Suchergebnisse

The research focused on: (1) characteristics of organizations and individuals involved in planning and their perspectives of the problems of aging; (2) the activities of the planning organizations, and (3) the contribution to planning activities and outcomes made by economic, status, or power interests of planning members. Study conclusions are that planning activities are dominated by 'agingspecific' organizations and their members. Planning activities are characterized by organizational and interorganizational conflicts in which the organizations and professionals involvcd attempt to legitimate and 'professionalize' their work in aging, partially as a means of dealing with their lack of rcsourccs and threatened organizational survival. The data indicate that both the nature and task of planning (conceptualized in broad and ambiguous terms) and the structure of the planning organizations (essentially federative) combined to prevent: (1) the objective identification of gaps and needs in the field of aging as a basis for 'planning'; (2) the inclusion of members representing multiple professions, community organizations or institutions, or the elderly themselves, or (3) social action. Thus, in the politics of planning the planning organizations become a vehicle for relatively weak organizations to deal with their basic survival needs. Major implications of study findings in the light of present national legislation and policy in aging are discussed.

Everyone agrees that insurance for long-term care is inadequate in the United States. Disagreement exists, however, on whether such insurance should be provided through the private or public sector. Private insurance generally uses the experience-rating principle that persons with higher risk of illness are charged higher premiums. For private insurance for long-term care, this principle creates a dilemma. Most policies will be purchased by the elderly; yet, because the elderly have a high risk of needing long-term care, only about 20% of them can afford the cost of premiums. A public-private partnership by which the government partially subsidizes private long-term-care insurance is unlikely to resolve this dilemma. Only a social insurance program for long-term care can provide universal, affordable, and equitable coverage.