By: Vida Kocjan
The money is being collected, the services do not exist, and the system is both a moral and financial fiasco. That is the short summary of long‑term care under Golob’s model.
Long‑term care in Slovenia has, nearly two years after the adoption of the law and half a year after the start of contribution collection, become one of the clearest examples of the gap between political promises and reality.
Although all rights are formally in force, the system does not work in practice for most people. Money is being collected quickly and in large amounts, while services – especially home‑based care – remain inaccessible, limited, or merely symbolic.
The media initially reported cautiously. But by the end of 2025, some outlets, including Finance, had become sharp and consistent critics of the system, describing it as: they collected the money, but they cannot, or will not, provide the services.
Contributions flow, the system stands still
Since 1 July 2025, all employees, employers, and pensioners have been paying the mandatory long‑term care contribution. It is one of the rare cases in recent history where the state introduced a levy first and only then attempted to build a functioning system. Available data show that by October 2025 around €110 million had been collected, by the end of October already €162 million, and by the end of 2025 the amount was expected to exceed €200 million.
How was this money spent?
In October 2025, we reported that €110 million had been collected for long‑term care, but not a single euro had been paid out. The Minister for a Solidary Future, Simon Maljevac (Levica, also a founder of the 8 March Institute), insisted that “long‑term care is alive,” but data from the Health Insurance Institute (ZZZS) showed otherwise. It turned out that providers had not issued a single invoice (because no services had been delivered), meaning there were no payments for new services and no systemic home‑care provision. This was not merely a delay in the start‑up phase but a structural void: a system that collects money without having anyone to pay for services.
Where did the money go? Into old holes
In November, we learned that half of the collected long‑term care funds had already been spent. But none of it went toward long‑term care services or new expenditures. The data were even more alarming: €162 million collected, €74 million spent. The money went to reimburse the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute (ZPIZ) for the allowance for assistance and care (PMP). This is an old right from the pension system, now financed, by order of Golob’s government, through the new long‑term care contribution. Whether this is legally sound is another question. As Finance wrote, the new levy is being used to patch up the old system, not to build a new one. Long‑term care is thus not an additional layer of social security but a financial band‑aid covering systemic holes elsewhere.
What about home‑based care: the heart of the law that does not beat?
One of the central goals of the law was home‑based long‑term care, to relieve nursing homes, allow people to stay at home, and reduce institutional‑care costs.
But this part of the system barely exists. It does not function. Finance and other outlets report that e‑care is limited to old pilot projects, while classic home‑based care is unavailable in most municipalities. The reasons: lack of staff, lack of providers, lack of contracts, and an unfinished IT system.
Services still unavailable
On 1 December 2025, all rights under the long‑term care law formally came into force. The date was set by the ministry. Residents of nursing homes were transferred into the new system, but the real effects are far smaller than promised. Bills did not decrease as much as the government predicted, family co‑payments remain high, and home‑based care is still inaccessible for most.
It became clear that the rights exist on paper, but the system cannot translate them into services.
Advertising without a system: €190,000 for an illusion
Another wave of criticism was triggered by the government’s campaign Accessible Long‑Term Care, worth around €190,000, funds spent by the ministry led by Simon Maljevac. It became evident that the government was advertising a system that is not yet accessible to most people and promoting rights that cannot be exercised. It was also confirmed that the campaign served more as pre‑election image‑polishing than as a functioning social pillar.
Long‑term care as a question of dignity
The ethical dimension was highlighted by physician Igor Muževič, president of the Praktik.um union. Muževič warns of the collapse of public healthcare, the neglect of palliative care, and the financial exhaustion of families.
In November 2025, he sharply criticised Prime Minister Robert Golob’s remark about the “misfortune of having living and immobile parents,” calling it cynical and dehumanising. According to Muževič, families are not a “misfortune” but victims of a system without accessible care, forced to sell property and left alone in the hardest moments of life.
He also points to the link between poorly developed long‑term care, underfunded palliative care, and debates on euthanasia or assisted suicide.
A system as an empty shell and a moral debt
By January 2026, the picture is clear: money is being collected, but services are not. The government and ministry claim the system is alive, but for most people it is not alive in practice. Money is being spent on old rights, administration, and campaigns, not on the new services for which the contribution was introduced.
Long‑term care is thus not only an administrative failure but a financial burden without a corresponding service, an ethical problem, and a symbol of a policy that collects money faster than it can help people.
If the system is not quickly and seriously reformed, long‑term care will remain what can only be described as an expensive illusion and an empty promise – paid for by those who need help the most.
Assistance and care allowances, impact on care‑home prices
Assistance and care allowances were part of the pension system, cash benefits for people who needed help with daily tasks such as hygiene, nutrition, and mobility. From July to December 2025, the system overlapped with the old one, and ZZZS paid out the cash benefits. The current government abolished these allowances – for everyone, not only for residents of nursing homes or other institutions. Those in institutions were supposed to be compensated through lower care‑home fees. But what about those not in nursing homes? They are waiting, for decisions. Recent reports show that care‑home bills have decreased. Care‑home fees depend on each resident’s health condition. The old assistance‑and‑care allowances were also tied to this. Under the new system, someone who previously received the highest allowance (over €500) no longer receives it in cash. Instead, their care‑home bill is reduced by roughly the same amount.
In practice, the amounts currently more or less balance out. People are left with roughly the same net cost. This is why claims circulating on social media about drastically lower care‑home bills are misleading.
And what about those waiting for care?
In Slovenia, the situation for those seeking a place in a nursing home remains very limited and complicated, mainly due to lack of capacity and bureaucratic constraints. As of 1 December 2025, all rights formally came into force, meaning residents are being gradually transferred into the new system. But this does not mean waiting lists have disappeared. Capacity remains limited. As of January 2026, waiting times are still several months long, and in some municipalities a year or more. Those waiting often receive only minimal home support (cash benefits or family help), because the home‑care system has not yet been implemented on a meaningful scale.
More expensive services, changed standards
Available data show that most nursing homes significantly increased service prices and changed care standards on 1 December. In practice, this means, for example, more expensive haircuts, shaving, and similar services; and in terms of care standards, instead of two baths per week, now only one. This too is part of the long‑term care policy led by Minister Maljevac with the support of Robert Golob and the coalition.
