National People's Congress Deputy Zhou Yanfang: Suggests making efforts in four areas to further promote the implementation of the voluntary guardianship system

As the 2026 Two Sessions are underway, National People’s Congress Deputy and Director of the China Pacific Insurance Strategic Research Center (ESG Office) Zhou Yanfang has offered suggestions to further promote the implementation of the advance care planning (ACP) system.

To actively respond to the realities of an aging society, Articles 33 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly establish the adult advance guardianship system at the national legal level. Pilot programs in economically developed regions like Shanghai and Beijing have achieved initial success. However, nationwide, the advance guardianship system is still in its early stages of exploration. Challenges such as insufficient social awareness, incomplete supporting systems, limited responsible entities, and poor interdepartmental coordination hinder its implementation. It is urgent to summarize experiences from pioneering regions, strengthen overall planning, and comprehensively promote the system’s effective rollout.

Zhou Yanfang believes this is a necessary response to the deepening aging and changing family structures, which can help ease social governance pressures at the grassroots level and support the development of a multi-tiered elderly care service system. It also reflects respect for the elderly’s right to self-determination and safeguards their personal dignity.

However, Zhou also points out that there are still issues in implementing the advance guardianship system, mainly in the following areas:

1. Legal basis for advance guardianship needs improvement, and local guidance lacks uniformity.

Currently, the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly provide general principles for adult and elderly advance guardianship, but specific implementation rules and judicial interpretations have not been issued. There are no detailed, procedural, and operational supporting systems, leading to inconsistent standards and irregular practices across regions, severely limiting the system’s applicability. For example, Shanghai issued the “Several Opinions on Promoting the Implementation of Elderly People’s Advance Guardianship System (Trial)” in December 2025, forming a relatively complete local framework. Other regions generally lack comparable policies and guidelines.

2. The system relies heavily on notary agencies, with insufficient roles for grassroots organizations and social forces.

In practice, advance guardianship depends heavily on notary institutions for legal validation. Due to complex procedures and high responsibility risks, nearly 45% of notary agencies nationwide have never handled advance guardianship cases. Service resources are concentrated mainly in a few municipalities and provincial capitals. While neighborhood (village) committees are assigned relevant responsibilities in the Civil Code, unclear division of responsibilities, funding, and operational standards hinder their ability to effectively witness, supervise, and provide interim guardianship. Additionally, the number of professional social guardianship organizations is severely limited; for example, in Shanghai, only three organizations are engaged in advance guardianship, creating a stark mismatch between supply and demand.

3. Lack of a unified record-keeping and cross-departmental information-sharing mechanism leads to information silos.

Currently, there is no nationwide or provincial authoritative platform for registering and archiving advance guardianship agreements. Information exchange among notary offices, civil affairs, courts, medical institutions, neighborhood (village) committees, and financial institutions is disconnected, forming “information islands.” This results in guardians having difficulty proving their authority in emergencies, affecting rights protection, and can cause conflicts over guardianship rights. Courts or grassroots organizations may appoint guardians without full knowledge, leading to contradictions between advance and statutory guardianship, undermining the system’s authority.

4. Public awareness and trust are both low, and the statutory supervision mechanism is largely absent.

Most elderly people and their families lack understanding of the concept, procedures, and legal effects of advance guardianship. Surveys show only 29% of the public are aware of the system beforehand; among those aware, 79% are willing to choose advance guardianship, indicating a significant gap between demand and awareness. The system’s operation heavily depends on supervision, but current laws do not establish a rigid oversight mechanism. The boundaries of guardians’ powers, supervising entities, performance procedures, and accountability standards are unclear. Society is concerned about risks such as property infringement and neglect, and the absence of a supervision mechanism has become a major bottleneck to full implementation.

To further promote the implementation of the advance guardianship system, Zhou Yanfang proposes the following suggestions:

First, summarize and promote experiences from pioneering regions like Shanghai, and accelerate the development of supporting systems.

A comprehensive top-level design is essential for full implementation. It is recommended to systematically review the pilot experiences and best practices in Shanghai, Beijing, and other regions, and push for the rapid development of supporting policies for elderly advance guardianship. When local laws and government regulations are not yet mature, normative documents such as implementation opinions can be issued to set a framework for basic matters. As practical experience accumulates, management measures and guardianship regulations should be gradually developed. Relevant government departments can clarify operational standards for key steps such as agreement notarization, property escrow, and emergency medical authorization through detailed rules or guidelines.

Second, establish a multi-party collaborative enforcement mechanism, and fully leverage grassroots organizations and social institutions.

Notary agencies play a crucial role in advance guardianship, ensuring legal validity and authority of agreements. However, their limited coverage makes it difficult to meet nationwide demand. It is necessary to integrate resources and foster collaboration. On one hand, activate the effectiveness of grassroots organizations by incorporating advance guardianship into community grid management systems. For example, Shanghai’s Putuo District has issued guidelines for neighborhood (village) committees’ participation in advance guardianship affairs, clarifying their responsibilities in screening, legal education, witnessing agreements, mediating disputes, and providing temporary guardianship. On the other hand, accelerate the cultivation and standardization of professional social guardianship organizations. It is recommended that civil affairs departments develop industry standards, specify qualification requirements, staff training, service norms, and fee standards. Building a collaborative framework of “grassroots organizations + notary agencies + social organizations” will create synergy and help bridge the last mile of implementation.

Third, establish a comprehensive record-keeping system and explore digital and intelligent technologies to support the entire process.

Protecting the legal rights of the protected persons accurately is key to effective implementation. It is suggested that civil affairs departments, in cooperation with judicial, health, financial regulatory, and court agencies, build a unified national or provincial platform for registration and sharing of advance guardianship information. This platform should enable the entire cycle of agreement creation, modification, revocation, capacity assessment, and guardianship initiation and termination to be centrally managed and dynamically updated. Additionally, leverage big data and information technology to promote intelligent, standardized operation of the system—from agreement signing and capacity evaluation to guardianship enforcement and risk warning. Establish clear standards for information access and use, granting authorized institutions such as medical facilities, public security, courts, and financial institutions online verification rights, enabling cross-departmental, cross-sector trusted sharing of guardianship information to address issues like proof difficulty and conflicting rights from the source.

Finally, strengthen legal publicity and build a comprehensive supervision system.

Incorporate advance guardianship into national legal education and elderly care initiatives. Use community elderly services and mainstream media to conduct targeted legal education, dispelling misconceptions. Simultaneously, establish an integrated supervision system combining administrative, judicial, and social oversight. For administrative supervision, recommend setting up guardianship supervision units within municipal and district civil affairs departments, staffed with legal and social work professionals, and implementing annual inspections. For judicial oversight, suggest establishing court review mechanisms for major matters such as large property transactions and medical plan changes. For social supervision, recommend cultivating third-party guardianship assessment agencies and developing scientific, controllable evaluation systems. Rigid supervision will strengthen trust and effectively safeguard the legal rights of the elderly.