Greenberg J A, Leutz W N
Hosp Prog. 1984 Feb;65(2):46-9, 72.
As pressure mounts to contain Medicaid long term care spending, short-range "quick fixes" must be avoided. Three such false solutions in particular have shortcomings that may actually exacerbate long term care's financial dilemma because they are based on inadequate definitions of the problem. Two of these proposals--legislation to broaden family responsibility toward institutionalized elders on Medicaid and expanded state power to put liens on such elders' real property--err by trying to mandate "caring" and are predicated on a misunderstanding of the "spend-down" problem. The other proposal--to provide tax incentives to family members who care for elders--requires a large administrative apparatus, assumes an elasticity of supply that may not exist, and could disrupt the "gift relationship" on which family exchanges are often based. What is needed is a strategy with short term, intermediate, and long term objectives that move toward an insurance approach. The short term plan should lay the groundwork for intermediate strategy and control costs by changing rate-setting methods and putting limits on facility construction. The intermediate plan should change the problem's definition from one of merely controlling Medicaid long term care expenditures to one of efficiently managing state resources for the elderly through the development of state financing and local delivery systems that target older persons in greatest need. An effective means of doing this is through the creation of social/HMOs, which have five key features: integration of service responsibility and authority; flexibility in organizational design; balanced clientele; pooled prepaid funding; and financial risk for the provider organization. Finally, the long term strategy should transfer much of the long term care financial burden from individuals and state Medicaid agencies to insurance mechanisms. Many individuals would thus avoid impoverishment caused by health care spending and Medicaid would greatly reduce its caseload. Insurance coverage is an appropriate funding mechanism, moreover, in that relatively few persons will ever incur high costs.
随着控制医疗补助长期护理支出的压力不断增大,必须避免短期的“权宜之计”。特别是有三种这样的错误解决方案存在缺陷,它们实际上可能会加剧长期护理的财政困境,因为它们基于对问题的不充分定义。其中两项提议——立法扩大家庭对接受医疗补助的机构养老老年人的责任,以及扩大州政府对这些老年人不动产设置留置权的权力——错误地试图强制“关爱”,并且基于对“支出用尽”问题的误解。另一项提议——为照顾老年人的家庭成员提供税收激励——需要庞大的行政机构,假定可能不存在的供应弹性,并且可能会扰乱家庭交换通常所基于的“赠与关系”。需要的是一项具有短期、中期和长期目标的战略,朝着保险模式发展。短期计划应通过改变费率设定方法和限制设施建设来为中期战略奠定基础并控制成本。中期计划应将问题的定义从仅仅控制医疗补助长期护理支出转变为通过发展针对最有需要的老年人的州融资和地方服务提供系统,有效地管理州政府用于老年人的资源。实现这一目标的有效手段是创建社会健康维护组织,它具有五个关键特征:服务责任和权力的整合;组织设计的灵活性;平衡的客户群体;预付资金池;以及提供者组织的财务风险。最后,长期战略应将大部分长期护理财政负担从个人和州医疗补助机构转移到保险机制。这样,许多人将避免因医疗支出而陷入贫困,医疗补助将大幅减少其案例数量。此外,保险覆盖是一种合适的资金机制,因为相对较少的人会产生高额费用。