Skip to main content

Where Do We Draw the Line on Paying for Home Health Care?


A relatively modest Medicare proposal put forward by President Obama in his 2014 budget may help to rekindle the debate about how we pay for long term care services in the coming years.  But where will we draw the line about our own responsibilities and those of the government?

This is because the President’s proposal is simple and easy to understand, and it will affect nearly all of us sooner or later.

He has asked for a $100 Medicare co-pay, starting in 2017, for five or more home care visits that are not preceded by a stay in an institution, according to a story this week in Kaiser Health News.  KHN added that “home care is one of the few areas in Medicare that does not have cost sharing.”

So should it?

While there is cost-sharing throughout most of the Medicare program – hospital deductibles, nursing home benefits, drug payments, and physician co-pays, for example – home health care has always been something of a special case.

A century ago, home care was pretty much all there was.

But as American medicine transformed itself during the first half of the 20th century, home health care nearly disappeared.   According to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) historical data, by 1960 the total amount we spent as a nation on home health care was only $57 million, barely a blip in national health care spending. 

CMS also notes that home health care spending still represents a very small share of national health care spending – around 2.7 percent.  In 2011, we spent $74 billion on home care – more than one thousand times what we spent on it fifty years earlier, but still not much in relative terms.  We spent more than ten times that, or $850 billion, on hospital care, and two times that, or $149 billion for nursing home and other residential care.

Hospital spending represents one third of our nation’s health care bill.  And nursing homes have been at the center of our long term care delivery system for at least forty years now.

But things have been quietly changing for Medicare recipients over the last thirty years.  The average inpatient length of stay in hospitals for people over the age of 65 was cut in half between 1980 and 2004.  Nursing homes picked up part of the slack, offering new short-term rehabilitation services in addition to long term care. 

But we gradually turned back to home care to meet many of our care needs.

And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the home health care industry grew rapidly.  Over 839,000 people worked as home health aides in 2012.  This represented an industry growth rate of more than 400% over a quarter of a century.    

The problem isn’t the numbers.  It’s the trend.

An industry that represented a near zero share of our nation’s health care spending as recently as 1971 has tripled its share of our national health care bill since 1981.  It was one-sixth the level of nursing home spending in 1981.  Now it is half.  And that share will represent nearly $150 billion in spending by 2021 – almost 3,000 times what we spent on it in 1961.

That’s enough to get the attention of policy leaders, who don’t want to foot the bill by themselves. 

Some of us think they should not have to do so – we assume we may need long term care some day, and we’ve purchased long term care insurance to cover some of those down-the-road nursing and home care costs.  More of us seem to take the position that we will never need health care – that we will remain healthy and active up to the moment we die.

But the President’s proposal takes the middle ground.  It recognizes that most of us will need and want home health care some day, and that we will be willing to share the responsibility with our government to pay for this.

The President is not alone in seeking cost-sharing for home care.  Greater cost-sharing is a part of every Medicare reform proposal being floated today.  The only question is: where will we draw the line? 

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

Comments

  1. This site is very nice.great and important information of this site.amazing post.I glad to read it and thanks for sharing it....

    muscle pain relief in Canada

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Veterans and Mental Illness

On a sultry June morning in our national’s capital last Friday, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial .   Scores of people moved silently along the Wall, viewing the names of the men and women who died in that war.   Some stopped and took pictures.   One group of men about my age surrounded one name for a photo.   Two young women posed in front of another, perhaps a grandfather or great uncle they never got to meet. It is always an incredibly moving experience to visit the Wall.   It treats each of the people it memorializes with respect. There is no rank among those honored.   Officer or enlisted, rich or poor, each is given equal space and weight. It is a form of acknowledgement and respect for which many veterans still fight. Brave Vietnam veterans returned from Southeast Asia to educate our nation about the effects of war and violence. I didn’t know anything about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I entered the Connecticut Legislature in the late 1970s.   I had only vag

Scapegoats and Concepts of a Plan: How Trump Fails Us

When a politician says he has “concepts of a plan” instead of a plan, there is no plan. And yet, that’s where we are with Donald Trump, nine years after he first launched a political campaign promising to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better, nearly four years after he had four years to try to do just that. And fail. Doubling down during Tuesday’s debate, he claimed he had “concepts of a plan” to replace Obamacare. Really? He’s got nothing. In fact, he sounds just like Nixon sounded in 1968, when he claimed he had a “secret” plan to get us out of Vietnam. That turned out to be no plan at all (remember “Vietnamization?”) and cost us seven more years there and tens of thousands of lives. The Affordable Care Act, about which I wrote plenty in this blog a decade or more ago, wasn’t perfect. But it was a whole lot better than what we had before it – and anything (save a public option) that has been proposed since. Back then, insurers could deny coverage because of pre-exi

Anxiety and the Presidential Election

Wow. Could the mainstream media do anything more to raise our anxiety levels about the 2024 election? And diminish or negate all the recent accomplishments in our country? Over the past three-and-a-half years, our nation’s economy has been the strongest in the world. Unemployment is at record lows, and the stock market is at record highs. NATO – which last came together to defend the United States in the aftermath of 9/11 – is stronger than ever. Border crossings are down. Massive infrastructure improvements are underway in every state. Prescription drug costs are lower. We finally got out of Afghanistan – evacuating more than 100,000 U.S. citizens and supporters – with just a handful of deaths. Inflation – which rose precipitously in the aftermath of the pandemic – has come back down, and prices in many areas have even begun to decline. And yet, all the media commentators can talk about these days – and they are not “reporters” when they are clearly offering opinions to frame the