Comparative cost-benefit analysis of tele-homecare for community-dwelling elderly in Japan: Non-Government versus Government Supported Funding Models

Our results for each model collectively showed that tele-homecare in Japan is cost-saving to some extent. However, the government-funded model (i.e., Model 2), which typically requires use of all startup funding to be spent within the first year on system costs, was inferior to the monthly fee model (i.e., Model 1) that did not use the government funding for installation or continued operations, but rather incorporated a monthly fee from users to support the receipt of services via tele-homecare. While the benefits of Model 1 outweighed the benefits of Model 2, the government-subsidized method employed in Model 2 could be more beneficial in general if some explicit prequalifying estimated metrics are instituted prior to funding. Thus, governments need to require applicants requesting funding to note, at a minimum, (a) estimated costs, (b) the expected number of tele-homecare users, and expected benefits such as (c) WTP by the user, or (d) medical expenditure saved by tele-homecare as a means of financing some of the operational costs.