Results tagged “health reform” from Caring For Our Parents

The national long-term care insurance program called the CLASS Act will be included in the Senate Democratic leadership health reform bill that is expected to be released within the next day. The decision by Democratic leader Harry Reid to add CLASS to the bill is a huge victory for backers of the measure, which is already in the House-passed bill. However, many steps remain before the idea becomes law.

CLASS would provide a government-sponsored basic cash benefit to those needing long-term care services at home, in assisted living, or in a nursing facility. All workers would be automaticaly enrolled, although they'd have the right to opt-out of coverage. The design of the policies, including premiums and benefits, would be left to the Secretary of Health & Human Services.

The proposal is strongly opposed by many private long-term care insurance companies.   

It was a good day for supporters of the CLASS Act, the national long-term care insurance program that has been on the edges of the health reform debate. A version of the measure was included in the House Democratic reform bill introduced today by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The decison all but assures the long-term care proposal will be included in the final House bill.

However, CLASS is running into new roadblocks in the Senate, where a consensus bill is still being written by Democratic leaders and President Obama. Key Democrats, including Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have turned sharply critical of the plan, especially because Congress would count premium revenues as a way to help pay for broader health reform. At the same time, big private long-term care insurance companies are stepping up their efforts to derail CLASS. One strategy: Delay passage by calling for a government study of long-term care financing needs.

The CLASS Act would make government long-care insurance available to all workers over 18. No one could be excluded because of pre-existing conditions. All workers would be automatically enrolled, although they'd have the option to opt-out.

Those with disabilities would receive an average minimum cash benefit of $50-a-day for life once they showed an inability to care for themselves. The premium for this coverage is uncertain. In earlier versions, the proposal set a target of an average premium of $65-a-month. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office assume premiums would average around $120-a-month.    

However, the House version gives broad authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to design policies, including flexibility to set both premiums and benefits. For the poor, Medicaid would continue to provide assistance beyond the CLASS benefit. Others could purchase private insurance to supplement the government policies.

In recent weeks, nearly all advocacy groups for seniors and the disabled have lined up behind the measure. They see it as a major step towards giving those who need long-term care, either at home or in nursing homes, important financial resources. But the insurance lobby is hardening its opposition, fearing CLASS coverage would further damage an alrready-weak private market.  

I spent yesterday morning at a Kaiser Family Foundation panel discussion on the CLASS Act, the national long-term care insurance program being considered as part of health reform. The panelists, who included Senate Health Committee aide Connie Garner and a number of advocates for long-term care reform, were upbeat about the possibility that CLASS will be included in a final health bill. However, the idea still faces opposition from big private insurers.

Connie said the proposal continues to evolve, to satisfy both substantive and political concerns. However, its basic form remains unchanged: People would be able to participate as soon as they begin working, enrollment would be automatic, but they could choose to opt-out. Once they need care, they'd be eligible for an average minimum cash benefit of $50-a-day for life. The benefit would increase both with care needs and inflation.

It looks like the premium would now average about $120-a-month, twice what sponsors of the bill had first hoped. However, neither premiums nor benefits would be fixed in the legislation. Instead the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be given broad flexibility to design coverage.

While people would have to be actively working to be eligible for the insurance (a provision actuaries say is important to keep premiums relatively low), employers would not be required to offer a payroll deduction plan. This exemption could make enrollment complex and hold down participation.

We'll know within the next week or so whether CLASS will be included in the combined Senate bill. If it is, it will be a major step forward for the measure, which is already in the House version of health reform.     

In a bit of surprising news, Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont) added some key long-term care amendments to his health reform bill. The provisions, first proposed by senators John Kerry (D-Mass), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would all make home and community based care more accessible under Medicaid.

Currently, Medicaid is only required to provide long-term care in nursing homes. States provide limited home care services, but in most, the benefits are very limited. The amendments would make more frail seniors and younger people with disabilities eligible for home care, and provide financial incentives for states to expand these benefits.

Baucus also added a separate proposal that would allow hospice patients to receive full Medicare benefits. This three-year demonstration project would make it possible for hospice patients to get both hospice benefits and treatment for their terminal illness. 

Baucus added the changes as the Finance Committee began drafting its version of health reform.  

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that Congress' latest health reform effort does almost nothing to repair our tattered long-term care system.  

The massive health reform bill proposed today by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) touches nearly every part of the health system: Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, hospitals, doctors, you name it. Except for one critical element. The proposal all but ignores the needs of the 10 million Americans who require long-term care, both at home and in nursing facilities, and the 40 million family members and friends who care for them.

In fact, the measure could end up hurting some of the poorest and most frail who rely on Medicaid for the long-term care services. I'll tell you why in just a minute.

The proposal does include some new incentives for people to buy private long-term care insurance through their workplace. For the first time, it would allow employers to include this coverage in what are known as cafeteria plans. The benefit for workers is they'd be able to pay their premiums with pre-tax dollars. That's a big advantage, especially for the highest earners.

However, the proposal also would cap the amount of a worker's annual pre-tax Flexible Savings Account contributions at $2,000. That means they would have only that amount to pay for health care deductibles, copayments, and other uncovered medical expenses. And it would leave them with very little to pay for long-term care premiums.

Baucus' proposal does not include the national long-term care insurance program known as the CLASS Act, although that idea is included in another bill that was approved over the summer by the Senate Health Committee. It includes only some modest provisions to better coordinate care for those with multiple chronic diseases, and it does nothing for hard-pressed direct care workers such as home health aides.

Finally, the Baucus plan does nothing to encourage states to provide Medicaid long-term care at home rather than in nursing facilities. And here is where it may make it even more difficult for those at home to get help from Medicaid. The Baucus plan would greatly expand the number of young mothers and children eligible for Medicaid. But states must pay half of those costs, and they would be only partially reimbursed by the feds. That means their Medicaid budgets, already stressed to the breaking point, will be squeezed even more. And where will they cut to make up their new costs? Home care expenses for the elderly and disabled--a costly benefit states are not required to provide--could well be a prime target.

Health reform will go through many more steps over the next few months. And long-term care reforms remain on the table. But by ignoring this critical issue today, Baucus certainly didn't help those efforts.