Post-Acute Care Preparedness in a COVID-19 World.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a surge of patients requiring post-acute care. In order to support federal, state and corporate planning, we offer a four-stage regionally oriented approach to achieving optimal systemwide resource allocation across a region's post-acute service settings and providers over time. In the first stage, the post-acute care system must, to the extent possible, help relieve acute hospitals of non-COVID-19 patients to create as much inpatient capacity as possible over the surge period. In the second stage after the initial surge as subsided, post-acute providers must protect vulnerable populations from COVID-19, prepare treat-in-place protocols for non-COVID-19 admissions, and create and formalize COVID-19 specific settings. In the third stage after a vaccine has been developed or an effective prophylactic option is available, post-acute care providers must assist with distribution and administration of vaccinations and prophylaxis, develop strategies to deliver non-COVID-19 related medical care, and begin to transition to the post-COVID-19 landscape. In the final stage, we must create health advisory bodies to review post-acute sector's response, identify opportunities to improve performance going forward, and develop a pandemic response plan for post-acute care providers. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1150-1154, 2020.

Financing Long-Term Services And Supports: Options Reflect Trade-Offs For Older Americans And Federal Spending.

About half of older Americans will need a high level of assistance with routine activities for a prolonged period of time. This help is commonly referred to as long-term services and supports (LTSS). Under current policies, these individuals will fund roughly half of their paid care out of pocket. Partly as a result of high costs and uncertainty, relatively few people purchase private long-term care insurance or save sufficiently to fully finance LTSS; many will eventually turn to Medicaid for help. To show how policy changes could expand insurance's role in financing these needs, we modeled several new insurance options. Specifically, we looked at a front-end-only benefit that provides coverage relatively early in the period of disability but caps benefits, a back-end benefit with no lifetime limit, and a combined comprehensive benefit. We modeled mandatory and voluntary versions of each option, and subsidized and unsubsidized versions of each voluntary option. We identified important differences among the alternatives, highlighting relevant trade-offs that policy makers can consider in evaluating proposals. If the primary goal is to significantly increase insurance coverage, the mandatory options would be more successful than the voluntary versions. If the major aim is to reduce Medicaid costs, the comprehensive and back-end mandatory options would be most beneficial.