Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3626

Bill Overview

Title: PACE Expanded Act

Description: This bill modifies requirements regarding Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). PACE is a program under Medicare and Medicaid that provides in-home and community services for certain individuals as an alternative to nursing home care. The bill allows Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in a PACE program at any time and provides states with the option to allow Medicaid beneficiaries to do the same. Entities may also apply to become PACE providers at any time, upon specified assurances relating to staffing and other requirements. The bill also (1) allows the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test a model for expanded PACE eligibility that targets high-need and high-cost populations, and (2) requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of PACE in rural and underserved areas.

Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]

Target Audience

Population: Elderly individuals requiring in-home or community care

Estimated Size: 20000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

retired school teacher (rural Idaho)

Age: 78 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I find it hard to travel for regular Medicaid appointments due to limited mobility and transportation options.
  • The idea of receiving necessary care at home or close by sounds like a blessing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

retired engineer (urban New York)

Age: 84 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If I can avoid nursing homes and stay with my family while getting the care I need, it matters a lot to my happiness.
  • The potential for more PACE providers in urban areas could mean shorter wait times for important services.

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 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

retired nurse (suburban Ohio)

Age: 72 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having more options for at-home care makes it feasible to continue taking care of my husband myself.
  • PACE might ease the pressure of managing his appointments and specialist visits.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 7 4

retired farmer (rural Wyoming)

Age: 69 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 20/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There aren’t enough healthcare options nearby, and I'm often struggling to get out for attention.
  • If PACE can bring healthcare services closer to me, it would mean fewer hospital trips.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

retired librarian (urban California)

Age: 90 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A program like PACE isn't something I'll apply for because I have support, but options are always good.
  • My concern is more about the services maintaining quality when they're stretched to more people.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

retired factory worker (suburban Texas)

Age: 75 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Through PACE, having access to therapeutic services without depending on rides from friends would improve my life.
  • It’s tough navigating multiple health appointments across town.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

retired homemaker (rural Kentucky)

Age: 82 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having services close by would not only provide care but also social interaction, which is often lacking for us older folks.
  • I hope the expansion doesn’t mean overworked health workers, though.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

retired store manager (urban Florida)

Age: 77 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Though I’m managing well now, having a PACE provider could prevent potential future hospital stays.
  • It’s more about peace of mind than immediate change.

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 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

retired seamstress (suburban Illinois)

Age: 81 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The biggest challenge is the logistics and coordination of all these care appointments.
  • Having an encompassing service like PACE can reduce stress for my son as well.

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 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

retired artist (rural New Mexico)

Age: 68 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The PACE expansion could provide better care options in the future, though I currently manage steadily with support from my partner.
  • More local services would reduce travel burdens hugely over time.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1150000000)

Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1250000000)

Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1050000000, High: $1350000000)

Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1550000000)

Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2200000000)

Key Considerations