With The Election Nearing, Candidates Battle Over Home-Based Care

Less than a month before election day, the Democratic and Republican candidates for president are dueling over home-based care plans.

Vice President Kamala Harris announced on “The View” this week a proposal that would allow home care to be administered through traditional Medicare.

On the same day, former President Donald Trump and his campaign released a rebuttal, pointing toward home care-related policy implemented from 2017-2020, plus additional plans for a potential second term.

Harris’ proposal is a more lofty one. It would also – if implemented – create a massive tailwind for home care providers across the country. But, as LeadingAge President and CEO Katie Smith Sloan pointed out after the proposal, “we cannot overstate that without staff, there is no care.”

Trump, meanwhile, pointed to expanded supplemental benefits in Medicare Advantage (MA) as a way for seniors to access more home care-related services. His campaign team also focused on economic points that it believes will make aging in place easier for Americans under his leadership.

In this exclusive, members-only HHCN+ Update, I make the mistake of venturing into the presidential candidates’ plans for home-based care. Specifically, I examine how viable the plans are, and what they could mean for providers, if implemented.

Home-based care takes center stage

Home-based care providers were likely pulling their hair out over the predictable confusion that arose from Harris’ proposal Tuesday.

Home health care is already a robust benefit provided under the Medicare program, and generally includes services delivered to seniors after an acute health event.

Home care is not currently available under traditional Medicare, however, and generally includes non-medical services to help with activities of daily living.

The only place where home care is paid for under Medicare is through MA supplemental benefits, and MA pays for just a sliver of all home care provided currently.

So, yes, Harris’ proposal would be groundbreaking, if implemented. It would completely change the scope of the Medicare program.

As for the companies it would directly impact, pick a notable name in home care.

Currently, home care providers have a large addressable market: seniors with the ability to pay out of pocket for home care services; Medicaid beneficiaries in need of home- and community-based services (HCBS); veterans in need of home care, paid for through Veterans Affairs (VA); and a small portion of MA beneficiaries and long-term care insurance clients.

If home care were paid for by Medicare in the future, that would take the concept of “unlimited demand” to a new level. There are over 30,000 home care agencies in the country, almost all of which would have a new market opportunity if Medicare became another means to pay for home care.

The one potential downfall for providers would be former private-pay home care clients being able to use Medicare to pay for services. Private-pay home care doesn’t come without challenges, but it remains one of the most profitable forms of home-based care business.

Home health providers – which already provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, almost exclusively – would also see a business boon. Many of them already provide home care, and the ability to care for clients through one revenue source in both service lines would be massively beneficial.

After all, home-based care is responsible for one of the only successful Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) demonstrations of late. The Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model – now implemented nationwide – has already saved Medicare billions, and is likely to save many more billions moving forward.

“We think access to personal care services could at least double from six million customers today. By our estimate, the extra spending would expand the [total addressable market] by ~30% to $110 billion per year,” Macquarie Capital wrote in an analyst note this week. “Since Medicare covers home-based medical services, we expect a wider adoption of the integrated care model following added personal care services coverage. This could also expedite the transition to value-based care. Providers could benefit from aligned incentives, streamlined operations and cost synergies.”

Then comes the question of viability, however.

Harris is not the first person to propose such an idea. Home care stakeholders have suggested it for years, but so have other policymakers.

“When the Affordable Care Act was passed, a component similar to this was included and that ultimately was stripped out,” Tyler Giesting, a director of health care and life sciences at West Monroe, told me this week. “I think we’ve seen it fail in the past for reasons that come down to: can it be economically viable? The challenge would be getting something like this passed, in the way that it has been described so far.”

The Harris campaign has suggested that it would pay for the proposal, in part, by cutting Medicare payments for drugs. It estimated that the proposal would cost around $40 billion per year.

But other estimates suggest that it would cost closer to $400 billion.

Harris sees the proposal as a way to aid the “sandwich generation” – adults that have aging parents to take care of, as well as children. Those responsibilities make it tough to maintain employment.

For Harris, the key would be to convince the right stakeholders of the overall value of home care. It wouldn’t be enough to just prove that more Americans could continue contributing to the economy if they had additional help at home for their older relatives.

Harris’ team would need to instead pitch this as a long-term cost savings project. If more seniors had access to home care, less seniors would be driving up U.S. health care costs in hospitals, emergency rooms and more costly brick-and-mortar facilities.

That is already a battle home care providers face. They are regularly trying to convince payers that more home care equals less overall cost. But a concrete plan, and concrete evidence of those potential savings, would have to be laid out.

“It’s one thing to have this idealistic proposal perspective, and it’s another to actually put it into action with a detailed plan,” Giesting said. “Then, there’s also getting it passed and put into law.”

A detailed plan is key. Even if we accept the idea that more access to home care could ease burden on Americans, while also keeping overall health care costs down, the implementation of the proposal through Medicare would need to be tirelessly thought out.

For instance, New York’s Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) – which allows family members to be paid to care for loved ones in need of home care – has been a fiscal disaster for the state.

Self-directed care has potential. It allows unpaid caregivers to be compensated, and for home care recipients to direct their own care. But it’s also hard to oversee.

For what it’s worth, if the proposal did move forward, I think the best way to go about it would be to prioritize care from existing, quality home care agencies. Agencies that train and vet their caregivers, ones that have been providing care professionally for a long time.

Trump proposals

The Trump campaign’s home care proposals are more understated. And, like Harris’ plans, more details would be needed to project true impact – for potential home care beneficiaries and providers.

“President Trump will prioritize home care benefits by shifting resources back to at-home senior care, overturning disincentives that lead to care worker shortages and supporting unpaid family caregivers through tax credits and reduced red tape,” the Trump campaign wrote in a release, in preparation for Harris’ announcement this week.

The campaign also evoked MA supplemental benefits. MA supplemental benefits – through the primarily health related pathway and the Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI) pathway – were created during Trump’s presidential term.

The benefit that allows for home care services is dubbed In-Home Support Services (IHSS). MA plans have pulled back on offering IHSS in 2024, however.

“The Trump administration provided new Medicare Advantage supplemental benefits that included modifications to help keep seniors safe in their homes, respite care for caregivers, transportation coverage, additional in-home support services and assistance and non-opioid pain management alternatives,” the release continued.

The campaign also pointed out other indirect factors that have led to home care inaccessibility of late, such as inflation, which it believes it can continue to bring down.

Spotlight and policy

Home-based care being in the nationwide spotlight is a good thing for providers and older Americans.

But it’s also worth taking stock of where that spotlight has gotten us before. The Biden-Administration has been laser-focused on home care, but mostly HCBS through Medicaid.

Meanwhile, home health providers have been left behind. Advocates are in the throes of a three-year long fight against continued rate cuts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as other home-based care proposals are taking shape from both campaigns.

Home health providers are seeing their traditional Medicare payments cut, while also receiving payments from MA plans that often don’t cover the cost of care. All the while, MA penetration continues.

In April of 2023, I wrote about why federal support for home-based care is missing the mark.

While proposals from both campaigns this week contain some good elements, that fact remains true.

As home-based care takes center stage once again, Medicare-certified home health providers are forced to stand behind the curtains, at a time when their margins are evaporating.

“I would also want to remind the Biden, Harris administration that the existing Medicare home health program is under assault currently, and has been since 2020, with billions of dollars in cuts that have diminished access to care, so I think that investment and a stabilization of the existing Medicare home health benefit is something that is also needed,” Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare CEO Joanne Cunningham told HHCN this week. “With this news, I would just offer that recommendation and reminder.”