Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables, figures and boxes
- List of Contributors
- Foreword
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Long-term care quality systems based on ‘professionalism’
- 2 Performance measurement in long-term care in Austria
- 3 Monitoring the quality of long-term care in Germany
- 4 Quality monitoring and long-term care in Switzerland
- 5 Japan’s long-term care regulations focused on structure – rationale and future prospects
- Part III Long-term care quality systems based on regulatory inspection frameworks
- Part IV Long-term care quality systems based on data measurement and public reporting
- Part V Long-term care quality systems and developing regulatory systems
- Part VI Conclusion
- Index
- References
5 - Japan’s long-term care regulations focused on structure – rationale and future prospects
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables, figures and boxes
- List of Contributors
- Foreword
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Long-term care quality systems based on ‘professionalism’
- 2 Performance measurement in long-term care in Austria
- 3 Monitoring the quality of long-term care in Germany
- 4 Quality monitoring and long-term care in Switzerland
- 5 Japan’s long-term care regulations focused on structure – rationale and future prospects
- Part III Long-term care quality systems based on regulatory inspection frameworks
- Part IV Long-term care quality systems based on data measurement and public reporting
- Part V Long-term care quality systems and developing regulatory systems
- Part VI Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Regulations are ostensibly implemented to improve quality and contain public expenditures, and also to show the public that the government is responding to abuses reported by the media. When regulations are revised, professional organizations tend to lobby for upgrading qualification and staffing level requirements because it would advance their status. On the other hand, provider organizations tend to lobby against any revisions that would increase their costs. Their opposing positions could theoretically lead to an ideal balance, skilfully mediated by the government organization responsible for drafting and implementing the regulations. However, in the Japanese context, it has led to a sub-optimal compromise that does not necessarily reflect the needs of society. The government organization also has a major stake because its power and budget would be expanded by supporting and leveraging the power of the interest groups (Lowi, 1979). As a practical issue, a phase-in period is needed for the government agency to develop the capacity to enforce new regulations and for the organizations affected by them to be able to comply with the new requirements. Therefore, the regulations on the provision of long-term care services can only be understood from the underlying motives of the parties immediately concerned.
This chapter will begin by presenting the historical background in which long-term care developed in Japan. Next the existing regulations governing long-term care providers will be described, followed by the reasons why they have been focused on the structural aspects of staffing levels, qualifications and facility standards rather than on measurable resident outcomes. The final section looks at the future prospects for monitoring quality in long-term care.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Regulating Long-Term Care QualityAn International Comparison, pp. 121 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
(2002). How policies differ: long-term-care insurance in Japan and Germany. In and (eds.), Aging and Social Policy: a German-Japanese Comparison. Munich: Ludicium, pp. 157–87.Google Scholar
, and (2010). Lessons from public long-term care insurance in Germany and Japan. Health Affairs, 29(1): 87–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2007). Rationale, design and sustainability of long-term care insurance in Japan – in retrospect. Social Policy and Society, 6(3): 423–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2009). Games policy makers and providers play: introducing case-mix-based payment to hospital chronic care units in Japan. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 34(3): 361–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1999). Healthcare reform in Japan: the virtues of muddling through. Health Affairs, 18(3): 56–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2004). Japan’s healthcare system: containing costs and attempting reform. Health Affairs, 23(3): 26–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (1994). Applying RUG-III in Japanese long-term care facilities. The Gerontologist, 34(5): 628–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2003). The long-term care insurance law in Japan: impact on institutional care facilities. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(3): 217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2011). Predictors of dying at home for patients receiving nursing services in Japan: a retrospective study comparing cancer and non-cancer deaths. BMC Palliative Care, 10(3). Available at: .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2005). Kaigo rōjin hoken shisetsu ni okeru zaitaku fukki ni kan suru shisetsu yōin to riyōsha yōin no bunseki [Analysis of facilities and user factors related to returning home in health service facilities for the elderly defined by long-term care insurance]. Byōin kanri, 43(1): 9–21.Google Scholar
(2011). Instruments: an overview of the interRAI family of assessment systems. Available at: .
(2011). InterRAI QI Kenkyukai [InterRAI Quality Indicators Forum]. Available at: .
(2004). Tsuusyo kaigo rehabilitation ni kansuru tyōsa kenkyu hōkokusyo [Survey and Research on Day Care Centres and Day Rehabilitation Centres]. Tokyo: Institute for Health Economics and Policy.Google Scholar
(2010). Kujyō mōsitate oyobi sōdan uketsuke jyōkyō [State of Complaints Filed and Received]. Tokyo: Kokuho Chuōkai.Google Scholar
(1996). Kōsei no shihyō [Health and Welfare Statistics], 43(12).
(2001). Kōsei no shihyō [Health and Welfare Statistics], 48(12).
(1979). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
(1975b). 1973 Shakaifukushi gyōsei gyōmu hōkoku [Administrative Report on Social Welfare 1973]. Tokyo: Kōsei Tōkei Kyōkai.Google Scholar
(1992b). 1990 Shakaifukushi gyōsei gyōmu hōkoku [Administrative Report on Social Welfare 1990]. Tokyo: Kōsei Tōkei Kyōkai.Google Scholar
(2001a). 1999 Shakaifukushi shisetsuto chōsa [Survey of Social Welfare Facilities 1999]. Tokyo: Kōsei Tōkei Kyōkai.Google Scholar
(2001b). Kaigo kyufuhi jittai chōsa 5 gatsu geppō [Monthly Report of LTCI Benefit Expenditures for May]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2002). 2002 Kōsei rōdō hakusyo [Health and Welfare White Paper for 2002]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2005). Kaigo hoken seido no kaisei ni tomonau seikatsu hogo seido no kaisei [Revision of public assistance following the revision of LTCI]. Available at: .
(2006). Nippon shōrai suikei jinkō [Future Estimates of Japan’s Population] (December 2006 estimates). Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2007). Shakaifukushishi oyobi kaigofukushishihōtō no ichibu wo kaisei suru hōritsu ni tsuite [On the Partial Revision of the Certified Social Worker and Certified Care Worker Act]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2009a). 2007 Kaigo service shisetsu, jigyō chōsa [2007 Survey of Long-Term Care Institutions and Facilities]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2009b). 2009 Kaigo hōsyu kaitei no gaiyō [2009 Outline of the Long-Term Care Insurance Fee Schedule Revision]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2009c). Kaigo kyufuhi jittai chōsa 5 gatsu geppō [Monthly Report of LTCI Benefit Expenditures for May]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2010a). Kaigohokenhō: Shitei kaigo rōjin fukushi shisetsu・rōjin hoken shisetsu・kaigo ryōyō iryō shisetsu no jinin, setsubi oyobi unei ni kansuru kijun [LTCI Act Standards for Personnel, Facilities and Administration for Nursing Home, HFE, and Hospital Long-Term Care Beds] (Revision of 30 September 2010). Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2010b). Kaigohokenhō: Shitei kyotaku sa-bisutō no jinin, setsubi oyobi unei ni kansuru kijun [LTCI Act Standards for Personnel, Facilities and Administration for Home Care Services] (Revision of 30 September 2010). Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2010c). Kaigo sa-bisu jigyōsho ni taisuru kannsa kekka no jyōkyō [Audit Results of Care Service Agencies]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2010d). Kaigo ryoyō byōshō no genjō ni tsuite [Present State of Long-Term Care Insurance Hospital Beds. Debriefing Information Presented at the Meeting of the Central Social Insurance Council, 15 October 2010]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2010e). Ryoyō byōshō no tenkan ikōto chōsa [Survey on Attitudes Towards Transferring Long-Term Care Beds. Debriefing Information Presented at the Meeting of the Central Social Insurance Council, 15 October 2010]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2011a). Kaigo hoken seido wo torimaku jōkyō [Situation Faced by Long-Term Care Insurance. Debriefing Information Presented at the Meeting of the Central Social Insurance Council, 7 February 2011]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2011b). Kaigo sa-bisu no kibankyōka no tame no kaigohokenntō no ichibu wo kaisei suru hōritsuan [Draft Act on Revising the Long-Term Care Insurance and Related Acts for Strengthening the Basis of Care Services, 4 April 2011]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2011c). Kongo no kaigo jinzai yōsei no arikata ni tsuite [Future Directions for the Development of Human Resources for Care, 4 January 2011]. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
(2007). Kaigo hukushishi yōsei kyōiku no kadai: kokka shikakuka wo kaerimite- [Issues surrounding the training programme for certified care worker: upon establishment of the care worker national certificate]. Shakai Kankei Kenkyu, 13(1): 75–104.Google Scholar
(2010). Yōbōsho Kan Sōridaijin [Request to Prime Minister Kan]. Available at: .
(2011). Roken = rōjin hoken shisetsu te donna tokoro [What kind of place is a health facilities for elders?]. Available at: .
. (2010). Tokubetsu yōgo rōjin hōmu ni okeru nyusyo mōshikomisya ni kannsuru tyōsa kenkyu [Survey and Research on Those Waiting for Admission to Nursing Homes]. Tokyo: Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.Google Scholar
(2011). OECD Health Data 2011. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
(eds.) (2010). Tokyoto niokeru kaigo sa-bisu no kujyō sōdan hakusho [Complaints White Paper on Long-Term Care Service in Tokyo]. Tokyo: Tokyoto Kokumin Kenkō Hoken Dantai Rengō Kai.Google Scholar
(2011). Fukushi sabisu daisansha hyōka [The welfare service third party evaluation]. Available at:
, , , , , and (2007). Quality Assurance for Long-Term Care: the Experience of England, Australia, Germany and Japan. Washington, DC: AARP.Google Scholar
(2006). Kaigo hōshu COMSN ga kadai seikyu to 50 kasho issei chōsa [COMSN over bills LTCI – Tokyo Metropolitan Government audits 50 agencies]. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shinbun (Newspaper, 27 December, morning edition).
- 3
- Cited by