B

Long-Term Care Cost Scenario Planner

3.50

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Parent care cost optimization
→
Step 2 Cost simulation by care grade
→
Step 3 Long-term cost comparison for home care vs. facility care transition timing

Problem

Adults in their mid-50s caring for parents in their 80s are currently using home-based care (3x/week visiting care + day care), but as their parents' cognitive function gradually declines, they consider transitioning to facility care. However, calculating the combined out-of-pocket costs, meal fees, additional caregiving charges, and long-term care insurance benefit limit changes for facility admission requires checking the National Health Insurance Service, individual facility websites, and district offices separately — and projecting cost changes 3–5 years out is nearly impossible.

Solution

Users enter their parent's current care grade, services in use, and approximate monthly income/assets on a web interface, and the system simulates monthly costs over 1–5 years across three scenarios: continuing home care, transitioning to facility care, or a hybrid approach. Each scenario breaks down out-of-pocket costs, long-term care insurance benefits, and non-covered items separately, with automatic recalculation when care grades change.

Target: Ages 48–58, caring for parents aged 70–90, dual-income or economically active, at the decision point of transitioning from home care to facility care
Revenue Model: Basic simulation (current grade basis): Free. Grade change scenarios + 5-year long-term projection + regional facility cost comparison Report: 7,000 won (~$5.25) Per Transaction. Monthly care cost tracking Subscription: 3,900 won (~$2.90)/month.
Ecosystem Role: Supplier
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
4.0/5
U Urgency
4.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
3.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (65%)

Tech Complexity
24.0/40
Data Availability
20.8/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (54/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
5.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [medium] Backend [medium] Data Pipeline [medium]
Dashboard