Oregon Court Orders DHS to Restore In-home Care- An Object Lesson in a State's Lack of Commitment to Home and Community Based Care

When state and federal agencies proclaim support for aging in place and home based care, there is reason to doubt their resolve.  A recent example can be found courtesy of a court case against the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS).  A court has ordered Oregon DHS to restore previous levels of in-home care services, at least temporarily, to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a federal lawsuit contesting recent cuts.

DHS determines every year how many hours of in-home care someone with an intellectual or developmental disability is eligible to receive.  Disability Rights Oregon, an advocacy organization that filed the suit last week, objects to how those decisions are made, saying the process lacks clarity.

The lawsuit alleges that under federal law, the agency violated the civil and due process rights of Oregonians receiving these services, as well as the Medicaid requirement that the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services must provide such services “as needed.”  Last year, the agency implemented a new assessment method on a rolling basis, which the lawsuit argues resulted in a reduction of in-home care hours for many people — although the amount of help they needed at home had not changed.  Not all people receiving in-home care services have yet felt reductions, because the changes have been implemented gradually.

In 2013, after the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and a specific federal funding option called the Community First Choice Plan that provided funds so people with disabilities could access community-based services, there were significant increases in those eligible for in-home care — and in costs to the state.  In 2015, Oregon legislators agreed to pay for the unanticipated costs in the upcoming budget cycle, but asked DHS to come up with a way to contain the rate of cost growth in the future. That became the method that advocates are now contesting in court.  Cost of care

The Department of Human Services makes up a significant chunk of the state’s approximately $20 billion general fund budget, which lawmakers are busy trying to balance in the face of an approximately $1.6 billion shortfall.  Reducing in-home care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by 30 percent, as DHS had planned prior to the court order, would have saved the state’s general fund a comparatively paltry  $6 million in the upcoming two-year budget.  

Cost considerations, i.e., saving $6 million of a $1.6 billion shortfall, could send people with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently being treated at home to foster care, group homes, and skilled nursing facilities.  To put this in context,  a state audit found that Oregon Health Plan caseworkers were “knowingly” extending benefits to illegal immigrants and unqualified people. Also, 4,400 people who were above the income limits still received benefits. The total cost to Oregon taxpayers is $4.3 million a year.   Further, an Oregonian survey helped to unveil $1.4 billion in uncollected debts to the state. It appeared that most state agencies have a collection problem and the actual cost may be even higher than $1.4 billion. Among the examples was a business that bought $50,000 of supplies made by blind workers under the State Commission for the Blind, for which they never paid. 

Home and community based care, it would seem, is a too-easy target for money-grubbing administrators.   

This article is heavily reliant upon the article found here.

Aging In Place- Pre-hospice Care Helps Patients Stay Home

Among the growing number of tools and resources aiding consumers to "age in place" is "pre-hospice." Kaiser Health News recently published an encouraging article, Pre-Hospice" Saves Money By Keeping People At Home Near The End Of Life, that well explains the concept and its promise. 

The article first discusses the practical impediments consumers face in an effort to age in place:

"Most aging people would choose to stay home in their last years of life. But for many, it doesn’t work out: They go in and out of hospitals, getting treated for flare-ups of various chronic illnesses. It’s a massive problem that costs the health care system billions of dollars and has galvanized health providers, hospital administrators and policymakers to search for solutions."

According to the article, Sharp HealthCare, a San Diego health system, devised the pre-hospice program called Transitions as a way to fulfill patients' desire to stay home, keep them out of the hospital, provide necessary care in their home, and reduce the costs of care. Social workers and nurses from Sharp regularly visit patients in their homes to explain what they can expect in their final years, help them make end-of-life plans, and teach them how to better manage their conditions, illnesses, and diseases. Physicians track their health, and eliminate unnecessary medications and treatments.  Unlike hospice care, patients don’t need to have a prognosis of six months or less to live, and they receiving curative treatment for their illnesses - not just relief from symptoms.

Transitions was among the first of its kind, but now there are several such "home-based palliative care" programs around the country. They are part of a broader push to improve people’s health and reduce spending through better coordination of care and more treatment outside of hospitals. Palliative care focuses on relieving patients’ stress and pain as their health declines, and aims to maintain quality of life. For people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, dementia, and pulmonary and heart failure, the plan is to provide patients palliative care and then transition naturally to hospice care when necessary.  The 2014 report “Dying in America,” by the Institute of Medicine, recommended that all people with serious advanced illness have access to palliative care. 

Transitions is one of the many good ideas that has come from Kaiser Permanente. Nearly 20 years ago, Kaiser created a home-based palliative care program in California and later in Hawaii and Colorado. Studies by Kaiser and others found that participants were far more likely to be satisfied with their care and more likely to die at home than those not in the program. One of the studies found that 36 percent of people receiving palliative care at home were hospitalized in their final months of life, compared with 59 percent of those getting standard care. The overall cost of care for those who participated in the program was a third less than for those who didn’t. A more recent study confirms these conclusions. 

The article also discusses that although the need for such services is increasing, "not enough trained providers are available. And some doctors are unfamiliar with the approach, and patients may be reluctant, especially those who haven’t clearly been told they have a terminal diagnosis." 

Of course hanging over ever the entire health care industry is what becomes of the Affordable Care Act.  The Affordable Care Act  established new rules and pilot programs that reward the quality rather than the quantity of care, such as “accountable care organizations,” networks of doctors and hospitals that share responsibility for providing care to patients. These organizations also share the savings when they rein in unnecessary spending by keeping people healthier. Innovations such as these are helping to make pre-hospice and home-based palliative care a more viable option.

Preparing for Medicare Open Enrollment

Oct. 15 marks the start of Medicare's seven-week annual election period, when current beneficiaries can add, drop or switch prescription-drug plans and make other coverage changes.

In Medicare, individuals must choose one of two paths: original fee-for-service Medicare, or a federally subsidized Medicare Advantage plan, which typically operates like a health-maintenance or preferred-provider organization. Many who opt for traditional Medicare also purchase a private "Medigap" policy, as well as a separate prescription-drug policy, to patch holes in their coverage.

In recent years, Medicare Advantage plans have gained in popularity, in part because, when compared with a Medigap policy, they generally cover a wider array of benefits, often including prescription drugs and dental care. Many also charge lower premiums, but require members to use the plan's network of providers.

The Affordable Care Act has sparked fears that Medicare Advantage plans, which cover about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, will raise premiums, reduce benefits and pare their networks of doctors and hospitals. The reason: Under the law, Medicare will reduce payments to Medicare Advantage plans by some $156 billion by 2022, to bring per-person payments in line with those of traditional Medicare.

Citing the ACA, the nation's largest Medicare Advantage insurer, UnitedHealth Group, has cut an estimated 10% to 15% of the doctors and hospitals from its nationwide network. Consumer advocates say the insurer targeted providers with the sickest and most expensive patients, leaving patients in the middle of treatments in the lurch. The company says the changes enable it to better coordinate care and denies that patients in the middle of treatments are adversely affected, extending exceptions to members in active treatment.

Because some of the cuts occurred at times of the year when patients are unable to switch plans, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) recently introduced legislation that would bar insurers from dropping providers outside of Medicare's annual open-enrollment period.

Because Medicare Advantage can change annually, it's important to examine your options during open enrollment, from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7.  You should call your providers to make sure they still participate in your plan.  You can also use the "Plan Finder" tool at medicare.gov to compare premiums, copayments and deductibles for Part D prescription-drug plans in your area.

During open enrollment, you can switch to either a Medicare Advantage plan or to traditional Medicare, which allows you to see any doctor who takes Medicare. From Jan. 1 to Feb. 14, Medicare Advantage participants may switch to traditional Medicare.

Medicare beneficiaries whose claims are denied should also know that, despite rising backlogs in Medicare's appeals system, two recent lawsuits indicate that those who press their cases have a good chance of success. The procedure differs depending on whether you're in traditional Medicare, a Medicare Advantage plan or a Part D prescription-drug plan. Typically, each appeal can be heard five times, the last time in a federal court.

Since 2010, success rates in the first two rounds of appeals of denied claims for home health-care coverage have plunged to 5% or less, according to a class-action lawsuit the nonprofit Center for Medicare Advocacy in Willimantic, Conn., filed on June 4 in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut against the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the agency that administers Medicare.

The center's director of litigation, Gill Deford, told the Wall Street Journal that consumers who want a "meaningful review of their Medicare claims" should continue to the third round of appeal—before an administrative law judge—where odds of success jump to 40% or more.

The average wait for a decision from an administrative law judge is 398 days, up from 95 days in 2009, according to HHS. In a federal lawsuit filed Aug. 26, also in Connecticut, the Center for Medicare Advocacy seeks to force the government to take steps so that appeals can be decided within the 90 days the Medicare statute requires.

When appealing, ask your doctor for a letter explaining why you need the treatment in question. Those who go before an administrative law judge may benefit from retaining a medical or legal advocate. Most State Health Insurance Assistance Programs provide free counseling.

This post is based upon a Wall Street Journal article which can be read here.

Is Health Care Reform Hazardous To Your Health?

Regardless of your position on the Affordable Health Care Act, it is at one time both fascinating, and troubling, to witness the scope and pace of the major transformations taking place in the medical system. The transition to greater utilization of Skilled Nursing Facilities for rehabilitation following expiration of Medicare Benefits has caused much concern, for example.

Now,  John C. Goodman, one of the nation’s leading thinkers on health policy suggests bluntly that some of these changes are hazardous to your health.  Mr. Goodman's opinions are worthy of consideration. He is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the widely acclaimed book, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. The Wall Street Journal calls Dr. Goodman "the father of Health Savings Accounts."

Dr Goodman, in an article entitled, "Is Obamacare Hazardous to Your Health," and published 8/15/2014 in Forbes, writes:

The Obama administration wants to change the practice of medicine.  Marcus Welby is out. Working in teams is in – especially in large practices owned by hospitals. Along the way, doctors are being subjected to pay-for-performance protocols and other forms of managed/integrated/coordinated care. 

How is all that working?  Not well at all.

A new study, which will soon appear in Health Affairs, showed these unexpected results: Practices with 1-2 physicians had 33 percent fewer preventable hospital admissions than practices with 10-19 physicians. 

I say “unexpected” because virtually everyone in the health policy community has bought into the idea that good medicine is medicine practiced in teams – rather than solo – and it is medicine that centers on medical homes  and follows protocols where physicians are rewarded for the “value they create” not the number of things they do. “Value” of course is determined by some bureaucracy somewhere. 

When I say “everybody” has bought into this idea I really mean everybody who is anybody except for … well … except for doctors who actually treat real patients. Whereas two thirds of doctors worked in private practice a few years ago, more than half of all doctors work for hospitals today. Medicare pays doctors more for the same procedures if billed as a hospital employee than if billed directly by a solo practitioner, perhaps to encourage the demise of private practice. 

Yet the Health Affairs study couldn’t be clearer. Practices owned by hospitals had 50 percent more preventable admissions than practices owned by physicians (regardless of size). 

The larger practices as well as hospital-based practices made greater use of medical homes, were more likely to be rewarded by pay-for-performance formulas and did better on performance measures that focused on inputs, not outputs. So why were the results so bad?

For the full article, click here.

Medicaid Expansion Signups Hindered By Fear of Estate Recovery

A fear that the government will seize their house after they die is causing some people to not sign up for expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A long-standing provision in Medicaid law allows states to recoup Medicaid costs by putting a claim on the home or other assets of older deceased Medicaid recipients.

For more information, click here to travel to my newsletter article!

In 1993, Congress passed a law requiring that states try to recover from the estates of deceased Medicaid recipients whatever benefits they paid for the recipient's long-term care. But the law allows states to go further and recover all Medicaid benefits from individuals over age 55, including costs for any medical care, not just long-term care benefits.

The ACA gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to individuals and families with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, and so far 26 states have taken this option. Now that more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid under the ACA, there are potentially more people who may have their houses (or other valuable assets) sold after they die to pay off Medicaid debt. People subject to this estate recovery would have to live in one of the 26 states, and their state would have to be recovering the costs of all Medicaid benefits, not just long-term care. Still, there are protections: the state cannot take a house if there is a surviving spouse, a child under age 21 or a child of any age who is blind or disabled.

According to the Washington Post, the realization that their house might be subject to estate recovery is giving some with low incomes second thoughts about signing up for Medicaid, even though not doing so will likely mean going without any insurance at all. ACA plans bought in the regular marketplace are not subject to estate recovery, but individuals who qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage are not able to get a subsidy to buy coverage in the marketplace. If someone doesn't want to be subject to estate recovery, there are two options: buy a plan from the marketplace without a subsidy, or buy no insurance at all.

In order to encourage people to sign up for Medicaid, both Oregon and Washington have changed their rules to allow estate recovery only for long-term care debt. In addition, advocates are asking the federal government for clarification on whether Medicaid estate recovery will apply to people who purchase expanded Medicaid coverage.  A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told the Post, "We recognize [the] importance of this issue and will provide states with additional guidance in this area soon." 

For the Washington Post article, click here.

For more on Medicaid's estate recovery rules, click here.