Tag Archives: home and community-based services

Potential impact of COVID-19 on continuing care retirement community mortality and morbidity

The health and long-term care industries, including continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), were among those most directly and adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

From the early stages of the pandemic, it was apparent that COVID-19 exerted a disproportionate impact on elderly individuals, residents of nursing homes, and those with certain preexisting health conditions. These demographics overlap significantly with the CCRC population, making the COVID-19 pandemic an especially challenging and uncertain time for CCRCs.

In this article, Milliman’s Andrew Dalton and Gregory Zebolsky discuss the impact that COVID-19 could have on actuarial assumptions relevant to CCRCs. They also develop and present representative population flow projections for a hypothetical community with three levels of care, focusing on how the pandemic may change experience over the next several years relative to pre-pandemic expectations.

How has COVID-19 affected home and community-based services in the U.S.?

Millions of Americans with chronic or disabling conditions rely on home and community-based services (HCBS) to meet daily self-care and independent living needs. These services enable participants to remain safely in their homes and communities rather than moving to a nursing home or other institutional setting. State Medicaid programs are the largest payer for HCBS across the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges and had a significant impact on the provision of HCBS.

In this paper, Milliman’s Jill Herbold and Nick Johnson discuss some challenges faced, actions taken, and the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic may have on HCBS for years to come.

Complex/high-risk patient targeting case study

Many health systems globally are introducing new care models that purport to replace expensive, and often clinically unnecessary, acute inpatient care with more primary and community-based services. This article by Milliman’s Lalit Baveja and Tanya Hayward explores a clinic-based community intervention designed to improve access and quality of care for high-utilising, high-risk patients over the course of three years.




ACA implications for home and community-based services

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) modifies Section 1915(i) of the Social Security Act to help states expand home and community-based services (HCBS) through Medicaid. States exploring this option need to understand the financial implications related to the implementation of Section 1915(i).

Milliman’s Rob Damler and Marlene Howard discuss several features and considerations of the 1915(i) state plan option in their Contingencies article entitled “Medicaid and the ACA.” Here is an excerpt:

One of the most significant modifications to Section 1915(i) was the addition of Section 1915(i)(7), which allowed states to define target populations for the delivery of the HCBS benefit package. This section waives the comparability requirement established in the DRA version of Section 1915(i). The CMS final rule proposed that the parameters for the target populations be defined by “diagnosis, disability, Medicaid eligibility groups, and/or age.”

The waiver of the comparability requirement allowed states to do the following:

• Define multiple target populations for 1915(i) and tailor multiple HCBS packages that could be individually allocated to each population; and
• Vary the amount, duration, and scope of a single 1915(i) service between various target populations.

…The ACA also expanded eligibility for the 1915(i) state plan option to individuals with incomes up to 300 percent of the Supplemental Security Income Federal Benefit Rate. If states choose to use this income eligibility definition for a 1915(i) service package, individuals must meet an institutional level of care as well as the needs-based criteria defined by the state. If states maintain the income eligibility threshold of 150 percent of FPL as established by the DRA, individuals do not have to meet an institutional level of care.