由於臺灣人口高速高齡化，過去二十年政府曾思考要學習高齡國德國與日本開辦長期照顧保險。但德、日制度重大差別爲德國選擇給付「現金」，日本則因爲婦女團體反對，故捨「現金」而僅給「服務」。臺灣長保法草案學習德國設計「現金給付」，引起婦女、勞工與老人團體的反對，憂心多數家庭會選擇領錢，而照顧負擔仍舊落在女性家屬身上。立法過程中，筆者察覺臺灣鮮少探討德國長保「現金給付」之制度特色與實施成效。此點是否能獲得科學證據支持？本研究以系統性方法探索，發現臺灣在學習德國長保政策所建構之中文知識，與國際英文知識間存在顯著差異。

Taiwan has been enthusiastically learning elderly-care policies from abroad, as its population is rapidly aging. It has even drafted a long-term care insurance (LTCI) bill-following what super-aged countries like Germany and Japan did decades ago. While Germany chose ＂cash benefits,＂ Japan opted for ＂service-only,＂ owing to feminist groups' opposition. When Taiwan attempted to adopt the German LTCI model, feminist, labor, and elderly advocacy groups criticized the government intensely. They worried that if cash payments were available, most Taiwanese would opt for them, rendering no alleviation of burdens on family caregivers-mostly women. During Taiwan's legislative debates, however, there seemed to be little discussion on the program characteristics and consequences of the original German cash benefits. The present study sets out to explore this phenomenon systematically and finds significant differences and omissions exist in the knowledge about the German LTCI between the scholarly literature published in Chinese and English languages.