Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8677

Bill Overview

Title: IMPROVE Nursing Homes Act

Description: This bill requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to establish a grant program to support the conversion of traditional nursing facilities to small-house nursing facilities (i.e., facilities that offer private rooms for up to 12 residents in separate buildings or areas). Grant funds may be used to convert facilities but not for facility operation; grant recipients must agree to provide person-centered care that supports certain resident flexibilities and to operate such facilities for at least 20 years.

Sponsors: Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]

Target Audience

Population: Residents in Nursing Homes

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Retired (Florida)

Age: 85 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm glad to hear about the new proposal. Living conditions here could be more comfortable.
  • I hope this change happens quickly because I might not have many years left to enjoy it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Engineer (California)

Age: 70 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The idea of living in a smaller, more personal setting with individualized care is appealing.
  • If implemented well, this could really improve the quality of life during my later years.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Registered Nurse in a nursing home (New York)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could provide a better work environment and improve care quality.
  • There might be a need for additional training, but it's a positive change overall.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Texas)

Age: 60 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More personalized care could reduce my worries about my spouse's well-being.
  • The transition might be disruptive at first, but I hope it's worth it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Illinois)

Age: 78 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy makes the idea of moving more palatable.
  • Private rooms sound appealing if my health declines.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Retired (Ohio)

Age: 92 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm disappointed my facility isn't changing.
  • I hope others at least get the benefit of these new settings.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Healthcare Administrator (Nevada)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The challenge is to manage transition within budget while maintaining care standards.
  • Staff training will be essential for the success of these facilities.

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 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Retired Teacher (Pennsylvania)

Age: 81 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that improves care for people like me is welcome.
  • I just hope there's adequate support during the change.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Arizona)

Age: 68 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improving nursing homes is crucial for my generation.
  • I'd like to see this implemented before I consider moving to a facility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Healthcare Policy Analyst (Minnesota)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • IMPROVE Nursing Homes Act is a step forward for infrastructure and care improvement.
  • The long-term impact on resident satisfaction and costs needs careful measurement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)

Year 3: $650000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $750000000)

Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)

Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)

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

Key Considerations