A group representing skilled-nursing facilities in Connecticut says the facilities play an important role in caring for the state’s aging population, even as the state moves toward more home- and community-based care to reduce long-term healthcare costs.
“It’s not one or the other, it’s both,” said Matthew V. Barrett, executive vice president of the Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities (CAHCF).
CAHCF responded to a report last week that the state could save $657 million by 2025 if it continues its policy of reducing institutionalized long-term healthcare services in favor of more home- and community-based care. The report was released by the Connecticut Institute for the 21st Century and was conducted by its research partner, the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.
“We completely get the idea that if we, as the population dramatically ages in Connecticut, if there’s an overreliance on skilled nursing care … we’ll have a long-term care system that is much more expensive than it needs to be,” Barrett told the Hartford Business Journal.
CAHCF supports the state’s nursing home rightsizing and rebalancing objectives, but said skilled-nursing facilities play an important role in long-term care.
“How do we address the ongoing needs of skilled-nursing facilities going forward?” he said, noting that the facilities will be left with more serious care cases as less serious cases increasingly migrate to home and community settings.
The Medicaid payment system should reflect the changing population such skilled facilities will handle, he said.
Barrett also recommended a more detailed study tracking and calculating the costs of nursing home and hospital readmissions from the community to better forecast spending, and he cautioned against overstating the savings of home- and community-based care.
“There is no question there are savings, but the exact amount has been difficult to calculate,” Barrett said in a statement. “Home-care options can actually be more expensive than nursing home care for some individuals.”
Recommendations in last week’s report included establishing a long-term care coordinator in the state, something Barrett said is unnecessary.
“We would urge the rejection of their No. 1 recommendation,” he said. The state already has high-level officials addressing long-term care who are doing a good job and “something akin to a long-term care czar … would be a step in the wrong direction,” especially in today’s budget environment, he said.
