Gerontologist, Vol. 46, No. 2. (1 April 2006), pp. 271-276.
Purpose: To promote health and maintain independence, Just for Us provides financially sustainable, in-home, integrated care to medically fragile, low-income seniors and disabled adults living in subsidized housing. Design and Methods: The program provides primary care, care management, and mental health services delivered in patient's homes by a multidisciplinary, multiagency team. Results: After 2 years of operation, Just for Us is serving nearly 300 individuals in 10 buildings. The program is demonstrating improvement in individual indices of health. Medicaid expenditures for enrollees are shifting from ambulances and hospital services to pharmacy, personal care, and outpatient visits. The program is not breaking even, but it is moving toward that goal. The program's success is based on a partnership involving an academic medical center, a community health center, county social and mental health agencies, and a city housing authority to coordinate and leverage services. Implications: Just for Us is becoming a financially sustainable way of creating a "system within a nonsystem" for low-income elderly persons in clustered housing.
Susan Yaggy, Lloyd Michener, Duncan Yaggy, Mary Champagne, Mina Silberberg, Michelle Lyn, Fred Johnson, Kimberly Yarnall
Gerontologist, Vol. 46, No. 2. (1 April 2006), pp. 271-276.Aug 092007
Health Aff, Vol. 26, No. 4. (1 July 2007), pp. w445-455.
Starting in 2006, almost all Medicare beneficiaries have at least one Medicare Advantage (MA) plan available to them. Although new regional preferred provider organization (R-PPO) plans authorized through the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 contribute to this growth, private fee-for-service (PFFS) plans are more numerous and more popular with beneficiaries. Almost 1.5 million beneficiaries are in PFFS plans, 84 percent living in "floor" counties paid more by Medicare to encourage MA offerings. Whether beneficiaries are well served by policies that use scarce resources to encourage competition among largely unmanaged FFS plans is an issue that warrants discussion. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.w445
Marsha Gold
Starting in 2006, almost all Medicare beneficiaries have at least one Medicare Advantage (MA) plan available to them. Although new regional preferred provider organization (R-PPO) plans authorized through the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 contribute to this growth, private fee-for-service (PFFS) plans are more numerous and more popular with beneficiaries. Almost 1.5 million beneficiaries are in PFFS plans, 84 percent living in "floor" counties paid more by Medicare to encourage MA offerings. Whether beneficiaries are well served by policies that use scarce resources to encourage competition among largely unmanaged FFS plans is an issue that warrants discussion. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.w445
Marsha Gold
Medicaid planning, estate recovery, and alternatives for long-term care financing: identifying the ethical issues.
Medicaid News, Syndicated
Comments Off
Aug 072007
Care Manag J, Vol. 7, No. 2. (2006), pp. 73-78.
In anticipation of the escalating costs of long-term care, consumers and the federal and state governments are engaging in a variety of strategies intended to preserve the financial solvency of the respective parties. For the consumer, this may mean planning in a way designed to maximize one's potential future eligibility for government support, whereas the federal government tries to limit those planning activities inspired by public benefits considerations and the states attempt to recover their long-term care expenses from the estates of deceased consumers whose long-term care needs the state had earlier supported. All of these strategies have important and controversial public policy implications. The public policy debate surrounding these strategies ought to be ethically informed. This article sets out to identify and outline some of the main ethical questions engendered by individual Medicaid planning on one hand, and state estate recovery efforts on the other. It concludes that neither of these approaches to the challenge of long-term care financing is very ethically palatable.
MB Kapp
In anticipation of the escalating costs of long-term care, consumers and the federal and state governments are engaging in a variety of strategies intended to preserve the financial solvency of the respective parties. For the consumer, this may mean planning in a way designed to maximize one's potential future eligibility for government support, whereas the federal government tries to limit those planning activities inspired by public benefits considerations and the states attempt to recover their long-term care expenses from the estates of deceased consumers whose long-term care needs the state had earlier supported. All of these strategies have important and controversial public policy implications. The public policy debate surrounding these strategies ought to be ethically informed. This article sets out to identify and outline some of the main ethical questions engendered by individual Medicaid planning on one hand, and state estate recovery efforts on the other. It concludes that neither of these approaches to the challenge of long-term care financing is very ethically palatable.
MB Kapp
Medicaid planning, estate recovery, and alternatives for long-term care financing: identifying the ethical issues.
Medicaid News, Syndicated
Comments Off
Aug 072007
Care Manag J, Vol. 7, No. 2. (2006), pp. 73-78.
In anticipation of the escalating costs of long-term care, consumers and the federal and state governments are engaging in a variety of strategies intended to preserve the financial solvency of the respective parties. For the consumer, this may mean planning in a way designed to maximize one's potential future eligibility for government support, whereas the federal government tries to limit those planning activities inspired by public benefits considerations and the states attempt to recover their long-term care expenses from the estates of deceased consumers whose long-term care needs the state had earlier supported. All of these strategies have important and controversial public policy implications. The public policy debate surrounding these strategies ought to be ethically informed. This article sets out to identify and outline some of the main ethical questions engendered by individual Medicaid planning on one hand, and state estate recovery efforts on the other. It concludes that neither of these approaches to the challenge of long-term care financing is very ethically palatable.
MB Kapp
In anticipation of the escalating costs of long-term care, consumers and the federal and state governments are engaging in a variety of strategies intended to preserve the financial solvency of the respective parties. For the consumer, this may mean planning in a way designed to maximize one's potential future eligibility for government support, whereas the federal government tries to limit those planning activities inspired by public benefits considerations and the states attempt to recover their long-term care expenses from the estates of deceased consumers whose long-term care needs the state had earlier supported. All of these strategies have important and controversial public policy implications. The public policy debate surrounding these strategies ought to be ethically informed. This article sets out to identify and outline some of the main ethical questions engendered by individual Medicaid planning on one hand, and state estate recovery efforts on the other. It concludes that neither of these approaches to the challenge of long-term care financing is very ethically palatable.
MB Kapp
Medicare Part D: Practical practice information for healthcare providers
Medicare News, Syndicated
Comments Off
Aug 042007
Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 18, No. 10. (October 2006), pp. 457-462.
Moczygemba, R Leticia
Moczygemba, R Leticia
Recent Comments