Author
Nina Stankovič
In a world where the microphone often goes to those who can wrap a topic in humor, provocation, or personal stories, it seems almost impossible that someone would invite a minister onto a podcast to talk about long-term care reform. And yet, we should. Because this is one of the most important reforms of our social system.
After more than two decades of waiting, the Long-Term Care Act has finally been passed—and this year, it’s fully coming into effect. This marks the formation of the fourth social pillar, alongside healthcare, pensions, and unemployment insurance.
This reform is not abstract—it’s about helping people whose independence has been compromised by age, illness, or injury. If we’re lucky, we’ll all get there—whether as users, caregivers, or loved ones. And we all hope to grow old at home, with dignity, for as long as possible.
Topics like long-term care rarely make the headlines. They don’t go viral or get turned into memes. But in recent weeks, we’ve noticed a shift—even traditional media are increasingly dedicating space to explanations and in-depth reporting. That matters.
Not because everything is perfect—but precisely because it isn’t. This reform is extensive, being rolled out gradually, and requires coordination across systems. Yet it is a process with a clear goal and lasting impact.
Yes, there’s a shortage of staff. This isn’t just a Slovenian issue—it’s a Europe-wide challenge. And that’s exactly why the system needs to be built thoughtfully, reliably, and with the understanding that big changes don’t happen overnight. They require persistence and a steady compass.
Yes, journalists must ask questions and point out flaws. But long-term care isn’t just another political story—it’s a societal project. We’re talking about thousands of people: older adults, the ill, their families, caregivers, and future users. That’s why we need journalism that knows how to explain—not just criticize.
Critique is meaningful only if it leads to improvement—not to cynicism and apathy.
When people don’t understand information, they don’t trust it. And when trust falls, so does willingness to engage. That’s why media are also part of this reform—not just as commentators in the stands, but as a bridge between the system and society. As those who can explain, make sense of, and—when needed—help shape change.
Long-term care primarily concerns a generation that isn’t particularly tech-savvy. That’s why information needs to be clear, accessible, and free of bureaucratic jargon. People don’t need legal explanations—they need practical, everyday answers. What are they entitled to? Where and how can they claim it? When can they expect changes?
That’s why the free helpline 114 is a welcome tool. It’s one way to keep people informed. But television and radio remain the key media channels for the older population. Through them, we can reach those who will feel the effects of the reform first. But only if the information is presented respectfully, clearly, and with an understanding of their daily reality.
Long-term care is also a test of our ability to communicate public policy without sensationalism. To make systemic changes understandable. To put people—and their stories—at the center, not legal clauses.
A dignified old age is not just a topic for the future. It’s a topic for today. If we can explain it, we can achieve it.
Even if it never goes viral.
Yes, journalists must ask questions and point out flaws. But long-term care isn’t just another political story—it’s a societal project. We’re talking about thousands of people: older adults, the ill, their families, caregivers, and future users. That’s why we need journalism that knows how to explain—not just criticize. Critique is meaningful only if it leads to improvement—not to cynicism and apathy.