Explaining Variations in Long-term Care Use and Expenditures Under the Public Long-term Care Insurance Systems: A Case Study Comparison of Korea and Japan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Graduate School of Public Health Department of Public Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Environment & Institute of Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2 SOCIUM - Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

3 Division of Social Welfare and Health Administration, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Republic of Korea

4 School of Economics, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

5 Department of Health and Social Behavior, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

Background 
Establishing universal coverage of formal long-term care (LTC) services is an urgent policy need for aging populations that requires efficient management of quality and financing. Although current variation in LTC service use between and within countries suggests the potential for improvement by efficient management, this topic remains underexamined. We aimed to identify the sources of variance in LTC use and expenditures through a unique crosscountry comparison of Japan and South Korea, which have formal public LTC insurance (LTCI) schemes that are analogous but have unique operational and demographic structures.

 
Methods 
Taking administrative regions as the unit of analysis, we assembled data on the LTC utilization rate of people aged ≥65 years, and expenditures per recipient from 2013 to 2015 as the outcome variables. Explanatory variables included demand-related factors, such as regional demographic and economic conditions, and supply characteristics derived from existing public databases. We conducted weighted least squares regression with fixed effects for the pooled data and used Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition to identify sources of outcome variance between the two countries.

 
Results 
The average LTC utilization rate was 6.8% in Korea and 18.2% in Japan. Expenditures per recipient were approximately 1.4 times higher in Japan than in Korea. The difference in the utilization rate was mostly explained by between-country differences in supply- and demand-related factors, whereas the difference in expenditures per recipient was largely attributed to unobserved country-specific factors.

 
Conclusion 
The current findings suggest that LTC utilization is determined largely by the demographic and functional characteristics of older people, whereas expenditures are more likely affected by institutional factors such as the insurance governance scheme and the policy choice of the target population segment and coverage. The results suggest that strategic choice of LTC institutional schemes is required to ensure financial sustainability to meet changing demands caused by population aging.

Keywords


  1. Health at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2019_4dd50c09-en. Accessed July 12, 2021.
  2. Campbell JC, Ikegami N, Kwon S. Policy learning and cross-national diffusion in social long-term care insurance: Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Int Soc Secur Rev. 2009;62(4):63-80. doi:1111/j.1468-246X.2009.01346.x
  3. van Noort O, Schotanus F, van de Klundert J, Telgen J. Explaining regional variation in home care use by demand and supply variables. Health Policy. 2018;122(2):140-146. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2017.05.003
  4. Karmann A, Sugawara S. Comparison of the Japanese and German Nursing-Home Sectors: Implications of Demographic and Policy Differences. 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3814576. Accessed July 12, 2021.
  5. Bakx P, de Meijer C, Schut F, van Doorslaer E. Going formal or informal, who cares? The influence of public long-term care insurance. Health Econ. 2015;24(6):631-643. doi:1002/hec.3050
  6. Alders P, Costa-Font J, de Klerk M, Frank R. What is the impact of policy differences on nursing home utilization? The cases of Germany and the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2015;119(6):814-820. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.006
  7. Yan Z, Song C. Gender role attitudes and values toward caring for older adults in contemporary China, Japan, and South Korea: evidence from a cross-sectional survey. J Asian Sociol. 2021;50(3):431-464. doi:21588/dns.2021.50.3.001
  8. Kim H, Jeon B, Doetter LF, Tamiya N, Hashimoto H. Same same but different? Comparing institutional performance in the long-term care systems of Japan and South Korea. Soc Policy Adm. 2022;56(1):148-162. doi:1111/spol.12761
  9. Kim H, Kwon S. A decade of public long-term care insurance in South Korea: policy lessons for aging countries. Health Policy. 2021;125(1):22-26. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.003
  10. Tamiya N, Noguchi H, Nishi A, et al. Population ageing and wellbeing: lessons from Japan's long-term care insurance policy. Lancet. 2011;378(9797):1183-1192. doi:1016/s0140-6736(11)61176-8
  11. Gori C, Barbabella F, Campbell J, et al. How different countries allocate long-term care resources to older users: changes over time. In: Gori C, Fernández J, Wittenberg R, eds. Long-Term Care Reforms in OECD Countries: Successes and Failures. London: Policy Press; 2016:77-116.
  12. Gori C. Long-term care financing: inserting politics and resource allocation in the debate: comment on "financing long-term care: lessons from Japan.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(2):77-79. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.88
  13. Ikegami N. Key issues in designing long-term care systems: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(12):542-544. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.42
  14. OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2020. https://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-regions-and-cities-at-a-glance-26173212.htm. Accessed May 12, 2022.
  15. Korea National Health Insurance Service. 2019 Long-term Care Insurance Statistical Yearbook. Seoul: Korea National Health Insurance Service; 2020. http://nhis.or.kr/nhis/together/wbhaec07200m01.do?mode=view&articleNo=138244&article.offset=0&articleLimit=10. Accessed May 10, 2022.
  16. Korea National Health Insurance Service, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. 2019 Health Insurance Statistical Yearbook. Seoul: Korea National Health Insurance Service, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2020. http://nhis.or.kr/nhis/together/wbhaec06300m01.do?mode=view&articleNo=10802543&article.offset=0&articleLimit=10. Accessed May 10, 2022.
  17. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Statistics of Long-term Care Benefit Expenditure. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/45-1.html. Accessed April 23, 2022.
  18. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Survey of Medical Institutions. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/79-1.html. Accessed April 23, 2022.
  19. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Statistics of Physicians, Dentists, and Pharmacists. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/33-20.html. Accessed May 10, 2022.
  20. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. Local Finance Statistics Annual Report. Tokyo: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. https://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/zaisei/toukei.html. Accessed April 23, 2022.
  21. Power Purchasing Parities (PPP). OECD Data Website. https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm. Accessed April 23, 2022.
  22. Gordon EH, Peel NM, Samanta M, Theou O, Howlett SE, Hubbard RE. Sex differences in frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Exp Gerontol. 2017;89:30-40. doi:1016/j.exger.2016.12.021
  23. Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev. 1973;14(3):693-709. doi:2307/2525981
  24. Blinder AS. Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour. 1973;8(4):436-455. doi:2307/144855
  25. Eling M. Financing long-term care: some ideas from Switzerland: comment on "financing long-term care: lessons from Japan.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(1):39-41. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.83
  26. Nadash P. The evolution of long-term care programs: comment on "financing long-term care: lessons from Japan.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(1):42-44. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.79
  27. Costa-Font J, Turati G. Regional healthcare decentralization in unitary states: equal spending, equal satisfaction? Reg Stud. 2018;52(7):974-985. doi:1080/00343404.2017.1361527
  28. Geyer J. Notes about comparing long-term care expenditures across countries: comment on "financing long-term care: lessons from Japan.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(2):80-82. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.87
  29. Gianino MM, Lenzi J, Martorana M, et al. Trajectories of long-term care in 28 EU countries: evidence from a time series analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(6):948-954. doi:1093/eurpub/ckx177
  30. Demographic trends. In: Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. doi:10.1787/health_glance-2017-73-en

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 18 October 2022
  • Receive Date: 21 July 2021
  • Revise Date: 05 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 17 October 2022
  • First Publish Date: 18 October 2022