Integrating familial care and extra‐familial care into a new long‐term care policy for China: Examples from Germany's long‐term care insurance

Abstract

Rapid demographic ageing constitutes a significant challenge for the Chinese social system. As China has only recently begun developing a long‐term care (LTC) policy, care provision is currently based on family care. However, the prevalence of such care is declining due to low social recognition and conflicts between family members' care and work responsibilities. Thus, a comprehensive LTC policy should expand extra‐familial care services and make family care attractive. Germany's LTC insurance is an example of a policy that integrates extra‐familial and family care. This study analyses whether China's LTC policy can gain insights from Germany's LTC policy in view of the findings from Chinese LTC pilot projects. We argue that a policy that supports extra‐familial and family care would facilitate the LTC provision preferred by older people, while also supporting relatives who wish to provide care according to their values of intergenerational solidarity.

Research on the income and expenditure forecast of long-term care insurance fund in Shihezi City based on community care

“…When analyzing the financing of long-term care globally, it is evident that one-third is from taxation and out-of-pocket payments, while another third is secured through social security systems, with models such as the pay-as-you-go social health insurance system implemented in countries such as Japan and Germany ( 8 ). This means that today’s working generation funds today’s beneficiaries, redistributing income from current workers to beneficiaries as people accumulate assets for their own future risks.…”

Evaluation of China’s long-term care insurance policies

“…1 This included investigating the effects of LTCI on families’ medical expenses or consumption ( 15–20 ), the impact of LTCI on the use of medical services ( 21–24 ), the effects on older people’s health ( 24–26 ), and the spillover effects of the policies ( 27–29 ). In terms of qualitative analysis, it primarily addressed the question on how to improve LTCI program, with a specific emphasis on two main areas: Some studies reviewed the key characteristics of LTCI in other countries, such as in Germany, Japan or South Korea, to draw lessons and insights for China ( 9 , 30 ). The other strand of literature focused on comparative analysis to compare core elements, such as funding sources and service provision, in some pilot cities ( 31–33 ).…”