Data

Quantitative and qualitative data are pulled together for a summary of the enrollment and implementation experiences of state DMIE projects through December 2008. The Kansas, Minnesota, Texas, Hawaii and District of Columbia programs are profiled and then a national summary and implications are presented. Another report tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2010 will analyze whether the program improved outcomes for individuals and evaluate the implementation and phase-down activities.

This program (HWD) is Washington’s implementation of Medicaid Buy-In. The report evaluates HWD’s impact on employment and earnings, Medicaid coverage, and receipt of food stamps by comparing enrollees to traditional Medicaid participants. They found significant outcome improvements for the HWD group in several categories.

Nearly every state provides at least some funds for services for low-income older adults or people with disabilities who have too many assets to qualify for Medicaid. AARP reports on how much each state spends on both multiservice and single-service programs. It also compares funding sources, eligibility criteria, services, cost management strategies, consumer direction, and other characteristics.

Medicaid currently fills in the gaps in Medicare’s benefit package for 8.8 million enrollees with limited income and resources (dual eligibles). Shifting aspects of this financing to the Federal government could save states money and create opportunities for better care management and coordination. Data tables show how much each state could save if certain financing roles were shifted.

New York has 12 long-term care (LTC) programs: two residential and ten community-based. Data from all are compiled here with the goal of informing policymaking and addressing challenges to the state’s Medicaid LTC programs. An overview of current programs and a snapshot of data such as enrollment and spending are also presented. The first chapter takes a look at the whole system and four other chapters offer data on the largest programs in terms of people served and dollars spent.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics began publishing this data series in January 2009. It is gathered through the Current Population Survey, which began identifying persons with a disability age 16 and older in the civilian noninstitutional population in June, 2008. These materials provide information on comparisons with other data sources, variability of the data, and the types of data available. Additionally, links to historical data and alternate formats are given.

In 2004, a task force reviewed Veterans Affairs’ Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VRE) program and recommended focusing on employment through a Five-Track service delivery model and increasing program capacity. Here, the GAO looks at how employment has been impacted, the extent to which steps have been taken to improve capacity, and how program outcomes are reported. The authors recommended adjusting financial incentives and to improve strategic planning and transparency of reporting.

The study compares monthly income for people receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to local median incomes and Fair Market Rent rates for modest units across the U.S. In 2008, there were 219 housing markets in 41 states where recipients of SSI, people with long-term disabilities and virtually no assets, would have to pay 100% of their income for a modest one-bedroom unit. Ten years ago there were 44 such markets in 13 states. Policy recommendations are given to reverse this trend.

The Chartbook documents trends in enrollment, earnings, employment, medical expenditures, and consumer experiences and satisfaction since Kansas began its Buy-In program. Summarized are survey and administrative data that document increased earnings and taxes paid over time by participants, decreased medical expenditures for those continuously enrolled, and improved quality of life and financial status.

Three key issues affecting the understanding of low rates of successful employment outcomes for people with mental illness are explored. These are: lack of a common definition of successful employment; lack of clear, objective, standardized data; and differences among states and programs in measuring client characteristics. Peer critiques to the data and analysis are provided along with tables comparing employment outcomes by state.