https://www.yahoo.com/news/assisted-living-homes-rejecting-medicaid-112231372.html
This article is really bad news. It originated as a Washington Post article which has a paywall for most people but got picked up by Yahoo. What's apparently going on a lot now: traditionally, as people here know, I assume, a Senior might be placed in an AL facility, doing "Private Pay," for a room/apartment, etc. until their savings ran out. Then, it seems it was fairly "standard" for the AL facility to let the senior stay, using Medicaid. (?How "standard" I don't know). Well now, apparently, it's becoming more and more common for a family to put a loved one in an AL, with the "understanding" that once the senior's savings ran out they would be able to get a "Medicaid" bed/room/apartment, etc. But there's no law that says the facility has to do this. In the case of this poor woman, who was probably enjoying life -- 92 years old, "taking care" of herself, nicely groomed wearing pretty clothes, etc. and they evicted her. Forced into a new place (with all the traumas that can bring for someone with dementia, etc., 3 weeks later this poor senior died. (That should be the last line in the caption.) You have to copy/paste the URL into your browser to get the article.
Tough times ahead, folks.
ALFs for the most part are there for profit. Everyone is. They will cherry pick. Money slated for schools goes to "consultants" who change out the text books every 15 minutes and hold meetings about meetings.
Sad all the way around, and no question, and it is good to have these articles posted to us so we can at least be informed. Thanks!
The "sell to another company" bit stood out for me. Buyouts are often followed by abandonment of core principles that previously guided the operation.
In a market context of scarcity, it is sadly predictable that these places are going to want to reserve spots for the highest bidders. And absent regulatory impediments that's exactly what they'll do.
In the case of for-profits, it would probably be a violation of the operation's responsibility to shareholders to *not* squeeze maximum profit out of the operation.
It's all very discouraging.
Yes: "Tough times ahead"
ADVERTISEMENT
We've just had a whole swathe of agency hand-back clients whose care providers went bankrupt. Same thing: they couldn't survive on public sector rates.
Everybody wants great care for all. Very few can afford it, nobody wants to pay for it, and nobody is prepared to vote for the state to pay for it. So what are those greedy ALFs supposed to pay their staff with, then? - good karma?
The problem is I don't think Medicaid pays the full amt. If the person was paying privately at 5k a month, their SS lets say is 1500 so there is a balance of 3500 due. Medicaid may only pay 2k of that meaning there is 1500 not being paid. Then, while on Medicaid the persons care becomes more. Medicaid probably does not factor in that. They only pay that 2k. So this effects the bottom line alot for the AL. Even though they only allow so many people on Medicaid, its costing them money. So, they chose not to allow Medicaid any longer. This is all conjecture on my part.
Years ago a local AL lost their contract with Medicaid. A friend of mine had 3 days to move his parents.
This is going to mean losing the ability of getting a LO in a facility on Medicaid. Even a LTC facility only allows so many Medicaid beds.
I'd like to know the profit margin of these privately owned "care" facilities.