Experience of a demand-side subsidy scheme for residential long-term care: perspectives of elderly and their carers

BACKGROUND: Vouchers, which are demand-side subsidies to targeted groups, are a type of consumer-led near-cash social transfer for specified benefits that have been used in education, health and other sectors. To provide better access to residential care services and an additional choice for elderly people in need, a novel means-tested residential care service voucher has been introduced in Hong Kong for elderly people to purchase places in the private sector to enable consumer-directed care. The objectives of this paper are to analyze the perspectives of voucher users and their carers toward the voucher scheme and to identify key elements in the design that will contribute to meeting the scheme’s objectives. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed method design was adopted with initial explorative qualitative data collection of the perspectives of elderly people and their carers (Phase 1), which informed the design of the subsequent questionnaire survey (Phase 2). Thirty carers in 5 focus groups and 20 individual interviews with elderly people were conducted between April and May 2018. A total of 401 respondents (373 carers and 28 elderly people) completed the survey questionnaire. Findings from both phases were integrated both narratively and via a joint display. RESULTS: Five key themes summarized the features in two main elements of the design and implementation of the voucher scheme: awareness, meaning that inadequate knowledge and understanding of voucher schemes hinder participation; service needs and types, indicating that the urgent need for residential care services is the key reason for participation; shared responsibility, meaning that a high copayment level discourages participation; choice and flexibility, reflecting appreciation of the additional choices provided by voucher schemes although the availability of residential care beds limits choices; and service quality, indicating mixed perceptions of service quality and the impact of the voucher scheme. Voucher users believe that the voucher scheme is more helpful for relieving the financial burden (98.7%), reducing carers’ stress (97.0%) and reducing the waiting time for subsidized homes for elderly people (89.0%) than for increasing choice and flexibility (78.1%) and improving service quality (62.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how the design of a voucher scheme affects its take-up by targeted beneficiaries. When a voucher scheme is implemented in a long-term care system, it must consider the congruence with existing policies in long-term care provision and financing. The voucher scheme in Hong Kong has been able to generate the utilization of nonsubsidized places in homes for elderly people that were underutilized, but its effectiveness is limited by inadequate knowledge and understanding of the voucher scheme and the availability of residential care places. Giving the purchasing power and choice of providers to beneficiaries has the potential to enhance the quality of services, which will contribute to meeting the objectives. The study findings carry significant implications for long-term care policies and provide insights into the key features of the voucher scheme for residential care services and how to best design and implement a voucher scheme for elderly people in the context of policy objectives and a long-term care policy.