Factors Impacting Group Long-Term Care Insurance Enrollment Decisions

This paper examines factors that influence whether or not employees choose to enroll in a group long-term care insurance plan. A conceptual family decision-making framework is used to group factors to study the enrollment decision of 509 state employees who were offered a long-term care insurance plan in 2000. Logistic regression results revealed that employee age, perceived risk, perceived affordability, decision-making style (communication with others and use of information), goals of control and choice, goal of financial peace of mind, household income, and potential caregiver availability explained 68.7% of the decision to enroll. Results support the key role of perception, specifically the perceived risk of needing long-term care and the affordability of the insurance plan, in the decision outcome.     

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.     

Group long-term care insurance: decision-making factors and implications for financing long-term care

This study proposes and tests a systemic family decision-making framework to understand group long-term care insurance (LTCI) enrollment decisions. A random sample of public employees who were offered group LTCI as a workplace benefit were examined. Findings reveal very good predictive efficacy for the overall conceptual framework with a pseudo R2 value of .687, and reinforced the contributions of factors within the family system. Enrollees were more likely to have discussed the decision with others, used information sources, and had prior experience when compared to non-enrollees. Perceived health status, financial knowledge, attitudes regarding the role of private insurance, risk taking, and coverage features were additional factors related to enrollment decisions. The findings help to inform policymakers about the potential of LTCI as one strategy for financing long-term care.     

Group Long-Term Care Insurance: Decision-Making Factors and Implications for Financing Long-Term Care

This study proposes and tests a systemic family decisionmaking framework to understand group long-term care insurance (LTCI) enrollment decisions. A random sample of public employees who were offered group LTCI as a workplace benefit were examined. Findings reveal very good predictive efficacy for the overall conceptual framework with a pseudo R² value of .687, and reinforced the contributions of factors within the family system. Enrollees were more likely to have discussed the decision with others, used information sources, and had prior experience when compared to non-enrollees. Perceived health status, financial knowledge, attitudes regarding the role of private insurance, risk taking, and coverage features were additional factors related to enrollment decisions. The findings help to inform policymakers about the potential of LTCI as one strategy for financing long-term care.     

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

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 110 FROM NURSJNG HOMES TO HOME CARE public long-term care insurance. This article uses the Brookings-ICE 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 scverely 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 longterm care reform, but all social insurance programs are expensive and seem politically infeasible in the current political environment. The way the nation provides for the financing and delivery of long-term care is badly in need of reform. No other part of the health care system generates as much passionate discontent as does long-term care. At the heart of the problem is the absence of any satisfactory way to help people anticipate and pay for long-term care. The disabled elderly find, often to their surprise, that the costs of nursing home and home care are not covered to any significant extent by Medicare or private insurance. Instead, they must rely on their own savings or, failing that, turn to welfare in the form of Medicaid. At a national average cost of $40,000 a year for nursing home care, long-term care is a leading cause of catastrophic out-of-pocket health care costs for the elderly. In addition, despite the strong preferences of the disabled for home and community-based services, current financing is highly skewed toward care in nursing homes. While the debate over long-term care reform has many facets, it is primarily an argument over the relative merits of private- versus publicsector approaches. Differences over how much emphasis to put on each sector partly depend on values that cannot be directly proved or disproved. Some believe that the primary responsibility for care of the elderly belongs with individuals and their families, and that government should act only as a payer of last resort for those unable to provide for themselves. The opposite view is that the government should take the lead in ensuring comprehensive care for all disabled older people, regardless of financial need, by providing comprehensive, compulsory social insurance. In this view, there is little or no role for the private sector. Between these polar positions, many combinations of public and private responsibility are possible.     

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.     

Public policy implications of elderly interstate migration to Oregon, 1985-1990

Several Oregon counties received a noticeable influx of elderly migrants from other states during the 1980s. Oregon policy regarding taxes, land use, and long-term care is examined for possible influence on migration. Models of elderly migration are examined for insight into how public policy influences migration, and previous research regarding the effects of elderly migration on public policy is reviewed. Data regarding disability and financial vulnerability among elderly by migration status are analyzed for possible influence upon public policy. Change in the population aged 65 and older mirrored state and national patterns for 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 1999. Interstate elderly arriving in attractive counties reported a low prevalence of disability and financial vulnerability, indicating a low risk of demanding public assistance. Interstate elderly arriving in population centers reported a relatively high prevalence of disability but a low prevalence of financial vulnerability. This may suggest that Oregon's long-term care policy influenced elderly migration.     

Public Policy Implications of Elderly Interstate Migration to Oregon, 1985-1990

Abstract

Several Oregon counties received a noticeable influx of elderly migrants from other states during the 1980s. Oregon policy regarding taxes, land use, and long-term care is examined for possible influence on migration. Models of elderly migration are examined for insight into how public policy influences migration, and previous research regarding the effects of elderly migration on public policy is reviewed. Data regarding disability and financial vulnerability among elderly by migration status are analyzed for possible influence upon public policy.

Change in the population aged 65 and older mirrored state and national patterns for 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 1999. Interstate elderly arriving in attractive counties reported a low prevalence of disability and financial vulnerability, indicating a low risk of demanding public assistance. Interstate elderly arriving in population centers reported a relatively high prevalence of disability but a low prevalence of financial vulnerability. This may suggest that Oregon's long-term care policy influenced elderly migration.     

VA Staff Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Home-and Community-Based Placement Post–Hospital Discharge

This study identifies factors U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) staff perceived to promote or impede home- and community-based services (HCBS) placement post–hospital discharge among Veterans cared for within the VA. Data derive from 35 semi-structured interviews with staff from 12 VA medical centers from around the country. VA staff reported that Veteran’s care needs and social and financial resources influence HCBS placement. They also reported prerequisites for successful placement, including housing, unpaid informal care, and non-VA services funded privately and by public programs such as Medicaid and the Older Americans Act. Lack of staffing and failure to offer the specific types of services needed limit referral to and use of HCBS. Budgetary imperatives influence the relative availability of HCBS across VA medical centers. Findings highlight patient-, provider-, and system-level constraints that impede successful placement at home and in the community of Veterans in need of long-term services and supports after hospitalization.     

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.     

Partnership long-term care insurance: lessons for CLASS program development

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act was a voluntary public insurance strategy intended to help people pay for long-term care. CLASS was passed as part of health reform to overcome aspects of private long-term care insurance market failure but came under close scrutiny from both its supporters and its detractors. Experience with the long-term care insurance market and State Partnership Programs provide insights about how to make CLASS fiscally viable. A CLASS program that offered one set of options to cover front-end risk (e.g., 1 to 3 years) and another set to cover catastrophic risk (after a high deductible) could have been offered as an alternative to the basic CLASS "long and lean" benefit model with all enrollees joined into a single risk pool. This would have broadened the risk pool and lowered premium costs under the program.     

Couples Managing the Risk of Financing Long-Term Care

This study examined the complexity of financial long-term care (LTC) decision outcomes among married couples. Supporting the theory of planned behavior, couples reported a range of consensus patterns with their financial LTC intentions and behaviors. Five newly articulated typologies of couples emerged from consensus patterns revealing that couples reported a range of financial LTC intentions and behaviors. More couples reported consensus with their financial LTC behaviors compared to intentions; financial LTC decision outcomes reflected a dynamic and on-going process; and couples were not always in agreement on their financial LTC decision outcomes. Findings reinforce the importance of family practitioners going beyond working with individuals to understanding couple-level planning for financing LTC.     

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.     

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.     

An exploration of older Hong Kong residents’ willingness to make copayments toward vouchers for community care

Because of its rapidly aging population, Hong Kong faces great challenges in the provision and financing of long-term care (LTC) and needs to explore sustainable funding mechanisms. However, there is a paucity of research on older people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for LTC services in Hong Kong. This study utilizes data collected in Hong Kong in 2011 (N = 536) to investigate older people’s receptivity to this financing mode by assessing their co-payments for a community care service voucher scheme and then testing how potential factors affect respondents’ amount of co-payment. Results show that respondents’ WTP was positively associated with family financial support, financial condition, and positive attitudes toward this novel policy and negatively associated with family caregiving support. Direct and moderating effects of family financial support on WTP were found. The policy-related implications of LTC financing to improve older people’s acceptance of co-payment mechanisms, financial condition, and shared responsibility of care are discussed.     

The Future of Financing for Long-Term Care: The Own Your Future Campaign

The purpose of this study was to examine the outreach effort and impact of a joint federal-state campaign, Own Your Future, promoting awareness and planning for long-term care (LTC) in the state of Washington. The study applied survey methodology to evaluate the extent of campaign dissemination, evidence of its impact on LTC planning behaviors, and barriers to purchasing private LTC insurance. A total of 3,198 survey responses from a randomly selected community sample and a Washington State employee sample (ages 51 to 71) were analyzed. Results indicated that the impact of the campaign was limited, both with respect to awareness of the campaign itself and to initiation of LTC planning behaviors. Quantitative data revealed a high prevalence of health-related problems (e.g., obesity, diabetes), inadequate knowledge of basic LTC-related information (e.g., cost, payers), and negative attitudes toward purchasing LTC insurance among respondents. Qualitative analyses suggested that respondents perceived significant problems related to affordability and accountability within the current LTC insurance industry. These possible barriers to the purchase of LTC insurance suggest targets to be addressed by policy makers seeking to find ways to offset the public costs of LTC.     

The future of financing for long-term care: the Own Your Future campaign

The purpose of this study was to examine the outreach effort and impact of a joint federal-state campaign, Own Your Future, promoting awareness and planning for long-term care (LTC) in the state of Washington. The study applied survey methodology to evaluate the extent of campaign dissemination, evidence of its impact on LTC planning behaviors, and barriers to purchasing private LTC insurance. A total of 3,198 survey responses from a randomly selected community sample and a Washington State employee sample (ages 51 to 71) were analyzed. Results indicated that the impact of the campaign was limited, both with respect to awareness of the campaign itself and to initiation of LTC planning behaviors. Quantitative data revealed a high prevalence of health-related problems (e.g., obesity, diabetes), inadequate knowledge of basic LTC-related information (e.g., cost, payers), and negative attitudes toward purchasing LTC insurance among respondents. Qualitative analyses suggested that respondents perceived significant problems related to affordability and accountability within the current LTC insurance industry. These possible barriers to the purchase of LTC insurance suggest targets to be addressed by policy makers seeking to find ways to offset the public costs of LTC.