Health economist Heinz Rothgang from the University of Bremen warns in an interview with t-online that there must be protection of vested rights. Nothing should change for the six million people currently entitled to benefits – only new applications and new classifications should therefore fall under the stricter criteria.
Economists want to cancel the relief contribution
Another suggestion from the economists, however, affects those in need of care of all five levels of care: the abolition of the so-called relief contribution. Since 2017, this has been paid out to those in need of care from care level one who are cared for at home. They currently receive up to 131 euros per month or up to 1,572 euros annually. The subsidy can be used to pay for hourly care for those in need of care, but also for household help.
In care levels 2 to 5, however, there is often overlap with other care benefits in kind, the economists note. In addition, there are bureaucratic costs associated with recognition as a care service and the cost reimbursement principle. The amount will not be paid out in cash; instead, costs can be claimed subsequently.
When it comes to care level 1, economists completely doubt the necessity of the subsidy. This is intended to maintain your own independence for as long as possible. However, according to a survey among experts from the medical services of private health insurance companies, those in need of care are primarily concerned with obtaining cash benefits. Rehabilitation measures or remedies, however, met with less interest. “Whether the services of care level 1 actually achieve the intended goal of early support and the effective use of preventive measures can therefore be questioned,” says the report.
Will care level 1 become an empty shell?
For people with care level 1, this would be a sensitive cut: for them, the relief amount is the essential core element in the long-term care insurance system. “Care level 1 would then just be an empty shell,” notes Rothgang.
The Bremen health economist also sees the relief amount as only having a small preventive effect. “However, it helps some people to continue to live at home in dignity. With relatively little money, their quality of life can be significantly improved,” says Rothgang. Deleting the relief contribution would give the impression that people were “always being kicked down,” says Rothgang.
In contrast to the statutory health insurance system, which is considered inefficient, the question of saving money in care does not arise for Rothgang. Despite having one of the oldest populations in the world, Germany only spends 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product on care, the economist notes. In other countries, care costs are significantly higher.
