Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6530

Bill Overview

Title: SENIOR Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to assisted living facilities for health care expenses and lost revenue attributable to COVID-19 and other purposes. It also addresses matters related to the senior caregiver workforce. To receive a grant, an assisted living facility must demonstrate that it had uncompensated losses due to COVID-19 and consistently maintained operations from March 13, 2020, to December 31, 2020. A facility must also certify that the grant is necessary for its ongoing operations. HHS must also award grants to assisted living facilities for broadband connectivity and telehealth support and other operation and maintenance costs. The Government Accountability Office must report on the efficacy of these grants. With respect to the senior caregiver workforce, the bill authorizes grants for assisted living facilities to establish or expand workforce training and recruitment programs. The National Health Care Workforce Commission must also designate the workforce needs of assisted living and other senior care populations as a high priority area and report on those needs.

Sponsors: Rep. Trahan, Lori [D-MA-3]

Target Audience

Population: individuals aged 65 and older

Estimated Size: 56000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Retired Teacher (Miami, Florida)

Age: 82 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could improve the quality of care in my facility.
  • Telehealth advancements would make accessing specialists easier.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Senior Caregiver (Cleveland, Ohio)

Age: 46 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will provide more support to caregivers like me.
  • Better training opportunities could help me advance my career.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired Engineer (Austin, Texas)

Age: 78 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy sounds beneficial for those in assisted living, but I'm not directly affected yet.
  • I value the idea of enhanced telehealth options.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 6 6

Part-time consultant (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could enhance my working environment here.
  • Improvements in internet access and healthcare are crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Assisted Living Facility Manager (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 43 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This funding is critical to keep our facility operational.
  • Staffing has been a major challenge since the pandemic.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 4

Retired Nurse (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 75 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Good initiative for those in assisted living, but not directly relevant to me.
  • I support the push for better healthcare staffing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 5

Healthcare Policy Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 48 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might enhance operational efficiency in senior care facilities.
  • We need to assess long-term impacts on senior care quality.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Retired Accountant (New York, New York)

Age: 90 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy leads to better support and staff availability.
  • Telehealth services should help with my regular consultations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 5 3
Year 20 4 2

Retired Social Worker (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 72 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy strengthens the infrastructure for when we might need to move.
  • I hope caregiver resources improve so my spouse gets the best care.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Telemedicine Specialist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could drive demand for telehealth services, boosting my work.
  • I support efforts to improve senior digital connectivity.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)

Year 2: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1000000000)

Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $900000000)

Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations