Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article identifies and assesses gaps and deficits in the provision of long‐term care (LTC) services in nine middle‐income countries (MIC) across Africa (Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa), Latin America (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico) and Asia (China, India, Turkey). Legislation and entitlement to, conditions for access to and availability of publicly financed or co‐financed LTC services for elderly persons are assessed.Across the nine selected MIC, it is revealed that hardly any legal entitlements to specific LTC services exist for elderly persons. The most common conditions for access to institutional care are a minimum age and little or no income. With respect to availability, it can be concluded that institutional care facilities are usually concentrated in urban or wealthy areas. In many cases they exist in the capital region only, but even their capacities are limited. Home‐based care is hardly available at all.

This article presents an overview of the monetary benefits available in the context of long‐term care provided by family or other informal carers in 11 old and 10 new EU member states. All but one country in our sample offer at least some monetary benefits that can be used to help finance informal care. Old EU member states tend to direct benefits to individuals in need of care, whereas new EU member states place more emphasis on benefits for carers. Among new EU member states, monetary benefits are less often means‐tested and tend to be lower compared with benefits in old EU member states. Because social policies in many countries increasingly rely on monetary benefits rather than on benefits in kind and because the share of informal care in the overall provision of elderly care will scarcely decline, monetary benefit incentives for labour market participation need to be carefully monitored.

This report investigates regulations for the provision of informal care in 21 member states of the European Union. We focus on the comparison of public support for informal care, and compare in detail the monetary benefits that can be used to finance informal care. Additionally, we use SHARE data to compare characteristics of informal carers in a subset of countries, looking at how much care and what kind of care is being provided, and the relationship between the carer and the care recipient. Finally, we contrast characteristics of informal care provision with existing typologies of long-term care systems. Our review shows that almost all the countries studied offer some kind of cash benefit that can be regarded as a support to finance long-term care provided by informal carers. More than half of all countries studied provide a payment directed to the recipient of care, and slightly more countries offer payments directed to informal carers. We find an overlap of ten countries where both informal carers and recipients of care can be eligible for some kind of payment. There is, however, broad variation regarding the amount of support provided: very few countries provide benefits that can be seen as a substitute for other paid employment, and some countries provide rather low payments that are more symbolic in value.

This report investigates the organisation and provision of long-term care for the elderly population in 21 member states of the European Union, thus including both old as well as new member states. We highlight several aspects regulating long-term care systems, e.g. which level of government is responsible for regulation or for capacity-planning an d how access to services is organised. We further elaborate on public and private provision of services, and on the possibility of persons in need of care to choose between different care providers or different settings of care.

AbstractThis article provides an overview of the organization of formal long‐term care (LTC) systems for the elderly in ten old and 11 new EU member states (MS). Generally, we find that the main responsibility for regulating LTC services is centralized in half of these countries, whereas in the remaining countries, this responsibility is typically shared between authorities at the central level and those at the regional or local levels in both institutional and home‐based care. Responsibilities for planning LTC capacities are jointly met by central and non‐central authorities in most countries. Access to publicly financed services is rarely means tested, and most countries have implemented legal entitlements conditional on needs. In virtually all countries, access to institutional care is subject to cost sharing, which also applies to home‐based care in most countries. The relative importance of institutional LTC relative to home‐based LTC services differs significantly across Europe. Although old MS appear to be experiencing some degree of convergence, institutional capacity levels still span a wide range. Considerable diversity may also be observed in the national public–private mix in the provision of LTC services. Lastly, free choice between public and private providers exists in the vast majority of these countries. This overview provides vital insights into the differences and similarities in the organization of LTC systems across Europe, especially between old and new MS, while also contributing valuable insight into previously neglected topics, thus broadening the knowledge base of international experience for mutual learning.

In Europa leiden mittlerweile 50 Millionen Personen an mehr als einer chronischen Erkrankung. Gerade Personen mit drei oder mehr Erkrankungen können besonders von integrierter Versorgung profitieren. Entsprechende Programme wurden in einigen europäischen Ländern bereits entwickelt, oft als lokale Initiativen, die früher oder später auch bei der Politik Unterstützung fanden. Wir stellen Beispiele aus Österreich, Deutschland, den Niederlanden, Spanien und England vor.

Behandelt werden folgende Themen: Die neue LMIV Verordnung (EU) 1169/2011; B. Essentielle Kennzeichnungselemente; C. Nährwertdeklaration; D. Neue Kennzeichnungselemente; E. Täuschungsschutz; F. Obligatorische Herkunftskennzeichnung; Anhang 1 – Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 betreffend die Information der Verbraucher über Lebensmittel; Anhang 2 - Durchführungsverordnung Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1337/2013 vom 13. Dezember 2013 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 hinsichtlich der Angabe des Ursprungslandes bzw. Herkunftsortes von frischem, gekühltem oder gefrorenem Schweine-, Schaf-, Ziegen- und Geflügelfleisch; Anhang 3 – Durchführungsverordnung Verordnung (EU) Nr. 828/2014 der Kommission vom 30. Juli 2014 über die Anforderungen an die Bereitstellung von Informationen für Verbraucher über das Nichtvorhandensein oder das reduzierte Vorhandensein von Gluten in Lebensmitteln; Anhang 4 - Vorläufige Lebensmittelinformations-Ergänzungsverordnung vom 28. November 2014; Anhang 5 - Gegenüberstellung LMIV 1169/2011 vs. LMKV