Skip to main content

Table 4 Attitudes towards the voucher scheme (n = 401)

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

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)