S

Parent Care True-Cost Calculator

4.00

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Parent care grade & caregiving service matching
→
Step 2 Gap between care-grade benefit limits and actual costs
→
Step 3 Hidden cost comparison impossible when choosing home care vs. facility after grade assessment

Problem

Workers aged 45–55 whose parents (70s–80s) have received a long-term care grade face a critical decision between home-based services (visiting care + day/night care) and facility admission, but comparing actual costs requires gathering information from multiple sources: National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) benefit limits, copayment rates, non-covered items like meals, snacks, and special activity fees, plus transportation. The NHIS website only shows benefit limits, and facilities do not disclose non-covered charges until contract signing — so a decision with a 500,000–1,000,000 KRW/month (~$375–$750/mo) cost difference is made on gut feeling.

Solution

Users enter their parent's care grade (Level 1–5) and residential area, and the tool displays a comparison table of actual monthly out-of-pocket costs — including non-covered items — for various home-care combinations (e.g., visiting care 3x/week + day/night care 5x/week) versus facility admission. Average non-covered item prices from local facilities are crowdsourced to reveal the 'true cost.'

Target: Ages 45–55, salaried workers whose parents in their 70s–80s have received or are about to apply for a long-term care grade assessment, and who need to discuss cost-sharing with siblings
Revenue Model: Basic comparison free. Detailed comparison Report of 5 local facilities for 5,000 KRW Per Transaction (~$3.75). Referral fee from facilities when admission inquiries are connected.
Ecosystem Role: Consumer
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
5.0/5
M Market
4.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
4.0/5
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 (70%)

Tech Complexity
29.3/40
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 (61/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
16.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
12.0/15
Solo Buildability
8.0/10
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 [low]
Dashboard