Rothgang H
Zentrum für Sozialpolitik, Universität Bremen.
Gesundheitswesen. 2010 Mar;72(3):154-60. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247575. Epub 2010 Feb 25.
The long-term care insurance act of 1994 introduced two branches of long-term care insurance (LTCI), namely the social LTCI and a mandatory private LTCI. Both branches together cover almost the whole population. Insurees of the social LTCI, however, have a higher age-specific dependency ratio. Furthermore, social LTCI covers a higher share of elderly people. Therefore, per capita expenses are twice as high as in private LTCI - even if benefits for civil servants directly financed out of the public purse are taken into consideration. Moreover, on average members of private LTCI have higher incomes. If organised according to the principles of social LTCI, private LTCI could therefore operate with a contribution rate that is only one third of the rate necessary in social LTCI. Being assigned to social LTC thus creates a considerable disadvantage for the insurees that cannot be justified. Fairness considerations therefore demand reform. The most simple, but politically most difficult, reform option is to abolish the dualism of social and private LTCI and create an integrated system for the whole population instead. If this is not possible at least a risk equalization scheme should be introduced that equalizes the risk structure concerning the expenses and - if possible - also the income side.
1994年的长期护理保险法案引入了长期护理保险(LTCI)的两个分支,即社会长期护理保险和强制性私人长期护理保险。这两个分支共同覆盖了几乎全体人口。然而,社会长期护理保险的被保险人年龄特定抚养比更高。此外,社会长期护理保险覆盖的老年人比例更高。因此,即使将由公共资金直接支付的公务员福利考虑在内,社会长期护理保险的人均费用仍是私人长期护理保险的两倍。此外,私人长期护理保险的成员平均收入更高。因此,如果按照社会长期护理保险的原则组织,私人长期护理保险的缴费率仅为社会长期护理保险所需费率的三分之一。因此,被纳入社会长期护理保险会给被保险人带来相当大的不利,而这是不合理的。出于公平考虑,改革势在必行。最简单但在政治上最困难的改革方案是废除社会和私人长期护理保险的二元制,转而建立一个覆盖全体人口的综合体系。如果无法做到这一点,至少应引入一个风险均等化计划,使费用方面的风险结构均等化,并且如果可能的话,也使收入方面的风险结构均等化。