Long-Term Care Provisions Would Be Repealed in Fiscal Cliff Bill

[PoliticAverse]

The bill to avert the fiscal cliff would repeal a suspended program in the 2010 health care law that has long been targeted by Republicans.

The Department of Health and Human Services suspended implementation of the long-term care insurance program in October 2011, but Republicans still have pushed for full repeal. Most Democrats resisted, saying the program needed to remain on the books so it could be improved and replaced.

But the fiscal cliff bill (HR 8) would fully repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act and put a commission on long-term care in its place. Including the provision is a victory for Republicans, who have been concerned that the administration could bring the program back in a form they would oppose.

...

The commission, made up of 15 appointed members, would be tasked with developing a plan to establish, implement and finance a comprehensive system for long-term care. If a majority of the members vote in favor of a plan, the group’s recommendations would be sent to Congress. A summary of the bill said the commission provision “has no scoring implications.”

Read the rest at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/long_term_care_provisions_would_be_repealed_in_fiscal_cliff_bill-220447-1.html

[Swede Atlanta]

1. Politics involves compromise....

I would be okay with this change......

Long-term care is one of many "elephants in the room" we have to face. While Social Security and Medicare will have their own challenges, the prospect of generations of seniors living into their 80s and 90s and requiring nearly 24 hour care should scare the hell out of us.

My father progressed in his care. First it was assisted living that was, while not cheap compared to him living in his own home, not a total economic disaster. When he required memory care including help with transfer, hygiene, etc. the cost skyrocketed. He had a long-term care policy but because he wasn't technically in a nursing home (may as well have been) we only got about 1/2 of the daily reimbursement. As it was I was paying about $6500.00 PER MONTH for his care. His long-term care policy covered about 1/3 and the rest had to be covered, as best we could, by his pension and SS. Luckily he had saved and invested well so paying for his care was not a matter of real concern.

But magnify that across hundreds of thousands of Americans. We are on the precipice of an economic disaster that will dwarf anything we have ever faced unless we change the way we provide elder and palliative care.

These need to be community-based programs. We need to keep people in their homes. We need to train and pay caregivers to allow individuals to remain in their homes. We need community nursing and other programs.

Where is that in the national dialogue? Nowhere and we will pay the price sooner than you can think.

[JDPriestly]

3. Excellent post. Most people could not afford $6500 per month.

Most don't even make that much for their total salary.

Long-term care is the big, big problem. They usually use up the patient's Social Security and then supplemental Medicaid for that care as I understand it. That is one of the reasons I so strongly oppose the chained CPI. It would make it very, very hard for those younger, mostly working people whose parents need nursing home care of constant care.

[mythology]

5. I concur with JDPriestly

this is a great post and is something that really needs attention.

My grandfather developed full blown Alzheimer's because in spite of being in relatively poor health (significantly overweight, ate poorly, had a pacemaker and couldn't undergo anesthesia) he lived many years with Alzheimer's. We got lucky in that his third wife was alive for most of that period and she had enough money to pay for 24/7 in home care, but once she died and we were relying on his Social Security, Medicare and pension income/coverage, it was a lot harder. Fortunately none of his descendants cared about an inheritance, so most of his remaining money went into that.

But how do you even begin to try to budget for something like that over the long term? Nobody thought he would live 10 years with his health issues and Alzheimer's. If he hadn't had a wealthy third wife, how much of his retirement money would have been spent in those first 5 years and how much would he have had left to pay for things when it got really bad?

[woo me with science]

2. Old people aren't profitable.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Well, it was suspended, as I recall, because it was too costly.

So the bad was in writing something that couldn't be done, to begin with.

At least there's a commission to look at it for the future. But I hate to hear about another commission. People who will get paid to try to do something, and even if they do, at great cost to us, Congress probably won't act on what they come up with. If they come up with anything.

I'd prefer that it would've stayed in, but as a compromise....it's not a huge loss.