Variables | Total (n = 401) | Voucher user (n = 301) | Non voucher users (n = 100) |
---|---|---|---|
Understanding of the Pilot Scheme - % of people answered correctly | |||
(1) There is a mean-test to determine the co-payment mechanism | 355 (88.5) | 289 (96.0) | 66 (66.0) |
(2) Voucher holders need to opt out from the Central Waiting List of the Long Term Care Services Delivery System after the trial period | 331 (82.5) | 278 (92.4) | 53 (53.0) |
(3) Voucher holder can switch to other participating homes for the elderly people | 320 (79.8) | 267 (88.7) | 53 (53.0) |
(4) Voucher holders can make top-up payments to purchase enhanced or value added services that are outside the standard service package | 277 (69.1) | 219 (72.8) | 58 (58.0) |
(5) Voucher holder is not eligible for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme | 269 (67.1) | 226 (75.1) | 43 (43.0) |
For users only Reasons for joining voucher scheme (n = 301) – Can choose more than one option | |||
(1) Making good use of the subsidy | 193 (64.1) | 193 (64.1) | – |
(2) Urgent need for residential care services | 138 (45.8) | 138 (45.8) | – |
(3) Shorten waiting time on the Central Waiting List of the Long Term Care Services Delivery System | 119 (39.5) | 119 (39.5) | – |
(4) Increase choice and flexibility | 50 (16.6) | 50 (16.6) | – |
(5) Better quality of participating homes for the elderly people | 40 (13.3) | 40 (13.3) | – |
(6) Can purchase top-up services to increase quality | 2 (0.7) | 2 (0.7) | – |
Whether willing to make top-up payments to purchase enhanced or value-added services other than the standard service package or not (n = 301) | |||
Yes | 201 (66.8) | 201 (66.8) | – |
No | 90 (29.9) | 90 (29.9) | – |
Don’t know | 10 (3.3) | 10 (3.3) | – |
For non-users only Reasons for not joining or withdrawing from the voucher scheme (n = 100) – Can choose more than one option | |||
(1) The elderly does not have an immediate need for residential care services | 34 (34.0) | – | 34 (34.0) |
(2) The elderly prefers to wait for subsidized places on the Central Waiting List of the Long Term Care Services Delivery System | 25 (25.0) | – | 25 (25.0) |
(3) The elderly does not adapt/ suitable/ want to live in residential care homes | 13 (13.0) | – | 13 (13.0) |
(4) There is no available place in his/her preferred participating homes for the elderly | 11 (11.0) | – | 11 (11.0) |
(5) Insufficient knowledge and understanding about the scheme | 10 (10.0) | – | 10 (10.0) |
(6) The elderly does not agree with the copayment mechanism | 10 (10.0) | – | 10 (10.0) |
(7) The elderly has already placed at a subsidized residential care homes | 9 (9.0) | – | 9 (9.0) |
(8) Expect the elderly will place to a subsidized residential care homes soon | 8 (8.0) | – | 8 (8.0) |
(9) There is no preferred service provider in the list of the participating homes for the elderly | 7 (7.0) | – | 7 (7.0) |
(10) Preferred residential care homes do not accept the voucher | 5 (5.0) | – | 5 (5.0) |
(11) The elderly does not want to leave the comprehensive social security assistance | 4 (4.0) | – | 4 (4.0) |
Whether sufficient information provided on the scheme | |||
Sufficient | 250 (62.3) | 205 (68.1) | 45 (45.0) |
Fair | 47 (11.7) | 35 (11.6) | 12 (12.0) |
Not Sufficient | 79 (19.7) | 48 (15.9) | 31 (31.0) |
Don’t know | 25 (6.2) | 13 (4.3) | 12 (12.0) |
What kind of information should be enhanced (for those who thought the information “fair” or “not sufficient”) – Can choose more than one options | |||
Eligibility for application | 44 (35.2) | 27 (32.9) | 17 (39.5) |
The design e.g. mean tests, voucher value, copayment, top-up payment and trial period | 40 (32.0) | 26 (31.7) | 14 (32.6) |
Channels to disseminate the list of participating homes for the elderly people | 26 (20.8) | 19 (23.2) | 7 (16.3) |
The objectives of the voucher scheme | 18 (14.4) | 12 (14.6) | 6 (14.0) |
The scope of service | 7 (5.6) | 4 (4.9) | 3 (7.0) |
Whether the “standard service package” under the voucher value for individual voucher holders can meet the elderly people’s needs | |||
Yes | 343 (85.5) | 264 (87.7) | 79 (79.0) |
No | 49 (12.2) | 35 (11.6) | 14 (14.0) |
Don’t know | 9 (2.2) | 2 (0.7) | 7 (7.0) |
Whether the voucher applicants should be assessed on an individual basis in the means test taking into account both income and asset to determine the copayment level | |||
Agree | 341 (85.0) | 261 (86.7) | 80 (80.0) |
Disagree | 48 (12.0) | 32 (10.6) | 16 (16.0) |
Don’t know | 12 (3.0) | 8 (2.7) | 4 (4.0) |
Whether the current copayment mechanism (including number of copayment levels, income and asset limit for each level) is suitable | |||
Agree | 276 (68.8) | 219 (72.8) | 57 (57.0) |
Disagree | 88 (21.9) | 57 (18.9) | 31 (31.0) |
Don’t know | 37 (9.2) | 25 (8.3) | 12 (12.0) |
Whether the support received from case workers of Residential Care Services Voucher Office is sufficient | |||
Agree | 282 (93.7) | 282 (93.7) | – |
Disagree | 8 (2.7) | 8 (2.7) | – |
Don’t know | 11 (3.7) | 11 (3.7) | – |
For users only – Helpfulness of voucher scheme (n = 301) | |||
(1) Provide financial assistance to elderly people to obtain residential care services | |||
Helpful | 297 (98.7) | 297 (98.7) | – |
Not helpful | 3 (1.0) | 3 (1.0) | – |
Don’t know | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.3) | – |
(2) Reduce carers’ stress | |||
Helpful | 292 (97.0) | 292 (97.0) | – |
Not helpful | 7 (2.3) | 7 (2.3) | – |
Don’t know | 2 (0.7) | 2 (0.7) | – |
(3) Reduce waiting time of residential care services | |||
Helpful | 268 (89.0) | 268 (89.0) | – |
Not helpful | 24 (8.0) | 24 (8.0) | – |
Don’t know | 9 (3.0) | 9 (3.0) | – |
(4) Increase choice and flexibility in residential care services | |||
Helpful | 235 (78.1) | 235 (78.1) | – |
Not helpful | 44 (14.6) | 44 (14.6) | – |
Don’t know | 22 (7.3) | 22 (7.3) | – |
(5) Improve service quality of participating homes for the elderly people | |||
Helpful | 187 (62.1) | 187 (62.1) | – |
Not helpful | 81 (26.9) | 81 (26.9) | – |
Don’t know | 33 (11.0) | 33 (11.0) | – |