Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

aging.senate.gov
from aging.senate.gov More from this publisher
29.07.2013 Views

444 App-ar I So-p and Mraodsogo entities covering one or more counties and three state-operated agencies each responsible for serving a local area Florida district offices and Michigan cmais have discretion in the design and implementation of waiver program and other services within the broad outlines of state policy. We visited each state to conduct interviews with state and local officials, researchers, service providers, advocates, families, and recipients. These interviews included state ong>Medicaidong> officials and developmental services officials and officials in agencies on aging and developmental disability councils. In Florida, we also visited state district offices in Pensacola and Tallahassee to conduct interviews with district government and nongovernment representatives. In Michigan, we visited the Detroit-Wayne and Midland/Gladwin cmHBs to conduct interviews with government and nongovernment representatives. We followed up with state agencies to collect additional information. The national waiver and icF/?R program expenditure and recipient data used in this report are from the uAIM on developmental disabilities at the Research and Training Center on Community living, Institute on Community Integration, at the University of Minnesota The Institute collects these data, with the exception of ICFrMR expenditures, directly from state agencies. The Institute uses icF/mra expenditure data, compiled by the Medstat Group under contract to HcFA. National data from the Institute were available thmugh 1995. The expenditure and recipient data we report for Florida, Michigan, and Rhode Island were provided to us by the state agencies responsible for developmental services and the ong>Medicaidong> agencies. The latest complete data available from these three states were for 1994. We therefore used 1994 national data for comparison purposes. Some differences occur in the recipient counts among the national data we used from the Institute and data we collected from agencies in Florida, Michigan, and Rhode Island. These differences could affect some aspects of our comparisons of national trends and trends in the three states, Institute data on recipients show the total number of persons receiving services on a given date-June 30 of each year-whereas data for the three states show the cumulative number of persons receiving services over a 12-month period. Therefore, data supplied by the states could result in a larger count of program recipients than the methodology used by the Institute. This could have the impact of making per capita expenditure calculations smaller for the state data than for the national data. Our PC,. 27 P 2osEHS-96 120 Wdi Pgam ror Oewlopm i Doibied

A I 445 comparisons of data from the two sources, however, showed few substantial differences in the data for the three staes We excluded children from our analysis because (1) their needs are different in many respects from those of adults, (2)family responsibilities for the care of children are more couprehensive thamn for adults, and (3) the educational system has the lead public responsibility for services for children. Recipient and expenditure data in this report, however, include some children because it was not possible to systemitatically exclude them. However, the percentage of children in these services is small. In 1992, for example, about 11 percent of Icr/Ma service recipients were less than 21 years old.' We conducted our review from May 1995 through May 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. -Robesto.Wy -d X aCh. t , ed., Re mdw S- for P a wi- t Deb D..bUu sta,, -,d nT-,h t IM4 (Y-qL U-sy ... _ =L a CdaoU a Ca1-.D-ty i-.9. Ede~~e and Hvn, D4 tetS IC) p I C, Iln. d IIAP, The (aed r.e 23 Pg 5i M 0-W5hO Wed11 P aD. th D Oeb

A I<br />

445<br />

comparis<strong>on</strong>s of data from the two sources, however, showed few<br />

substantial differences in the data for the three staes<br />

We excluded children from our analysis because (1) their needs are<br />

different in many respects from those of adults, (2)family resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities<br />

for the care of children are more couprehensive thamn for adults, and<br />

(3) the educati<strong>on</strong>al system has the lead public resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for services<br />

for children. Recipient and expenditure data in this report, however,<br />

include some children because it was not possible to systemitatically<br />

exclude them. However, the percentage of children in these services is<br />

small. In 1992, for example, about 11 percent of Icr/Ma service recipients<br />

were less than 21 years old.'<br />

We c<strong>on</strong>ducted our review from May 1995 through May 1996 in accordance<br />

with generally accepted government auditing standards.<br />

-Robesto.Wy -d X aCh. t , ed., Re mdw S- for P a wi- t Deb<br />

D..bUu sta,, -,d nT-,h t IM4 (Y-qL U-sy ... _ =L<br />

a CdaoU a Ca1-.D-ty i-.9.<br />

Ede~~e and Hvn, D4 tetS IC)<br />

p I C,<br />

Iln.<br />

d IIAP, The (aed<br />

r.e 23<br />

Pg 5i M 0-W5hO Wed11 P aD. th D Oeb

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!