The Long‑Term Care Insurance Proposal: What It Offers 5.2 Million Policyholders and What Remains Undecided

The Capital Market Authority proposes changing the structure of health funds' long‑term care insurance by separating older and younger policyholders and incorporating personal savings into future coverage. This emerges from Calcalist and Globes reports published on 4 October. The proposal concerns a system covering about 5.2 million Israelis, but it has not yet become a binding reform.

That distinction matters to anyone paying monthly for long‑term care insurance: publication of the proposal does not announce a transfer already made to another insurer, nor does it itself establish an immediate change in individual eligibility. According to the reports, implementation requires further decisions, including legislation and answers to funding questions.

Two groups, different funding mechanisms

According to Calcalist, older policyholders would remain in a closed group managed by a proposed statutory corporation called "Siudit." Younger policyholders would move to plans combining long‑term savings accumulation and insurance through companies selected in a competitive process.

The rationale presented in Globes is that saving from a young age could accumulate funds over many years to help finance future long‑term care needs. This is an objective of the proposed model, not a promise of returns, accumulated amounts or individual benefits. Globes also reported the possibility of starting with a voluntary product; this does not constitute a decision already requiring the public to contribute to a new plan.

Age 55 appears in reporting, but is not a transfer instruction

Calcalist presented age 55 as the proposed dividing line between groups. Globes described an age threshold still to be determined. The reports therefore do not establish that everyone under 55 is already scheduled to transfer on a particular date, or that this division is final.

Length of membership remains a significant question. According to Calcalist, the proposal does not clarify how years of payments by policyholders in the middle generation would translate into rights under the new framework. Another question is how coverage for the older group would be funded once it is closed to younger entrants. These are central elements of the arrangement, not merely technical details before launch.

Health fund insurance and the long‑term care benefit are separate

Alongside group long‑term care insurance, the National Insurance Institute provides a long‑term care benefit. This is a different program with its own eligibility conditions and assessment process. A proposal to change insurance through health funds should therefore not be assumed to change the National Insurance Institute benefit automatically.

For a family trying to identify whom to contact, the starting point is to establish which coverage is involved: ask the insurer or health fund about the group policy, and the National Insurance Institute about its long‑term care benefit. Both use the term "long‑term care," but the responsible organization and conditions differ.

What you can check now

Instead of drawing personal conclusions from a headline about a future proposal, gather the documents for your existing insurance: insurer name, enrollment date, premium, benefit payment period in the event of a claim and eligibility conditions. Anyone handling a relative's affairs can use this information to ask focused questions.

A decision to cancel a policy or change coverage requires checking individual terms and the consequences. Reporting on the proposal does not replace that review. Anyone who currently needs an eligibility assessment or to file a claim should check the existing process, not assume a future proposal supplies new coverage.

The details that will determine the plan's effect are the final age threshold, how rights are preserved, funding sources and the implementation date. Until these are established in a binding arrangement, the publication should be read as a proposal to change the system, not as notice of a change already made to a policy.