Harris Proposes that Medicar cover Long-Term Care at Home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could be funded by making a stipulation that anyone who is under the program becomes a DNR/DNI and is no longer eligible for surgery.

That wouldn't happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be happier than me if this aid came about.

However

We have such a large number of aging people about to need this care and it is SO expensive.

I don't understand how we could pay for it, as a nation.

I guess it depends on how much care the person needs, if the avg cost of a nursing home is $350-400 per day there has got to make it work. I’m sure some families would be able to supplement care at home,

It's 400-500 in NOVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could be funded by making a stipulation that anyone who is under the program becomes a DNR/DNI and is no longer eligible for surgery.

What the actual heck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Medicare ALREADY COVERS in-home care. There are criteria to meet, but it already covers it.

But, to repeat: Medicare already covers in-home care. So, what's the proposed change?

It 100% does not cover in-home care for anyone who needs it on a long term basis.

It covers it for very temporary care, like after surgery.

But if you are disabled, and need someone to help you every day with activities of daily living so your spouse can leave and go to work... Medicare does not cover that care.

There are situations where in theory it is possible to get Medicare to pay for up to 18 hours per week of such care, but the reimbursement scheme is so funky that in actuality, nursing agencies refuse to actually provide aides to cover those needs. They will at most send an aide a couple hours per week to provide a bath or something.

It is a BIG problem for many disabled people, especially married people, because you need to spend down almost all your retirement assets before the disabled person can qualify for Medicaid and home health aide care. Yes, the "well spouse" can keep $100,000 of their retirement assets but the rest has to be spent before Medicaid will kick in for the disabled spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/kamala-harris-howard-stern-colbert-view/

Probably a long shot, but would be so helpful for many.

Look, I'm voting for Harris, but I'm getting really tired of the pandering by both candidates.

Medicare ALREADY COVERS in-home care. There are criteria to meet, but it already covers it.

Or is this about nursing homes? Medicare already covers medical services in nursing homes. And Medicaid covers the nursing homes themselves. If the supposition is that you shouldn't have to spend down everything to qualify for Medicaid, that would no doubt be popular, but I'd have a huge problem with it from a policy perspective.

But, to repeat: Medicare already covers in-home care. So, what's the proposed change?

Medicare does not cover long term 24-7 care. It only covers care in very limited situations for short term rehab.

Medicaid also does not cover long-term care. It is a separate waiver programs. Before you lecture people, know what you are talking about.

Someone who needs 24/7 care doesn’t need to be at home, idiot

Medicare doesn't even cover 8 hours a day of home health care on an ongoing basis... it really covers only a couple hours per week at best, in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one would be happier than me if this aid came about.

However

We have such a large number of aging people about to need this care and it is SO expensive.

I don't understand how we could pay for it, as a nation.

I guess it depends on how much care the person needs, if the avg cost of a nursing home is $350-400 per day there has got to make it work. I’m sure some families would be able to supplement care at home,

Medicare isn't covering $400/day of nursing home care, either.... Medicaid may, but not medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/kamala-harris-howard-stern-colbert-view/

Probably a long shot, but would be so helpful for many.

Look, I'm voting for Harris, but I'm getting really tired of the pandering by both candidates.

Medicare ALREADY COVERS in-home care. There are criteria to meet, but it already covers it.

Or is this about nursing homes? Medicare already covers medical services in nursing homes. And Medicaid covers the nursing homes themselves. If the supposition is that you shouldn't have to spend down everything to qualify for Medicaid, that would no doubt be popular, but I'd have a huge problem with it from a policy perspective.

But, to repeat: Medicare already covers in-home care. So, what's the proposed change?

You clearly have no deep understanding of what in-home care is that Medicare provides. 1) the patient has to be improving, 2) it is doled out in at best 30 minute increments a few days a week for bed baths, PT, OT, and a supervising doctor has to Rx it. It is then assessed regularly. If a person isn't improving, then they go to the bed bath stage, and that isn't every day. If someone is bedridden, they need far more care than a bath every other day or so. Bedridden needs 24/7 either at home or in a nursing home. Medicare absolutely does not pay for that. As noted, it would bankrupt the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know people getting free long term care in Maryland.
Morbid obesity, stroke victim, late 40's, wheel chair due to morbid obesity

This would be MediCAID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/kamala-harris-howard-stern-colbert-view/

Probably a long shot, but would be so helpful for many.

Look, I'm voting for Harris, but I'm getting really tired of the pandering by both candidates.

Medicare ALREADY COVERS in-home care. There are criteria to meet, but it already covers it.

Or is this about nursing homes? Medicare already covers medical services in nursing homes. And Medicaid covers the nursing homes themselves. If the supposition is that you shouldn't have to spend down everything to qualify for Medicaid, that would no doubt be popular, but I'd have a huge problem with it from a policy perspective.

But, to repeat: Medicare already covers in-home care. So, what's the proposed change?

Medicare does not cover long term 24-7 care. It only covers care in very limited situations for short term rehab.

Medicaid also does not cover long-term care. It is a separate waiver programs. Before you lecture people, know what you are talking about.

Someone who needs 24/7 care doesn’t need to be at home, idiot

Friday night and the drunk name caller has arrived.

Many of us keep our loved ones at home and pay for 24/7 care out of pocket. Don't make blanket statements that you know nothing about. I will refrain from calling you an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people want to be able to age in place- in their own home, in familiar surroundings, and preferably by their own family. Many ( mostly women) are doing this time-consuming caregiving at their own expense and often while raising children at the same time. Many have to cut back on work hours or quit to drive elderly parents or disabled children to appointments. A civilized country should help care for its vulnerable people and caregivers deserve some kind of assistance.

It is 💯 percent the right thing to do. I think community center programs and care at home are the way to go for quality of life.

I don't disagree with this. We did this for our parents. But it is hugely expensive, easily 178K/year, and in many areas much more. So I make a point to not judge those who simply can't do it. Where it's a shame is for families who do have the money and still don't.

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t California and maybe Connecticut already have a long term care program like this?
https://www.medicaidlongtermcare.org/eligibility/california/
I dint know much about it but it at least provides sort of a pilot program for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t California and maybe Connecticut already have a long term care program like this?
https://www.medicaidlongtermcare.org/eligibility/california/
I dint know much about it but it at least provides sort of a pilot program for this.

This is MediCAID, which all states have. OP is saying the Harris is proposing LTC for MediCARE, which isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.

[Anonymous]

This article was written in 2018 but the facts are still true today.

It is almost impossible to get a Medicare approved home health agency to accept you as a client for a long term illness (where you are unlikely to improve) versus if you are a patient needing short term rehab (likely to improve).

People who are in need of long term assistance have to pay out of pocket.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/17/578423012/home-care-agencies-often-wrongly-deny-medicare-help-to-the-chronically-ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t California and maybe Connecticut already have a long term care program like this?
https://www.medicaidlongtermcare.org/eligibility/california/
I dint know much about it but it at least provides sort of a pilot program for this.

All states have something for those with no money.

But if you have assets you are supposed to spend those down first, not leave anything to your spouse, and heirs.

But if you need a kidney transplant at a cost of maybe $500,000? Medicare covers that. You aren’t expected to spend all your assets first. If you need any medical treatment or therapy, that is not asset tested.

But if you require help feeding yourself or bathing yourself, toileting and changing diapers, emptying catheters, getting dressed due to an illness or disease, Medicare only covers it for a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

In home care should only be provided for people who live in housing below 75% of median price.