Forms of Providing and Financing Long-Term Care in OECD Countries

Abstract

Long-term care is being prioritised due to population ageing, and hand in hand with the development of professional provision of long-term care, public expenditures will be increasing. Mainly countries with a sharp increase in the number of people aged 80+ will have to address the sustainability of long-term care systems and the procurement of relevant services. This paper aims to evaluate the forms of provision and financing of long-term care in selected OECD countries. Provision and funding of longterm care in terms of a formal system are assessed based on selected criteria using analytical methods (principal component analysis and TwoStep cluster analysis). Results of the evaluation carried out in 2008 and 2013 by means of the selected indicators of longterm care, using TwoStep cluster analysis, confirmed both similar as well as different approaches to the provision and financing of long-term care in the analysed countries. The most marked differences in the provision of care based on indicators LTC recipients aged 65+ and LTC recipients in institutions as a percentage of total LTC recipients were found between the first cluster (Australia and Korea with the highest share of LTC recipients) and the second cluster (Czech Republic, Estonia, with the lowest share of LTC recipients). In financing of long-term care (LTC expenditures on institutions as a percentage of total LTC expenditures), the most significant differences were observed between the first (Australia, Korea, with the largest share of LTC expenditures on institutions) and third cluster (mainly Nordic countries, with the lowest share of LTC expenditures on institutions of total LTC expenditures).

Comparing long‐term care systems: A multi‐dimensional, actor‐centred typology

“…regarding the specification of criteria and/or underlying procedure/methods. The more quantitatively oriented typologies (especially Damiani et al, 2011;Hal askov a et al, 2017;Kraus et al, 2010) are an exception here. However, they carry other (methodological) limitations: due to the inherently inductive approach toward classification, theses typologies cannot simply be extended to other countries or regions (De Carvalho, Schmid, & Fischer, 2020).…”

“…Regarding the methodology behind typology construction, five of the 17 classifications reviewed use quantitative methods, mostly cluster analysis, to group countries with similar characteristics (Damiani et al, 2011;Hal askov a, Bedn ař, & Hal askov a, 2017;Kraus, Riedel, Mot, Willemé, & Röhrling, 2010 approach I and II;Lamura et al, 2007).…”

A systematic review of typologies on aged care system components to facilitate complex comparisons

“…Five typologies were specific to residential care, [24][25][26][27][28] two were specific to home care 29,30 and seven were applied to all LTC settings. 5,10,[31][32][33][34][35] The typologies were developed based on quantitative data, [24][25][26]30,33 qualitative data 10,27,28,32,34,35 or mixed methods. 5,31 Qualitative data sources were literature review, 27 systematic reviews, 32 questionnaire data 5 or deductive content analysis.…”

“…10,27,34 Two typologies were developed based on OECD data and descriptions 10,31 and one appeared to be based on descriptions alone. 34 Ten typologies were classificatory in nature 5,10,24,27,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and four were ideal. 5,25,26,28…”

Hard times for long-term care systems? Spillover effects on the Spanish economy

“…LTC systems function in a variety of ways, a variety closely related to the structure and extension of formal care and financing (Halásková et al, 2017). Differences in the system emanate from each country's geopolitical, economic and socio-cultural characteristics.…”