(de-news.net) – Germany’s proposed long-term care reform, presented by Federal Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU), has triggered broad criticism from state governments, coalition partners, professional organizations, and experts. While supporters argue that the measures are necessary to secure the long-term financial viability of the care insurance system, opponents contend that the reform primarily shifts costs onto care recipients, families, contributors, and caregivers rather than addressing structural financing problems.
Plans to remove the 100,000-euro income threshold that currently limits the circumstances under which adult children may be required to contribute toward their parents’ care expenses have become a central feature of the long-term care reform debate. The Federal Health Minister has defended the proposed change, arguing that long-term care insurance has, since its establishment, substantially reduced the social assistance burden borne by municipalities. In her assessment, the increasingly strained fiscal situation facing federal, state, and local governments now necessitates additional forms of budgetary relief. Against this backdrop, Warken maintains that provisions adopted during periods of comparatively stronger public finances should be reassessed, including the income threshold introduced in 2019. Under the proposed legislation, financial responsibility for parental care costs could in the future extend to adult children whose annual income falls below the current 100,000-euro benchmark.
Support for Warken’s proposals has come primarily from within the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. Simone Borchardt, the Union’s spokesperson on care policy, argued that the objective of the reform is not to reduce existing entitlements but rather to preserve the long-term functionality and financial viability of the statutory long-term care insurance system. In emphasizing this point, she noted that the insurance scheme was never designed as a comprehensive mechanism capable of covering all care-related expenses in full. From this perspective, the proposed measures are presented as an effort to secure the sustainability of the system’s core commitments rather than as a withdrawal of benefits.
Nevertheless, the proposals have encountered substantial resistance from state governments. Saarland Health Minister Magnus Jung (SPD), while acknowledging the necessity of ensuring the financial stability of long-term care insurance, argued that increasing the burden on care recipients and their families would merely transfer costs rather than address the structural causes of the system’s difficulties. He therefore advocated the introduction of a legally binding cap on care-related out-of-pocket expenses, which he believes would provide citizens with greater long-term financial certainty and predictability. Jung also characterized the draft reform as a form of social retrenchment. More broadly, he argued that a durable reform strategy should strengthen the institutional foundations of long-term care insurance, allocate costs more equitably across society, and preserve the existing collective-pay framework for care providers. According to his assessment, weakening those labor standards would send the wrong signal to current and prospective workers at a time when workforce recruitment and retention remain major challenges for the sector.
Comparable criticism has been voiced by Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s Minister-President Manuela Schwesig (SPD), who objected both to the substance of the proposals and to the manner in which they were developed. She criticized the absence of prior coordination with the states and argued that the reform would increase financial pressure on care recipients and their families while simultaneously weakening the position of caregivers. According to government projections, the package is expected to generate 11.25 billion euros by 2027 through a combination of additional revenues and expenditure reductions, with its annual fiscal impact projected to rise to 20.34 billion euros by 2030. Schwesig specifically criticized provisions that would increase costs for nursing home residents and their children, as well as planned reductions in pension contributions for family caregivers. She also rejected proposals to suspend wage-linkage requirements that were originally introduced to help ensure appropriate compensation within the care sector. In her view, such measures risk undermining protections that were established to support both care workers and the broader quality of care provision.
SPD and Greens warn key structural problems remain unresolved
The reform has also generated criticism within the governing coalition itself. Christos Pantazis, the SPD parliamentary group’s spokesperson on health policy, acknowledged that the draft contains a number of elements that move in a constructive direction. He pointed in particular to provisions relating to administrative simplification, prevention, rehabilitation, and support for family caregivers. Despite these positive aspects, however, he argued that the proposal does not provide a sufficiently convincing response to the underlying financial challenges facing the long-term care insurance system. Pantazis also expressed disappointment that a key Social Democratic proposal had not been incorporated into the draft, namely the creation of a financial equalization mechanism between the statutory and private long-term care insurance systems. In his view, the omission leaves an important structural issue unresolved.
The Greens have raised many of the same concerns. Deputy parliamentary leader Misbah Khan argued that the government’s approach relies primarily on shifting financial burdens onto contributors and care recipients rather than pursuing more fundamental reforms to the system’s financing structure. She identified the differing treatment of privately and publicly insured individuals as what she regards as the central inequity within the current framework. Khan further warned that a recurring pattern in which contributions rise while benefits are reduced or co-payments increase could weaken public confidence in the welfare state and its ability to provide reliable social protection. Simone Fischer, the Greens’ spokesperson on care policy, similarly acknowledged the value of measures promoting prevention, rehabilitation, and home-based support. Nonetheless, she maintained that these positive elements do not alter what she sees as the reform’s central characteristic: the redistribution of financial burdens rather than the implementation of genuine structural change.
Employers, Nursing Council, and economists challenge savings assumptions
Criticism has been equally pronounced beyond the political sphere. Thomas Greiner, president of the Employers’ Association for Care (AGVP), argued that the proposed measures would neither create additional care capacity nor address persistent shortages of available care placements. He pointed to waiting periods that, in some cases, reportedly extend to as long as eighteen months and contended that none of the planned reforms would materially improve that situation. Greiner also questioned the practicality of relying more heavily on family caregiving as a solution to systemic pressures, arguing that many households either lack the capacity or are unwilling to assume such responsibilities themselves. From his perspective, the proposals do not address the underlying constraints affecting care availability.
A similarly critical assessment was offered by the German Nursing Council. The organization characterized the reform as a cost-saving initiative focused primarily on short-term fiscal consolidation rather than on securing the long-term provision of care services. Council President Christine Vogler warned that the anticipated savings would fall disproportionately on care recipients, family members, and professional caregivers. In her analysis, measures such as limiting benefits, delaying subsidies, tightening access criteria, and reducing entitlements would not lessen actual care needs. Instead, they would shift responsibilities away from the insurance system and onto families, municipalities, and other parts of the health care sector. Vogler was particularly critical of plans to reduce pension insurance contributions for family caregivers. She argued that individuals who already provide a substantial share of care services in Germany should not face additional disadvantages and maintained that policies intended to strengthen home-based care should not weaken those who constitute its principal support base.
Questions have also been raised regarding the economic assumptions underpinning the reform package. Bremen health economist Heinz Rothgang expressed skepticism about whether the government can achieve its stated savings target of 11 billion euros. In particular, he suggested that projected revenues from higher contribution payments by childless individuals may have been estimated too optimistically. Rothgang further predicted that the period preceding implementation could see a significant increase in applications for care-level classifications, as individuals seek to secure eligibility under existing rules before the reforms take effect. He additionally criticized proposed restrictions on wage growth, arguing that such measures could send a negative signal to potential entrants into the care profession and thereby complicate efforts to recruit additional personnel.
Warken formally presented the draft legislation earlier this week, placing the proposed reforms at the center of a growing political and policy debate over the future financing of long-term care in Germany. Among the draft’s principal provisions are a 0.1-percentage-point increase in long-term care insurance contributions for childless individuals, stricter eligibility requirements for obtaining care classifications, and limitations on future wage increases within the sector. Taken together, these measures are intended to improve the financial position of the insurance system, although critics across political, professional, and academic circles continue to dispute both their effectiveness and their broader distributional consequences.
Audio: TTSFree
