Underlying Causes of Health Issues

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2025 | Advocacy, CMS, Outcomes, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Underlying Causes of Health Issues

Underlying causes of health issues are common. Not all health issues come directly from infections, medical conditions, or genetics. Lifestyle, environmental factors, and social determinants can cause and/or increase the severity of health issues. Beginning in the winter of 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services posted guidance on approving coverage for these social needs, acknowledging that they contribute to poor health outcomes. CMS named the social needs that could be covered by Medicaid, CHIP, Section 1115, and Home and Community Based Services. These include help finding new housing, one-time moving costs, eviction prevention, respite care, sober centers, home improvements, meals, and case management.

Guidance Rescinded

CMS referred to both the 2023 and 2024 documents as “Center Informational Bulletins” (CIB) meant as guidance, not rule of law. The 2024 document provided updates and clarifications to the 2023 document. According to the statement from CMS, dated March 4, 2025, they have rescinded both CIBs “to evaluate policy options consistent with Medicaid and CHIP progam requirements and objectives.” Moving forward, CMS will consider each application to cover these services on a case-by-case basis using the Social Security Act, not the HRSN Framework or the CIBs.

Opposition

Former chief medical officer of the US Medicaid program Andrey Ostrovsky, MD, FAAP said that removing coverage for social determinants of health will harm patients and taxpayers.

Sen Ron Wyden (D, Oregon) agrees, stating that addressing the underlying causes of health issues is key to keeping America healthy.

Underlying Causes of Health Issues Andrey Ostrovsky

“It’s unlikely we see an easy, smooth approval process for such services moving forward….I think that the bar to getting it approved will be higher. States are going to have to make individualized decisions around where their priorities are and where they want to continue to focus on expansion — and maybe focus a little bit more on cost constraint and financially effective services under the new administrative priorities.”

Damon Terzaghi

Senior Director of Medicaid Advocacy, National Alliance for Care at Home

On the Other Hand

Despite the opposition to this change, there does seem to be some validity to the move. There should be some discussion about where Medicaid services should end and another department begins. The question here is whether a different federal program should be providing coverage for these social determinants of health. According to Terzaghi, this could be the beginning of an improvement to the system, rather than the dismantling of it.

Final Thoughts

The changes coming out of D.C. recently seem to be coming like rapid fire. See this weeks related press release on the continuing resolution passed by Congress. As with most of these edicts, executive orders, and other changes, the long-term impact and the eventual goal remain to be seen. We will continue to follow these and other stories as new information becomes available.

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news .She also has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Care at Home Coming to Medicaid?

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 16, 2025 | Advocacy, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Brown v D.C. Decision is Another Boost for Care at Home

In Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that unjustified segregation of disabled persons constitutes discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court said that public entities must provide community-based services to disabled persons when such services are:

- Appropriate;
- Unopposed by disabled persons; and
- Reasonable accommodations taking into account resources available to public entities and the needs of other disabled individuals receiving services from the entity.

This decision gave a tremendous boost to the provision of home and community-based services of all types. Since Olmstead was decided in 1999, there have been more court decisions that require services to be provided at home based on this opinion.

Support for Olmstead

One recent decision is Brown, et al v. District of Columbia (Brown v D.C.) that was decided on December 31, 2024. The Court decided that the District of Columbia violated the rights of D.C. residents with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. According to the Court, D.C. failed to inform nursing facility residents who receive Medicaid that they could leave nursing facilities and receive home health services in their communities and failed to assist them to do so. The D.C. government also failed to help them access community-based services and housing options needed to transition back to the community.

The Court recognized that individuals living in nursing facilities often need help learning about and applying for available community services to help them transition out of the institution and into their own homes. Even when residents learn about services, navigating the complicated Medicaid-funded long-term care program can cause confusion and anxiety that sometimes causes facility residents to lose hope that they can live in their own homes again.

Consequently, the decision applies to

“All persons with physical disabilities who, now or during the pendency of this lawsuit: (1) receive DC Medicaid-funded long-term care services in a nursing facility for 90 or more consecutive days; (2) are eligible for Medicaid-covered home and community-based long-term care services that would enable them to live in the community; and (3) would prefer to live in the community instead of a nursing facility but need the District of Columbia to provide transition assistance to facilitate their access to long-term care services in the community.”

Brown v D.C. Says That D.C. Must

- Develop and implement a working system of transition assistance for [nursing home residents that], at a minimum
  - informs DC Medicaid-funded residents, upon admission and at least every three months thereafter, about community-based long-term care alternatives to nursing facilities
  - elicits DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents’ preferences for community or nursing facility placement upon admission and at least every three months thereafter
  - begins DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents’ discharge planning upon admission and reviews at least every month the progress made on that plan
  - provides DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents who do not oppose living in the community with assistance accessing all appropriate resources available in the community
- Ensure sufficient capacity of community-based long-term care services for [residents] under the EPD, MFP, and PCA programs and other long-term care service programs, to serve [residents] in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, as measured by enrollment in these long-term care programs.
- …[D]emonstrate [its] ongoing commitment to deinstitutionalization by, at a minimum, publicly reporting on at least a semi-annual basis the total number of DC Medicaid-funded nursing facility residents who do not oppose living in the community; the number of those individuals assisted by [DC] to transition to the community with long-term care services [described above]; and the aggregate dollars [DC] saves (or fails to save) by serving individuals in the community rather than in nursing facilities.

Final Thoughts on Brown v D.C.

As indicated above, there continues to be a clear mandate for Medicaid Programs to provide services to individuals in the community, which is a significant impetus to provide services to patients in their homes. This mandate, however, does not directly address practical aspects of implementation, such as reimbursement at appropriate rates for providers or availability of staff to provide services at home. Nonetheless, the Olmstead and Brown cases provide an important basis for further development of in-home services of all types to meet the needs of disabled persons.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Good News for Veterans and Care at Home

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 9, 2025 | Advocacy, Hospice, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Biden's Final Acts

With only a short number of days left in office, President Joe Biden has been making headlines. Not all of his final decisions have been met with absolute approval, but his latest one will make a difference for our veterans wanting Care at Home. On Thursday, January 3, 2025, President Biden signed into law the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act.

The Dole Act

The Elizabeth Dole Act improves upon much of the benefits, programs, and services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Some of these changes include providing protections for care agreements between veterans and clinicians, modifications to educational assistance programs and benefits, expansion of the Native American Direct Loan program, increases per diem rates for veteran transitional housing, and various administrative and oversight tasks.

Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act

The Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act is a bill within the larger act specific to home- and community-based services (HCBS). The home care act aims to enhance veterans’ access to the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) nationwide. The new law also allows the VA to increase funding for HCBS. Prior to this, the VA was able to allocate 65% of nursing home care to home care services.

Additionally, the home care bill will provide support and benefits to caregivers of some disabled veterans, start a pilot to provide non-medical supportive care at home to veterans with limited access to home health aides, and increase access to HCBS for Native American Veterans.

The Industry Responds

The National Alliance for Care at Home responded to the landmark legislation, specifically siting section 301 of the bill, known as Gerald’s Law. Gerald’s is so named for a Michigan veteran who was denied his non-service related burial and plot benefit after he died at home while under VA hospice care. Gerald’s Law requires the VA to provide a burial and funeral allowance for veterans who were receiving VA hospice care in a home or other setting outside a hospital or nursing home.

“We are deeply grateful for the bipartisan support of Gerald’s Law and its inclusion in the Dole Act. This legislation ensures that Veterans and their families can choose hospice care in the setting that best meets their needs without risking the loss of crucial burial benefits. We thank Senators Moran, Tester, and Hassan, Representatives Ciscomani, Bost, Brownley, and Takano, and many others for their leadership, as well as President Biden for signing this important bill into law.”

Dr. Steve Landers

CEO, The Alliance

HCAOA, Leading Age, National PACE Association (NPA), and many others joined the Alliance in applauding Biden for signing the bill into law. They noted that providing care at home and in the community improves the quality of life for veterans and their caregivers. HCBS also come at a much lower cost than hospital and institutional care.

HCAOA said in a statement that the bill is “…a crucial victory for both veterans and their caregivers.” The President and CEO of NPA said the bill would dramatically increase options for veterans who want to age in place and that Congress can “…easily implement PACE for hundreds of thousands of additional seniors and their families.”

The VA has found that HCBS can delay or remove the need for nursing home or assisted living admission. Care at Home also reduces the risk of preventable rehospitalizations.

Final Thoughts

Once again, it seems the world is “discovering” that which we have known for ages: Home based care is better, cheaper, and more effective than institutional care. In the last few years, doctors and hospitals have figured this out and implemented hospital at home care. Now, the VA has finally figured it out as well. When this law takes effect, we as an industry will breathe a collective sigh when our veterans see better outcomes, their caregivers are better supported, the cost for their care decreases, and especially when our veterans enjoy a better quality of life in their final days without sacrificing the benefits to which they are so richly entitled.

One small step for veterans, one giant leap for Care at Home.

# # #