The long-term care (LTC) insurance was introduced in 2000 as the element of fifth social insurance. Seven years have passed after the introduction, but little attention has been paid for the distributional aspects of the LTC insurance. In this paper, we investigated the equity of access to the LTC, controlling for the need for the LTC and especially focusing on whether the system favors high-income groups.
LTC is not necessarily as vital as service as health care. A certain portion of LTC services constitute light housekeeping services, and the policy makers have concerned about a possibility of these being overused, particularly by people from higher-income groups.
The LTC insurance system has increased people’s ability to purchase services, since requires a co-payment of only 10% subject to a cap on overall cost which is, itself determined by the needs of the person concerned. However, for people with low incomes, this co-payment might be still expensive and might reduce their demand for LTC services.
In our analysis, we used the micro data set the “Comprehensive Survey of the Living Condition of the People on Health and Welfare (2001)” that was collected by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. This captured about 3,500 people entitled to the LTC services. Based on probit model and concentration curve analysis of the data, we have three findings:
1. The gap between “needs” and “actual usage” of the LTC is quite small between the income groups, and it means that the LTC insurance achieves a horizontal equity of access care services.
2. Although the “need” or“actual usage” as a percentage of income is higher for people with lower incomes than for people with higher incomes, as a whole, LTC insurance succeeded in boosting the ability of low-income people to purchase or access care services. This is because, when account is taken of in-kind assistance as cash transfers, it contributed to an equalization of the income distribution among older disabled people.
3. The upper limit of the LTC service provision is appropriately designed in terms of excess usage, except the limit for care required level 1. For those who are entitled to care required level 1, the limit is too high. Additionally, excess usage was observed amongst the people with cognitive impairment, and it would be desirable to take account of their special needs, when the limit was set.
View full abstract