Options to Expand Access toHome and Community-BasedServices: HB 594 Analysis

January 28, 2008

Purposes of HB 594

• Analyze options to increase access to home and community-based services

• Review practices of other states

• Determine the costs associated with different options to alter the level of care in Medicaid long-term care services

• Study whether savings in the long run offset higher costs in the short term

Process in the HB 594 Study

• Met with stakeholder groups on August 17 and August 24

• Devised the scope of the HB 594 study based on stakeholder input

• Retained UMBC to conduct the study• Submitted an Interim Report on October 1• Submitted the Final Report on December 31

Other States Studied

• Seven other states, and the District of Columbia, were studied

• States were selected based on various criteria– Six jurisdictions were selected because they

altered their level of care criteria or process (DC, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington)

– Two states were selected at the specific request of stakeholders (Florida, New York)

Among the nine states, Maryland Medicaid ranks third in fewest adults in nursing facilities

State Medicaid NF Residents Per 1000Adult Population, 2004

Vermont 8.2Washington 4.9Oregon 3.9New Jersey 7.4Washington D.C. 13.9Michigan 6.6Florida 8.5New York 13.8Maryland 6.5

Among the nine states, Maryland Medicaid ranks next-to-last in adults served in home and

community-based waiversState Home and community-based waivers

Adult Recipients/1000 Population, 2003

Vermont 3.3Washington 6.5Oregon 11.7New Jersey 1.4Washington D.C. 0.6Michigan 1.2Florida 1.6New York 1.5Maryland 0.8

Note: Maryland provides medical day care services through its State Plan. These numbers are not reflected in the estimates above.

Financial Analysis Was Done onThree Options

• Option 1: Liberalize the nursing facility level of care criteria (which also would apply to home and community-based waivers and medical day care)

• Option 2: Offer a slot to everyone on the registry for the Older Adults Waiver and the Living at Home Waiver as of October 2007

• Option 3: Adopt new option under federal Deficit Reduction Act

General Methodology toGenerate Estimates

• Collect all denials under the existing assessment instrument, and re-compute whether the individuals would become eligible under new level of care criteria

• Also, use the results from a survey performed by UMBC in 2006 of certain individuals on Medicaid who live in the community and reported their deficits in activities of daily living

Estimated Costs and People Served under Various Options

Option 1:Liberalize nursing facility level of care criteria

Version A: Liberalize the standard to deficits in two or more activities of daily living (ADL), could serve approximately 3,300 more people at an estimated cost of $64.7 million (in FY 2006 total fund dollars).

Version B: Reducing the qualifying score under Maryland’s current assessment instrument could serve approximately 730 more people at an estimated cost of $15.3 million (in FY 2006 total fund dollars).

Version C: Reducing the score by giving more weight to a cognitive test known as the Folstein Mini-Mental test could serve approximately 270 more people at a cost of about $4.1 million (in FY 2006 total fund dollars).

Estimated Costs and People Served under Various Options

Option 2: Offer a Slot to Everyone on the Older Adult and Living at Home Waiver Registries as of October 2007

Older Adult Waiver: 2,551 new recipients, at a total cost of $68.8 million (in total FY 2006 dollars)

Living at Home Waiver: 542 new recipients, at a total cost of $18.1 million (in total FY 2006 dollars)

Grand total: $ 86.9 million, to serve 3,093 people

Estimated Costs and People Served under Various Options

Option 3: Adopt new option under federal Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)

Description: This option allows a state to provide home and community-based services to existing Medicaid eligibles without requiring these people to meet the nursing facility level of care

Adopting an assessment criteria for the DRA option of either 2 ADL deficits, or meeting a behavioral test of cognitive deficits, is estimated to serve 3,314 more people, at an added cost per person of $10,446 (in FY 2006 dollars), for a total estimated cost of $ 34.6 million (total funds)

Important Caveats

• These estimates do not take into account two types of “woodwork effect”:– Some people currently on Medicaid, such as people

with disabilities in the SSI program, also might qualify under a lower level of care criteria, and we could not estimate the magnitude of this (no data exist)

– Some people might apply for Medicaid for the first time if the criteria are easier to meet

• The outlays in the first year of any change would be lower, due to ramp-up

Washington State Is A Leader In Transforming Its Long-Term Care System

• Washington State altered its nursing facility level of care in 1992

• Washington now serves a significantly increased number of individuals in the community

• On a per person basis, it is less expensive to serve individuals in the community.

• HB 594 asked the Department to study the overall cost impact, however, not the per person cost impact

• Prior to 1992, Washington State was experiencing growth in nursing facility use at the rate of 3% per year

• From 1992-2006, Washington State experienced a reduction in its nursing facility use

• Assuming that the growth rate of nursing facility use continued to grow at 3%, the estimated savings in 2006 is $182 million:– Had it continued to grow at 3% per year, the growth in NF

spending would have been $615 million– The increased expense in home and community-based services

was $433 million– The net savings was $182 million in total dollars in 2006

Assuming Prior Nursing Home Growth Rates, Washington State Saved Money

Assuming National and Maryland Nursing Home Trends, Washington State Incurred A Net

Increase In Expenditures• On a national basis, Medicaid-paid nursing facility days only grew at

a rate of .8 % per year from 1992-2006, not 3% per year– Using this figure, Washington State spent an estimated $111

million in extra funds in 2006, because the added $433 in the community only resulted in a reduction (from this estimated baseline) of $322 million in nursing facilities

• In Maryland, Medicaid-paid nursing facility days actually fell at a rate of .93% per year from 1992-2006– Using this figure, Washington State spent an estimated $290

million in extra funds in 2006, because the added $433 in the community only resulted in a reduction (from this estimated baseline) of $143 million in nursing facilities

Conclusion

• The HB 594 report and analysis discussed several options for expanding home and community-based services, with participation of key stakeholders and through the independent analysis of UMBC

• The Department continues to evaluate variations on the options outlined in the HB 594 report

• This work will enable the Legislature and others to evaluate options for expanding community-based services