooner after the campaign concluded, it was felt that a greater interval was needed in order to detect meaningful behavioral changes as a result of the campaign.

Therefore, the final sample analyzed in this report includes 2,904 individuals who participated in both the pre and post-campaign survey (called the “follow-up sample”), as well as 1,600 individuals in the campaign states who participated only in the post-campaign survey and were identified by our records to have requested the Planning Kit (“Kit responders”). Specifically, approximately 65% of the individuals who participated in the baseline pre-campaign survey also participated in the follow-up post-campaign survey. These figures vary only slightly by campaign state. Therefore, the remaining 35% of the survey sample consisted of the “replacement” sample drawn randomly from Kit responders. Across the entire sample participating in the post-campaign survey, approximately 41% of the sample received the Planning Kit. We specifically over-sampled responders for the “replacement sample” in order to have a sufficient number of responders and non-responders on which to analyze differences. The number and distribution of survey participants, by state and by status is shown below and on the following page.

Fieldwork was conducted by Market Strategies, Inc., in conjunction with LifePlans, Inc., and Long Term Care Group, Inc. The 18-minute computer-assisted telephone survey generated the following performance statistics.

The refusal rate (people contacted who refused to participate in the survey) was lower for the “follow-up” sample (19%) than for the new replacement sample (31%). This is likely due to the fact that the pre-survey sample group already felt some investment in the survey, having completed the pre-campaign survey, and also may represent an “eager to comply” population. Given the salience of the campaign to the replacement sample (since they had all requested the Planning Kit), we would have expected a better acceptance rate to participate in the survey, but that was not the case. Similarly, the “follow-up” survey sample had a higher rate of completion of the survey -- 92% -- compared with a cooperation or completion rate once the survey began of 75% among the “replacement” sample. Across both groups, the completion rate for the survey was approximately 85%.

The average interview length was slightly shorter for the “follow-up” survey sample compared with the “replacement” sample (16.5 vs. 17.9 minutes). This finding makes sense given that the “follow-up” sample had more familiarity with the survey questions, the vast majority of which were asked in both the pre and post-survey. Also, the “replacement sample” had a slightly longer questionnaire since it included questions about the Kit which individuals in the “follow-up” survey who did not request the Kit (about 90% of them) were not asked.

Post-Campaign Telephone Survey Reporting

Summarized below are the characteristics of the total sample with respect to key demographics.

E. Research Questions

The research questions addressed were as follows. Would people, as a result of the Campaign:

• Respond to the offer to order the Planning Kit?
• Gain a better appreciation for the value of planning for long-term care needs?
• Gain additional knowledge about long-term care planning options?
• Undertake concrete and specific planning actions?

Specific research questions around which our analysis was designed include the following:

• Did the campaign result in people ordering Kits? This issue has been answered in Section I, Campaign Results, with an overall response rate of 7.7% of the target market ordering the Planning Kit.
• Did views charge regarding the value of planning?
• Did we increase knowledge of planning options?
• Did the campaign have any impact on planning behavior?
• Which elements of the campaign were associated with planning behavior?

Addition research questions in each of these areas include the following:

Campaign Exposure

• Can people recall information about the campaign?
• Which campaign activities do people remember hearing, viewing or receiving?
• What did people think about the campaign components?
• Which components had the most impact?

Long-Term Care Planning Actions

• What planning actions did people take?
• How does this differ by attitudinal and demographic characteristics?
• Was the planning associated with campaign exposure?

Responders vs. Non-Responders

• What seems to motivate someone to order a Kit or take a specific planning action?
• Are there any significant differences across the pilot states?
• Does the Kit itself seem to lead to additional actions?

Pre and Post-Campaign

• Did people exposed to the campaign components show any change in the post-campaign attitudes and behavior?
• Does awareness of the campaign seem to be related to pre and post-campaign differences in attitudes and behavior?

II. FINDINGS: COMPARING KIT RESPONDERS AND NON-RESPONDERS

A. Demographic Differences

Table 1 summarizes the demographic differences between individuals who requested the Long-Term Care Planning Kit (Responders) and those who did not (non-responders). Statistically significant differences are noted in the table.

The average age of responders is significantly higher than that of non-responders, although the average age for both when rounded is just at 61 years old. Also, in general, responders are more likely to:

• Be between the ages of 65 to 69.
• Have an educational level of college graduate or beyond.
• Be retired.
• Cite their health as “poor”.
• Either have assets under $10,000 or to have assets of $125,000 or greater.
• Have household assets over $30,000.
• Have an individual retirement account (IRA), 401K or annuity.

Responders are less likely to be:

• Between the ages of 55 to 59.
• Married.
• Female.
• Have adult children living nearby.
• Cite their health as “good”.

These findings suggest individuals with more education who are slightly older and who have already retired are more likely to express interest in ordering the Planning Kit. Planning for long-term care may be more salient for them at this point in their lives, perhaps because they have newly retired and are thinking more broadly about planning for long-term care in the context of overall retirement planning. Not being married and not having adult children nearby can also make concerns with planning ahead for long-term care needs more salient, as this may mean that informal supports are less readily available.

Income did not appear to differ significantly across the responder vs. the non-responder groups. This suggests that individuals along the financial spectrum, with respect to income and assets, found some relevance in the campaign. This finding is consistent with the broad range of topics addressed in the Planning Kit, with an emphasis not only on financial planning approaches, but also on lifestyle and household options like home modification, a reverse mortgage or moving in with family or friends, which might hold more appeal for individuals with more limited means. One goal of the campaign, to speak with some relevance to all segments of the target market and to present viable planning options for a wide variety of personal scenarios, would appear then to have been met.

Individuals with financial vehicles indicative of being a planner (e.g., having a 401K, annuity or IRA) are also more likely to be interested in planning for long-term care; this finding is consistent with other research on the topic.

B. Long-Term Care Experiences

We also compared the long-term care experiences of responders and non-responders. While in the past this variable has been an important factor in explaining interest in long-term care insurance, it has become a less important factor in that regard as the population as a whole has gained more exposure to long-term care issues. In studies of buyers and non-buyers of long-term care insurance, for example, having some personal experience with long-term care used to be a significant variable in differentiating buyers from non-buyers. In more recent analyses, it still plays an important role in terms of the type and amount of coverage someone buys, but is less likely to play a role in one’s decision about whether or not to buy coverage.

The findings from this study are consistent with prior research in that individuals who had a close family member who needed long-term care or who knew someone who used up savings paying for care were more likely to order the Kit than those who did not share those same experiences.

FIGURE 2: Long-Term Care Experience by Responder Status

C. Attitudes about Planning and the Need for Long-Term Care

We asked survey participants about the importance of planning ahead for long-term care needs and the challenges of doing so. A series of questions focused on how strongly the individual agreed with various statements about the value of planning and the obstacles to being able to plan ahead for long-term care needs.

Responders who ordered the Planning Kit were more likely to perceive the value of planning ahead and to express a certain degree of confidence about their ability to do advance planning. With respect to general planning styles, those ordering the Planning Kit were significantly more likely to say:

• “I leave nothing to chance.”
• “I make lists most of the time.”
• “There are planning steps I can take now that will help me in the future.”

They were also more likely to strongly disagree with the statement:

• “I don’t know what planning steps to take for long-term care.”

In contrast, the survey respondents who did not order the Planning Kit had responses which indicate that they are less planning-oriented in general and less focused on planning specific to long-term care. They were more likely to say:

• “I plan only when I have to.”
• “I make lists hardly ever or never.”
• “I will deal with long-term care when I get to it.”

There are also significant differences between these two groups when we look at their opinions of the value of planning ahead. Those who ordered the Planning Kit were more likely to say that:

• “Planning gives me more control over care choices.”
• “Planning enables me to better protect my income and my family.”
• “Planning ahead will help me be able to stay at home if I need care.”

In contrast, survey respondents who did not order the Planning Kit disagreed that planning ahead would help them have more control over the care and services they could receive, although they did agree, but not strongly, that planning ahead could help them receive care at home.

With respect to the perceived risk of needing long-term care, those who ordered the Planning Kit were more likely to say that they feel it is very likely they will need long-term care someday. They are also less likely to see relying on family care as a feasible option. At the same time, they are more worried about the financial impact that their long-term care need might have on their loved loves.

In contrast, those that did not order the Planning Kit were more likely to say that they would rely on care from family or friends, expressed less concern about the impact of their long-term care needs on family finances and in general see themselves at lower risk of needing long-term care.

Thus the combination of traits associated with the probability of ordering the Planning Kit include:

• A belief in the value of planning.
• A belief in the benefits of planning ahead.
• A belief that long-term care may someday be needed.
• Concern about the burden on their family if they needed long-term care.
• Concern about how or whether they will get the help they need if they need long-term care.
• An unwillingness or inability to rely on family or friends to provide care.

FIGURE 3: Attitudes toward Planning by Responder Status

One possible explanation for the findings observed above is that the invitation to order materials to learn about how to plan ahead for long-term care resonated more to those already concerned about these issues and those with a general belief in the value and importance of planning. This is consistent with other research which shows that people who take certain planning actions, like buying long-term care insurance, are significantly more likely to believe strongly in the importance of planning and to see themselves at risk for someday possibly needing long-term care.

It seems then, that the campaign message overall, as measured by whether or not someone ordered a Planning Kit, did not seem to effectively reach what we would describe as “non-planners.” At least, at this point in their lives, they are “non-planners.” However it is possible, because the “non-responders” are younger, that the campaign message may become more salient to them as they come closer to retirement or pre-retirement age, as they have fewer competing daily living demands by virtue of possibly still being in their prime parenting/working years, or as they have more personal exposure to long-term care issues.

One critical question, however, is whether these individuals ordered the Planning Kit because of the salience of these “planning issues” for them in their lives, or if having received and read the Planning Kit helped to foster some of these “planning attitudes” among this population. This question is examined in more detail in Part III of the analysis.

D. Paying for Long-Term Care

We found differences between Kit responders and non-responders in terms of their knowledge and perception of who would pay for long-term care if they needed it on an extended care basis (for more than six months). Those who did not order the Kit were more likely to say that Medicare and/or Medicaid would pay some of the costs, while those who did order the Kit were more likely to see Medicare and Medicaid as paying none of those costs.

In contrast, those who ordered the Kit were more likely to feel that they would be responsible for paying on their own out of income or savings for long-term care, while those who did not order the Kit were more likely to say that their own financial resources would not pay for any of their care. Finally, individuals who ordered the Kit were more likely to say that children would not be involved in paying for their care, while non-responders were more likely to say that they would rely on children to pay for their care.

This analysis does not tell us whether respondents held these viewpoints before they ordered the Planning Kit, or whether those who ordered the Kit had a better understanding of “who pays” as a result of having received it. Based on other research, however, we do see that those who have more accurate knowledge about the costs of long-term care and that public programs offer a limited solution for them, do tend to take specific planning actions (e.g., like buying long-term care insurance) so ordering the Planning Kit may have been an expression of knowing that they had a need to plan.

E. Exposure to Long-Term Care Information

We asked respondents whether they had heard, seen or read anything about long-term care within the past several months and whether they took any action as a result of this. This was an unaided recall of information, not specific to the campaign, and thus may include that or any other information they may have heard, read or seen. As shown in Table 5, individuals who ordered the Kit were more likely to say they had been exposed to long-term care during the past few months. When asked where they had read, seen or heard this information, those who ordered the Kit were more likely to mention direct mail, a magazine, or the Internet. Curiously, they were less likely than non-responders to mention television as where they heard about long-term care recently, despite the fact that, in most of the states, there was a media campaign.

When asked if they took any action as a result of the information they read, heard or saw, those who ordered the Kit were significantly more likely to say that they had taken some action. They may be referring to having ordered the Kit as the “action” they have taken as a result, or they may also be thinking of some of the other planning actions they said they have taken.

In terms of exposure to the campaign activities, specifically, just under half of the respondents recalled receiving the Governor’s letter, even though the sample was drawn exclusively from households that were sent the Governor’s letter. In some cases, of course, it is possible that the one member of the household who was in our survey sample was not the same household member that opened or discarded the Governor’s letter when it arrived. So this variable is not entirely a measure of “recall” on receiving the letter. Also the lag time between receipt of the Governor’s letter and the survey may reduce the number of respondents who recall receiving it. Those who ordered the Kit were twice as likely to recall receiving the Governor’s letter so salience of the long-term care topic is also likely a factor here. Certainly, it makes sense that someone who took action as a result of the Governor’s letter (i.e., ordering the Kit) would be more likely to recall having receiving that letter.

Fewer than 40% of the sample said they saw a television ad and about 13% heard a radio ad. While we do not have good numbers on the market share exposed to radio, we do know that just about 45% of the target population was exposed to the television spots, so it seems as if the audience had a level of recall for television consistent with the level of exposure.

As stated previously, about 8% of the sample ordered the Planning Kit. Of these, a high percent -- 80% -- indicated that they had read the Kit. In contrast, however, only 17% of those receiving the Kit listened to the “Success Stories CD” included in it. We were not able to ask follow-up questions to learn more about why people did not listen to the CD -- whether the reasons were technical or reflected a lack of interest in the CD material.

FIGURE 4: Exposure to Campaign Elements

When asked specifically about their recall of various components of the awareness campaign, there were differences between the “recall” abilities of those who ordered the Planning Kit and those who did not do so. Specifically, individuals who ordered the Planning Kit were significantly more likely to recall receiving the Governor’s letter. They were also more likely to say that they say the campaign’s television ad. Those who ordered the Planning Kit were also more likely to recall having heard the radio ad.

F. Long-Term Care Planning Actions

We asked respondents if they had ever heard of a variety of “planning steps” that some people may take in preparation for understanding and dealing with their future long-term care needs. Individuals who ordered the Kit were more aware of purchasing long-term care insurance and learning about long-term care on the Internet as an option, while those that did not order the Kit were more likely to be aware of “moving closer to family” as a planning option. Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between these two groups in terms of their awareness of the existence of these various planning steps. These differences seem reasonable given the other differences between the groups in terms of their demographic and attitude profiles described above. Also, someone who read about long-term care on the Internet or who might have already been aware of long-term care insurance could have greater curiosity on the subject and, as a result, want to receive the Planning Kit.

Next we asked respondents if they had either considered or taken any of the planning steps of which they said they were aware. If a respondent said they had never heard of a planning step, they were not asked if they had considered or taken it. The planning steps that individuals who ordered the Planning Kit were more likely to have considered include:

• Buying long-term care insurance.
• Consulting with a financial planner.
• Consulting with an insurance agent.
• Moving closer to family or friends.
• Reading information on the Internet about long-term care.
• Planning to move to a new residence better suited to their needs.

The groups did not differ in terms of their consideration of talking to family or friends about these and other long-term care issues. Overall, those who ordered the Kit were more likely to have taken some planning action, compared with those who did not order the Kit. Respondents who did not order the Kit were significantly more likely to have neither considered nor taken any of the planning steps except for moving closer to family or friends.

A more focused (and thus easier to answer) question about planning activity asked respondents whether they had done any of the following:

• Talked to an agent or financial planner about long-term care.
• Looked into a reverse mortgage.
• Reviewed their existing insurance coverage to see if long-term care was provided for.
• Bought long-term care insurance after the campaign.

With respect to planning steps that were taken, individuals who ordered the Planning Kit were more likely to have taken the following actions:

• Purchase long-term care insurance (after the campaign).
• Consult with a financial planner or an insurance agent.
• Look into a reverse mortgage.
• Review this existing coverage.

FIGURE 5: Planning Actions Taken by Responder Status

FIGURE 6: Bought Long-Term Care Insurance After Campaign, Total and by State

We also looked more closely at respondents who said they bought long-term care insurance after the campaign, by state. In New Jersey, Arkansas and Virginia, the differences are statistically significant. The likely reason that these differences are not statistically significant in Idaho and Nevada, but are significant in Arkansas (which had a similar sample size to the other two smaller states) is that the differences observed in Arkansas are larger than the differences in Idaho and Nevada. A larger difference is important for the smaller sample size among these three states. It is possible that, with a larger sample in these two states, we may have observed a statistically significant difference there as well.

Again, we do not know whether these differences between those who received the Kit and those who did not choose to order it were evident before the campaign or whether having received the Kit helped to increase awareness and action along these lines. This issue is explored further in Part II of this report which looks at findings of the pre and post-campaign survey populations.

Individuals who recalled the campaign communications and those who read the Planning Kit and/or listened to the CD were more likely to take one of the planning actions listed above. For example, individuals who recalled getting the Governor’s letter were more likely to review their existing insurance coverage to see if it covered long-term care (26% vs. 16%), to talk to an agent or financial planner about long-term care (25% vs. 14%), to look into a reverse mortgage (8% vs. 5%), or to buy long-term care insurance after the campaign (3% vs. 2%).

While individuals who ordered the Kit may have already had a “planning orientation” and thus been more likely to engage in planning activities after receiving the Kit, the fact that, among all who received the Kit, there are important differences in planning actions taken based on whether or not the recipient read the Kit and/or listened to the CD, provides some evidence that the Planning Kit in and of itself is influential in moving “planner types” to “taking action.”

The tables below summarize these findings.

FIGURE 7: Planning Actions Taken by Recall of Governors Letter

FIGURE 8: Planning Actions Taken by Exposure to Television Ad

FIGURE 9: Planning Actions Taken by Exposure to Radio Ad

FIGURE 10: Planning Actions Taken by Whether of Not Read Kit

FIGURE 11: Planning Actions Taken by Whether or Not Used CD