COVID-19 and the Long-Term Care system in Germany

Structural characteristics of the LTC system, impact of the pandemic, measures adopted and new reforms

This country profile contains a section of the LTCcovid International Living Report on COVID-19 Long-Term Care that brings together information on the experience of the long-term care sector (focussing on people who use and provide care) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, as well as description of the system and of new reforms. The LTCcovid Living report is updated and expanded over time, as experts on long-term care add new contributions. This profile also provides links to research projects on COVID-19 and long-term care, to key reports, and lists key experts on the impacts of COVID-19 on the long-term care sector in Germany.

Experts on COVID-19 and long-term care in Germany that have contributed to this report:

Klara Lorenz-Dant, Thomas FischerKerstin Hämel

Living report: COVID-19 and the Long-Term Care system in Germany

PART 1 – Long-Term Care System characteristics and preparedness
  • 1.00. Brief overview of the Long-Term Care system
    In 1995/96, a statutory Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Scheme has been established in Germany. LTCI is mandatory to the population. Approximately 88% of the population is insured by the social LTCIs, 11% by private funds (Blümel et al., 2020). LTC benefits based on the LTCI are not means-tested. In 2019, there were about 4.13 million beneficiaries of the LTCI that have been allocated into care grades 1 to 5. Out of these, approximately 0.91 million people were living in residential care homes, while most people receive care and support at home (80%). Those living in their own home may choose between cash and in kind-benefits from LTCI. More than 60% receive cash benefits to be supported by informal carers only while almost 30% choose in kind-benefits, partly mixed with cash-benefits, to use also formal care. Approximately 80% of people with LTC needs living at home have a level 2 and 3 care need (Destatis, 2020).
    References
    Blümel, M., Spranger, A., Achstetter, K., Maresso, A. & Busse, R. (2020) ‘Germany Health system review‘ Health Systems in Transition, 22(6). Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341674/HiT-22-6-2020-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 11 February 2022). Destatis (2020) Pflegebedürftige nach Versorgungsart, Geschlecht und Pflegegrade. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Pflege/Tabellen/pflegebeduerftige-pflegestufe.html(Acessed 31 January).
  • 1.01. Population size and ageing context
    General population

    By the end of 2021, Germany had a population of 83.2 million (Destatis, 2022).

    Population 65 years and above

    In 2018, 22% of the population (17.9 million people) were aged 65 years and older (Lorenz-Dant, 2020). Furthermore, population age is not distributed evenly across the country. In 2017, the share of population in the age of 65 years and older was higher in the Länder of eastern Germany (24%) than western Germany (21%) (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, 2021).

    People with long-term care needs

    According to the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), in 2019 there were 4.1 million people with long-term care needs, 62% women (Destatis, 2020) . Given the uneven distribution of older people across the country outlined above, a difference can also be observed between the share of people living in residential care. Out of 100,000 residents living in the eastern states, there are 488,2 persons in need of long-term care compared to 394,0 in the western states (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, 2021).

    References

    Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (2021) INKAR – Indikatoren und Karten zur Raum- und Stadtentwicklung. Available at: https://www.inkar.de/ (Accessed 31 January 2022).

    Destatis (2020) Pflegebedürftige nach Versorgungsart, Geschlecht und Pflegegrade. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Pflege/Tabellen/pflegebeduerftige-pflegestufe.html;jsessionid=ADFD935F5EE5A0113BFA74036FB518B2.live741 (Accessed 11 February 2022).

    Destatis (2022) Press – Once again no population growth expected for 2021. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2022/01/PE22_027_124.html  (Accessed 3 February 2022).

    Lorenz-Dant, K. (2020) Germany and the COVID-19 long-term care situation. LTCcovid, International Long Term Care Policy Network, CPEC-LSE, 26 May 2020. Available at: https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Germany_LTC_COVID-19-26-May-2020.pdf (Accessed 3 February 2022)

  • 1.02. Long-Term Care system governance
    Decision making powers

    In the German health system as well as in the long-term care system decision-making power is shared between the Federal and the State Governments (Blümel et al., 2020). Even more importantly, the state only sets a legal framework for health and social care delivery, while major governance decisions are left to self-regulated provider and payer organisations. For long-term care the main decision-making power rests with the long-term care insurance funds on the one hand and providers of residential or community care services on the other. By law, long-term care insurance funds have to guarantee the provision of services that meet the demand by the population. Municipalities and local authorities have no authority over what services are provided within their region. The legal framework for long-term care, including the different actors, their roles and the list of benefits, is laid out in the Social Code Book XI (Lückenbach et al., 2021).

    A Commissioner for Care

    The German Federal Government created the role of a ‘Commissioner for Care’ in 2014 . The role of this position is to advocate for the interests of people with care needs in the political arena and to ensure that the health- and care system are centred around them. This office is involved in all matters (legal, orders etc.) to do with care and nursing. (Die Bevollmächtigte der Bundesregierung für Pflege, n.d.) , but is not directly involved in system governance. Germany does not have a Government Chief Nurse. Since 2014 the representative for care held the position of a permanent secretary at the Department of Health, reporting directly to the Minister of Health with a dedicated team of staff. In 2022 the Government transferred the role to a Member of Parliament and scraped the dedicated staff.

    The role of the medical service in providing control of provision and quality of services

    The medical service (Medizinischer Dienst (MD)) ensures that services provided through health- and long-term care insurance are provided to people based on objective medical criteria and that all people with insurance coverage receive services based on the same conditions. It aims to ensure that people receive necessary services but also are protected from those that are unnecessary or potentially harmful. The MD evaluates quality of services on an annual basis. The Social bill ensures that members of the MD are independent.

    Public reporting of provision and quality of care

    The LTC insurance funds are required to publish the quality reporting of the MD. The report consists of 59 criteria in the areas ‘care and medical care’, ‘handling of residents living with dementia’, ‘support and everyday life’ as well as ‘living, food, housekeeping and hygiene’. In addition, people living in residential care setting and people receiving support in the community are being ask about their experience (Medizinischer Dienst, n.d.; Jacobs et al., 2018).

    References

    Blümel M., Spranger A., Achstetter K., Maresso A. & Busse R. (2020) ‘Germany: Health system review’. Health Systems in Transition. 22(6): pp.i–273 Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341674/HiT-22-6-2020-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 10 February 2022).

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2020) Pressemitteilung – Bundesrat stimmt Gesetzespaketen zur Unterstützung des Gesundheitswesens bei der Bewältigung der Corona-Epidemie zu. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2020/1-quartal/corona-gesetzespaket-im-bundesrat.html (Accessed: 31 January 2022)

    Die Bevollmächtigte der Bundesregierung für Pflege (n.d.) Amt und Person. Available at: https://www.pflegebevollmaechtigte.de/amt-und-person.html (Accessed: 31 January 2022)

    Jacobs, K., Kuhlmey, A., Gre?, S., Klauber, J. & Schwinger, A. (2018) Pflege-Report 2018:  Qualität in der Pflege. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-662-56822-4.pdf (Accessed: 31 January 2022).

    Lückenbach, C., Klukas, E., Schmidt, P. H. and Gerlinger, T (2021), ‘Governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Long-Term Care residences for older people: preparedness, responses and challenges for the future: Germany’, MC COVID-19 working paper 06/2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/13694 Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-RDnqErydbuGGNXlM8WaFB2oSTRKStTc/view (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Medizinischer Dienst (2020) Pressemitteilung – Ab Oktober wieder persönliche Pflegebegutachtungen und Qualitätsprüfungen. Available at: https://www.medizinischerdienst.de/aktuelles-presse/meldungen/artikel/ab-oktober-persoenliche-pflegebegutachtungen-und-qualitaetspruefungen/ (Accessed 31 January 2022).

    Medizinischer Dienst (n.d.) Der Medizinische Dienst im Gesundheitssystem. Available at: https://www.medizinischerdienst.de/medizinischerdienst/medizinischer-dienst-gesundheitssystem/ (Accessed 31 January 2022).

  • 1.03. Long-term care financing arrangements and coverage
    Financing

    The social LTC insurance is financed through equal contributions between employer and employees. Childless people pay a slightly higher contribution rate than those with children (3.30% of gross wages versus 3.05%) (Lückenbach et al., 2021). Retirees contribute between 3.05% and 3.30% of their pensions (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021, p.83).

    Financing of private compulsory LTC insurance is risk- rather than income-related, with premiums depending on health status and age. However, caps are in place to prohibit that maximum contribution rates exceed those of the social LTC insurance. As with the social LTC insurance, employers co-pay up to half of the insurance premium (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021, pp. 83-84).

    Coverage of the population

    The Long-Term Care Insurance in Germany is statutory. It requires enrollees in both statutory sickness funds and private health insurance to also be enrolled in LTCI funds (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021).

    The provision of LTC insurance is needs- but not means-tested (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021).  People with LTC needs receive an assessment in which their care needs are classified into five grades. Grade 1 reflects lower needs, while grade 5 represents severe needs. The assignment for the overall grades is based on the assessment of six core areas: mobility, cognitive and communicative abilities, behaviour and psychological issues, ability to take care for oneself independently, handling of illness and therapy as well as illness related strain, and therapy and organisation of everyday life and of social contacts. The grade of support provided varies between the different levels of care need (Nadash, Doty & von Schwanenflügel, 2018).

    Coverage of costs

    The LTC insurance is designed to cover only a share of the LTC-related costs. With regards to residential care, people in need of long-term care have to pay up to €2,400 per month out of pocket. This includes costs for food and the resident’s room. Costs vary substantially between the different Länder. While the private share of costs for care in residential care settings amounts to more than €1,000 in Baden-Württemberg, they are less than €450 in Thuringia (Sozialpolitik-aktuell.de, 2020)

    Where individuals/families cannot shoulder these costs, this will be covered through social security mechanisms. In 2019, 302,000 long-term care recipients depended on meats-tested social assistance support; most of them (250,000) were living in care homes (Rothgang & Müller, 2021).

    References

    Eggert, S., Teubner, C., Budnick, A., Gellert, P. & Kuhlmey, A. (2020) Pflegende Angehörige in der COVID-19-Krise: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung. Available at: https://www.zqp.de/wp-content/uploads/ZQP-Analyse-Angeh%C3%B6rigeCOVID19.pdf (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Lückenbach, C., Klukas, E., Schmidt, P. H. and Gerlinger, T (2021), ‘Governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Long-Term Care residences for older people: preparedness, responses and challenges for the future: Germany’, MC COVID-19 working paper 06/2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/13694 Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-RDnqErydbuGGNXlM8WaFB2oSTRKStTc/view (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Milstein, R., Mueller, M. & Lorenzoni, L. (2021) Case study – Germany. In WHO Centre for Health Development (?Kobe, Japan)?, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Barber, Sarah L, van Gool, Kees, Wise, Sarah. et al. (?2021)?. Pricing long-term care for older persons. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/344505. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

    Nadash, P., Doty, P. & von Schwanenflügel (2018) ‘The German Long-Term Care Insurance Program: Evolution and Recent Developments’, The Gerontologist, 58(3), pp.588-597. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx018

    Rothgang, H. & Müller, R. (2021) Barmer Pflegereport 2021 – Wirkungen der Pflegereformen und Zukunftstrends. Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse – Band 32. BARMER: Berlin. Available at: https://www.barmer.de/blob/361516/2ad4e5f56c47cb7b7e914190f9fae62f/data/barmer-pflegereport-2021-band-32-bifg.pdf (Accessed 03 February 2022).

    Sozialpolitik-aktuell.de (2020) Hohe Eigenanteile bei der Heimpflege – mit erheblichen regionalen Unterschieden. Available at: https://www.sozialpolitik-aktuell.de/files/sozialpolitik-aktuell/_Politikfelder/Gesundheitswesen/Datensammlung/PDF-Dateien/abbVI49_Thema_Monat_02_2020.pdf (Accessed 3 February 2022).

  • 1.04. Approach to care provision, including sector of ownership
    Prioritisation of private and third-sector providers

    The Long-Term Care Insurance act stipulates (§ 11 (2)) that private and third sector providers take priority over public providers in the provision of long-term care (Sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de, n.d.).

    Home care

    Between 1999 and 2019 the number of home care providers in Germany has grown by 36%, an increase of 3,868 providers. Over the same period the number of people using home care doubled to 982,604 recipients in 2019 (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021). The press release of another report states that the share of those receiving home care has increased from 20.6% to 25.4%, while the share of those living in residential care remained constant over the same period. This may be indicating a trend towards people’s preference of remaining in the community (RWI, 2021).

    The largest share of care providers in 2019 were private for-profit providers (66.52%). Private for-profit providers served over half of home care recipients (52.33%). The second largest group were private non-profit providers (32.14%), providing home care for 46.13% of recipients. The smallest group were public providers (1.35%). This group provided home care for 1.54% of recipients (Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, 2022b; Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021).

    Residential care

    In 2019, residential care providers in Germany had a capacity of 969,553 beds. In comparison to other OCED countries Germany had a greater availability of beds in residential long-term care for those aged 65 and older than (53.6 beds per 1000 inhabitants vs. 47 beds per 1000 inhabitants).

    Between 1999 and 2019 the increase in the number of residential care providers was larger (74%) than that of home care providers (36%).

    Over the same time period, the share of private for profit care providers in residential care increased from 34.90% to almost 43%. In comparison to private-for profit and public providers, the share of full-time places also increased from 25.82% to 40.57%.

    At the same time, the share of private non-profit organisations declined from 56.63% to 52.76%. The proportion of full-time places also declined (63.01% in 1999 to 53.81% in 2019).

    As with home care, the share of public providers played a declining role in the provision of residential care (8.47% in 1999 declining to 4.52% in 2019). Over the same time period the share of full-time places also declined (11.7% in 1999 to 5.62% in 2019) (Milstein, Mueller & Lorenzoni, 2021).

    References

    Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (2022b) Ambulante Pflege- und Betreuungsdienste (Anzahl). Gliederungsmerkmale: Jahre, Deutschland, Art der Pflege- und Betreuungsdienste, Träger. Available at: https://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe/!pkg_olap_tables.prc_set_orientation?p_uid=gastd&p_aid=3932778&p_sprache=D&p_help=2&p_indnr=876&p_ansnr=98223306&p_version=2&D.000=1&D.374=2&D.983=1(Accessed 31 January 2022).

    Milstein, R., Mueller, M. & Lorenzoni, L. (2021) Case study – Germany. In WHO Centre for Health Development (?Kobe, Japan)?, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Barber, Sarah L, van Gool, Kees, Wise, Sarah. et al. (?2021)?. Pricing long-term care for older persons. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/344505. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

    RWI (2021) Pflegeheim Rating Report 2022: Wirtschaftliche Lage deutscher Pflegeheime is angespannt, jedes fünfte im “roten Bereich”. Available at: https://www.rwi-essen.de/presse/mitteilung/462/ (Accessed 5 February 2022).

    Sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de (n.d.) Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB XI) Elftes Buch Sozial Pflegeversicherung. Available at: https://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/sgbxi/11.html (Accessed 11 February 2022).

  • 1.06. Care coordination
    Organisational silos pose challenges to care coordination

    A report provided by the German Society of Nursing Science focusing on domiciliary care highlights that structural barriers exist through the organisational silos in which service providers work. Data protection causes additional challenges to the effective communication between service providers, such as domiciliary care workers and GPs. Communication and coordination between different service providers are often not part of the services for which the care providers can be reimbursed by the LTC insurance and case conferences across professions are not established, requiring domiciliary care providers and GPs to coordinate services without an established framework (Fischer et al., 2021)

    References

    Fischer, T., Kopke, K., Sirsch, E., Büker, C., Graffmann-Weschke, K., Horn, A., Junius-Walker, U., Kümpers, S. & Meyer, G. (2021) S1 Leitlinie Häusliche Versorgung, soziale Teilhabe und Lebensqualität bei Menschen mit Pflegebedürftigkeit im Kontext ambulanter Pflege unter den Bedingungen der COVID-19-Pandemie – Living Guideline. Available at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/184-002LGl_S1_Haeusliche-Versorgung-soziale-Teilhabe-Lebensqualitaet-bei-Menschen-mit-Pflegebedarf-COVID19-Pandemie_2021-04_1_01.pdf (Accessed 31 January 2022).

  • 1.08. Care home infrastructure
    Responsibility for care homes

    Regulation of the care home infrastructure is under State authority since it was devolved from the Federal level in 2006. Hence, minimal building and operational requirements as well as definitions as to what constitutes as care home (as opposed to more self-directed small-scale living arrangements for example) differ between the 16 Laender.

    Demand of care homes

    A report by the University of Cologne suggests that the increasing demand for residential care requires establishing additional as well as maintaining existing resources (Kochskämper & Pimpertz, 2015).

    Care home providers

    According to Federal reporting, the majority of care homes in 2019 (8,115 homes, 521,720 spaces) were owned by not-for-profit organisations, followed by private providers (6,570 homes; 393,308 spaces) and public providers (695 homes, 54,525 spaces) (Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, 2022).

    Types of rooms & requirements

    Following the implementation of single room quotas in care homes put in place in many of the Länder over a decade ago (which gave providers 10-15 years to make the necessary changes), care homes in several Laender have to provide a certain percentage of single rooms (e.g. 80% in North-Rhine Westphalia, 100% for new builds; Berlin 60%; Lower Saxony no quota). In Baden-Württemberg, every single room needs to have its own bathroom. Older buildings with shared bedrooms and without individual bathrooms should only be used for short-term stays. While this increases privacy of residents it also reduces the number of spaces. People who choose to live together (e.g. couples) can share double rooms of sufficient size (Deutschlandfunk, 2020; Aerzteblatt.de, 2019;  Wiedemann, 2019)

    The requirements in terms of room-size and accessibility vary between the Laender. In Bavaria, for example, according to a newspaper article, single rooms should be at least 14 square meters, double rooms, 20 square meters. In addition, 25% of rooms need to be wheelchair accessible and have wheelchair accessible bathrooms (Wörmann, 2016).

    Location of care homes

    Research conducted by the Bertelsman group found that residential care across Germany are in good geographical proximity to other care homes: the longest average distance between care setting identified amounted to 8.2km. Within urban areas distances between care settings can be as small as 0.5km, while in rural areas distances may be larger (Hackmann et al., 2016).

    References

    Aerzteblatt.de (2019) Baden-Württemberg lockert Einzelzimmervorgabe für Pflegeeinrichtungen. Available at: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/105668/Baden-Wuerttemberg-lockert-Einzelzimmervorgabe-fuer-Pflegeeinrichtungen (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Deutschlandfunk (2020) Einzelzimmer in der Pflege/ Mehr Privatsphäre, weniger Plätze? Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/einzelzimmerquote-in-der-pflege-mehr-privatsphaere-weniger-100.html (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (2022) Pflegeheime und verfügbare Plätze in Pflegeheimen. Gliederungsmerkmale: Jahre, Region, Art der Einrichtungen/Plätze, Träger. Available at: Ad-hoc-Tabelle (gbe-bund.de)(Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Kochskämper, S. & Pimpertz, J. (2015) ‘Herausfoderungen an die Pflegeinfrastruktur‘ Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln. Available at: IW-Trends_2015-03-04_Kochskaemper_Pimpertz.pdf (iwkoeln.de) (Accessed 5 February 2022).

  • 1.09. Community-based care infrastructure
    Differences in care infrastructure

    A study conducted by Bertelsmann found that the care infrastructure differs across Germany. In many areas in East Germany, domiciliary care is more dominant, while in Hessen and in the Rhineland a disproportionate amount of care is provided by family carers. The study further found that in the Federal States located in the South a more balanced provision of services is prevailing, while in Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg Western Pomerania more people receive care in residential care settings. Further analysis provided in the report suggests that the less purchasing power is available in a region, the more unpaid care is being provided. The more unpaid care is being provided, the lower are expected future staffing shortages (source: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Studie_VV_FCG_Pflegeinfrastruktur.pdf).

    Future feasibility

    Another report raises questions regarding the future feasibility of community-based care as it often requires unpaid support in addition to domiciliary and community services. Increasing numbers of people living on their own, increasing number of people without children as well as potential implications of an increasing participation of women in the labour force poses challenges to the availability of unpaid carers.

    A second important component of community-based care includes day and night (part-residential) care. These services also include the transport between people’s homes and the day care centres. As with other LTC services in Germany, people with LTC needs can receive financial support for attending these services depending on the assessment of their level of care need (source: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/tagespflege-und-nachtpflege.html).

    Care statistics for 2019 show that 14.5% of people with (assessed) LTC needs receive day care services. Since 2017, the number of day care places has increased by 24.3%.

  • 1.11. Role of unpaid carers and policies to support them

    In 2019, there were about 4.13 million people with long-term care needs and around 80% of them received care and support at home (80%). Of those, more than 60% were supported by informal carers only, almost 30% use care and support from both unpaid and domiciliary carers or domiciliary carers only  (source: https://www.destatis.de/DE). the German LTC system provides  cash benefits that could be used as payment for informal care arrangements and financial support for unpaid carers through household transfers for beneficiaries remains strong in the German LTC system. Family carers in paid employment are entitled to financial support if they reduce working hours to care for a close family relation: wage compensation can be granted by employers for reduced employment of a minimum of 15 hours for up to 24 months. Moreover,  the Care Leave Act of 2015 introduced a wage compensation for acute care leave of up to ten days, usually 90% of net earnings; a leave of up to three months is also available for those individuals who support family members at the end of life (Frisina-Doetter et al. 2017).

    References: 

    Frisina-Doetter, L., Rothgang, H. (2017). The German LTC policy landscape. CEQUA LTC Network report 

  • 1.14. Pandemic preparedness of the Long-term care sector
    Roles & responsibilities

    Each of the 16 Länder carries responsibility for pandemic preparedness in their area. At the national level, the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI) takes a key role in infectious disease monitoring and prevention. The Institute also provides pandemic plans. A second federal authority with the task to reduce health related risks is the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance.

    Warnings

    As early as in 2013, the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance already warned of the risk of a pandemic through a virus of the ‘virus family Coronaviridae’.

    Plans

    Tasked by the government, the RKI has maintained a regularly updated National Pandemic Plan for Influenza since the early 2000s. The pandemic plan includes consideration for residential LTC as well as advice on Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) stockpiling, vaccination and training of staff. This plan has been amended to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

    Limitations

    Despite this systemic preparedness, in practice there has been divergence in handling and applying infection prevention and control plans, the experience has shown that not all LTC settings had developed specific plans or not developed them in sufficient detail and that not all care workers, especially care assistants, had been sufficiently trained, and there has also been a shortage of PPE. The existing shortage in the care workforce posed additional challenges to the response during the pandemic (Lückenbach et al., 2021).

    A paper reviewing the implications of the LTC sector due to COVID-19 established that the LTC sector was not adequately prepared for a crisis. It was highlighted that residential care settings that need to operate under economic principles have been particularly unprepared to manage crisis. Consequently, providers have been imposing strict measures to prevent blame and legal claims. The measures have severe implications on people’s self-determination and quality of life. It was also noted that closer interdisciplinary partnership could help to prepare LTC for crisis situations (Kricheldorff, 2020).

    A survey conducted among care providers in April/May 2020 found that almost two thirds of care home staff were not specifically prepared for handling a pandemic during their apprenticeships, university degrees or training. Most surveyed institutions (90.7%) have run training on PPE. Among part-residential care settings almost 60% (n=96) stated that they had not been specifically prepared for a pandemic. More than half of these settings responded by setting up crisis teams. Two-thirds of domiciliary care providers surveyed did not report specific pandemic preparedness prior to COVID-19 (Wolf-Ostermann et al., 2020).

    References

    Kricheldorff, C. (2020) ‚Gesundheitsversorgung und Pflege für ältere Menschen in der Zukunft – Erkenntnisse aus der Corona-Pandemie’, Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie53(8), 742–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-020-01809-z

    Lückenbach, C., Klukas, E., Schmidt, P. H. and Gerlinger, T (2021), ‘Governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Long-Term Care residences for older people: preparedness, responses and challenges for the future: Germany’, MC COVID-19 working paper 06/2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/13694 Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-RDnqErydbuGGNXlM8WaFB2oSTRKStTc/view (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Wolf-Ostermann, K, Rothgang, H., Domhoff, D., Friedrich, A.-C., Heinze, F., Preuß, B., Schmidt, A.,  Seibert, K. & Stolle (2020) Zur Situation der Langzeitpflege in Deutschland während der Corona-Pandemie Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung in Einrichtungen der (teil)stationären und ambulanten Langzeitpflege. Available at: https://media.suub.uni-bremen.de/bitstream/elib/4331/4/Ergebnisbericht%20Coronabefragung%20Uni-Bremen.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2022).

PART 2 – Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people who use and provide Long Term Care
  • 2.01. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the country (total population)
    Latest numbers

    As of 4th February 2022, there have been 10,671,602 confirmed COVID-19 infections in Germany, and 118,504 deaths attributed to COVID-19, according to the RKI (Robert Koch Institut, 2022a, 2022b).

    Impact of the different waves

    The first wave of COVID-19 infections was relatively mild in Germany, however, the second wave (experienced mostly between December 2020 and January 2021) and the third wave (March to April 2021) were much more severe. The fourth wave has had the highest number of infections so far and it gradually eased at the end of 2021. Due to the fast spread of the Omicron variant, the fifth wave is expected to be the strongest in terms of infection figures (ZDF 2022, Schilling et al., 2021, RKI 2022). The death toll was highest in the second wave, followed by the fourth wave (RKI, 2022).

    References

    Robert Koch Institut (2022) Wöchentlicher Lagebericht des RKI zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19)  – 06.01.2022 – AKTUALISIERTER STAND FÜR DEUTSCHLAND. Available at: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2022-01-06.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

    Robert Koch Institut (2022a) Situation reports from Monday to Friday. Available at: https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/epidemiology/outbreaks/COVID-19/Situationsberichte_Tab.html (Accessed 5 February 2022).

    Robert Koch Institut (2022b) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Daily Situation Report by the Robert Koch Institute 04/02/2022- CURRENT STATUS FOR GERMANY. Available at: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Feb_2022/2022-02-04-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed 5 February 2022).

    Schilling, J., Tolksdorf, K., Marquis, A., Faber, M., Pfoch, T., Buda, S., Haas, W., Schuler, E., Altmann, D., Grote, U., Diercke, M & RKI COVID-19 Study Group (2021) ‘Die verschiedenen Phasen der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine deskriptive Analyse von Januar 2020 bis Februar 2021’ Bumdesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 64, pp.1093-1106. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00103-021-03394-x

  • 2.02. Deaths attributed to COVID-19 among people using long-term care
    About the data:

    Germany’s Robert Koch-Institute published the first official number of infections and deaths in different care settings on April 22, 2020. People in care and nursing homes are covered under §36 of the Protection Against Infection Law (IfSG). §36 also includes people living in facilities for those with disabilities or other care needs, homeless shelters, community facilities for asylum-seekers, repatriates, and refugees, and so the data is not directly comparable with the data on care homes presented for the other countries.

    Data recorded here only includes confirmed cases following a laboratory diagnosis independent of clinical assessment. In addition, the Robert Koch Institute advises that information on care setting is missing in 37% of cases, which means that the number of people affected represents the minimum number of cases in specific care settings. A report estimated that, based on a survey of care homes, the share of deaths of care home residents attributed to COVID-19 by May 2020 was 49% of all COVID-19 deaths, which is higher than the rate that would result from the Robert Koch Institute data at the time (36%).

    Deaths linked to COVID-19 in residential care

    According to Germany’s Robert Koch-Institute, 25,789 residents of residential long-term care facilities (aged 60 and above) died in association with a SARS-CoV-2 infection during the course of the pandemic until week 4 of 2022 (Robert Koch Institut, 2022a). This figure may include a small proportion of staff and visitors in addition to residents, as attribution is not always clear. Thus, out of 118,504 death associated with the Covid pandemic in total, deaths associated with care homes constitute 21.76 % (Robert Koch Institut, 2022b).

    The total number of people living in care and nursing homes in Germany in 2017 was 818,000, and assuming that there were a similar number in 2020 and that all the deaths in communal establishment were residents, 3.15% of all care home residents would have died due to COVID-19 (Source: Statista).

    Deaths linked to COVID-19 among people who use care in the community

    The number of users of community care or persons who are being cared for without the assistance of professional services in the community is unclear. The last data on this group was published on 16 July 2021 when the number of deaths was reported as 195 persons (Robert Koch Institut, 2021). However, the validity of this figure is questionable as data collection does not account for persons in need of care in a standardizes way.

    References

    Robert Koch Institut (2021) Täglicher Lagebericht des RKI zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19) 16.07.2021 – AKTUALISIERTER STAND FÜR DEUTSCHLAND. Available at: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Jul_2021/2021-07-16-de.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed 5 February).

    Robert Koch Institut (2022a) Wöchentlicher Lagebericht des RKI zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19) 03.02.2022 – AKTUALISIERTER STAND FÜR DEUTSCHLAND. Available at: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2022-02-03.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed 5 February 2022).

    Robert Koch Institut (2022b) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Daily Situation Report by the Robert Koch Institute 04/02/2022- CURRENT STATUS FOR GERMANY. Available at: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Feb_2022/2022-02-04-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed 5 February 2022).

     

  • 2.04. Impacts of the pandemic on access to care for people who use Long-Term Care
    Access to care for people living in the community

    A survey among family carers of older people in April/Mai 2020 found that 39% of unpaid carers agreed that they had greater care responsibility as previous support had disappeared. More than 80% reported that day care had completely stopped, 40% reported that other services (e.g. foot care) had stopped or reduced (26%), 26% reported reduced care from the GP. Over 40% reported reduced support from neighbours and 30% from family members and friends. The same survey also showed that there was a slight reduction in available domiciliary LTC and 24-hour care (domestic care or foreign live in carers), but a considerable reduction in available day care programmes (Eggert et al., 2020).

    A survey among care providers in April/May 2020, showed that two-thirds of part-residential care settings stopped accepting new residents or closed completely. Among domiciliary carers, less than 20% had provided care for people with a confirmed infection, and 13.4% had clients with suspected cases. Domiciliary care service providers also recorded a change in take up of services (mostly a reduction) among almost 50% of responding providers. Almost half of all domiciliary care services estimate that the provision of support for people with limited uptake of services is at risk or cannot be ensured (Wolf-Ostermann et al., 2020).

    Access to care provided by migrant workers

    In Germany, many people with care needs who still live in their own homes receive support from Eastern European migrant workers. The border closure around Easter 2020 left many people without their usual support (Lückenbach et al., 2021).

    Access to care for people living in care homes

    Lockdowns of nursing homes during the first wave led to physical activity programmes for residents being discontinued, as these were often provided by external providers. There were attempts to promote physical activity in-house although staff were not trained to provide it specifically (Frahsa et al., 2020).

    References:

    Eggert, S., Teubner, C., Budnick, A., Gellert, P. & Kuhlmey, A. (2020) Pflegende Angehörige in der COVID-19-Krise: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung. Available at: https://www.zqp.de/wp-content/uploads/ZQP-Analyse-Angeh%C3%B6rigeCOVID19.pdf (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Frahsa A, Altmeier D, John JM, Gropper H, Granz H, Pomiersky R, Haigis D, Eschweiler GW, Nieß AM, Sudeck G and Thiel A (2020) “I Trust in Staff’s Creativity”—The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns on Physical Activity Promotion in Nursing Homes Through the Lenses of Organizational Sociology. Front. Sports Act. Living 2:589214. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.589214

    Lückenbach, C., Klukas, E., Schmidt, P. H. and Gerlinger, T (2021), ‘Governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Long-Term Care residences for older people: preparedness, responses and challenges for the future: Germany’, MC COVID-19 working paper 06/2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/13694 Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-RDnqErydbuGGNXlM8WaFB2oSTRKStTc/view (Accessed 31 January 2022)

    Wolf-Ostermann, K, Rothgang, H., Domhoff, D., Friedrich, A.-C., Heinze, F., Preuß, B., Schmidt, A.,  Seibert, K. & Stolle (2020) Zur Situation der Langzeitpflege in Deutschland während der Corona-Pandemie Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung in Einrichtungen der (teil)stationären und ambulanten Langzeitpflege. Available at: https://media.suub.uni-bremen.de/bitstream/elib/4331/4/Ergebnisbericht%20Coronabefragung%20Uni-Bremen.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2022).

     

  • 2.05. Impacts of the pandemic on the health and wellbeing of people who use Long-Term Care

    There is no information available so far that systematically measures the impact of COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of people with LTC needs.

    Mental health

    However, concerns for people’s mental health are being raised, especially for people living in residential care settings whose social life has been severely disrupted. Even before COVID-19, research has estimated that among those 65 and older living in care homes, 25-45% had depression. It has further been estimated that only 40% of those received a diagnosis and only about half of those with a diagnosis received adequate treatment and support (Zeit online, 2021; Aerzteblatt.,de, 2018).

    A study by Seethaler et al (2021) investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and perceived psychosocial support for older psychiatric patients. This focused on 32 patients with affective or anxiety disorders aged over 60 years. All participants were current or former patients of the Psychiatric University Hospital of Charité at St. Hedwig Hospital, Berlin, Germany. Telephone interviews were conducted in April/May 2020 (T1) and August 2020 (T2). The psychosocial impact (PSI) of the pandemic and psychopathology were measured and the changes between T1 and T2 were examined. There was a significant positive correlation between general PSI and depression as well as severity of illness. However, neither general PSI not psychopathology changed significantly between T1 and T2. Patients reported an increase in psychosocial support between T1 and T2 and high demand for additional support. Elderly psychiatric patients showed a negative PSI of the pandemic (Seethaler et al., 2021).

    References:

    Aerzteblatt.,de (2018) Wissenschaftler: Depressionen bei Heimbewohner seltener behandelt.Available at: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/98943/Wissenschaftler-Depression-bei-Heimbewohnern-seltener-behandelt(Accessed 6 February 2022).

    Seethaler, M., Just, S., Stotzner, P., Bermpohl, F., & Brandl, E. J. (2021). Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic in Elderly Psychiatric Patients: a Longitudinal Study. The Psychiatric Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-021-09917-8

    Zeit online (2021) Treffs gegen Depressionen in Alters- und Pfelgeheimen. Available at: https://www.zeit.de/amp/news/2021-02/26/treffs-gegen-depressionen-in-alters-und-pflegeheimen (Accessed 6 February 2022).

     

  • 2.07. Impacts of the pandemic on unpaid carers
    Greater responsibility and less support

    A survey among family carers of older people in April/May 2020 found that 39% of unpaid carers agreed that they had greater care responsibility as previous support had disappeared. This was linked both to reductions in support from neighbours and family, and to a reduction in formal care (particularly day care) (Eggert et al., 2020).

    References

    Eggert, S., Teubner, C., Budnick, A., Gellert, P. & Kuhlmey, A. (2020) Pflegende Angehörige in der COVID-19-Krise: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung. Available at: https://www.zqp.de/wp-content/uploads/ZQP-Analyse-Angeh%C3%B6rigeCOVID19.pdf (Accessed 31 January 2022).

  • 2.09. Impact of the pandemic on workforce shortages in the Long-Term Care sector

    Similar to other countries, Germany experienced workforce shortages during the pandemic. To address these, Germany supported the recruitment of LTC students through financial help to LTC facilities and increased/ lifted the maximum number of working hours (sources: Germany LTCcovid presentation; COVID-19 in long-term care: impact, policy responses and challenges).

    According to a recent report (February 2022) by The Federation of European Social Employers, Germany has experienced a strong increase of over 10% in staff shortages since 2021. The sub-sector most critically affected by staff shortages across the countries surveyed for this report were services for older persons. The job position most affected was nursing, but care assistants and homecare / social care workers also face real shortages. The most common reasons given for staff leaving the social care sector for another include low wages, and mental and physical exhaustion relating to the pandemic.

PART 3 -Measures adopted to minimise the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people who use and provide Long-Term Care
PART 4 – Reforms to strengthen Long-Term Care systems and to improve preparedness for future pandemics and other emergencies
  • 4.02. Reforms to the Long-term care financing system
    Expansion of entitlement to LTC benefits

    From 2017 the legal entitlement to LTC benefits and the categories of beneficiaries have been extended (particularly to people with dementia) by recognising cognitive and mental capacity as part of the instrument used to assess people’s care level. The assessment encompasses the six areas: mobility, cognitive and communication abilities, behavioural and mental difficulties, self-care, ability to cope and independently manage health or therapy related needs and burden, organising everyday life and social contacts; in addition, the amount of benefits have increased substantially for most through the reorganisation of support entitlements into five care grades. No person already receiving support should have been worse off following the reform.

    Co-payments for people living in residential care settings no longer depend on a person’s care grade. All people in living in a nursing now pay the same care-related co-payment (the amount differs between residential homes). In addition, people in full- or part residential care settings receive a legal entitlement for additional offers of care.

    Increasing contributions to LTC insurance

    As part of this ‘second care strengthening bill’ (zweites Pflegestärkungsgesetz) contribution rates to the mandatory long-term care insurance increased by 0.2 percentage points (to 2.55 per cent for people with children and 2.8 per cent for people without children).

    Income cap on co-payments for children of beneficiaries

    Children of people with care needs can be exempt from the obligation to cover the cost of care for their parent that is not provided for as part of the LTC insurance. Since 2019 this exemption has been put in place for children of people with care needs earning less than EUR 100,000 (annual gross income) (European Commission, 2021).

    Cap on co-payments for people living in residential care settings over longer time periods

    In June 2021 a new care reform was passed. The reform seeks to relieve people living in residential care settings for longer periods of time from some of the co-payments. For example, the reform seeks to reduce co-payments of people living in residential care for more than 12 months by 25 per cent (on average €228 per month based on average contributions of €911). This reduction increases with time spent in residential care. For people living in residential care settings for more than 36 months, the reduction will amount to 70 per cent (on average €638 per month based on average contributions of €911).

    The reform is planned to be financed by a federal grant (1 billion per year) and an increase in the long-term care insurance of 0.1 per cent for childless people (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2021).

    Reference

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2017) Die Pflegestärkungsgesetze – Das Wichtigste im Überblick. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Pflege/Broschueren/PSG_Das_Wichtigste_im_Ueberblick.pdf(Accessed 1 February 2022)

    European Commission (2021) 2021 Long-term care report – Trends, challenges and opportunities in an ageing society. Country profiles Vol. 2. Available at: Publications catalogue – Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion – European Commission (europa.eu) (Accessed 4 February 2022).

  • 4.03. Reforms to develop or improve Long-Term Care data and information systems
    Funding for digital and technical innovations

    The LTC insurance funds can provide home care and residential care providers between 2019 and 2021 with partial funding (up to €12,000) to support the purchasing of technical tools aimed at improving working conditions and reducing bureaucratic load (European Commission; 2021; Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2021).

    References

    Bundesministerium fuer Gesundheit (2021) Sofortprogramm Pflege. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/sofortprogramm-pflege.html (Accessed 4 February 2022).

    European Commission (2021) 2021 Long-term care report – Trends, challenges and opportunities in an ageing society. Country profiles Vol. 2. Available at: Publications catalogue – Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion – European Commission (europa.eu) (Accessed 4 February 2022).

  • 4.04. Reforms to improve care coordination

    An EU report (2021) notes that care-support bases offering advice and support are being set up in Germany, providing relevant information, application forms, and practical assistance (European Commission, 2021).

    References

    European Commission (2021) 2021 Long-term care report – Trends, challenges and opportunities in an ageing society. Country profiles Vol. 2. Available at: Publications catalogue – Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion – European Commission (europa.eu) (Accessed 4 February 2022).

  • 4.06. Reforms to improve support for unpaid carers
    Replacement care

    The care strengthening bills ensure that when unpaid carers are temporarily unable to provide care (e.g. holidays, illness) for people with care level 2 or higher, the long-term care insurance covers the costs of up to six weeks replacement (up to €1,612) care per calendar year. This can also support other household members/unpaid carers taking on the replacement care. This replacement care can also be taken up on an hourly basis. (erste pflegestarkungsgesetz). In addition, replacement care can be combined with 50per cent of the support for short-term care (Kurzzeitpflege) (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017b; Bundesministerium für Gesundheit,2021).

    Retirement contribution & unemployment insurance

    Following the care strengthening bills, unpaid carers in Germany providing community care for people at care level 2 or higher, providing 10 or more hours per of care and do not work more than 30 hours per week are entitled to retirement contributions through the long-term care insurance. In addition, protection through the unemployment insurance has been expanded for carers. This also remains when unpaid carers take holidays (Deutsche Rentenversicherung. 2022 ;Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2021).

    Entitlement to qualified advice

    The care strengthening bills also provided an entitlement to qualified advice from their care fund. This can help unpaid carers to organise and coordinate care arrangements (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017b).

    Leave and reduced hours for working family carers

    A bill to improve the compatibility of family, care and work enables employees to leave their job for up to six months to care for a close relative at home. In addition, employees can reduce their work hours for up to two year to up to 15 hours per week. To mitigate the loss of income, employees taking up this possibility can apply for an interest-free loan from a government agency (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017b).

    In addition, working unpaid carers can take up to 10 days paid leave (paid by long-term care insurance – care support money) if they need to temporarily organise care for a close relative (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017b).

    Improved access to rehabilitation

    From 2019 unpaid carers receive improved access to rehabilitation. The changes include that unpaid carers can now access residential rehabilitation even if from a medical perspective ambulatory treatment would be sufficient. Unpaid carers are also entitled to have the person they care for looked after in the same residential setting where they receive medical rehabilitation (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2018).

    References

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2021) Verhinderungspflege (Urlaubs-/Krankheitsvertretung). Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/verhinderungspflege.html (Accessed 1 February 2022).

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2018) Neuregelungen im Jahr 2019 in Gesundheit und Pflege. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2018/4-quartal/neuregelungen-2019.html(Accessed: 1 February 2022)

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2017b) Die Pflegestärkungsgesetze – Das Wichtigste im Überblick. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Pflege/Broschueren/PSG_Das_Wichtigste_im_Ueberblick.pdf(Accessed 1 February 2022)

    Deutsche Rentenversicherung (2022) Pflege von Angehörigen lohnt sich auch für die Rente. Available at: https://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/DRV/DE/Rente/Familie-und-Kinder/Angehoerige-pflegen/angehoerige-pflegen_node.html (Accessed 1 February 2022)

  • 4.08. Reforms to strengthen community-based care
    Financial support to adapt homes

    People with LTC needs can receive up to €4,000 for changes to their home (for example, to widen doors) to enable people to remain in the community for longer (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017a, 2017b).

    Financial support for shared accommodation for people with care need needs in the community

    The care strengthening bills support people wishing to set up shared accommodation for people with LTC needs by providing financial support to set this up. People with care needs living in shared accommodations can also receive monthly financial support (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017a, 2017b).

    Expansion of day and nigh care services

    The first care strengthening bill expanded day and night care services. These services can be used without reducing people’s care allowance or entitlement to domiciliary care (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2017b).

    References

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2017a) Erstes Pflegestärkungsgesetz (PSG I). Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/begriffe-von-a-z/p/pflegestaerkungsgesetz-erstes-psg-i.html(Accessed 1 February 2022)

    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2017b) Die Pflegestärkungsgesetze – Das Wichtigste im Überblick. Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Pflege/Broschueren/PSG_Das_Wichtigste_im_Ueberblick.pdf(Accessed 1 February 2022)

Printable version of this country profile:

https://ltccovid.org/country/germany/

To cite this report:

Lorenz-Dant K., Fischer T. and Hämel K. COVID-19 and the Long-Term Care system in Germany. In: Comas-Herrera A., Marczak J., Byrd W., Lorenz-Dant K., Pharoah D. (editors) LTCcovid International Living report on COVID-19 and Long-Term Care. LTCcovid, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science. https://doi.org/10.21953/lse.mlre15e0u6s6


Ongoing research projects on COVID-19 and Long-Term Care in Germany:

https://ltccovid.org/completed-or-ongoing-research-projects-on-covid-19-and-long-term-care/?_country=germany

Most recent LTCcovid report (May 2020):

https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Germany_LTC_COVID-19-26-May-2020.pdf

Acknowledgement and disclaimer:

This report has built on previous LTCcovid country reports and is supported by the Social Care COVID-19 Resilience and Recovery project, which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (NIHR202333) and by the International Long-Term Care Policy Network and the Care Policy and Evaluation Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders.

Copyright: LTCCovid and Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, LSE