Based on the policy analysis framework proposed by Gilbert and Specht, this paper divided the long-term care insurance systems of China and South Korea into four categories: target beneficiaries, coverage, financial resources, and delivery systems (operating agencies) for comparative analysis. The results are as follows: Firstly, China and South Korea have different criteria for selecting target beneficiaries. In China, only elderly individuals residing in urban areas and towns (excluding rural areas) are eligible, while in Korea, all elderly individuals, regardless of their location, are eligible. There are also differences in the selection indicators for eligible beneficiaries. China uses the "Elderly Capability Assessment Norms," which consist of 26 items across four areas (independence, basic motor skills, mental state, sensory perception and social participation), each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. In contrast, South Korea uses a total of 52 items in five areas (physical function, cognitive function, behavior change, nursing care, rehabilitation), with three different scales for physical function and rehabilitation items and two scales for cognitive function, behavior change, and nursing care items. Secondly, there are differences in coverage. In South Korea, the long-term care insurance benefits are broadly divided into home-based care, facility-based care, and special cash benefits, which include nursing care, rehabilitation, and welfare equipment provision, but exclude medical services provided by medical institutions such as nursing hospitals. In contrast, China 's coverage includes home-based care, facility-based care, specialized medical care, and end-of-life care, but it does not include cash benefits. Thirdly, there are differences in financial resources. China 's long-term care insurance funds mainly come from social insurance funds, government finance, and fundraising. However, the proportion of social insurance funds and government financial input is insufficient, resulting in a relatively high cost burden on long-term care recipients. In contrast, South Korea operates the long-term care insurance system as a national responsibility, resulting in a relatively lower financial burden on long-term care recipients. Fourthly, there are differences in delivery systems (operating agencies). In China, long-term care insurance service providers include medical institutions, nursing homes, community rehabilitation institutions, and family care service agencies. However, there is a shortage of large-scale nursing homes that provide residential care. In Korea, long-term care services are primarily provided by nursing homes and home care centers, with nursing homes that provide residential services being the most representative and largest among the long-term care insurance service providers. Currently, China is promoting the construction of large-scale nursing homes to better meet the demand for elderly care services. China and Korea also show differences in the operation of their delivery systems, such as facility size and staffing. In terms of caregiving staff, China faces a shortage of professional social workers, with services primarily provided by volunteers and care service staff. However, the inclusion of psychological counselors in the staffing criteria provides insight for Korea.

Download Full Text