Ahead of the Cabinet’s consideration of the controversial draft for the elder care reform, fierce criticism continues from the Christian Social Union (CSU) within the Bundestag directed at plans put forward by Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU). CSU MP Emmi Zeulner told the professional service “Tagesspiegel Background” that the party insists on modifications being made during the parliamentary process, stating, “We are confident parliamentarians.” She added that changes would “definitely happen” during the negotiations in the Bundestag.
The trained nurse, Zeulner singled out two main elements of Warken’s concept for criticism: the planned 30 percent cut in pension contributions for relatives who provide care, and the intended extension of the subsidies based on length of stay for personal out-of-pocket payments in institutional care. She noted that if residents could no longer cover these personal costs, the local municipalities would have to step in, but these local governments are already operating at their “financial breaking point.” She described these specific points as being “difficult to swallow.” The CSU’s local group has shown a strong consensus on this matter, confirming that the party stands united on this issue.
Furthermore, the CSU politician opposed the proposal that partners of care recipients should be required to quickly sell privately owned residences to finance their loved one’s care. She also rejected calls to lower the income threshold when considering the income of children who assist with the costs of care home stays. Maintaining the current annual exemption of €100,000 for this purpose is crucial and should not be changed. However, in reviewing the income thresholds, the CSU politician suggested a simpler administrative approach for the municipalities-future cases could simply require a straightforward query to the tax office.
The CSU also found common ground with the SPD regarding the demand for a financial balance between statutory and private care insurance. According to Zeulner, “No one has yet answered the question of why we need two systems for care,” adding that while the benefits are identical, the risks are not. She stressed that there must be “at least a load balance” implemented.
