臺灣以房養老方案執行之經驗 —「公益型」與「商業型」模式之探討

Abstract

臺灣以房養老先後推出「公益型」與「商業型」兩種模式，雖然相較其他國家發展的時間尚短，但已累積相關之執行經驗。為探究兩模式的主要差異、過去的執行經驗、推動困境、制度爭議，及老年者真實的申貸考量與困難，本研究採用質性研究取向，以半結構式訪談蒐集資料，訪談的對象包括臺北市公益型以房養老實驗方案的承辦人員，及銀行以房養老業務之行員，並分析相關之文件資料。\n 歸結上述服務提供方的經驗與觀察，「公益型」以房養老主要面臨預算限制、福利資格門檻過高、缺乏統一的專責單位、缺乏法源依據之困境；而「商業型」方面，子女不同意申辦、找不到通知義務人、非單獨持有房屋、民眾對貸款金額不滿意與民眾尚不了解以房養老為其主要的困境。此外，抵押權年限的規範、申貸者往生後其配偶的居住問題、通知義務人之設定三者為制度上的爭議點。老年者之申貸動機方面，除了基本生活開支的需求外，不願尋求子女提供生活費用、籌錢聘請看護或入住安養中心、提升生活品質、避稅的遺產規劃等皆為可能之動機。由此，本研究建議應修改法令使以房養老不受抵押權年限限制，在未修法之前，銀行應於契約中確保未來延長貸款之保障，此外，可適度放寬通知義務人之規定、考量申貸者死亡後配偶之居住問題，以及讓「商業型」以房養老連結更多社福資源，以期待能發展出更臻完善的以房養老制度。

Taiwan has launched two models of reverse mortgage (RM), i.e. “welfare” and “commercial” models. Although the period of RM development in Taiwan is relatively shorter than in other countries, there has been some experience in implementation. In order to explore the main differences between the two models, experience and difficulties in implementation, disputes in institutional design and the consideration and obstacles of the elderly in applying for RM, this study adopts qualitative research methods and uses semi-structured interviews to collect data. The interviewees include staff involved in the experimental RM program in Taipei City and staff of banks that offer RM programs. Moreover, this thesis also collects and analyzes documents related to the implementation of RM. \n\n Summing up the experience of the providers of RM programs, the main difficulties of “welfare” model include budget constraints, excessively high threshold in participating in the program, lack of an integrated agency to implement RM and legal sources. With regard to the “commercial” model, the main difficulties are: heirs do not agree to apply for RM, difficult to find obligors of notification, without sole ownership of the house, dissatisfactions of applicants with the amount of loans and lack of understandings of RM. In addition, controversial issues of RM include the regulation on the longest period of mortage, the residence issue of spouse after the death of RM applicants and the setting of obligors of notification. Regarding the motives of the elderly to apply for RM, apart from the demands for basic living expenses, other motives include reluctance to receive living expenses from childen, raising money to hire caregivers or stay in a nursing home, promotion of life quality and tax avoidance. Therefore, this study suggests that the regulations on the longest period of RM should be extended and banks should ensure the extention of RM before the amendment of regulations. In addition, the rules on obligor of notification may be appropriately relaxed. The bank should consider the housing problem of applicants’ spouse after the death of RM applicants. Finally, the “commercial” model could connect more social welfare resources for the elderly to develop a better RM system.