Analysing the importance of older people's resources for the use of home care in a cash‐for‐care scheme: evidence from Vienna

Older people of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are disproportionately affected by chronic conditions, yet less able to compensate health limitations through use of formal long‐term care (LTC) at home, a preferred type of care for most. Some, like older women and single people, are particularly vulnerable. Under the Austrian public cash‐for‐care scheme, which aims to incentivise care at home and empowerment of LTC users, this study analyses: (i) interdependencies between SES, gender and ‘informal’ or family care, and (ii) how these factors associate with the use of old age formal home care in Vienna. An adaptation of Arber and Ginn's theory is used to identify material resources (income), health resources (care needs) and informal caring resources (co‐residence and/or availability of family care). Gender aspects are also considered as a persistent source of inequalities. Administrative and survey data, collected by public authorities between 2010 and 2012 in Vienna, serve to compare home care use in old age (60+) to other support forms (residential and informal care) using logistic regression analysis. Results show a pro‐rich bias in home care use among single‐living people, with high‐income single people being less likely to move to a care home, while there are no significant income differences present for non‐singles. Second, traditional gender roles are salient: female care recipients co‐residing with a partner are more likely to use formal care than men, reflecting that men's traditional gender roles involve less unpaid care work than women's. In conclusion, in an urban setting, the Austrian cash‐for‐care scheme is likely to reinforce stratifications along gender and class, thus implementing the general policy objective of care at home, but more likely for those with higher income. A support mechanism promoting empowerment among all older people might contribute to unequal degrees of choice, especially for those with fewer resources to manage their way through a fragmented system of LTC delivery.