The CLASS Act: is it dead or just sleeping?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a voluntary public insurance program for long-term care: the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. In October 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the program would not be implemented because of the high risk of fiscal insolvency. Under the legislative design, adverse selection was a major risk and premiums would have been very high. This article discusses several CLASS Act design and implementation issues, including the design features that led to the decision not to implement the program: the voluntary enrollment, the weak work requirement, the lifetime and cash benefits, and the premium subsidy for low-income workers and students.     

A 10-foot rope for a 50-yard drop: the CLASS Act in the patient protection and Affordable Care Act

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, part of the 2010 health care reform, would have paid a daily cash payment toward the costs of long-term care. This article points out that although the CLASS Act may have been sufficient to cover the costs of most home- and community-based services, it was an inadequate response to the most pressing long-term care financing problem facing baby boomers: nursing home care costs. The risk of needing a nursing home is higher than other catastrophic risks. Boomers lack savings to pay those costs. CLASS aimed to encourage people to use home- and community-based services to substitute for nursing home care, but research spanning decades shows there is little substitution effect.     

The importance of employer sponsorship in the long-term care insurance market

Medicare and Medicaid are major sources of long-term care payments and thus will bear much of the burden from the growth in long-term care service use. The large future demand for long-term care services is of great concern among policymakers due to its expense and the use of public program dollars. It is argued that the individual purchase of long-term care insurance can help alleviate the increasing financial pressure on public programs responsible for the majority of longterm care financing. However, consumers have shown little interest in insuring against the high costs of long-term care. This analysis examines the effect of several factors on the decision to purchase a long-term care insurance policy: knowledge and attitudes of long-term care insurance and the long-term care financing system, the perceived risk for longterm care, financial planning behavior, and the availability of long-term care insurance. The interim results indicate the factor most likely to affect the decision to purchase long-term care insurance is access to employer-sponsored long-term care insurance. This suggests tht the availability of affordable and high quality coverage is more important than demand-side factors such as awareness of long-term care insurance and a perceived greater risk for long-term care.     

Voluntary long-term care insurance: best practices for increasing employee participation

This is the second of two Issue Briefs (April and May 2000) on long-term care (LTC) insurance. The previous Issue Brief addressed the problem of increasing sponsorship, while this report addresses the issue of increasing employee participation. Participation rates in group LTC insurance plans tend to be low. A potential watershed event for the development of the employment-based group LTC market is the proposed LTC program for federal employees and retirees (a program that would have to be enacted by Congress). The perception of a successful offering to federal employees could provide an enormous boost to the group LTC insurance market. Employee communication and education are seen as critical to the success of LTC enrollments. The importance of support shown by an employer for a new LTC plan offering cannot be overstated. Unlike 401(k) plan participation trends, LTC participation rates are highest among large companies. Insurers tend to view the 40-60 age range as the primary target for group LTC insurance, and employee salary as the best predictor of LTC insurance enrollment. Higher educational levels also are associated with higher levels of LTC participation. Perceived need for LTC insurance is perhaps the biggest barrier to the purchase of LTC insurance by employees due to competing financial priorities and the fact that LTC issues are generally off the "radar screens" of younger employees. Plans with skilled nursing home and home care benefits experience higher participation rates than plans lacking these benefits. The availability of lower-cost and long duration benefit options can be an important factor in determining participation. Most sponsors have chosen to offer noncontributory (i.e., fully employee-paid) LTC plans. Employer reluctance to make contributions may be caused by HIPAA's prohibition on the inclusion of LTC insurance in cafeteria plans. One of the major advantages of group LTC plans is the availability of guaranteed issue (i.e., issuing coverage without requiring evidence of insurability) for employees, which is not available in the individual LTC market. It is easy for enrollment to be derailed by the presence of any of a number of harmful conditions, such as employer-sponsors who distance themselves from the offer, ineffective communications, or difficult enrollment processes. Achieving consistently strong levels of participation in LTC plans will require employer-sponsors and their insurance carriers to form strong partnerships, with worker participation as their primary stated goal.     

Convergence of long-term care planning and retirement planning at the work place

There is an increasing expectation that the private-sector should provide needed solutions to pressing problems in long-term care. Long-term care insurance has figured prominently in recent discussions. Within the long-term care insurance market, the potential of the employer in making such insurance available to employees has been discussed extensively. This paper traces the increasing convergence of retirement planning and long-term care planning at the work place. The long-term care insurance market has come a long way, and the employer-sponsored segment of the market has recorded the highest rate of growth in recent times. Furthermore, the employer-sponsored market is beginning to diversify. Low take-up rates still remain a problem. Recent rapid growth of the market coupled with the federal government's involvement as an employer offering long-term care insurance is bound to expand the market further.     

Health insurance for all long-term care workers: estimated costs and coverage impacts in Minnesota and recommendations for States

A major barrier to building a strong workforce to meet the growing need for long-care is lack of affordable health benefits. This study projects impacts of funding health coverage for all long-term care workers in Minnesota. Under the most cost effective model plan design, enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage would increase 73% to 100% for individual coverage and 26% to 42% for family coverage. Total monthly costs would be $698/worker in the commercial market or $634/worker through a new dedicated risk pool. Based on our findings and past research, the authors present recommendations for structuring and implementing a long-term care worker health insurance initiative.     

Long-term care and the private insurance market

Increased life expectancy and the aging of the baby boom generation will bring rapid growth in the number of people at risk of needing long-term care (LTC). This Issue Brief provides an overview of the current LTC financing and delivery system in the United States, focusing on private-sector initiatives to meet the United States' LTC needs. It discusses private-sector plan design--particularly employment-based plan design--providing an in-depth look at the dramatic changes taking place in the private-sector LTC market since its inception in the early and mid 1980s. Aside from informal care provided in the community, the current system of financing LTC depends largely on the Medicaid program and individual financing. Issues confronting this system include spiraling costs associated with LTC services that may threaten beneficiaries' access to care. Other issues include the potential depletion of personal assets and a bias toward institutionalization (which may not always provide the most cost-effective or desired type of care available). Many leaders regard private long-term care insurance (LTCI) as a way to increase access to financing and as a potential alternative to Medicaid and out-of-pocket financing. By the end of 1993, a total of 3.4 million private-sector LTCI policies had been sold, up from approximately 815,000 in 1987. While the majority of these plans were sold to individuals or through group associations, employment-based plans accounted for a significant proportion of this growth. Premiums for LTCI vary substantially based on age and plan design. Insurers generally attempt to set premiums such that they will remain level over the insured's lifetime. However, because little LTC claims insurance experience yet exists, the actuarial basis for developing premiums and statutory reserves is limited. Several bills over the last three Congresses have been introduced to address the issue of LTC. However, due to cost implications and lack of consensus regarding the optimum overall structure required to finance and deliver care, broad legislation to expand coverage--particularly public coverage--is not likely in the near term.     

Health Insurance for All Long-Term Care Workers: Estimated Costs and Coverage Impacts in Minnesota and Recommendations for States

A major barrier to building a strong workforce to meet the growing need for long-care is lack of affordable health benefits. This study projects impacts of funding health coverage for all long-term care workers in Minnesota. Under the most cost effective model plan design, enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage would increase 73% to 100% for individual coverage and 26% to 42% for family coverage. Total monthly costs would be $698/worker in the commercial market or $634/worker through a new dedicated risk pool. Based on our findings and past research, the authors present recommendations for structuring and implementing a long-term care worker health insurance initiative.     

Future of Long-Term Care Financing for the Elderly in Korea

ABSTRACT

With rapid aging, change in family structure, and the increase in the labor participation of women, the demand for long-term care has been increasing in Korea. Inappropriate utilization of medical care by the elderly in health care institutions, such as social admissions, also puts a financial burden on the health insurance system. The widening gap between the need for long-term care and the capacity of welfare programs to fulfill that need, along with a rather new national pension scheme and the limited economic capacity of the elderly, calls for a new public financing mechanism to provide protection for a broader range of old people from the costs of long-term care. Many important decisions are yet to be made, although Korea is likely to introduce social insurance for long-term care rather than tax-based financing, following the tradition of social health insurance. Whether it should cover only the elderly long-term care or all types of long-term care including disability of all age groups will have a critical impact on social solidarity and the financial sustainability of the new long-term care insurance. Generosity of benefits or the level of out-of-pocket payment, the role of cash benefits, and the relation with health insurance scheme all should be taken into account in the design of a new financing scheme. Lack of care personnel and facilities is also a barrier to the implementation of public long-term care financing in Korea, and the implementation strategy needs to be carved out carefully.     

Financing reform for long-term care: strategies for public and private long-term care insurance

The way the nation provides for the financing and delivery of long-term care is badly in need of reform. The principal options for change are private insurance, altering Medicaid, and public long-term care insurance. This article uses the Brookings-ICF Long-Term Care Financing Model to evaluate each of these options in terms of affordability, distribution of benefits, and ability to reduce catastrophic out-of-pocket costs. So long as private insurance is aimed at the elderly, its market penetration and ability to finance long-term care will remain severely limited. Affordability is a major problem. Selling to younger persons could solve the affordability problem, but marketing is extremely difficult. Liberalizing Medicaid could help solve the problems of long-term care, but there is little public support for means-tested programs. Finally, universalistic public insurance programs do well in meeting the goals of long-term care reform, but all social insurance programs are expensive and seem politically infeasible in the current political environment.     

Future of long-term care financing for the elderly in Korea

With rapid aging, change in family structure, and the increase in the labor participation of women, the demand for long-term care has been increasing in Korea. Inappropriate utilization of medical care by the elderly in health care institutions, such as social admissions, also puts a financial burden on the health insurance system. The widening gap between the need for long-term care and the capacity of welfare programs to fulfill that need, along with a rather new national pension scheme and the limited economic capacity of the elderly, calls for a new public financing mechanism to provide protection for a broader range of old people from the costs of long-term care. Many important decisions are yet to be made, although Korea is likely to introduce social insurance for long-term care rather than tax-based financing, following the tradition of social health insurance. Whether it should cover only the elderly longterm care or all types of long-term care including disability of all age groups will have a critical impact on social solidarity and the financial sustainability of the new long-term care insurance. Generosity of benefits or the level of out-of-pocket payment, the role of cash benefits, and the relation with health insurance scheme all should be taken into account in the design of a new financing scheme. Lack of care personnel and facilities is also a barrier to the implementation of public long-term care financing in Korea, and the implementation strategy needs to be carved out carefully.     

Defined contribution health benefits

This Issue Brief discusses the emerging issue of "defined contribution" (DC) health benefits. The term "defined contribution" is used to describe a wide variety of approaches to the provision of health benefits, all of which have in common a shift in the responsibility for payment and selection of health care services from employers to employees. DC health benefits often are mentioned in the context of enabling employers to control their outlay for health benefits by avoiding increases in health care costs. DC health benefits may also shift responsibility for choosing a health plan and the associated risks of choosing a plan from employers to employees. There are three primary reasons why some employers currently are considering some sort of DC approach. First, they are once again looking for ways to keep their health care cost increases in line with overall inflation. Second, some employers are concerned that the public "backlash" against managed care will result in new legislation, regulations, and litigation that will further increase their health care costs if they do not distance themselves from health care decisions. Third, employers have modified not only most employee benefit plans, but labor market practices in general, by giving workers more choice, control, and flexibility. DC-type health benefits have existed as cafeteria plans since the 1980s. A cafeteria plan gives each employee the opportunity to determine the allocation of his or her total compensation (within employer-defined limits) among various employee benefits (primarily retirement or health). Most types of DC health benefits currently being discussed could be provided within the existing employment-based health insurance system, with or without the use of cafeteria plans. They could also allow employees to purchase health insurance directly from insurers, or they could drive new technologies and new forms of risk pooling through which health care services are provided and financed. DC health benefits differ from DC retirement plans. Under a DC health plan, employees may face different premiums based on their personal health risk and perhaps other factors such as age and geographic location. Their ability to afford health insurance may depend on how premiums are regulated by the state and how much money their employer provides. In contrast, under a DC retirement plan, employers' contributions are based on the same percentage of income for all employees, but employees are not subject to paying different prices for the same investment.     

Toward Health Reform for Seniors in Bermuda: Historical Constraints on Political Possibilities

In 2009, as the United States moved toward health care reform, the government of Bermuda implemented its FutureCare program to make health care for seniors more affordable. This article investigates how preferences for reform and its eventual design were shaped by the country's social history and commitment to free market values. Data derive from 36 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders deemed knowledgeable about health care financing and delivery in Bermuda, including government officials, provider representatives, insurance executives, and consumer advocates. Data also derive from a variety of documentary sources. Results indicate that although a clear need for health care and the ability to finance it for seniors exists in Bermuda, the scope of reform was circumscribed by preferences for prior policy decisions, creating a favorable tax and business environment for international corporations and a minimalist social welfare state for addressing racial and economic inequality. This suggests that widespread agreement on the challenges in meeting the health and long-term care needs of the elderly does not necessarily lead to equally commensurable solutions to addressing it.     

Toward health reform for seniors in Bermuda: historical constraints on political possibilities

In 2009, as the United States moved toward health care reform, the government of Bermuda implemented its FutureCare program to make health care for seniors more affordable. This article investigates how preferences for reform and its eventual design were shaped by the country's social history and commitment to free market values. Data derive from 36 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders deemed knowledgeable about health care financing and delivery in Bermuda, including government officials, provider representatives, insurance executives, and consumer advocates. Data also derive from a variety of documentary sources. Results indicate that although a clear need for health care and the ability to finance it for seniors exists in Bermuda, the scope of reform was circumscribed by preferences for prior policy decisions, creating a favorable tax and business environment for international corporations and a minimalist social welfare state for addressing racial and economic inequality. This suggests that widespread agreement on the challenges in meeting the health and long-term care needs of the elderly does not necessarily lead to equally commensurable solutions to addressing it.     

Physician Case-by-Case Assignment and Participation in Medicare

This article uses recent experiences from the Medigap market to draw conclusions about the advisability of alternative methods of regulating the market for long-term care insurance. The analysis is based in part on interviews of state insurance regulators, insurance companies, and interest-group representatives. The authors conclude that some regulation of the market is appropriate, but that the structure and extent of regulation found in the Medigap market would likely be inappropriate for the long-term care insurance market at this time.     

Can regulation improve long-term care insurance? Lessons from the Medigap experience

This article uses recent experiences from the Medigap market to draw conclusions about the advisability of alternative methods of regulating the market for long-term care insurance. The analysis is based in part on interviews of state insurance regulators, insurance companies, and interest-group representatives. The authors conclude that some regulation of the market is appropriate, but that the structure and extent of regulation found in the Medigap market would likely be inappropriate for the long-term care insurance market at this time.     

We Can Run But We Can't Hide:

Long-term care costs are not covered to any significant extent by public or private insurance. As a result, nursing home patients often must use their entire life savings to pay for their care and once impoverished turn to welfare in the form of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Private-sector solutions, such as private long-term care insurance, should expand to play a larger role but cannot solve the whole problem by themselves. Reform of the Medicaid program to make the means test less onerous would be desirable, but this approach would retain the welfare stigma. What is needed is a public insurance program to which everyone would contribute and earn the right to benefits when they need them without having to prove impoverishment. Any public insurance program should leave a substantial role for the private sector. Public costs of a social insurance program would be high but not unaffordable, especially since society will incur most of these costs even without an expanded public program.     

Long-Term Care Policy: Singapore’s Experience

Singapore, like many developed countries, is facing the challenge of a rapidly aging population and the increasing need to provide long-term care (LTC) services for elderly in the community. The Singapore government’s philosophy on care for the elderly is that the family should be the first line of support, and it has relied on voluntary welfare organizations (VWOs) or charities for the bulk of LTC service provision. For LTC financing, it has emphasized the principles of co-payment and targeting of state support to the low-income population through means-tested government subsidies. It has also instituted ElderShield, a national severe disability insurance scheme. This paper discusses some of the challenges facing LTC policy in Singapore, particularly the presence of perverse financial incentives for hospitalization, the pitfalls of over-reliance on VWOs, and the challenges facing informal family caregivers. It discusses the role of private LTC insurance in LTC financing, bearing in mind demand- and supply-side failures that have plagued the private LTC insurance market. It suggests the need for more standardized needs assessment and portable LTC benefits, with reference to the Japanese Long-Term Care Insurance program, and also discusses the need to provide more support to informal family caregivers.