GOING FORMAL OR INFORMAL, WHO CARES? THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
GOING FORMAL OR INFORMAL, WHO CARES? THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/hec.3050
复制
发表时间：
2015-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Van Doorslaer, Eddy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bakx, Pieter;De Meijer, Claudine;Van Doorslaer, Eddy
长期护理（LTC）使用的国际差异有很好的记录，但没有很好的理解。利用来自两个国家的可比数据与普遍的公共LTC保险，荷兰和德国，我们研究了制度差异与非正式和正式LTC的选择差异。虽然这两个国家的长期护理的总体利用率相似，但荷兰的正规护理使用率更高，而德国的非正规护理使用率更高。对正式和非正式LTC使用的国家间差异的分解表明，这些差异主要不是人口特征差异的结果，而是主要来自与国家间制度差异相关的这些特征的影响差异。这些研究结果表明，系统功能，如资格规则和覆盖慷慨，间接，社会偏好可以影响正式和非正式护理之间的选择。覆盖面不够全面也会对公平产生影响：对于穷人来说，在德国获得正规长期护理比在荷兰更困难。版权所有（c）2014约翰威利父子有限公司
International differences in long-term care (LTC) use are well documented, but not well understood. Using comparable data from two countries with universal public LTC insurance, the Netherlands and Germany, we examine how institutional differences relate to differences in the choice for informal and formal LTC. Although the overall LTC utilization rate is similar in both countries, use of formal care is more prevalent in the Netherlands and informal care use in Germany. Decomposition of the between-country differences in formal and informal LTC use reveals that these differences are not chiefly the result of differences in population characteristics but mainly derive from differences in the effects of these characteristics that are associated with between-country institutional differences. These findings demonstrate that system features such as eligibility rules and coverage generosity and, indirectly, social preferences can influence the choice between formal and informal care. Less comprehensive coverage also has equity implications: for the poor, access to formal LTC is more difficult in Germany than in the Netherlands. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.