Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background The demographic changes affecting Switzerland and other European countries, including population ageing, will continue to challenge policymakers in building accessible, affordable, comprehensive and high-quality long-term care (LTC) systems. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how Switzerland’s LTC system compares to other European countries, in order to inform how to respond to the increasing need for LTC. We carried out a descriptive study using secondary data from key national and international organizations. Methods By comparing the financing, workforce, service delivery and need for LTC in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom, we described similarities and differences in these five European countries between 2005-2019. Thirty-three indicators within five domains were analysed: (1) Population statistics and health expenditure, (2) Need for LTC, (3) LTC financing, (4) LTC service delivery, and (5) LTC workforce. Results Switzerland has the highest life expectancy in comparison to the other four high-income countries. However, similarly to other countries, the years lived with disability are increasing in Switzerland. Switzerland’s public expenditure on LTC as a share of GDP is lower than that of Norway and Germany, yet out-of-pocket expenditure on LTC is highest in Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest proportion of persons receiving formal LTC both in institutions and at home. Switzerland has had the most pronounced increase in the proportion of over 65-year-olds receiving LTC at home. Even though more than fourfold more persons receive care at home, Switzerland still has more workforce in LTC institutions than in home-care. In comparison to Germany and the UK, Switzerland has a lower number of informal carers as a proportion of 50-year-olds and over, as well as fewer nationally available services for informal carers compared to Germany, Italy, Norway and the UK. Conclusions Our comparative study corroborates the importance of improving the affordability of LTC, continuing to support the movement towards home care services, improving the support given to both the professional workforce and informal carers, and improving the amount and quality of LTC data. It also provides a valuable contrast to other European countries to support evidence-informed policymaking.
Lussi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: