Long Term Care in USA vs Europe and East Asia - Essay Example

Long term Care in USA vs. Europe and East Asia Grade (October 3rd, Long term Care in USA vs. Europe and East Asia Long term care is designed to help address the medical health and other non-medical needs of frail individuals, individuals with disabilities or the dependent senior citizens who require a long period of consistent care. However, while there are many countries in Europe and also some in East Asia which have established formal programs of providing long term care, the case is different in the USA. The USA does not have a formal program of providing long term care, rather leaving such care needs in the hands of Medicaid, Medicare, out-of-pocket spending and long term care insurance (Campbell, Ikegami & Gibson, 2010). The major limitation associated with this informal arrangement of long term care provision by the USA is that there is no uniformity in the manner in which the frail, disabled and the individuals with chronic illnesses are attended to. Thus, those who are dependent on private long term care insurance and out-of-pocket spending eventually end up missing on quality long term care, considering that their resources are easily depleted, to a point where they can no longer be able to cater for such medical and non-medical needs of the deserving individuals (Saltman, Dubois & Chawla, 2006). It is against this background that the U.S. Congress is assessing the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, with a view to establishing a formal program through which uniform long term care can be offered in the USA (Campbell, Ikegami & Gibson, 2010). According to the data released by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in 2008, Medicaid accounted for 71% of the long term care services that were provided in the USA, while out-of-pocket spending followed at 18% and finally private long term care insurance at 7% (Harris-Kojetin, Sengupta, Park-Lee, Valverde, 2013). These statistics indicate that the only individuals who benefit from long term care in the USA are those capable of meeting the expenses through out-of-pocket paying, joining private long term care insurance or enrolling for the Medicaid plan. This leaves out the bulky of the frail, disabled and the deserving dependent senior citizens in the USA without the access of long term care services. This is contrary to the situation in Europe, where countries such as Germany, Norway and Denmark have a formalized program for supporting long term care for all the deserving citizens, without causing them to deplete their resources (Saltman, Dubois & Chawla, 2006). Additionally, long term care services in some of the East Asian countries such as Japan are universal and support the family caregivers to ensure the resources of the family are not depleted, while making the services highly flexible to procure. In this respect, the establishment of a formal and universal long term care program in the USA will be beneficial since it will ensure the equality of all deserving individuals in procuring these services. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the likely pros and cons that are associated with the introduction of this formal program. Pros of Long term Care in USA The major advantage that the Long term Care in USA will deliver to the nation is economizing in financial spending on these services, while covering the whole deserving population. The current public spending on long term care in the USA is higher compared to the same in Germany, despite the fact that the Germany Long term Care spending is universal and thus covers the whole of the deserving population. In addition, public spending on long term care in Japan was found to be just slightly higher than the current public spending of the USA on the same. According to the 2005 data on long term care spending in the three countries, it was found that Germany spent approximately $1185 per elderly person annually under the long term care program, while the USA spent $1605 per elderly person annually, and Japan spent $1751 per elderly person annually (Campbell, Ikegami & Gibson, 2010). This simply means that the USA can utilize the resources it is currently using to provide for a universal and accessible long term care to all deserving citizens, on the event that an elaborate formal long term care program is established. The other pro associated with the establishment of a formal long term care program by the USA is that it will act as a blueprint against which future medical spending on the elderly, the disabled and the frail individuals requiring long term care will access it, at relatively lower costs. This is because, the establishment of a formal long term care program that is universal for all the deserving USA population will see the creation of relevant skills, infrastructural facilities and incentives, which will in turn result in a vast access of the long term care services from the nursing homes, the community facilities or through home care. This is the case with countries in Europe such as Germany and Norway, as well as those in East Asia such as Japan, which have been able to invest in the provision of the requisite infrastructural facilities, skills and incentives for the caregivers both at homes and the community facilities (Saltman, Dubois & Chawla, 2006). Cons of Long term Care in USA Nevertheless, the major con that is associated with the establishment of a formal and universal long term care program for the deserving citizens in the USA is the eligibility question and the program control inefficiencies. This is because, determining the members eligible to benefit from such plan is always a big challenge, as observed in Japan and Germany, where a medical questionnaire is used to assess the medical and assistance needs of the patients before they are enlisted in the program (Campbell, Ikegami & Gibson, 2010). The end product is that even some undeserving individuals have ended up benefiting from the program, as was the case with Japan since 1997 until 2003, where the elderly flocked medical facilities for long term care with little medical justification and stayed for long (Campbell, Ikegami & Gibson, 2010). Thus, the establishment of the program might see the USA being required to spend more resources than it can actually afford to commit to the program, thus disrupting the current Medicaid arrangement, which is serving approximately 71% of the long term care needs currently (Harris-Kojetin, Sengupta, Park-Lee, Valverde, 2013). References Campbell, J. C., Ikegami, N. & Gibson, M. (2010). Lessons from Public Long-Term Care Insurance in Germany and Japan. Health Affairs 29(1): 87–9. Harris-Kojetin L, Sengupta M, Park-Lee E, Valverde R. (2013). Long-term care services in the United States: 2013 overview. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Saltman, R.B., Dubois, H.F.W. and Chawla, M. (2006). The impact of aging on long-term care in Europe and some potential policy responses, International Journal of Health Services, 36(4): 719-746. Read More