1 / 36

The Long Term Care Insurance [Kaigo Hoken] and its Impact on Society and Health Care System in Japan

The Long Term Care Insurance [Kaigo Hoken] and its Impact on Society and Health Care System in Japan. AtoZ OKAMOTO , MD, MPH National Institute of Public Health. Background Development Implementation Outcome Conclusions. Why was the LTCI developed?.

Download Presentation

The Long Term Care Insurance [Kaigo Hoken] and its Impact on Society and Health Care System in Japan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Long Term Care Insurance [Kaigo Hoken] and its Impact on Society and Health Care System in Japan AtoZ OKAMOTO, MD, MPH National Institute of Public Health

  2. Background • Development • Implementation • Outcome • Conclusions

  3. Why was the LTCI developed? • Rapidly aging population and growing need for LTC • Elderly population >65 will be 25% of the population • Structural overhaul of the fragmented health insurance system • Effective integration of medical and non-medical services

  4. Structural flaws of Japan’s health insurance system

  5. Age distribution and health insurance status

  6. Financial Redistribution Mechanism by the Elderly Health Care System [EHCS] since 1983

  7. Medical vs. Non-medical Services before the LTCI • Medical---health insurance and EHCS financed by premium • Not restricted by budget -> cost inflation • Dictated by doctors’ prescription->not need-based • Non-medical---welfare system financed by tax • Restricted by budget -> frugal use of services • Restricted by income -> social stigma • Result: unusual shift of LTC toward medical services • Prolonged hospital length of stay (40 days)

  8. Background • Development • Implementation • Outcome • Conclusions

  9. Tax vs. Premium • Agreement: Create a new system rather than expanding the old one. • Economists: Why not social insurance? • Prime Minister Hosokawa (1994): National Welfare Tax • Ended up in fiasco and he resigned

  10. Campaign for the LTCI • German LTCI started in 1995 • Opinion Poll-> 86% support the LTCI • Conversion of the Nordic faction

  11. Technical Development(1)-Need Assessment Tool • Evidence-based development (one-minute time study) • Methodologically similar to the U.S. MDS and RUG

  12. Technical Development (2)-Care Management • British Community Care Act 1990 • Coordination between medical and non-medical services

  13. Background • Development • Implementation • Outcome • Conclusions

  14. Administrative Structure • Administered by municipal governments (cities, townships and villages depending on population size) • Advantage over fragmented health insurance system • Larger risk pool and more stale actuarial operation • Enabling municipal governments to develop regional, long range plans

  15. Beneficiaries • Covers half of the population ( as opposed to health insurance) • Beneficiaries category I: aged 65 or older (17% of population) • Beneficiaries category II: aged 40-64 (33% of population) • Originally planned to cover 20 years or older

  16. Beneficiaries and Financing

  17. Need Assessment • Application (a sharp contrast to health insurance) • On-site survey by qualified care managers using a uniform assessment tool (73 items) • Attending doctor’s professional opinion • Preliminary assessment by computer (dismiss, borderline, level 1-5) • The need assessment review committee makes final judgment

  18. How the need assessment review committee altered the preliminary assessment

  19. Benefit • Institutional care • Geriatric hospitals (medical) • Skilled Nursing Facilities (medical) • Nursing homes (non-medical) • Home care • visiting nursing, day care (medical) • home help, day service (non-medical)

  20. Integration of Medical and Non-medical Services under the LTCI

  21. Benefit in monetary terms according to the level of care need (unit 10-10.72 yen, subject to 10% copayment)

  22. Double Talk in Home Care • The LTCI law : same kind of home care services shall be “bundled” under the same budgetary limit (=monthly cap) • The Medical laws: medical services shall not be rendered by non-qualified personnel. They also shall be prescribed by doctors.

  23. Controversy over cash benefit • Whether cash benefit should awarded to family care givers who do not use external services • No!—women citizen group • Yes—economists, medical association • Decision---NO

  24. Background • Development • Implementation • Outcome • Conclusions

  25. Boom and Bust • Government’s worry about shortage of services • Deregulation to encourage for-profit corporations into home care “industry” • Kaigohoken Boom • Less than expected demand -> Bubble Burst

  26. Saga of Nichii Gakkan (TSE quotes)

  27. Service Utilization in the first year • Total reimbursement:3.2 trillion yen (84% of expected) • Home care vs Institutional care = 1:2 • Gradual but steady increase of services

  28. Service Utilization [1]Home vs. Institutional Care

  29. Service Utilization [2]Institutional Care

  30. Service Utilization[3]Home care

  31. Growth of Elderly eligible for benefit

  32. Plight of Visiting Nurses

  33. Price Competition between Home Help and Visiting Nursing(price for 30min to 1 hr, unit 10-10.72 yen, subject to 10% copayment) • Home Help • Chiefly domestic services->153 • Mixed->278 • Chiefly personal care->402 • Visiting Nursing • Hospital or clinics->550 • Independent Visiting Nursing Stations [IVNS]->830

  34. Care Managers: to whom they report? • Care Managers are expected to act as an “agent” of clients • Reality: majority of them are “sales representatives” of service providers • Need to establish them as independent professionals

  35. Background • Development • Implementation • Outcome • Conclusions

  36. What have we learned? • Increased awareness of people about welfare and social services • Prompted a national debate over the goal to which we achieve • A great social experiment to create and implement a new system • A model for Asian countries to cope with aging population?

More Related