Financial Planning Skills Test, Grade 3 | Practical Social Insurance and Public Pension Cases
1 / 100.0s
Problem 1
A person insured through the Japan Health Insurance Association paid insured-treatment cost sharing for treatment on January 31 and again on February 1. Household aggregation and the multiple-application rule are disregarded.
Which is the most appropriate way to aggregate the costs when considering High-Cost Medical Expense Benefits?
View explanation
High-Cost Medical Expense Benefits are assessed using insured-treatment cost sharing paid within the same calendar month. January 31 and February 1 are in different months despite being consecutive dates, so each month is compared separately with its ceiling. This differs from the medical expense deduction for income tax, including in its aggregation period and purpose.
Problem 2
A person insured through the Japan Health Insurance Association has a planned hospital admission next month for insured treatment and knows that the payment at the counter will be high.
Which is the most appropriate way to limit the advance payment at the counter to the applicable monthly ceiling?
View explanation
When high insured-treatment costs are known in advance, the patient can consent to ceiling information being provided through a My Number health insurance card, or present a Certificate of Eligibility for Ceiling-Amount Application, to limit the eligible counter payment. The medical expense deduction is an income-tax measure, not a procedure that directly limits payment at the time of treatment.
Problem 3
An employee missed Monday and Tuesday because of an illness unrelated to work, but returned to work on Wednesday. The employee then remained unable to work for treatment from Thursday through Sunday. Assume the other payment conditions, including those concerning remuneration, are met.
Which treatment of the waiting period and first potentially payable day for Injury and Sickness Allowance is most appropriate?
View explanation
The allowance requires three consecutive days during which the employee cannot work because of treatment. Working on Wednesday breaks continuity with Monday and Tuesday, so the count restarts on Thursday. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday complete the waiting period, and Sunday may be payable as day four if the other requirements are met.
Problem 4
An employee became unable to work on Friday because of an injury unrelated to work and used paid leave that day. Saturday and Sunday were company holidays, and the employee was still unable to work on Monday and received no pay for Monday.
Which assessment of the waiting period for Injury and Sickness Allowance is most appropriate?
View explanation
Paid leave and company holidays such as Saturday and Sunday may count toward the three-day waiting period when the employee cannot work because of treatment; remuneration during the waiting period does not control whether a day counts. Friday through Sunday are therefore three consecutive days, and Monday may be payable if the remaining conditions are met.
Problem 5
An employee received Injury and Sickness Allowance for eight months for one illness, returned to work for four months, and then became unable to work again because of the same illness. Assume it continues to be treated as the same illness.
Which treatment of the possible payment period after the second absence is most appropriate?
View explanation
The maximum for the same illness is 18 months in cumulative payable periods from the initial payment date. The eight paid months have been used, but the four months worked and not paid do not consume the cumulative maximum. Returning to work neither removes the remaining period nor creates a fresh 18-month maximum for the same illness.
Problem 6
An employee had been continuously insured through the Japan Health Insurance Association for two years and met the conditions for Injury and Sickness Allowance through the day before retirement because of an illness unrelated to work. The employee nevertheless worked on the retirement date to hand over duties.
Which assessment of continued Injury and Sickness Allowance after retirement is most appropriate?
View explanation
Continued benefit after loss of insured status requires not only at least one continuous year of insured status before retirement, but also receipt of the allowance or satisfaction of its conditions when insured status is lost. Working on the retirement date defeats that condition, so two years of insured status alone is insufficient.
Problem 7
A person insured through the Japan Health Insurance Association stopped working 42 days before the expected delivery date and received no salary. The actual delivery occurred five days after the expected date.
Which description of the period covered by Maternity Allowance is most appropriate?
View explanation
If delivery occurs after the expected date, the overdue period from the expected date through actual delivery is also covered by Maternity Allowance. The delivery date belongs to the prenatal side, and the 56 postnatal days begin on the day after actual delivery. The original 42 prenatal days are not reduced by the number of overdue days.
Problem 8
For the same day of leave, an insured person meets the conditions for both Maternity Allowance and Injury and Sickness Allowance. The daily amounts are JPY 6,000 for Maternity Allowance and JPY 6,800 for Injury and Sickness Allowance.
Which coordination of benefits for that day is most appropriate?
View explanation
Maternity Allowance is paid when the eligible periods overlap, but if the daily Injury and Sickness Allowance is higher, the insured person may claim the difference as Injury and Sickness Allowance. The two benefits are not paid in full simultaneously; here they are coordinated to a total of JPY 6,800 per day.
Problem 9
A person born in 1965 is entitled at age 65 to both the Old-Age Basic Pension and Old-Age Employees' Pension. The person has no disability or survivors' pension entitlement and is not subject to an in-service payment suspension, and wants to receive the employees' pension at 65 while deferring only the basic pension until 67.
As of August 2026, which explanation of deferred pension receipt is most appropriate?
View explanation
The Old-Age Basic Pension and Old-Age Employees' Pension may be deferred separately. The ordinary increase is 0.7% per month, so 24 months produces 16.8%, and the increased rate continues for life. It is the Special Old-Age Employees' Pension that cannot be deferred, not the ordinary Old-Age Basic Pension.
Problem 10
A 45-year-old self-employed person is a Category I insured person under the National Pension and is not a student. The person's and spouse's prior-year incomes are below the applicable standard, but the income of the household head living with them exceeds it. The person is considering contribution deferment because payment is difficult.
Which explanation of National Pension contribution deferment is most appropriate?
View explanation
For contribution deferment between ages 20 and 49, the prior-year incomes of the applicant and spouse are assessed, but the household head's income is not. An approved period counts toward the qualifying period for the Old-Age Basic Pension, but does not increase its amount unless contributions are paid later. Later payment is possible within ten years, distinguishing approved deferment from both simple nonpayment and full payment.