ReviewJournal of population ageing2022
Social Insurance for Long-term Care.
Review in Journal of population ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does long-term care insurance affect labor supply? Empirical evidence from China.International journal of health economics and management · 2026Article
- Perceived experiences of long-term care services among long-term care insurance beneficiaries and their family members: A qualitative interview study in Hunan Province, China.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Association between polypharmacy and the risk of requiring long-term care among community-dwelling older residents: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Life expectancy, long-term care demand and dynamic financing mechanism simulation: an empirical study of Zhejiang Pilot, China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Measures to support informal care for the older adults in Kazakhstan: a review of the current status.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The issue of how best to finance long-term care (LTC) is the subject of recent reforms, forthcoming reforms or continuing debate in various countries and remains as relevant and challenging as ever. LTC services are crucial to the wellbeing of large numbers of older adults who need help with everyday tasks. Demand for LTC for older adults is projected to rise across developed and developing countries as the number of older adults rises. Supply of care services is likely to remain constrained due to shortages of long-term care workforce and financial constraints in many countries, and the financial risks associated with LTC remain. Financing of LTC is a complicated issue which raises considerations of economic efficiency and incentives, equity including intergenerational equity, the balance of risk between public and private funding, and sustainability of public expenditures. The aim of this paper is to discuss analytically the case for social insurance as an equitable and efficient way to finance LTC. The paper considers social insurance systems, especially in Germany and Japan, in comparison with safety net tax funded systems such as in England and the USA and more generous tax funded systems such as in Sweden and Denmark. Social insurance has advantages and disadvantages compared with these other systems. It tends to be associated with greater clarity and acceptability since it involves collection of revenues ear marked for LTC and, at least in principle, a link between contributions and benefits on the basis of clear eligibility criteria.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.