In-Home Care Workforce Not Meeting Growing Demand

The number of direct care workers is insufficiently growing to meet the demands of seniors and adults with disabilities living at home.

That’s according to a new “State Scorecard” report from AARP, the SCAN Foundation and Commonwealth Fund, which examined the factors that determine long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities. AARP released similar reports in 2011 and 2014.

The report ranked each state and the District of Columbia based on long-term services and supports (LTSS) performance in five main categories: affordability and access; choice of setting and provider; quality of life and quality of care; support for family caregivers; and effective transitions between nursing homes, hospitals and homes.

Just under half of all states (24) “significantly increased” the number of home health and personal care aides, but there’s still lots of ground to make up, the report noted.

At the current national rate of improvement, the bottom five states for the number of home health and personal care aides would need 34 years to hire enough workers to equal the median state. And the median state would need another 34 years to reach the number of workers in the top five states.

Funding disparities

The lion’s share of Medicaid LTSS funding for seniors and adults with physical disabilities went to nursing homes, the report also found. Furthermore, the amount of Medicaid dollars that states put toward home- and community-based services varied significantly.

Minnesota, for instance, devoted 69% of Medicaid dollars to home- and community-based services, while Alabama put just 14% toward the same services. Overall, just 10 states spent more on home- and community-based services than on nursing homes.

Still, states have made steady, albeit slow, progress in increasing the share of Medicaid spending going toward home- and community-based services. The share increased from 39 percent in 2011 to 41 percent in 2014, the most current year of available data among the states.

More than half of the states (29) showed significant improvement in the percentage of new LTSS users who first received home- and community-based services. Specifically, Montana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Iowa, Delaware, Louisiana, Vermont and Nebraska showed the most improvement.

But that metric also varied widely, with 30% of new Medicaid beneficiaries first receiving services in their homes and communities in the bottom five states compared with 80% in the top five states.

Results across the board

On the whole, Washington ranked as the No. 1 state in the nation for LTSS, while Indiana sat at the bottom of the list.

Washington was in the top quartile of performance for all but one of the five categories. Likewise, runner-up Minnesota, which beat Washington to become the top-ranked state in 2014, scored in the top quartile in four of the five categories. Vermont, Oregon, and Alaska rounded out the top five states.

Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee were at the other end of the list, with Indiana at the very bottom. The Hoosier State scored in the last quartile in three of the five categories.

Although most states showed at least some progress in each of the five main categories, the pace wasn’t enough to keep up with demographic demands, the report noted.

The majority of states logged no “meaningful change” related to affordability and access, for instance, and the cost of LTSS over time remains significantly higher than what middle-income families can afford. Additionally, most adults lack private long-term care insurance.

“Overall, states have made incremental improvements, but must pick up the pace of change to meet the needs of a growing number of people aging and living with disabilities,” the report conluded.

Read the full report to view the complete findings.

Written by Tim Regan

Tim Regan on EmailTim Regan on Linkedin
Tim Regan
Tim is a lover of bad jokes and good beer. When he's not hunched over his work computer, Tim can usually be found hunched over his personal computer.

Categories:


Companies:

,