Factors Explaining State Differences in Applying for a Recent Long-Term Care Program that Promotes Aging in Place: Perspectives of Medicaid Administrators.

Older adults in need of assistance often prefer to remain at home rather than receive care in an institution. To meet these preferences, Medicaid invited states to apply for the Balancing Incentive Program (BIP), a program intended to "rebalance" Medicaid-financed long-term services and supports to Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS). However, only about half of eligible states applied. We interviewed Medicaid administrators to explore why some states applied for BIP whereas others did not. Supportive state leadership and the presence of other programs supporting community-based care were positively related to BIP application. Opposing policy priorities and programs competing for similar resources were negatively related to BIP application. Because states most likely to apply already had policy goals and programs supporting HCBS, BIP may inadvertently widen disparities across states, pushing those on the margins ahead and leaving the ones that are worst off in HCBS support to fall even further behind.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Access to Home- and Community-Based Services and Supports: Stakeholder Perspectives From 14 States.

OBJECTIVES: Trends over time in the United States show success in rebalancing long-term services and supports (LTSS) toward increased home- and community-based services (HCBS) relative to institutionalized care. However, the diffusion and utilization of HCBS may be inequitable across rural and urban residents. We sought to identify potential disparities in rural HCBS access and utilization, and to elucidate factors associated with these disparities. DESIGN: We used qualitative interviews with key informants to explore and identify potential disparities and their associated supply-side factors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 3 groups of health care stakeholders (Medicaid administrators, service agency managers and staff, and patient advocates) from 14 states (n = 40). MEASURES: Interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide, and data were thematically coded using a standardized codebook. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified supply-side factors inhibiting rural HCBS access, including limited availability of LTSS providers, inadequate transportation services, telecommunications barriers, threats to business viability, and challenges to caregiving workforce recruitment and retention. Stakeholders perceived that rural persons have a greater reliance on informal caregiving supports, either as a cultural preference or as compensation for the dearth of HCBS. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: LTSS rebalancing efforts that limit the institutional LTSS safety net may have unintended consequences in rural contexts if they do not account for supply-side barriers to HCBS. We identified supply-side factors that (1) inhibit beneficiaries' access to HCBS, (2) affect the adequacy and continuity of HCBS, and (3) potentially impact long-term business viability for HCBS providers. Spatial isolation of beneficiaries may contribute to a perceived lack of demand and reduce chances of funding for new services. Addressing these problems requires stakeholder collaboration and comprehensive policy approaches with attention to rural infrastructure.

Evaluating the Impact of Policies to Regulate Involuntary Out-of-Network Charges on New Jersey Hospitals.

Policymakers must balance the complex and sometimes conflicting objectives of ensuring access to care, limiting the financial burden on patients, and controlling overall costs. States differ in how they handle involuntary out-of-network charges-i.e., payment for care when a patient does not have the option of selecting a hospital in his or her health plan's network. New Jersey's current regulations emphasize patient protection, in that patients are only responsible for the portion of the cost that they would have incurred for in-network care, and health plans must pay the remainder of the provider's charges. This policy is seen as contentious by health plans, who argue that they have been made responsible for paying whatever charges a hospital submits, and proposals to limit payments for involuntary out-of-network care are being debated in the state legislature. This study seeks to inform the current debate (as of October 2016) by analyzing the role of out-of-network payments in New Jersey hospitals' financial performance and simulating the effect of policies to limit charges for involuntary out-of-network care. The authors' estimates suggest that implementing New Jersey Bill A1952, which proposes a limit of between 90 and 200 percent of Medicare rates for involuntary out-of-network hospital care, would have reduced payments for hospital care by commercial plans by between 6 and 10 percent during 2010 through 2014. Assuming no change in operating expenses and no recoupment of lost out-of-network revenues, the cap would have led to an operating loss at between 48 and 70 percent of hospitals.