The counterfactual in long term care

I was looking at assisted living facilities for my grandmother yesterday and then beginning to navigate the ongoing family discussion about what is best for her (age 89; she still lives alone but has been hospitalized 5 times in recent months) and my mother (age 70), who is increasingly feeling unable to navigate the current situation. There are of course many other people involved: my sister (who lives near both my grandmother and my mother), my step dad, and my uncle who lives about 50 miles from my grandmother. I have become “expert” at assessing such facilities, and have devoted a great deal of my finite creativity over the past 18 months to navigating complicated family long term care situations. I put expert in quotes, because for all that I know about long term care, mixed now with personal experience, it is a truly difficult decision to decide what is best. In large part, this is because there are so many people involved and affected, along with the existence of many sources of uncertainty.

One thing has become clear

  • most people reflexively compare the (truly) high cost of something like assisted living to a cost of zero. “Oh my goodness, that is expensive!” is a correct statement, but it wrongly implies that the default, or current arrangement has a cost of zero.

The costs of the current living/long term care arrangement for my grandmother or anyone else can be difficult to estimate

  • explicit costs such as paying for walkers, home modifications and paying helpers is straightforward
  • implicit costs to caregivers are harder to estimate: the value of time, missed work, worry/anxiety/depression, feeling like you cannot travel, other health impacts, etc.

There are benefits of caregiving, such as connection with loved ones and of course the preferences of my grandmother are important. All of the costs and benefits must be netted out to make a decision. As with the societal level decision of what to do about long term care, having straight the counterfactual is the first step to making the best decision you can.

FTD (not the flower company)

About 18 months ago I shared the news that my family was moving to another house so that my mother in law could move in with us.

This move took place about 16 months ago, my mother-in-law’s house sold about a year ago and she moved into our new house last Summer. Her physical and cognitive decline since that time has been pronounced, and she was hospitalized 3 times in 40 days from Thanksgiving to Christmas; the last hospitalization occurring when she wandered from our house during the night for the third time that last 10 days she was with us. She fell in a ditch by a road near where we live, was found by a runner just before dawn, and was “Jane Doe” for around 4 hours in the ER before we realized that she was gone.

From the hospital she went to rehab in a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) for around 30 days, and moved into an Assisted Living Facility in Chapel Hill in early February. I came to understand the concept of ‘sandwich generation’ one day in January as I visited Assisted Living facilities while trying to help my daughter decide whether to apply to any more Universities just before the January 15 deadline; the juxtaposition of helping to plan and experience these two trajectories has been poignant and jarring.

It is difficult to say when our role as ‘caregivers’ for my mother in law really began. I have picked her Part D and Medicare Advantage plans for a while, and helped with financial decisions for many years. We had multiple middle of the night drives to her house across town to help her off the floor during 2011 that precipitated her moving in with us, and an increasing need for basic care that increased when she lived with us. I am unclear if she was simply in need of more care than we knew before she moved in with us, or if her decline has simply been that precipitous.

This past week, she received a formal diagnosis of frontotemporal degeneration (FTD), behavioral variant which is a form of non-Alzheimer’s dementia, that is fairly rare (~30,000 persons in USA with one of the variants of this disorder, which used to be more generally called Pick’s disease). Many persons who arrive at this diagnosis are misdiagnosed as having persistent mental illness, as many of the behaviors are similar to that observed in a person with bipolar disorder or a borderline personality disorder. Behavioral disturbances come first with FTD, then language and gait changes (and falls) onset before memory impairment is severe and full care needed, leading to this misdiagnosis which was the case in our experience.

If you want to wander around the ugly, fragmented side of the health system, you could pick mental health or long term care. Bouncing between the two has been quiet agony for all those involved.

Medicare pays for very little long term care (it did pay for the rehabilitation stay following the fall; 100% for 30 days, then with a $158/day deductible for the next few days, ending at 100 days). Home health is available, but has increasingly become medicalized over time though some of the eligibility rules have been lessened. Of course, Medicare paid for all 3 hospitalizations for my mother-in-law, all of which were really signals of a break down in the long term care system (her living with us) that we had put into place. It was a social worker changing the question from ‘can you keep doing this?’ to ‘you cannot keep doing this’ that was the trigger for the move to Assisted Living.

My mother in law is now living in an Assisted Living facility that has shown great care and flexibility in trying to adapt to the realities of a resident with this dementia variant. The cost is around $75,000/year and dementia care at the sister facility to which she will likely move sooner rather than later costs around $90,000/year, none of which is paid for by Medicare. The family is responsible for all of this cost, and in our case we are blessed that the resources to provide for this care were arranged for by my deceased father in law. Most families cannot arrange for such care and would have many fewer options than we have had (it is hard enough with resources). Of course, Medicaid sits as an ultimate backstop and once an individual’s assets have been eradicated, care in a Nursing Home (not the type of place where she now lives) is paid for until death.

I still note in many circles people noting the demise of the CLASS provisions of the ACA as a joke or a political scalp of sorts. This really pisses me off. I guarantee anyone viewing it that way hasn’t navigated long term care for a loved one. We as country desperately need to wrestle with the questions of the best way to insure Long Term Care.

Some version of this story comes for many of you, too.

 

Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and LTC Insurance

NPR has a story on the legal (h/t Brad Flansbaum) use of genetic information to discriminate (underwrite, set premiums) in the private Long Term Care (LTC) insurance market. I am the first author of the paper that Bob Green (the P.I. of the underlying study) is discussing in the NPR piece and I have blogged about its findings here and here.

The basic story of the paper in Health Affairs is that persons with at least one copy of the e4 variant of the APOE-4 genotype were found to be both more likely to move to a nursing home in a community cohort of elderly persons living in 5 N.C. counties, as well as being found in the REVEAL II study to alter their behavior upon finding out they were at increased risk of AD, including making changes such as buying Long Term Care Insurance. In short, this is adverse selection whereby consumers have information that companies do not, a story that likely keeps insurance executives up at night.

The biggest news of the segment was the report that Genworth, the largest seller of LTC Insurance in the U.S. acknowledged that the The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 does not ban the use of genetic markers to underwrite their product, and they stated they wished to keep this option available to do so (some states have moved to do so). I blogged at some length on this back on October 2011 (that it was allowed for LTC Insurance), but I have never heard anyone from the LTC Insurance industry acknowledge they wanted to keep this option.

I think it is a mistake to take a reflexive “see the insurance companies are bad” response to this story, and that in Long Term Care especially, we need some renewed thinking about what ‘fairness’ means.

The general idea behind GINA 2008 is that you cannot pick your genes, so to discriminate against someone on that basis is unfair. This makes general sense to me, and likely to most people. However, in a private insurance market with very low penetration (~less than 7-10% of persons in age ranges to consider such products buy them; this post highlights the many reasons) what constitutes fairness is not as clear. An average risk person who wants a LTC policy because they have no children, for example, yet who ends up paying a higher than warranted premium due to adverse selection in the market (those with higher risks signing up) could also be viewed as being harmed in an unfair manner.The chart below lays out how different scenarios of who knows genetic information in LTC could influence uptake and premiums. The table is meant as food for thought.

ScreenHunter_01 Jan. 18 09.54

The bottom line answer to planning for LTC is risk pooling, and if ever there were a risk distribution that called out for social insurance it is LTC. That seems impossible politically at this time. However, the LTC system in this country is a patch work mess that is in need of some sustained policy efforts. This post has a weeks worth of links on planning for LTC, from both an individual and population basis if you want more. Long Term Care is always the forgotten topic until someone in your family needs it.

New book on Long Term Care

Howard Gleckman brings attention to a new book on Long Term Care, that can be downloaded for free. As readers know, LTC is a near and dear topic to this blog (a recent post), and I will look forward to integrating this book into my teaching. This recent post highlights lots of LTC issues.

Long term care is something easily thought about “tomorrow”….but we need to be thinking about constructing a coherent LTC financing and provision system today. The problems won’t just go away.

Long Term Care problems won’t go away

Busy week and little time to blog, but a quick note on this Kaiser story reporting on a SCAN Foundation poll on long term care needs/perceptions/preparations in California, sent my way by Brad Flansbaum. The article nicely summarizes the surprise many families receive when it comes time for a loved one to need LTC:

Long-term care costs can surprise many families who expect Medicare to cover their needs. After a hospital stay, Medicare will pay for 100 days of nursing home care, but after that, families are on their own or are forced to spend down their assets to become poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Only 35% of Californians correctly understood that Medicare does not pay for extended nursing home care and only 1 in 5 understood the Medicare home health benefit (they think it is more generous than it is). So, Medicaid is the default nursing home payer in the U.S. and the program pays around half of the nation’s nursing home bill. Block granting Medicaid in a way that reduces fairly costs for the program will pit LTC services for the elderly and disabled against the need for acute care insurance for children and pregnant women, and say to states “tag; you’re it!”.

We desperately need a more coherent LTC policy in this country. Private LTC insurance offers no hope of a population based answer. Families are left to stand in the breach, doing the best they can. As I have said before, one of the worst outcomes of the ACA debate was the demise of CLASS in a way that treated those provisions only through the lens of deficit reduction. Deficit accounting is important, but cannot answer all important policy questions.

CLASS wasn’t a deficit gimmick, it was an attempt to set up a self sustaining LTC insurance benefit that could have helped people age in their homes and delay NH admission. Like so much of health reform, critics know far more about what they are against than what they are for.

The question remains: how will our country insure against the need for LTC?

Private LTC Insurance is a not a population solution

The WSJ has a good point/counter-point on the question “should you purchase private Long Term Care Insurance?” (h/t Brad Flansbaum). Mark Meiners argues for purchase by saying “you shouldn’t hope for the best” while Prescott Cole says “LTC insurance is too expensive, you should invest what you would spend on premiums.”

Essentially, they are both arguing that you should prepare for LTC, one via purchasing insurance, the other by building flexible assets that could be use for LTC, or bequeathed to your favorite charity upon your death if die without needing it.

The Journal piece outlines an important conversation that misses the main public policy point: private LTC insurance will never be the solution for the LTC needs of the general population due to income and wealth levels.

Perhaps 10 percent of the population has enough income to pay premiums, and/or enough in assets they may wish to partially protect from a potentially catastrophic LTC cost. For example, past work I have done showed that around 4 in 10 elderly persons had income and assets at age 65 low enough to qualify for Medicaid before paying for any LTC. Those people are removed from the complicated decision framed in the WSJ piece, but they are certainly at risk of needing LTC.

If ever there were a risk profile that cried out for social insurance, it is LTC. The reason that seems so laughable, is our countries failure to grasp the most important thing in all public policy debates: the counterfactual, or the costs and benefits of what happens by default, in this case for LTC.

NPR on Informal Long Term Care

NPR has an interesting story asking “who needs LTC insurance?” because other arrangements can be made to provide for such care (h/t Brad Flansbaum).

This puts a personal face and story on a public policy problem that hits close to home, as my mother-in-law is moving in with my family this Summer. The last 8-9 months my family has been consumed with myriad details to work this out (estate planning, new wills, buying a house, trying to sell two others, getting siblings on the same page, etc). I wrote last week on some of the public policy aspects of LTC; I mostly want to point folks to the NPR story, as it is the best, short representation of the many issues related to thinking through inter-generational living that I have heard.

The cost of caregiving and the demise of CLASS

AARP estimates that around 25 Million persons are providing unpaid caregiving to a loved one with a disability, and that those who do so while juggling market work lose around $325,000 in lifetime income after accounting for foregone wages, income from Social Security, and private pensions. The worst part of the demise of the CLASS provisions in the Affordable Care Act has been the fact that the majority of the focus was on the impact of CLASS on the 10 year deficit score assigned to the bill be the CBO (it accounted for around half of the ACA’s deficit reduction), diverting attention from one of the most profound public policy questions facing our nation:

CLASS wasn’t an accounting gimmick, but an attempt to set up a self sustaining, voluntary LTC insurance program that would provide modest benefits (not enough for a nursing home; best thought of as aiding aging in place) to persons with disabilities. If CLASS had worked perfectly and been a self sustaining program, it would have decreased the deficit in the short term, while increasing the deficit in the out years. As I wrote in December, 2009 about CLASS:

…Proponents claim that CLASS is self-financing over the long term, and opponents say it will increase the deficit in later years. Both are correct.

It is hard to project what will happen with CLASS, mostly because of uncertainties regarding disability rates 30-plus years from now, but there are numerous provisions designed to ensure that the program is self-financing. Regarding the long-term deficit, when a program runs a surplus, it buys federal securities that pay interest. When interest is later used to pay for care, it is counted as a transfer instead of revenue. Therefore, CLASS will inevitably increase the deficit in years 30 to 75 even if it pays for itself totally through premiums and interest earned on premiums, given current budget accounting rules. [update: it would add to the deficit before the 30th year]

One of the key beneficiaries of a self sustaining LTC insurance program would be the adult children of the disabled–who provide unpaid caregiving, with all the related harms (there are also benefits). CLASS was flawed, but could have been fixed had we focused on the policy goal–how will we insure LTC as the baby boomers move into retirement? I think the federal budget deficit is very important to address, but you cannot answer all important policy questions using deficit accounting. The CLASS episode whereby LTC policy was lost in a sea of deficit accounting scores shows this.

Quick thoughts on Senate Aging LTC hearing

I watched the hearing. There was a vague delusion to most of what was said….it is a terrible problem, lets do something about it, we cannot afford to do anything about it, isn’t there some way the private sector can fix this?

Generally, you expect private insurance markets to develop when there is an uncertain chance of a catastrophic loss that affects many persons. Long Term Care fits the bill, yet private insurance markets have not worked well. Somehow, we need to achieve broad risk pooling that includes all those at risk (everyone). From the introduction to a recent paper on private LTC insurance that I wrote with co-authors, there are six primary reasons that persons do not purchase private LTC insurance:

  • No clear risk signal for need of LTC when young
  • Lots of myopia about the need for and cost of LTC; so people don’t understand and/or face up to the risk
  • 3 in 10 of those achieving age 65 will not use LTC, so if everyone bought private policies, a substantial minority would never claim benefits from their policy
  • Medicaid coverage of NH care likely crowds out the purchase of private coverage
  • A substantial proportion of the population has insufficient income to pay LTC insurance premiums, and/or insufficient wealth to “protect” from the cost of LTC
  • The structure of the policies themselves lead to rational non-purchase: (benefits denominated in dollars per day and not care, which is risky especially when insuring against something that is probabilistically a long way off; history of premium increases when claims experience is higher than predicted; denial of applications).

You have to overcome all of these to make private LTC insurance work. I just don’t see it. Further, companies are leaving the market for LTC insurance, and it is a totally voluntary market in which they can underwrite. The most shocking thing I heard at the Senate hearing today was that only 1 company bid to be the carrier for the Federal Employees Health Plan LTC insurance plan, which is basically the largest, most stable such risk pool in the U.S. I just don’t see how we make private LTC work as any sort of population based answer to our nation’s LTC needs. Perhaps the National Flood Insurance Program could serve as a model….I will noodle on that a bit.

The essence of planning for long term care

Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) alerted me to a Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing (The Future of Long Term Care: Saving Money by Serving Seniors), that will be webcast live today at 2pm via the committee homepage. I hope they manage to talk about practical solutions to the difficulties of providing long term care, and do not simply spend their time clucking about what they oppose.

I was guest lecturing on Long Term Care and the demise of the CLASS provisions of the ACA in Peter Ubel’s health policy class on Monday and someone asked, “what is the essence of planning for LTC?” My answer was that it entails planning for who will wipe your ass when and if you can no longer do it for yourself.

Now, that it not what the 20 year old’s in the class were dreaming about discussing when they came to Duke, and I get that. It is very easy to put off thinking about LTC until tomorrow.

Around 7 in 10 persons who attain age 65 will use some LTC. Of the users, about half will do so for less than a year, but around 1 in 10 will need such care for longer than 5 years. It is impossible to look at a room of 20 year olds and say who will need LTC among the subset who live to 65; and of course someone in that room could need it much sooner due to a catastrophic event. Almost no one has the assets to self finance a 5-10 year period of LTC use (~$1.5 Million max risk), so nearly every0ne is at risk of needing such care and not being able to afford it. If ever there was a risk profile that called for social insurance it is LTC. Instead we have a default system in which families do their best, availing themselves of an incomplete safety net, and when care needs become too great and assets are exhausted, Medicaid pays for them to live in a Nursing Home until they die (Medicaid pays for about half of the total national NH cost). We can do better.

A few links with many LTC details if you want more (they will still be here tomorrow):

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers