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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

long-term services and supports home- and community-based care and services policy balancing incentive program Medicaid

Introduction

The aging of the Baby Boomers coupled with longer life expectancies is predicted to increase the number of individuals needing long-term services and supports (LTSS), which includes assistance with such activities as eating, bathing, dressing, transportation, and taking medications, from 10 million in 2010 to 15 million in 2020 (Frank, 2012). Medicaid, the nation’s single largest payer of LTSS (O’Shaughnessy, 2014), plays a critical role in shaping access to formal LTSS in both community and institutional settings. Significant progress has been made by Medicaid in the last 20 years to “rebalance” the LTSS system and ensure that older adults can remain at home instead of entering an institution, whenever that setting is appropriate (Colello, 2013; Commission on Long-Term Care, 2013). This shift has occurred primarily for three reasons: (a) to accommodate older adults’ prefer to age in the community (Johnson & Wiener, 2006; Kane & Kane, 2001); (b) to facilitate community integration of beneﬁciaries in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Olmstead decision (Musumeci & Claypool, 2014); and (c) due to the belief that community-based care may lower overall LTSS costs, although evidence of this is mixed (Golden et al., 2010; Grabowski, 2006; Harrington et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2011). Receiving care in the community is not only preferred by older adults, but could result in better health (Wieland et al., 2010), although findings are mixed (Wysocki et al., 2015).

Despite the preference to age in place and a growing number of programs to support it, the institutional bias inherent in Medicaid continues to create barriers for older adults who wish to remain in the community. At the most basic level, this is because, under federal statute, state Medicaid programs must provide nursing home benefits, whereas many Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) remain optional. The move to HCBS began in the 1980s with the introduction of the 1915(c) waiver program, also known as the HCBS waiver program. Through waiver programs, states can waive Medicaid programs requirements to provide a variety of services to enable people to receive care at home or in the community. However, the ability of a state to expand eligibility for HCBS and types of services offered varied by the types of waivers and waivers slots available, community resources, financial constraints, and fragmented health care systems. Although some states have overcome these barriers and made significant strides in increasing HCBS expenditures, others continue to lag.

This variation in state support for HCBS has already received a fair amount of attention in the literature, with a large body of work examining the factors associated with state-level support for HCBS policy decisions and spending. Some of the variation in HCBS supports has been linked to characteristics of the state, including the percent of the population that is comprised of older or disabled persons, minority population, percent rural, income, number of home health agencies, and nursing home beds (Harrington et al., 2000; Kitchener et al., 2007; Miller, 2005; Miller et al., 2006). Political factors, including party leadership and whether the legislature is liberal or conservative, are also associated with HCBS spending (Harrington et al., 2000; Miller & Kirk, 2016; Nattinger & Kaskie, 2017). Finally, political and consumer advocacy groups are also important to HCBS policy development (Kitchener & Harrington, 2004).

This body of work has been important for identifying the state-level demographic, political, and organizational factors that are related to decision-making about HCBS policy. But, less is known about the underlying decisions to adopt more or less generous HCBS policies from the perspectives of the decision makers. Qualitative research can provide a rich perspective on the underlying motivations guiding some states to adopt more generous HCBS policies while other do not. Interviews are uniquely suited for understanding different perspectives that can inform policymaking (Godfrey, 2015). Stakeholder interviews has been a useful approach in other HCBS work, such as research assessing challenges, benefits, and implications of expanding Community First Choice, a Medicaid state plan option authorized through the Affordable Care Act that supports the delivery of long-term services (Burgdorf et al., 2020) and for understanding the experiences and perceptions of providers and the public of the consolidation of Iowa’s Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) on the delivery of HCBS (Arora et al., 2020).

This article similarly uses stakeholder interviews to examine the factors underlying the decision about whether to apply for one recent effort designed to encourage states lagging in HCBS spending, the Balancing Incentive Program (BIP). BIP provided enhanced Federal matching funds for up to 4 years (2011–2015) to increase the provision of HCBS. To be eligible for the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), a state must have spent less than 50% of its total Medicaid LTSS expenditures on HCBS for federal fiscal year 2009. Participating states agreed to make several structural changes in their LTSS systems through the development of a “no wrong door” system, conflict-free case management services, and core standardized assessment instruments. In addition, a specific balancing benchmark, based on a state’s baseline ratio of HCBS to institutional LTSS expenditures, needed be reached by the end of the program. States that spent between 25% and 49% of total LTSS expenditures on community services in 2009 needed to achieve a balancing benchmark of at least 50% by the end of the 2015 fiscal year. States that met this benchmark received a 2% enhanced FMAP on all community-based LTSS expenditures. States that spent less than 25% of total LTSS expenditures on HCBS in 2009 were eligible for a larger enhanced FMAP of 5%, if they met a balancing benchmark of 25% for HCBS relative to LTSS (Lester et al., 2015).

Of the 38 states eligible for BIP, only 21 states applied, and 18 states ultimately participated in the program (Lester et al., 2015). We did not include states that withdrew from BIP because those states could be different from other states and reason for application may not be generalizable. We sought to understand the reasons why some eligible states applied, and others did not. Only a handful of other papers have evaluated BIP, with a focus on implementation strategies (Karon et al., 2015, 2016; Watts et al., 2015; Wiener et al., 2015), and LTSS spending (Lester et al., 2015). Evaluations of similar HCBS transition programs intended to rebalance funds to home-based settings, such as the Money Follows the Person (MFP) demonstration program, also focus on implementation and outcomes, but do not examine the underlying reasons for initial application (Denny-Brown et al., 2015; Irvin et al., 2016, 2017).

To our knowledge, this is the first article to examine the reasons underlying states’ decisions regarding BIP application. This qualitative study expands upon prior work on HCBS decisions by states by interviewing Medicaid administrators to learn more about the complex decision-making and factors involved in the decisions about state support for HCBS. We also extend current quantitative work on state variation in LTSS policy decisions by interviewing Medicaid administrators to learn more about the underlying motivations for deciding whether or not to pursue a new opportunity to expand support for HCBS.

This work is not only important for BIP, but more broadly for understanding why some states continue to lag when it comes to providing HCBS while others have been making considerable progress. Identifying motives for applying to this program is important in that they could be used as points of leverage in future national efforts to promote greater use of HCBS.

Data and Method

Sample and Recruitment

We conducted interviews with Medicaid administrators between November 2016 and May 2017 to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for applying (and not applying) to this program from the perspective of the individuals directly involved in the decision-making. The interviews were part of a broader study on multiple stakeholder perspectives on BIP that included policymakers, providers, and patient advocates who are affected by LTSS policies and programs institutional review board (IRB) approval for the study was obtained by RAND (approval number: IRB-2016-0117-AM02). Sample selection and recruitment involved several stages: First, states were selected by the research team to obtain an even mix of states across the four geographic Census regions and timing of BIP application (among BIP states only). Next, the principal investigator of the project reached out to State Medicaid Directors by email to get approval for state participation. Once the director approved their state’s participation, interviewees were invited to participate in an interview via e-mail or phone and received an e-mail confirmation and calendar invitation following agreement to participate. Most states approved further study communications and accepted our invitation to participation. Only one of the Medicaid administrators from the initial sample declined participation and was replaced with an administrator from a state with similar characteristics.

This study focuses on a sample of 13 Medicaid administrators drawn from the 35 states that were eligible to participate in BIP that did not withdraw their application. This article focuses on Medicaid administrators as they are most knowledgeable about reasons for applying for the program and were ultimately responsible for making the decision to apply or not.

We selected eight Medicaid administrators to represent states that participated in BIP and five Medicaid administrators in states that were eligible for BIP but did not participate. To ensure that administrators had some knowledge of BIP, in recruitment emails we described that we wanted to speak with someone who played a key role in the implementation of BIP. If the candidate belonged to a non-BIP state, we asked to speak with someone involved in implementing LTSS and HCBS programming.

Interview Procedures and Coding

All interviews were conducted over the phone with one interviewer and one note-taker. If respondents consented, interviews were audio-recorded as well. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and deidentified by project staff. All interview processes were approved by the study IRB. The 1-hr interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol that explored, among other topics, reasons for or against applying for BIP and the facilitators and barriers to application.

Analyses

Data were coded using a standardized codebook with thematic codes that were then applied to transcript text, using Dedoose software (SocioCultural Research Consultants, 2017). Two team members reviewed the coded extracts to identify key themes. Disagreements were resolved via consensus between the two team members and a research team lead.

Results

Barriers and Facilitators to BIP Application

From our interviews with Medicaid administrators, we identified six broad categories of BIP application barriers and facilitators. These included (a) stakeholder involvement and internal support; (b) existing supportive infrastructure; (c) feasibility of meeting BIP requirements; (d) alignment with existing rebalancing policy goals; (e) Perceived utility of the enhanced FMAP; and (f) Feasible logistics and timeframe in light of competing priorities. A description of the specific barriers and facilitators cited by Medicaid administrators in BIP and non-BIP states is summarized in Table 1 and discussed in detail below.

Table 1.

Comparison of Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Applying for BIP Based on Interviews with Medicaid Administrators in BIP and Non-BIP States.

	Facilitators of application (BIP states)	Barriers to application (non-BIP states)
Stakeholder involvement and internal support	• Champion/leadership support • Stakeholder support	• Stakeholder support inadequate or stakeholder pushback
Existing supportive infrastructure	• Other related existing programs • Enhance or streamline existing infrastructure	• Limited infrastructure to support BIP
Feasibility of meeting BIP requirements	• Already close to meeting benchmark requirements • Sufficient resources to implement other requirements	• Limited resources to meet BIP requirements
Alignment with existing rebalancing policy goals	• Aligned with existing goals • Increase percentage of HCBS • Policy window opened • Reduce waitlists	• Did not make sense for the state/not in line with political philosophy • Prefer market-based approach • Competing policy or program priorities
Perceived utility of the enhanced FMAP	• Wanted additional FMAP to fund policy goals or address budget shortfalls	• Budgetary constraints • Perceived BIP as a poor return on investment
Feasible logistics and timeframe	• Ability to plan, implement large program	• Staffing/leadership changes or inadequacies • Logistical challenges • Inadequate timeline for implementation • Competing priorities • Limited staff availability

Note. BIP = Balancing Incentive Program; HCBS = Home- and Community-Based Services; FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentages.

Stakeholder Involvement and Internal Support

Medicaid administrators in BIP states reported stakeholder support for applying for BIP. These stakeholders and supporters included patient advocacy groups, provider organizations, and legal aid societies. Internal stakeholders, such as supportive administrators, ensured that states applied. A Medicaid administrator in a BIP state explained:

Our division chief at the time was very excited about this program, and [s/he] had a real strong vision of how [s/he] wanted community-based long-term services and supports to proceed . . . (BIP state)

States with MFP sometimes had MFP stakeholders advocating for BIP application, as a Medicaid administrator noted:

. . . the other key reason was, at the time, we participated in the Money Follows the Person program and our project officer at Money Follows the Person really strongly encouraged us to apply for BIP. [S/he] was kind of a real cheerleader for us in applying. (BIP state)

In addition, other public agencies (e.g., state’s aging offices or departments), advocacy groups, direct service organizations, patients, general stakeholders, the governor’s office, and legislative branch were all referenced by BIP states as supporters or “champions” who helped facilitate application, with many states citing support from multiple sources.

Although non-BIP states sometimes had supporters as well, these supporters were less prevalent and less commonly referenced by interviewees. One Medicaid administrator specifically noted a contrast between strong support for MFP and a lack of support for BIP:

We got huge pressure from Money Follows the Person, to apply for that grant. So, by example, there were letter-writing campaigns, people called, they came in and they met with us. They offered support, they put coalitions together, you know. So there was tremendous pressure on that. I really don’t remember anything like that around BIP, to be honest. (Non-BIP state)

Among BIP states, in addition to positive pressure that incentivized states to apply for BIP, some states reported negative pressure, for example, that they were pushed to apply due to the threat of a lawsuit related to community integration as specified by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead decision.

Existing Supportive Infrastructure

To meet BIP’s requirements, essential infrastructure—tools, skilled staff, and other resources—were needed. For example, technologies that would facilitate BIP implementation included electronic systems to support eligibility determinations, functional assessments, or case management systems. Physical locations or a website or 1–800 number needed to be available for No Wrong Door/single entry point as well as trained staff to help consumers navigate the process. Existing relationships with providers or support service organizations helped to support the process (e.g., a relationship with the state’s housing office to support housing transitions). For many states, BIP was a natural outgrowth of already-existing infrastructure, as illustrated by one BIP-state Medicaid administrator:

I think that our existing infrastructure—we wanted to do some more things surrounding that, to make it more user friendly not only for the people that we serve, but getting information to each other, [and] the different agencies that are involved with our long-term services and supports. We saw that as an opportunity to be able to enhance those things and build some more infrastructure there as well as being able to serve more people. So I think that, yeah, the existing LTSS system, the way that we were setup when we applied for those funds definitely played into that. (BIP state)

Conversely, another BIP-state cited a desire to improve their infrastructure as their reason for applying for BIP:

So, we’ve kind of been . . . I hate to say it, in the dark ages, as far as our infrastructure. So having any opportunity to go out and pursue the implementation of electronic tools to make us more efficient, more effective, to better manage the few dollars that we have, was I would think—at least internally here, within Medicaid—was motivation for us to pursue the BIP funding. . . So that’s a lot of it, just giving us something, so that we can start building on what infrastructure we have . . . (BIP state)

Feasibility of Meeting BIP Requirements

For many states, the requirements for BIP were perceived as “low hanging fruit.” In other words, existing HCBS structures and programs made achieving BIP targets easy. Several state Medicaid administrators said explicitly that their states were close to meeting the benchmark of institutional LTSS to HCBS spending, a requirement of states after BIP implementation. Said one Medicaid administrator,

We were quickly able to identify that a number of expenditures, which were clearly and justifiably community long-term service and support expenditures, were not being captured and were not reflected in the figure that CMS had . . . a quick analysis showed that the 50/50 balancing requirement was not going to be a huge hurdle for us. (BIP state)

In addition to the benchmark, another Medicaid administrator enumerated each of the BIP requirements and how they had determined they could be easily met. These included a standardized beneficiary assessment, No Wrong Door, and conflict-free case management:

What we realized was that the core standardized assessment requirement was already something that was a balancing project that we were working on at the time. So we knew that we could easily fulfill that requirement and the conflict-free case management was already a strategy that we were implementing in some of our dual-eligible waiver projects. And then I’m trying to think, the heaviest lift was going to be the biggest part, the front door, bringing up a new fast track front door for HCBS and LTSS. But we were already moving in that direction, so we were able to dedicate staff that could do the application and do the initial BIP plan. (BIP state)

In the same state, the Medicaid administrator noted that their “fiscal people” provided projections that suggested the balancing benchmark was a feasible goal.

Although most of the BIP states pointed to the ease of meeting the requirements as a key reason for application, this was not true for all BIP states. One Medicaid administrator mentioned that BIP was a way to achieve wider community integration in areas where they were lagging but wanted to make progress.

Alignment With Existing Rebalancing Policy Goals

Pre-existing goals for more community-based services were also part of the motivation behind BIP application, as stated by one Medicaid administrator: “We, again, saw that as another opportunity to leverage and expand our goals of person-centered, whole person, and community-based services and supports.” One Medicaid administrator saw BIP as a solution to their large HCBS waitlists. Some Medicaid administrators were less explicit about particular policies but mentioned that BIP fit with their goals more generally. A Medicaid administrator in a BIP state said: “We felt BIP aligned and supported much of what [we were] already trying to do.” For some states, BIP came at the right time politically, matching the current administration’s goals, said one Medicaid administrator:

We had looked at really a number of the LTSS opportunities that became available under the ACA. And kind of given the culture of our state and where we were, from a service provision and service network kind of perspective, decided that BIP was probably the most appropriate for us to try. (BIP state)

Non-BIP states, however, had many reasons BIP did not fit their goals. One state Medicaid administrator said that the state prefers a “market based approach to getting the same results.” Another state Medicaid administrator mentioned that BIP was not in line with the political philosophy of the state.

Competing priorities also came up in interviews with Medicaid administrators in non-BIP states, as exemplified by one state Medicaid administrator:

We also were embarking on the integrated care initiative that CMS and the innovation office had made available through the Affordable Care Act. So [we were] very much interested in opportunities to strengthen the delivery system of long-term services and support . . . [but] all of this was sort of going on simultaneously. (Non-BIP state)

Perceived Utility of the Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages

Finances and state budgets were given as rationales both for and against BIP application. BIP states saw the rebalancing program as a means to address financial limitations that hindered their ability to provide or expand HCBS due to the enhanced FMAP offered under BIP. FMAP funds, which are used to reimburse states for the federal share of most Medicaid expenditures, were explicitly cited as a reason for applying for BIP:

Obviously, the lure of additional federal FMAP to help us meet our goals was a big factor, as well. That certainly helped other people get on-board. So that’s kind of where we started with the decision to apply for BIP. (BIP state)

Several Medicaid administrators cited budget shortfalls as a motivation for applying to BIP, as highlighted by the quote below:

Going back in time, a few years now, to the fall of 2011 when this initiative became available . . . [we were] having a severe budget crisis, just like other states . . . we were certainly looking for funds to help us maintain and continue our mission. (BIP state)

Although BIP states saw budget concerns as a reason to apply for BIP, non-BIP states saw their financial circumstances as a reason to avoid applying for new programs or processes that might entail additional efforts or expenditures. In addition, a state administrator reported that the fiscal conservativeness of the state was one reason they did not apply for BIP: “[This state] is a very fiscally conservative state and so when we talk about executive branch agencies like ours, we have to operate incredibly lean.” Another Medicaid administrator in a non-BIP state discussed their anticipated poor return on investment of BIP as a reason for not applying for the program.

Feasible Logistics and TimeframeNot all states felt equally able to implement a large program like BIP. In one interview with a Medicaid administrator in a non-BIP state, implementation efforts were cited as a core reason for not applying for BIP. Described as “competing priorities,” this administrator reported that the state preferred to direct their resources toward other programs underway rather than on the planning and effort required to implement BIP. Related to larger logistical issues around planning or coordination, was the timeframe for BIP implementation. One Medicaid Administrator in a non-BIP state cited the short timeline for implementation as a reason they did not apply. Another noted that the timing of the BIP application period coincided with implementation of LTSS managed care or other programs which made it infeasible to focus on BIP at that time. As the Medicaid administrator put it:

I think about the time we would have started to get serious about a BIP was when the legislation was passed and it’s kind of hard looking back now to remember how completely overwhelming [implementing managed care] was. (Non-BIP state)

Another Medicaid Administrator recounted their decision, given the multiple programs and opportunities:

We do have the . . . home and community-based [waiver] for disabled and elderly folks. We have a PACE Program, we have the personal care services that I was talking about earlier and then we have the duals demonstration and taking into consideration all of the different opportunities that were made available through the Affordable Care Act, we opted to move forward with the duals demo . . .when you start talking about Balancing Incentive and all the options that were available through the Affordable Care Act, we opted to go with the duals demonstration. (Non-BIP state)

The same Medicaid administrator pointed to Medicaid expansion itself as making it difficult to apply for BIP (“between the duals demonstration and Medicaid expansion, we were pretty much strapped”).

Discussion

By increasing expenditures for home- and community-based care, rebalancing programs are one way to help older adults with chronic conditions or disabilities remain in the community. It is important to understand why some states adopt these programs while others do not so that future rebalancing efforts can reach more older adults with disabilities that require LTSS. Through our interviews with Medicaid Administrators, we found several reasons why some eligible states applied for BIP while others did not. One of the primary reasons Medicaid administrators gave for applying for BIP was stakeholder support and having an internal champion for BIP application. On the contrary, Medicaid administrators in non-BIP states cited a lack of encouragement from Medicaid leadership or other stakeholders as a reason for not applying, demonstrating the critical and influential role that multiple sources of support play in policy decision-making.

Policy goals were another key reason for applying and not applying for BIP. Non-BIP states mentioned a few key reasons that BIP did not fit their goals, including a preference for market-based approaches to HCBS, and other competing policy priorities. Conversely, states applied for BIP if the program was consistent with existing priorities for expanding HCBS. Relatedly, states applied for BIP when they were already close to meeting BIP’s benchmarking or other requirements, suggesting that states that needed rebalancing most were also least likely to have the foundation or momentum to apply for BIP. Existing infrastructure also played a role in applying for BIP. Existing structures and programs made BIP an easy program to apply for and adopt in some states.

Finances and state budgets came up in both BIP and non-BIP states, with BIP states encouraged by the possibility that BIP could provide a much-needed boost to an anemic HCBS budget. Finally, consistent with other work showing that the MFP program facilitated BIP implementation (Libersky et al., 2015), we also found that MFP enabled BIP application. Our interviews showed that MFP was associated with a greater likelihood of BIP application. There were several mechanisms for how MFP facilitated BIP application: sometimes the MFP program officer encouraged the BIP application, while other Medicaid administrators pointed to MFP as something that BIP could build on. While MFP infrastructures (e.g., patient advisory group, trained transition managers, connections with housing agencies and organizations to help people transition, etc.) were unlikely to be directly relevant to BIP development, they likely facilitated a permissiveness for these kinds of initiatives within the agency and MFP may have helped connect agencies to stakeholder groups with interest in BIP.

Our interviews focus only on states eligible for BIP participation. Based on 2010 Census data, these states are fairly similar in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., race–ethnic composition, percent state rural, percent disabled, age composition, and poverty status). One important difference is that larger states were more likely than smaller ones to apply for BIP. It is possible that if these states had better infrastructure and logistical support such as sufficient and skilled staff, technologies, and other resources, they would be better able to conceive of implementing a program like BIP. BIP states were already spending more on HCBS in 2010, prior to application (Eiken et al., 2017), which reinforces our current finding that states that were close to meeting the benchmark were also the ones most likely to apply for BIP.

Taken together, our findings suggest that states faced a complex matrix of priorities and policy conditions that affected their decision to apply or not apply for BIP. Because states most likely to apply also had policy goals aligned with BIP and were already close to meeting HCBS spending benchmarks, BIP may inadvertently widen disparities across states in their availability of HCBS, by pushing those on the margins ahead and leaving the ones that are worst off to fall even further behind. Given the importance of internal champions for pursuing the BIP application, future efforts to engage states in rebalancing programs may require reaching the leadership, changing the culture around long-term care, and educating leaders about the benefits of HCBS relative to institutional care. Finally, providing infrastructure and resources might help ease the perceived or actual burden of implementing these new services, meaning that states with worse baseline HCBS spending may be more able or inclined to participate in rebalancing. Future rebalancing efforts may need to provide application incentives targeted specifically to the states that are falling furthest behind in HCBS such as more technical support during the application stage or supporting a more generous implementation timeline for those states.

Our findings should be considered in the context of their limitations. Most basically, interviews were conducted with a subset of the states that were eligible for BIP. Although we selected states to be representative, findings may not reflect those of all states. Our work points to the barriers keeping some states from rebalancing HCBS. These findings are important for detecting appropriate policy levers for encouraging future efforts to support HCBS and the ability of older adults with LTSS needs to receive the support and services they need in the setting they desire.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ammarah Mahmud for research assistance and the interviewees for their time and insights.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute of Health under Grant R01MD010360 (PI: R.A.S.).

ORCID iDs

Esther M. Friedman

Sangeeta C. Ahluwalia

References

Arora

Ashida

Mobley

E. M.

Sample

G. J.

(2020). The impact of consolidating AAA on the delivery of HCBS: Evidence from Iowa. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(7), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464818821055

Burgdorf

Wolff

Willink

Woodcock

Davis

Stockwell

(2020). Expanding Medicaid coverage for community-based long-term services and supports: Lessons from Maryland’s community first choice program. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(7), 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464818779942

Colello

K. J.

(2013). Medicaid coverage of long-term services and supports. Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43328.pdf

Commission on Long-Term Care. (2013). Report to the congress. http://www.chhs.ca.gov/OLMDOC/Agenda%20Item%206-%20Commission%20on%20Long-Term%20Care-%20Final%20Report%209-26-13.pdf

Denny-Brown

Hagen

Bradnan

Williams

(2015). The right supports at the right time: How money follows the person programs are supporting diverse populations in the community: The national evaluation of the money follows the person (MFP) demonstration grant program, reports from the field #16. Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/the-right-supports-at-the-right-time-how-money-follows-the-person-programs-are-supporting-diverse

Eiken

Sredl

Burwell

Woodward

(2017). Medicaid expenditures for long-term services and supports (LTSS) in FY 2015. Truven Health Analytics.

Frank

R. G.

(2012). Long-term care financing in the United States: Sources and institutions. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 34(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/pps016

Godfrey

(2015). Qualitative research in age and ageing: Enhancing understanding of ageing, health and illness. Age and Ageing, 44(5), 726–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv096

Golden

A. G.

Roos

B. A.

Silverman

M. A.

Beers

M. H.

(2010). Home and community-based Medicaid options for dependent older Floridians. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(2), 371–376.

10.

Grabowski

D. C.

(2006). The cost-effectiveness of noninstitutional long-term care services: Review and synthesis of the most recent evidence. Medical Care Research and Review, 63(1), 3–28.

11.

Harrington

Carrillo

Wellin

Miller

LeBlanc

(2000). Predicting state Medicaid home and community based waiver participants and expenditures, 1992–1997. The Gerontologist, 40(6), 673–686.

12.

Harrington

Kitchener

(2011). Do Medicaid home and community based service waivers save money? Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 30(4), 198–213.

13.

Irvin

C. V.

Bohl

Stewart

Williams

S. R.

Steiner

Denny-Brown

. . . Peebles

(2017). Money follows the person 2015 annual evaluation report. Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/money-follows-the-person-2015-annual-evaluation-report

14.

Irvin

C. V.

Denny-Brown

Morris

Postman

(2016). Pathways to independence: Transitioning adults under age 65 from nursing homes to community living: The national evaluation of the MFP demonstration. Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/pathways-to-independence-transitioning-adults-under-age-65-from-nursing-homes-to-community-living

15.

Johnson

R. W.

Wiener

J. M.

(2006). A profile of frail older Americans and their caregivers. Urban Institute.

16.

Kane

R. L.

Kane

R. A.

(2001). What older people want from long-term care, and how they can get it. Health Affairs, 20(6), 114–127.

17.

Karon

Knowles

Lyda-McDonald

Thach

Wiener

Justic

. . . Sowers

(2015). Case studies of balancing incentive program implementation process. https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/case-studies-balancing-incentive-program-implementation-process

18.

Karon

Knowles

Lyda-McDonald

Thach

Wiener

Justic

. . . Sowers

(2016). Final Process Evaluation of the Balancing Incentive Program. https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/final-process-evaluation-balancing-incentive-program

19.

Kitchener

Harrington

(2004). The US long-term care field: A dialectic analysis of institution dynamics. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 87–101.

20.

Kitchener

Carrillo

Miller

Harrington

(2007). Developing personal care programs: National trends and interstate variation, 1992–2002. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 44(1), 69–87.

21.

Lester

R. S.

Irvin

C. V.

Mosca

Bradnan

(2015). Tipping the balance: The balancing incentive program and state progress on rebalancing their long-term services and supports: National evaluation of the money follows the person (MFP) demonstration grant program, report from the field. https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/tipping-the-balance-the-balancing-incentive-program-and-state-progress-on-rebalancing-their-longterm

22.

Libersky

Lipson

Liao

(2015). Hand in hand: Enhancing the synergy between money follows the person and managed long-term services and supports: The National evaluation of the money follows the person (MFP) demonstration grant program, reports from the field #17. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/hand-in-hand-enhancing-the-synergy-between-money-follows-the-person-and-managed-longterm-services

23.

Miller

N. A.

(2005). State strategies to support community based long term care for the elderly. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 20(4), 1–30.

24.

Miller

N. A.

Kirk

(2016). Predicting state investment in Medicaid home-and community-based services, 2000–2011. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 28(1), 49–64.

25.

Miller

N. A.

Rubin

Elder

K. T.

Kitchener

Harrington

(2006). Strengthening home and community-based care through Medicaid waivers. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 18(1), 1–16.

26.

Musumeci

Claypool

(2014). Olmstead’s role in community integration for people with disabilities under Medicaid: 15 years after the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

27.

Nattinger

M. C.

Kaskie

(2017). Determinants of the rigor of state protection policies for persons with dementia in assisted living. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 29(2), 123–142.

28.

O’Shaughnessy

(2014). National spending for long-term services and supports (LTSS), 2012. http://www.nhpf.org/library/details.cfm/2783

29.

Shapiro

Loh

C.-P.

Mitchell

(2011). Medicaid cost-savings of home-and community-based service programs for older persons in Florida. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 30(1), 3–21.

30.

SocioCultural Research Consultants LLC. (2017). Dedoose version 7, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. www.dedoose.com

31.

Watts

M. O.

Reaves

E. L.

Musumec

(2015). Medicaid balancing incentive program: A survey of participating states. http://files.kff.org/attachment/report-medicaid-balancing-incentive-program-a-survey-of-participating-states

32.

Wieland

Boland

Baskins

Kinosian

(2010). Five-year survival in a Program of All-inclusive Care for Elderly compared with alternative institutional and home-and community-based care. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 65(7), 721–726.

33.

Wiener

J. M.

Karon

S. L.

McGinn-Shapiro

Lyda-McDonald

Thach

Justice

. . . Sowers

(2015). Descriptive overview and summary of balancing incentive program participating states at baseline. https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/descriptive-overview-and-summary-balancing-incentive-program-participating-states-baseline:

34.

Wysocki

Butler

Kane

R. L.

Kane

R. A.

Shippee

Sainfort

(2015). Long-term services and supports for older adults: A review of home and community-based services versus institutional care. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 27(3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2015.1024545