Long-Term Care

Despite decades of increases in program participation and spending, the disability support infrastructure in the United States and the economic independence of people with disabilities have eroded. Rather than tighten eligibility or reduce program benefits, this issue brief proposes gradual programmatic reforms and evidence-based structural changes to improve the economic status of Americans with disabilities.

This site offers a wealth of information for anyone seeking clarification about the Balancing Incentive Program. It also provides numerous resources States will find useful when pursuing the benefits offered by the Program, including: The Program Application; The Implementation Manual; A user-friendly Work Plan; A user-friendly CSA/CDS crosswalk; Frequently Asked Questions; Webinars; Additional resources on the web; and beyond.

The Affordable Care Act requires the Office of Inspector General to submit a report to Congress evaluating the law’s Nationwide Program for National & State Background Checks on Direct Patient Access Employees of Long Term-Care (LTC) Facilities within six months of the program’s completion. OIG recently conducted a survey of LTC provider administrators, & asked them about current practices regarding background checks on potential employees, & the effects of such programs on the LTC workforce.

The Administration on Aging (AoA) has a new page on its website that highlights program and funding opportunities within the Affordable Care Act that relate to the mission and vision of AoA and the Aging Network. Topics covered include Medicare and Medicaid, prevention, and webinars and technical assistance resources.

Many states are undergoing long-term services & supports (LTSS) transformations. The lagging economy & increased demand for publicly funded LTSS are placing pressure on state policymakers to find solutions. As a result, many states either have or plan to implement Medicaid Managed LTSS, with 12 states having existing programs & another 11 with plans for implementation. Many states used the economic downturn as an opportunity to balance services from institutional to non-institutional settings.

Enrollment in MFP continued to grow steadily with 15,818 cumulative transitions to the community as of June 30, 2011, a 33 percent increase from the end of 2010. The states reported 3,722 new transitions during the six-month period from January to June 2011, 9 percent more than in the previous six-month period. The report provides an overview of state MFP grantee progress on key performance indicators and challenges states reported when implementing their transition programs.

State aging & disability agencies are operating in an era of state agency reorganization, re-conceptualization of state government, & restructuring of long-term services & supports delivery systems & financing. Key elements driving continued change include the economic environment, ACA implementation, uncertainty in the federal budget particularly with the failure of the Congressional Super Committee, changes in state level leadership, & the 2012 elections.

This brief describes key features of Georgia’s MFP program & highlights recent experiences. Through MFP, Georgia has achieved a 2 percent growth in annual spending on home & community-based services. With the extension of MFP under the ACA, the state plans to continue the program through 2016 with hopes to transition more than 2,000 individuals with the help of over $93 million in enhanced federal matching funds. Also, review brief profiles on several Georgia residents enrolled in the program.

This report examines state policies that are needed to help older adults age in place. These policies include integrating land use, housing and transportation; efficiently delivering services in the home; providing more transportation choices, particularly for older adults who no longer drive; and improving affordable, accessible housing to prevent social isolation.

This policy brief provides information on Washington, DC and the 37 states that are planning to better integrate care for participants who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. The Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) will allow states to select a capitated model, or a managed fee-for-service model, or they can use both models. Included is a chart explaining the main differences between the two models.