Skip to main content

Private insurance: no solution for long-term care

As part of its turn from care in facilities, the Ontario government has let the wait lists for long-term care facilities explode.  This problem has been around for several years now, and there is little sign the government intends to remedy the problem.  

Instead they simply talk about keeping people in their homes.  It sounds great -- until you need long-term care.  With a tsunami of aging coming, this problem is set to get worse.  

Fitting nicely with this plan, the for-profit long-term care industry has commissioned a report that actually calls for less publicly funded long-term care: instead, the publicly funded long-term care sector would expand into hospital services and provide short-term care.   
As noted a few days ago, the private insurance corporations have seized on the government's turn away from publicly funded long-term care and called for an expansion of private insurance for long-term care needs  -- along with private delivery and no price caps to protect residents.   (There's certainly no flies on these guys when it comes to drumming up business.)
But private insurance offers no solution.  The industry cites the USA as a model. 
Despite claims otherwise, private insurance is no more a solution there than it is here. In a recent report on this difficult situation the New York Times reports, "Few Americans buy private long-term care insurance, and such insurance was dropped from the Affordable Care Act last year as actuarially unsound or unaffordable."
“More than $80,000 a year on average for a nursing home — who can sustain that?” said Robyn Grant, director of public policy and advocacy for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long Term Care. “We’re forced, most of us, to go onto Medicaid. People don’t realize this.”
Even in the mecca of health care privatization, only about ten percent of Americans have at least some private long term care insurance.  That leaves the other 90% out.  Fortunately, until now, only about 2-4% of long-term care costs in the US have been covered by long-term care private insurance. Private long-term care insurance is not widespread in other countries --  and only 1% of Canadians have private long-term care insurance.  

A recent study from the Institute for Research on Public Policy concludes:

Private long-term care insurance, by its nature, is subject to significant market failures. As a result, taking this option would require heavy government regulation and large subsidies. Because of their effect on individuals’ decisions and behaviour regarding long-term care insurance, last-resort options, such as obtaining care in public hospitals, would also have to be curtailed. Moreover, individuals would still end up paying more for coverage than they would if they contributed to a public insurance plan.
Encouraging private savings for long-term care (about $300,000) is also an "inefficient" option as an "estimated 31 percent of people turning 65 in 2005 will not need any long-term care before they die".  

Instead, the authors recommend governments adopt a universal public insurance plan that provides full coverage based on a standard evaluation of care needs.

The vast majority of long-term care residents in the USA rely on Medicaid (not Medicare) to pay for long-term care.  But quite a few states in the USA are desperately trying to reduce public funding of long-term care.  That does not bode well for stronger public coverage of long-term care needs in Canada.


  1. Expanding a health or medical industry would bring some extra benefits for the insured peoples and definitely it would be in the the favor of insured. visit website for some more details about recent medical insurance and cover.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.

Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 

No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…