Operators of elderly care facilities who filed a lawsuit protesting the government's tightened staffing criteria for caregivers and suspension of the additional staffing incentive have lost in the first instance.

The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 5 (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-won) recently ruled against the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by 12 entities, including social welfare corporations operating elderly care facilities, seeking the cancellation of a ministry notice against the Minister of Health and Welfare.

In January of last year, the Ministry of Health and Welfare revised its official notice to strengthen the caregiver-to-resident staffing ratio for elderly care facilities from "one caregiver per 2.3 residents" to "one caregiver per 2.1 residents," while simultaneously abolishing the additional staffing incentive for caregivers.

Elderly care facility operators protested the decision by filing an administrative lawsuit.

They argued that facilities unable to deploy additional caregivers due to the tightened standards face either benefit cost reductions for rule violations or are forced to discharge existing care recipients to avoid violations.

They also argued that the reduction in labor costs paid to elderly care facilities by the National Health Insurance Service makes it difficult to achieve goals such as improving service quality and enhancing caregiver treatment, while severely infringing upon the private interests of facilities and workers, making the measure unfair.

However, the court sided with the Ministry of Health and Welfare, ruling that the notice was lawful.

The court stated, "This notice aims to provide high-quality long-term care services, alleviate the heavy workloads of caregivers, and stabilize finances to establish a sustainable long-term care insurance system amid the continuous increase in care recipients due to aging. Because it is an appropriate means to achieve these objectives, the legitimacy of the purpose and the appropriateness of the means are recognized."

The court added that maintaining the additional staffing incentive as claimed by the plaintiffs "would require more long-term care insurance finances, which would ultimately fall as a burden on our entire society, and it cannot be easily concluded that this is unconditionally desirable."

(Photo: Yonhap News)