Wiener J M
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
J Aging Soc Policy. 1996;7(3-4):109-27. doi: 10.1300/J031v07n03_07.
The way the nation provides for the financing and delivery of long-term care is badly in need of reform. The principal options for change are private insurance, altering Medicaid, and public long-term care insurance. This article uses the Brookings-ICF Long-Term Care Financing Model to evaluate each of these options in terms of affordability, distribution of benefits, and ability to reduce catastrophic out-of-pocket costs. So long as private insurance is aimed at the elderly, its market penetration and ability to finance long-term care will remain severely limited. Affordability is a major problem. Selling to younger persons could solve the affordability problem, but marketing is extremely difficult. Liberalizing Medicaid could help solve the problems of long-term care, but there is little public support for means-tested programs. Finally, universalistic public insurance programs do well in meeting the goals of long-term care reform, but all social insurance programs are expensive and seem politically infeasible in the current political environment.
国家提供长期护理资金和服务的方式亟需改革。主要的变革选项包括私人保险、调整医疗补助计划以及公共长期护理保险。本文运用布鲁金斯学会-ICF长期护理融资模型,从可负担性、福利分配以及降低灾难性自付费用的能力等方面对这些选项逐一进行评估。只要私人保险以老年人为目标群体,其市场渗透率和为长期护理提供资金的能力将依然受到严重限制。可负担性是一个主要问题。向年轻人销售保险或许能解决可负担性问题,但市场营销极为困难。放宽医疗补助计划有助于解决长期护理问题,但针对经济状况调查型项目的公众支持甚少。最后,普惠型公共保险项目在实现长期护理改革目标方面表现良好,但所有社会保险项目成本高昂,在当前政治环境下似乎在政治上不可行。