Long Term Care

Dependent elderly, ongoing crisis weighing on families and public healthcare

The model outlined by the reform recalls the universalist architecture of the NHS, but the asymmetries between health and social care remain marked: the role of the public system in providing appropriate services must be clearly defined

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Italy is ageing and non-self-sufficiency is already one of the main social and health emergencies. A quarter of the population is over 65, more than 4 million people live in conditions of non-self-sufficiency, and the lengthening of life implies an average of 13-15 years of progressive loss of autonomy.

However, only a minority of elderly people receive structured public support, while most of the care burden falls on families: more than 2.5 million dependent elderly people are cared for by informal caregivers and more than 1.1 million carers make up for the absence of a professional and organised offer.

Loading...

This systemic fragility also falls on the SSN, with an increase in improper accesses and ineffective management of chronic illnesses. The result is a system that chases after emergencies.

Reform does not close the gap

With Law 33/2023 and Legislative Decree 29/2024, Italy has taken an important step forward, recognising non-self-sufficiency as a priority of the welfare system and introducing tools such as the Essential Levels of Social Benefits, the Universal Benefit, the Single Points of Access (PoA) and Individualised Care Plans.

However, the gap remains wide. Resources are limited and access criteria selective: the new Universal Benefit - an experimental economic contribution with a budget of EUR 250 million per year - reached only 2,000 beneficiaries in 2025. In fact, the burden of care continues to fall largely on family caregivers and private expenditure.

A New Balance

The long-term care model outlined by the reform recalls, even in its vocabulary, the universalist architecture of the SSN but the asymmetries between health and social care remain marked.

Although currently under pressure, the high public health spending capacity for the direct (in-kind) provision of services has generated a structured professional market, which is then also capable of operating in the private sector, but always within a regulated offer. On the contrary, the social sector rests for the (minority) public part on fragmented monetary transfers and on private expenditure which, however substantial, fails to generate a codified and professional market of services and technologies.

The role of the public

In order to reverse this dynamic, with insufficient resources to 'do it all', the public system should ask itself what role it should assume with respect to two complementary but distinct functions.

The first is that of guidance and commissioning: orienting the needs of families towards a demand for structured services and supporting the emergence of a qualified offer, which can be activated both through private money (a part of what families already spend today on unstructured and non-professional services) and, for the part that can be financed by the public, through the development of in-kind services as an alternative to in-cash services. From this point of view, it is crucial to build a robust response on the part of subjects capable of providing the required services, which enhances the currently fragmented potential of the third sector and encourages the development of a regulated and professional private supply.

The second function is that of financing the provision of services, to be calibrated, in proportion to the available resources, according to the intensity of the need and the economic condition of those assisted.

Given the limits set by public finance, orienting the implementation of the non-self-sufficiency reform mainly towards the development of the function of providing benefits at public expense and aimed only at the 'entitled' (with a PUA more as a filter in favour of the few than as a guide to access in favour of all) may be a structural limit to the concrete effects for the majority of families.

* KPMG

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti