Modern Healthcare: Patient advocates say Medicaid per capita caps would demolish long-term care for elderly (7/11/2017) Justice in Aging’s Jennifer Goldberg discusses the harmful consequences of the recent Senate bill aimed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. “Over two-thirds of Medicaid spending is considered optional under federal law. If the federal government starves Medicaid through per capita caps, optional services will be the first to be cut.” Optional services include home-based care and adult day care.
California Healthline: California Lawsuit Aims To Protect Spouses Of Disabled From Financial Ruin (7/10/2017) Justice in Aging, along with partner advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit against the State of California for failing to implement a Medicaid federal spousal impoverishment law meant to protect patients and their partners from becoming impoverished while paying for in-home care. Plaintiffs seek to compel the State of California to implement the law back to January 1, 2014, to notify individuals who potentially were eligible for the protections of their rights, and to reimburse them for any out-of-pocket expenses they paid that should have been free.
Governing.com: As Demand for At-Home Care Grows, States Debate How to Pay for It (7/2017) Justice in Aging’s Kevin Prindiville discusses the increasing funding need for at home and in-community-based programs as older Americans opt to stay home. “The trend is shifting at every level to care at home and in community-based settings. People are increasingly asking for and expecting this.”
These anecdotes are not only true; they’re common experiences for LGBT older adults. And they’re all in our ground-breaking report, LGBT Older Adults in Long-Term Care Facilities: Stories from the Field. Published in 2010, the report is still making waves in policy circles. In honor of Pride 2015, we’re re-releasing a fresh version of the report for those who may have missed it, along with its accompanying video.
On May 27, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a proposed rule to update, for the first time in over ten years, the Medicaid managed care regulations. The “massive,” “milestone,” “sweeping new regulations” are receiving a lot of attention in the health policy world. But what do they mean for older adults?
When someone says “sign here, here, and here” and doesn’t explain your choices and doesn’t let you read anything, do you feel like you’re making an individualized plan for your long term health care or signing for a package delivery?
When a nursing home loses its certification, who makes the decision on where the residents move? Is there a law in place protecting their right to say goodbye to friends and gather their personal belongings before they’re transferred to a new facility?
Who should be allowed in on your health care planning meetings? Just you and the health plan? Your adult child? Your partner? Your long-time health aide?
Person-centered planning encompasses the idea that the individual is at the heart of all decisions about services, supports, and care. When people are given the opportunity to choose where, how, and by whom they receive their care; and make their own decisions about mealtime, bedtime, which activities they engage in, and generally direct their own lives to the greatest extent possible, they have better health outcomes, more independence, and lead more fulfilling lives.
But there is still a lack of clarity about what exactly person-centered planning is and how to make sure it is delivered. All too often, people receive bare-bones or one-size-fits-all service plans, instead of the personal, tailored care everyone deserves.
Our new report, A Right to Person-Centered Care Planning analyzes how well states are implementing a 2014 rule that creates the right to person-centered care planning for Medicaid consumers of Long-Term Services and Supports. This report, created with support from the John A. Hartford Foundation, is a tool for health care providers, plan administrators, and advocates to help them understand the scope of the rules and be able to identify when they sometimes fall short. And, in case you missed it, there’s an accompanying webinar available here.
REPORT - ISSUE BRIEF
The Problem: Can You Spot the Legal Violations in this Job Announcement?
California’s assisted living policy is surprisingly behind-the-times. 30 years ago, the assisted living system was created in California for residents without significant health needs. Today, assisted living residents are much sicker than they used to be, but there’s no solid quality of care standards for the facilities to follow to meet this need within the law. This leaves facilities in the precarious position of trying to meet residents’ health care needs, like for medication administration, sometimes by finagling their own solution like hiring a “med tech” or “med aide” –terms not defined in California law and without state education and testing standards.
Read the full issue brief here, including a quick quiz on the surprising legal violations found in many assisted living job announcements.
REPORT - ISSUE BRIEF
The Problem: A False Choice Between Community Living and Access to Health Related Services
“The false choice between the social model and health care expertise contradicts the goal of aging in place: to age with choice and independence, along with access to needed services.”
This policy issue brief, by Justice in Aging attorneys Eric Carlson and Fay Gordon, is the second in a series exploring how California’s current assisted living system addresses residents’ health care needs, and how the system could be modified to better serve residents. The first, Pretending that Medication is Always Self-Administered, focused on how some residents need their medication given to them, but, since the workers are not supposed to be administering medication, they must pretend that the medication was self-administered, a state of affairs that doesn’t serve workers or residents.
This latest brief highlights residents’ expectations for health and social services, and recommends that California reject the false choice between community living and access to health-related services by incorporating appropriate health care expertise into the assisted living model.