Peng Comments on Flood

et.al. IRPP Report,

Assessing Cash-for-Care
Benefits to Support Aging at
Home in Canada
Ito Peng
University of Toronto
IRPP Webinar
21 June 2021
What I like about this report
1. Our current LTC system is flawed and that it needs a
serious overhaul.
2. We need a more coherent and effective quality LTC system
that will address a continuum of care needs, ranging from
home-based to institutional care.
3. Look to other countries experiences and to draw lessons.
4. Both Germany and the Netherlands are good examples:
a) They are both OECD countries, like Canada, except that their
populations are more demographically advanced than ours;
b) They are both early introducers of universal LTCI;
c) Both LTCI systems offer cash-for-care option, though they are
configured and managed slightly differently from each other.

Peng-IRPP Webinar 21/06/21

My take on this report, and additional
points to consider.

1. The examples of the Dutch and German LTCI discussed

in this report tell us that:
a) That LTCI is a compelling option to addressing LTC needs of an
ageing population.
b) LTCI represents a package of financial and service arrangements
in which the cash-for-care is one of a range of options.
c) LTCI can be customized to fit social, economic and cultural
contexts of the country.
• We should look at other LTCI models within the OECD (e.g. Japan
and South Korea).
2. Regardless of whether we adopt cash-for-care or not,
regulation is important.
Peng-IRPP Webinar 21/06/21
Questions/comments

1. How you would implement cash-for-care option for LTC in Canada.

2. What would be the best mechanism/channel to fund and
implement cash-for-care option?
3. How would you regulate a cash-for-care program to ensure access,
equity, and quality of LTC for Canadians.

Peng-IRPP Webinar 21/06/21