The aim of this article is to demonstrate the diversity in delivery of long-term care at the provincial level, within a national legislative framework that provides universal health insurance and public administration. Not all provinces have legislated provision of long-term care, but mandates for provincial long-term care programs typically address the needs of those with chronic health needs and maintain them in the community for as long as possible. Eligibility is based on common criteria of residency, health need, facility, assessment, and consent. The three common components of the service delivery system are institutional care, community-based services, and home-based services; the kinds of services within each component and the mix among them vary from province to province. There are also five common features in provincial service delivery systems: single point of entry, assessment, client classification, case management, and single administration. Throughout the article, examples from different provinces show the varying ways in which these aspects of service delivery have been addressed, and recent innovations have furthered this diversity. A detailed account of quality management systems also shows that while all provinces have adopted a common set of principles, they use a range of methods to pursue quality of care and to promote good practice.
This article analyzes the ambitious Case Quality Assessment System (CQAS) that the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) promoted during the first half of the 2010s. It offers a case-study of Court J, a grassroots court located in an affluent urban metropolis of China that struggled to come out ahead in the CQAS competition. The article discusses how the SPC quantified judging and the problems created by the metricization process. The CQAS project is analyzed as a case of metric fixation. By identifying the problems that doomed the CQAS, the article points out the challenges facing the authoritarian regime in subjecting good judging to quantitative output standards. The CQAS is a metric that judges judging. It reveals how judging is viewed by the party-state. The article concludes by discussing the legacy of the CQAS. Though it nominally ended in 2014, key indicators that it introduced for supervising judges are still used by the Chinese courts today. The CQAS presaged the growing centralization that the Chinese judicial system is undergoing today. Though the SPC has terminated the tournament-style competition that defined the CQAS, the metric remains the template used to evaluate judging.
Este artículo analiza las alternativas de que dispone una empresa extranjera para resolver sus disputas comerciales en China. La falta de independencia judicial y la tendencia de los tribunales populares hacia el proteccionismo de las empresas locales, vuelven preferible acudir a las Soluciones Alternativas de Confi ctos. El arbitraje en CIETAC cumple con los estándares internacionales. Pero si una de las partes no cumple voluntariamente el laudo, surgen problemas al intentar el cumplimiento forzado ante los tribunales chinos porque estos pueden rechazar la ejecución. La mediación aparece como la mejor opción en China. Los acuerdos alcanzados en una mediación comercial suelen ser cumplidos volutariamente, esquivando las difi cultades de la ejecución judicial. Además, el Centro de Mediación y la mediación durante un arbitraje en CIETAC (med-arb) también cumplen estándares internacionales, superando los prejuicios que podría tener un observador externo.
People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.