No abstract

Summary China's population is aging rapidly, while the traditional long‐term care (LTC) system that heavily relies on families is eroding. In response, China has embarked on a journey of policy experimentation for long‐term care insurance (LTCI) since 2016, launching LTCI pilots in 15 pioneer cities. These pilots have a great diversity in participation, eligibility, and provision. This paper estimates the prevalence of LTC needs and analyzes the impact of the LTCI pilots on access. Although substantial progress has been achieved, the overall coverage of LTCI is still relatively small, and a large proportion of vulnerable people needing LTC seem to be left behind because of the strict eligibility criteria. This analysis suggests that future policy experimentation on LTCI reform in China needs to address the following pressing policy issues: expanding the coverage of LTCI; narrowing rural–urban disparities in access; improving access for vulnerable subpopulations; and reducing the heavy reliance on institutional care.

Cash benefit provisions have been at the core of many recent reforms in the long-term care sector in Europe. The respective schemes, however, vary widely in terms of the definition of entitlements, the level of benefits, and the ways in which benefits can be used by recipients. This article investigates cash-for-care schemes in three European social insurance countries. It asks whether the diversity of these schemes indicates different paths or just differences in the pace with which the respective policies address the risk of dependency. A characterization of the three schemes and a discussion of the implications for care work arrangements lead to the conclusion that the context and timing of long-term care reform processes are in fact quite variegated. All three countries have histories of cash schemes and of applying the cash approach to support -and to some extent relieve -traditionally strong family obligations. Differences predominate in terms of linking cash to employment, although some convergence is apparent in the effects on qualifications, working conditions and wages in care work.

This article discusses the development of the home care sector in Austria. It analyses what impacts the interplay of the traditional family orientation to care, a universal cash-for-care scheme (reaching about 5% of the population) and a growing migrant care sector have on formal home care in Austria. The article is based on an analysis of research papers, policy documents and statistical data covering the period from the introduction of the cash-for-care scheme in 1993 up to 2011. Some authors have argued that generous cash benefits with no direct link to service use - as in the case of Austria - limit the development of home care, particularly in countries with a traditionally strong family orientation towards long-term care. Additionally, a tradition of family care and an emphasis on cash benefits may be conducive to the employment of migrant carers in private households, as a potential substitute for both family care and formal care. Despite this context, Austria has seen a substantial increase in formal home care over the past two decades. This has been driven by clients using their increased purchasing power and by policy priorities emphasising the extension of home care. Migrant care work was regularised in 2007, and the analysis suggests that while migrant care has usually worked as a substitute for other care arrangements, migrant care can also become a more integral element of care schemes. The article concludes that family orientation, unconditional cash benefits and the use of migrant carers do not necessarily preclude the development of a strong social service sector. However, there is a risk that budgetary limitations will primarily affect social service development.

No abstract