Weiquanwang Policy and Regulations Analysis: Ministry of Civil Affairs Seeks Public Comment on the National Standard “Classification of Elderly Care Institutions” — Standards on Paper Cannot Stop Favor Trading and the Failure to Uphold the Bottom Line in Elderly Care

Special Commentator: Zhang Haoran

On October 28, 2026, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a notice seeking public comment on the newly revised national standard “Classification of Elderly Care Institutions.” Revised from the previous “Classification and Rating of Elderly Care Institutions,” the standard specifies that ratings of elderly care institutions follow the principles of voluntary application, objectivity and impartiality, and standardized procedures, and are assessed comprehensively across four dimensions: environment, facilities and equipment, operational management, and services. The standard divides elderly care institutions into five levels, from Level 1 to Level 5. A higher level indicates stronger overall service capacity, and the corresponding rating marks use a five-pointed star design. Rating certificates are valid for three years; institutions must apply for reassessment three months before expiration, and the existing rating automatically lapses if they fail to apply on time. The deadline for submitting comments is December 28, 2026. (For details, see:

https://www.mca.gov.cn/aofront/publishopinion.jsp?themeId=2115266330880929794 )

Analysis: Classification of Elderly Care Institutions: Standards on Paper Cannot Stop Favor Trading and the Failure to Uphold the Bottom Line in Elderly Care

The Ministry of Civil Affairs is seeking public comment on the national standard “Classification of Elderly Care Institutions” to clarify levels of elderly care services with a uniform benchmark. Its purpose is to protect older people’s right to know and right to choose, strengthen the institutional support for elderly care as a basic human right, and accord with the traditional ethic of “respecting the elderly in one’s own family and extending that respect to others.” The system’s original intent deserves full affirmation.

But a well-intentioned institutional design can never withstand the distortions of real-world implementation. Once this rating system takes effect, the first thing it will encounter is not a virtuous cycle of improved service quality, but the combined erosion of unwritten rules in a society governed by personal connections and local fiscal constraints. Ultimately, those harmed will be the survival dignity and human rights of the most vulnerable older people.

First, ratings corrupted by personal connections directly undermine fairness in elderly care services. Any field where ratings confer endorsement and policy benefits leaves room for the rent-seeking of power. Ratings of elderly care institutions are directly tied to pricing authority, subsidy amounts, and public trust in the sector, making them natural targets for deals in which interests are traded. Institutions with connections and the willingness to cultivate them can secure high ratings even if their facilities fall short and their care has deficiencies; private institutions that focus on their work and lack influential backing may have their ratings deliberately lowered, no matter how good their service reputations are. The “star ratings” presented to older people and their families will no longer prove service quality; they will have become trophies of connections and capital. Older people may choose an institution based on false rating endorsements and pay high prices without receiving equivalent services. Their right to know and right to fair access to quality elderly care are hollowed out, which is itself an open disregard for the human rights of older people.

Second, the silencing of public institutions under tight fiscal constraints breaches the human rights bottom line of providing a safety net in elderly care. Public elderly care institutions are the last line of defense for people who are especially poor, have disabilities, or receive subsistence allowances; they are the most basic vehicle for safeguarding the human rights of older people. But the reality is that many local governments are under fiscal strain. Public welfare homes are short of funds; their facilities are old and dilapidated, they face a major shortage of care workers, and their wages are not enough to retain staff. Their service capacity is inherently inadequate, putting them at a natural disadvantage in ratings. The more an institution bears responsibility for providing a safety net, the less likely it is to receive a high rating; the less likely it is to receive a high rating, the harder it becomes to secure policy resources and additional funding. This traps it in a vicious cycle of “the poorer, the weaker; the weaker, the worse.” In the end, high-level titles will mostly go to high-end market-oriented institutions, while ordinary and vulnerable older people can only make do in low-rated public institutions. The stratification of elderly care resources will deepen, and the dignity of older people at the bottom will be continually squeezed.

More cause for concern is the current standard’s clear tendency to emphasize ratings while neglecting oversight. During the three-year rating cycle, there is no routine dynamic inspection or mandatory exit mechanism. Many institutions go all out to meet the indicators before receiving a rating, then immediately cut costs and reduce services afterward, with some even neglecting care or mistreating older people. A rating becomes a “golden signboard” that lasts indefinitely, without corresponding binding constraints. In the end, older people who lack bargaining power bear all the risks and costs.

From a human rights perspective, the right to elderly care is a basic right that does not depend on social class or background. Every older person is entitled to dignified, predictable elderly care services. The original purpose of the rating system was to make this right clearer and more accessible. But when implementation is watered down and the safety net lacks the resources to support it, the standard changes in character: instead of protecting older people, it becomes a yardstick that amplifies inequality and sorts people by class.

The virtue of respecting the elderly has never been something that can be put into practice through a classification standard alone. Unless the chains of interest behind ratings are broken and the funding shortfalls in grassroots elderly care are addressed, even the most detailed national standard will be doomed to make a big splash and little difference. Upholding the human rights bottom line in elderly care has never depended on how impressive the star rating looks, but on how firmly implementation is enforced and how robust the safety net is.