Health Affairs Publishes Report on New Models for Long-Term Services and Supports

Coinciding with the presentation yesterday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the journal Health Affairs released a report  by Melissa Favreault, Howard Gleckman, and Richard W. Johnson, titled “Financing Long-Term Services And Supports: Options Reflect Trade-Offs For Older Americans And Federal Spending.”  Noting the history of weak buy-in for existing long-term care insurance products, the authors’ study, funded by the SCAN Foundation, AARP and LeadingAge, looks to future alternatives.  From the abstract:

To show how policy changes could expand insurance’s role in financing these needs, we modeled several new insurance options. Specifically, we looked at a front-end-only benefit that provides coverage relatively early in the period of disability but caps benefits, a back-end benefit with no lifetime limit, and a combined comprehensive benefit. We modeled mandatory and voluntary versions of each option, and subsidized and unsubsidized versions of each voluntary option. We identified important differences among the alternatives, highlighting relevant trade-offs that policy makers can consider in evaluating proposals. If the primary goal is to significantly increase insurance coverage, the mandatory options would be more successful than the voluntary versions. If the major aim is to reduce Medicaid costs, the comprehensive and back-end mandatory options would be most beneficial.

The full article is linked here. Several related pieces are also on the Health Affairs website.  Much to read and evaluate here and helpful for those planning spring Elder Law courses.