to quantify the most important of the costs of dementia: the losses to people living with the condition. In a forthcoming book, “The Great Demographic Reversal”, Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan, two economists, suggest that surveys could be used to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of plans to spend more on dementia. A sample of adults could be asked how much annual income they would be prepared to pay to reduce the risk of developing dementia, as it mounts with age.
In the Japanese scheme , everyone aged 40-65 pays a premium, currently averaging ¥6,000, or about $57, a month. Regardless of income or wealth, those aged over 65 can claim benefits, after an assessment of needs based on a questionnaire and a doctor’s report. Beneficiaries must meet 10% of all costs themselves. In 2018, 5.5m people received benefits, about 15% of the over-65 population.
At least the Dutch have tried to tackle the issue. In America, Medicare, a public-health programme for those aged 65 and over, covers hospital care, some doctors’ fees and many medicines, but no more than 100 days of skilled nursing care. Residential care is not covered. And the cost of private long-term-care insurance is beyond the reach of many of those who will need it.In Britain the issue of social care for those who need it has become a political football.
Hospice helps when it is deemed terminal at a stage of FAST 7
The state cannot do this, it begins in the home.
This looks like more smoke to promote exorbitantly priced private healthcare. The US health care is at least dbl the cost vs other developed country, with far worse outcomes. And we see now the deadly cost with the pandemic Economist needs to take a hard look at itself. 😡
biomedical79 في اليابان مشكلة بدأت في العام ٢٠٠٠ وهي بلوغ معدل شيخوخة السكان الى المستوى الأعلى عالمياً ...الى درجة اعتبروا القرن ٢١ قرن كبار السن مما استدعى الى وضع خطط جديدة اثقلت هذا النظام ..خصوصاً في مجال الرعاية الصحية والدعم لكبار السن لديمومة الانتاج في هذه الشريحة .
A social state can always fund its citizens health imperatives, being that a simple question of trade off choices. Only a raw capitalism chooses private gains over general well being.
Of course it’s not profitable. With central banking, either the government enters a debt trap or the workers get underpaid; sometimes both. Sustainability would mean the funding is GRANTED to the hospitals and medical offices. No interest, no loan, no debt.
Hear that BernieSanders ?