1 / 35

Do Non-Institutional Long-Term Care Services Reduce Medicaid Spending?

Do Non-Institutional Long-Term Care Services Reduce Medicaid Spending?. Steve Kaye Mitch LaPlante Charlene Harrington. Funded by National Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Research Grant H133B031102. PAS Center research on HCBS costs. HCBS saves money…

fawzi
Download Presentation

Do Non-Institutional Long-Term Care Services Reduce Medicaid Spending?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Do Non-Institutional Long-Term Care Services Reduce Medicaid Spending? Steve Kaye Mitch LaPlante Charlene Harrington Funded by National Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Research Grant H133B031102

  2. PAS Center research on HCBS costs • HCBS saves money… • Kitchener, M., Ng, T., Miller, N., & Harrington, C. (2006). Institutional and community-based long-term care: a comparative estimate of public costs. J Health Soc Policy, 22(2), 31-50. • Adding up all public expenditures, HCBS saves $44,000 per participant (2002 $) compared to institutional care.

  3. PRELIMINARY

  4. PAS Center research on HCBS costs • HCBS doesn’t cost much… • LaPlante, M. P., Kaye, H. S., & Harrington, C. (2007). Estimating the expense of a mandatory home- and community-based personal assistance services benefit under Medicaid. J Aging Soc Policy, 19(3), 47-64. • Community Choice Act (aka MiCASSA) would cost $1.4–3.7 billion/year, not the $13–25 billion of CBO estimate, minus any cost savings.

  5. Reaction: That’s nice, but… • Individual cost savings don’t necessarily mean program savings • How big is the “woodwork effect”? • Not enough to show that a program is affordable • Need to show cost neutrality or savings • We wondered: Have states with thriving HCBS programs controlled total LTC costs better than other states?

  6. Our approach • Examine annual state Medicaid expenditures for nursing homes, ICF/MR, home health, personal care plan, and HCBS waivers • Source: CMS 64 & 372 reports from Burwell et al. • Separate costs for people with intellectual & developmental disabilities from other disabilities • Combine states with similar spending patterns and examine trends over a decade • Analysis details: See the Health Affairs article.

  7. Population Served Non-MR/DD MR/DD Nursing homes Institutional ICF/MR Residential Setting Waivers exc. MR/DD Personal Care Plan Home Health MR/DD Waivers Non-institutional

  8. Percent of Non-MR/DD LTC expenditures spent on HCBS, 2005 50% 54% 52% 53% 1%

  9. Classifying the states • Low HCBS states: Less than median proportion of spending on HCBS in 2005 • High HCBS states • Expanding HCBS states: Inflation-adjusted HCBS spending more than doubled from 1995 to 2005 • Established HCBS states

  10. Non-MR/DD Classification

  11. Population Served Non-MR/DD MR/DD Nursing homes Institutional ICF/MR Residential Setting Waivers exc. MR/DD Personal Care Plan Home Health MR/DD Waivers Non-institutional

  12. Percent of MR/DD LTC expenditures spent on HCBS, 2005 98% 99% 100% 98% 100% 14%

  13. MR/DD Classification

  14. What happens when states rapidly expand HCBS? • Expanding states have faster spending growth; established states contain spending • Examine states that introduced new or greatly expanded HCBS programs in late 1990s & follow subsequent LTC spending • Non-MR/DD: 9 such states • 15 comparison states w/o big increases • MR/DD: 11 states

  15. Conclusions • HCBS programs do not break the budget • Nearly identical spending for low- and high-HCBS states confirms cost neutrality • States with well-established HCBS programs contained costs better than states with low HCBS • Institutional savings probably not automatic • HCBS expansion increases short-term spending but may cut long-term spending • Serve more people at equal or lower cost

More Related