Thursday, May 26, 2016
Senior residential care provider Life Care Centers of America is the focus of recent legal news, including:
- KOAA TV 5 News: Colorado Jury Awards $5.5 million in wrongful death suit against Life Care Center of Pueblo.
- Chattanooga Times Free Press: Settlement May be Brewing in Government's Longtime Federal Case alleging False Claims - Billing Practices by Life Care Centers of America
Sunday, May 15, 2016
As reported in several financial news services, including McKnight's Long-Term Care News here, HCR ManorCare, owner/operator of a large number of skilled nursing and assisted living properties, is to be spun off by its corporate parent, HCP Inc., into the hands of "an independent real estate investment trust" called, appropriately enough, "SpinCo."
Certainly this seems to be a move to improve the financial position of HCP by separating the nursing home operations from independent living operations; it remains to be seen whether it also allows "troubled" HCR ManorCare to resolve concerns about quality of care and billing practices. The business history of ManorCare, with all of its various partners and name changes, probably serves as a marker for changes throughout the skilled care industry. For ManorCare's own perspective on its history, see "Our History Is Still Being Written."
Friday, May 13, 2016
Evict, Reject, Discharge: Are Nursing Homes Following the Rules or Is the Problem Bigger than "Rules"?
My colleague Becky Morgan posted earlier this week on the AP news story on nursing homes' attempts to evict difficult patients. This week the ABA Journal also linked to the AP story, plus tied the statistical reports of a nation-wide increase in complaints about evictions, rejections and discharges to one man's struggle to return to his California care center following what should have been short term hospitalization for pneumonia.
The story of Bruce Anderson is a reminder that a need for high-quality, facility-based "long term " care is not limited to "elderly" individuals. But it is also a reminder that individuals with serious behavioral issues, not just physical care needs, complicate the picture. Anderson experienced a severe brain injury at age 55 following a heart attack, but his younger age, lack of "private pay resources," and a history of apparently problematic behavior, are all reasons why a "traditional" nursing home may seek to avoid him as a resident.
The ongoing California litigation over Mr. Anderson and similarly situated residents heightens the need to think critically about whether we're being naive as a nation about "home is best" shifting of funding resources. Certainly there are many -- and probably too many -- individuals in facilities when they could be maintained at home if there was more funding to supplement family-based care.
At the same time, I tend to see this as downplaying the very real needs for high-level, behavioral care for individuals who aren't easily cared for by families or "traditional" nursing homes, much less by hospitals organized around critical care. It is about more than mere eviction, discharge and rejection statistics. The 1999 Olmstead decision was a watershed moment in recognizing the need for de-institutionalization of those with disabilities. But it may have pasted over the real need for quality of assistance and care in any and all settings, and what that means in terms of costs to a nation.
My thanks to Professor Laurel Terry at Dickinson Law who took time away from the fun of grading her exams to send us the ABA story.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Let's just start by saying the article I'm about to cite is a must-read for us.
The AP did a story on May 8, 2016, Nursing homes turn to eviction to drop difficult patients. The article opens "Nursing homes are increasingly evicting their most challenging residents, advocates for the aged and disabled say, testing protections for some of society's most vulnerable...Those targeted for eviction are frequently poor and suffering from dementia, according to residents' allies. They often put up little fight, their families unsure what to do. Removing them makes room for less labor-intensive and more profitable patients, critics of the tactic say, noting it can be shattering."
The AP did a study of data from the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program and learned that complaints regarding involuntary discharges have increased by about 57% since 2000. "[Discharge] was the top-reported grievance in 2014, with 11,331 such issues logged by ombudsmen, who work to resolve problems faced by residents of nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other adult-care settings." Why this increase in discharges? The article offers that the involuntary discharge often happens "because the resident came to be regarded as undesirable — requiring a greater level of care, exhibiting dementia-induced signs of aggression, or having a family that complained repeatedly about treatment, advocates say. Federal law spells out rules on acceptable transfers, but the advocates say offending facilities routinely stretch permitted justifications for discharge. Even when families fight a move and win an appeal, some homes have disregarded rulings."
The American Health Care Association offers an opposing view of the discharges, explaining that in some cases it is "lawful and necessary to remove residents who can't be kept safe or who endanger the safety of others, and says processes are in place to ensure evictions aren't done improperly."
The article also includes examples where a resident is admitted to a hospital and when ready to return to the nursing home, is refused readmission. Several cases are highlighted in the article, with experts from both sides of the issue offering opinions. The article also references staffing levels and the trauma encountered by residents who find themselves in a discharge situation.
Have your students read the applicable federal statute and then this article. I guarantee an interesting discussion.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
The New York Times ran a story on May 2, 2016 that South Dakota is under investigation by the federal government for improperly placing many residents with disabilities in nursing homes instead of providing care in the community. South Dakota Wrongly Puts Thousands in Nursing Homes, Government Says reports that "the Justice Department said ... that thousands of patients were being held unnecessarily in sterile, highly restrictive group homes. That is discrimination, it said, making South Dakota the latest target of a federal effort to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and mental illnesses, outlined in a Supreme Court decision 17 years ago."
As the story notes, many individuals need the level of care provided by a nursing home, but others do not. "But for untold numbers of others — with mental illnesses, developmental disabilities or chronic diseases — the confines of a nursing home can be unnecessarily isolating. Yet when patients seek help paying for long-term care, states often steer them toward nursing homes, even though it may not be needed." The article discusses the Olmstead decision and the government's strategies in these cases to challenge the placement.
South Dakota responded that they have made progress but the federal government sees it as not enough, especially since this is not a recent situation. "In-home health aides can be less expensive than nursing homes because they do not provide unnecessary services. States, though, face a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Does money go to nursing homes because beds are often more readily available than in-home services? Or are there fewer in-home services because less Medicaid money is spent on them? And nursing homes have little financial incentive to encourage patients to seek in-home care...."
This article can be a great starting point for an interesting discussion with students.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
After my post on an article about adding a long term care benefit to Medicare, Professor Dick Kaplan (prolific author, elder law guru and friend) sent me an email reminding me about an article he wrote in 2004 that discussed the topic. "Cracking the Conundrum: Toward a Rational Financing of Long-Term Care,” is available from his SSRN page. Here is the abstract
This article provides a comprehensive solution to the financing of long-term care for older Americans that balances government and family responsibility, while recognizing the different settings in which long-term care is provided. The article begins by examining the spectrum of long-term care in the United States from home health care to assisted living to nursing homes, as well as hybrids such as continuing care retirement communities. Successive sections of the article then analyze the federal government's health care program for older persons (Medicare), the joint state and federal program for poor people of any age (Medicaid), and private long-term care insurance in terms of how these mechanisms treat long-term care in each setting.
Finding serious deficiencies and inconsistencies in all three mechanisms, the article then offers a co-ordinated alternative: expand Medicare to cover long-term care in nursing homes but maintain responsibility for other long-term care settings with the affected individuals and their families. This approach recognizes that nursing home care substitutes for hospital care that Medicare would otherwise cover, while other long-term care settings substitute for family-provided care. Long-term care insurance would then be used as a means of financing long-term care in settings other than nursing homes, thereby making it more appealing. In addition, such insurance would be less expensive than presently, because it would no longer be priced to cover costly nursing home care. The article also recommends that such insurance be improved by standardizing policy options and features into a fixed set of packages that would be uniform among carriers. Other recommendations include ensuring price stability of issued policies and providing independent reviews of gatekeeper claim denials. The article concludes with some observations regarding financing of these proposals.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Pennsylvania lawmakers seem to be on a roll this month, following several months of log jam over the 2015-16 state budget. The legislature passed SB 879 on April 13, and Pennsylvania Governor Wolf has now signed the law, enabling creation of tax-exempt savings accounts to benefit people with qualified disabilities. From the Governor's Office:
The accounts can be used for a wide-range of disability-related expenses including health care, housing, and transportation without jeopardizing eligibility for important programs on which individuals with disabilities must often depend.
“My administration is committed to promoting and encouraging independence, community-based supports and services, and employment for individuals with a disability,” said Governor Wolf. “Pennsylvanians with disabilities can now achieve greater fiscal self-sufficiency, without the risk of impacting their eligibility for benefits. I am proud to sign this bill today and continue our work to help individuals with disabilities stay in their homes and communities.”
U.S. Senator Bob Casey led efforts to win Congressional passage of the federal ABLE Act, which authorized states to establish tax-exempt savings accounts modeled on section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code, which recognizes state-established savings programs to meet future college expenses. Pennsylvania Treasury has been administering the Pennsylvania 529 program since 1993 and will administer the ABLE Program.
From NDSS's list of states with "ABLE Legislation," it can be seen that Pennsylvania's action makes it approximately the 41st in the nation to "enable" Able. Over the weekend, Pennsylvania also became the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana.
A helpful summary of the use of ABLE accounts, along with other tools that may assist a broader range of ages, including special needs accounts, is provided by Pennsylvania Elder Law guru, Jeff Marshall, here.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Periodically we will see observations about whether Medicare should offer a long term care benefit as part of Medicare coverage (would this be Part E or maybe Part LTC?). It isn't a secret that many often think Medicare has a long term nursing home benefit, confusing what Medicare covers with what Medicaid does. Health Affairs Blog ran a story recently about Medicare and long term care. Medicare Help At Home offers some sobering data
Nine million community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries—about one-fifth of all beneficiaries—have serious physical or cognitive limitations and require long-term services and supports (LTSS) that are not covered by Medicare. Nearly all have chronic conditions that require ongoing medical attention, including three-fourths who have three or more chronic conditions and are high-need, high-risk users of Medicare covered services.
Gaps in Medicare coverage and the lack of integration of medical care and LTSS have serious consequences. Beneficiaries are exposed to potentially high out-of-pocket expenses. Medicaid covers LTSS for very low-income Medicare beneficiaries, but only one-fourth of Medicare beneficiaries with serious physical or cognitive limitations are covered by Medicaid.
The authors offer a 3-part proposal that would expand Medicare coverage to include home and community-based coverages:
A Medicare home and community-based benefit for those with two or more functional limitations, Alzheimer’s, or severe cognitive impairment, according to an individualized care plan based on beneficiary goals. This would cover up to 20 hours a week of personal service worker care or equivalent dollar amount for a range of home and community-based LTSS.
Creation of new Integrated Care Organizations (ICOs) accountable for the delivery and coordination of both medical care and LTSS that meet quality standards, honor beneficiary preferences, and support care partners.
Innovative models of health care delivery including a team approach to care in the home building on promising models of service delivery that improve patient outcomes, reduce emergency department use, prevent avoidable hospitalization, and delay or reduce long-term institutional care.
The article goes on to explain eligibility, beneficiary cost-sharing, financing, care delivery and coverage. The article concludes, offering that with the Baby Boomers " the Medicare program ... was not designed to support their [boomers] preferences for independent living and functioning.
Moving forward, adoption of a home and community based benefit in Medicare would constitute an important first step to helping beneficiaries afford the services and support they need to continue living independently. Adoption of innovative models of care emphasizing care at home or in independent living settings would reduce the difficulty and risk of obtaining services in traditional health care settings such as physician offices and hospitals. It would also reduce beneficiary reliance on Medicaid’s safety-net coverage of institutional care. It is a policy proposal worthy of serious consideration as the nation grapples with Medicare redesign to meet the needs of an aging population.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
In April 2016, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Al Franken (D-MN), introduced Senate Bill 2747 in the United States Senate. Carrying the title of "Elder Protection and Abuse Prevention Act," one provision of the bill would amend existing federal law to redefine "abuse," as that phrase is used in the Older Americans Act. The new definition would read:
The term "abuse" means the knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm.
The existing language, defining abuse, provides:
The term “abuse” means the willful--
(A) infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or cruel punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish; or
(B) deprivation by a person, including a caregiver, of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness.
Friday, April 8, 2016
U.S. Department of Labor has a new guide book, "Paying Minimum Wage and Overtime to Home Care Workers," to assist families in understanding updated rules for payment of home care workers. These rules became fully effective on January 1, 2016.
The goal of the recently finalized "Home Care Final Rule" is to "make sure that home care workers have the same basic wage protections as most U.S. workers, including those who perform the same jobs in nursing homes and group homes." The rule applies "if you hire the worker directly, and no agency or other organization is involved," but may also apply if you hired the worker through an agency.
Employers must keep certain basic records for home care workers, and these records will be key to determining proper payment, especially for overtime:
1. Full name;
2. Social security number;
3. Home address;
4. Hours worked each day and total hours worked each workweek;
5. Total cash wages paid each week to the employee by employer, including any overtime pay; and
6. Any weekly amounts claimed by the employer as part of wages for housing or food provided to the employee/.
The guide explains special rules that apply if the paid care provider is a family member or if the paid worker is "living in."
In addition, the guideline explains the "narrow" exemption from minimum wage and overtime rules that applies for home care workers who provide only "companionship services." The key here is that the the worker can be spending no more than 20% of his or her working time on tasks such as assisting with personal care (bathing, dressing, cooking, cleaning, etc.) and the worker is not performing any medically related tasks.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Kaiser Health News ran a story on March 18, 2016 about co-insurance trends in drug coverages. Coinsurance Trend Means Seniors Likely To Face Higher Out-Of-Pocket Drug Costs, Report Says explains that a new report shows that "Medicare beneficiaries may get dinged with higher prescription drug bills this year because more than half of covered drugs in standalone plans require them to pay a percentage of the cost rather than a flat fee...." This report notes that over half of the Part D covered drugs have a coinsurance payment rather than a fixed copayment. This means greater out of pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, predicting a beneficiary's out of pocket costs is more difficult.
The report, Majority of Drugs Now Subject to Coinsurance in Medicare Part D Plans is available here. A pdf of the report is available here.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Have you seen the stories about the sudden increase in prices for particular drugs? That has caught the eye of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. There will be another hearing on the topic on March 17, 2016 at 10 a.m. “Senate Special Committee on Aging to hold the second hearing in a series on sudden price spikes in decades-old Rx drugs.”
As well, last week "Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, ... introduced the Increasing Competition in Pharmaceuticals Act to help ensure that a clear process is in place for FDA to prioritize the review of generic drug applications." As the press release notes "the Committee’s investigation revealed that some older drugs lack an FDA-approved generic competitor. This lack of competition is a significant contributing factor that can allow companies to acquire and sharply increase the cost of these older drugs that are no longer protected by patents."
The text of the bill is available here.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Previously I wrote about a story in Kaiser Health News about nursing home residents stuck in hospital "limbo" and the ensuing litigation. NPR also did a story about this. Nursing Home Evictions Strand The Disabled In Costly Hospitals was released on February 25 and features an audio of the story as well as the print version. Although the suit is filed in California, this is not a California-specific issue. As the story notes
This is not just a California issue. Nationwide, between 8,000 and 9,000 people complain to the government about nursing home evictions every year. It's the leading category of all nursing home complaints, according to the federal Administration for Community Living.
Robyn Grant thinks the problem is even larger than reported. Grant would know: She's the public policy director for the nonprofit National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, so she hears about many nursing home evictions around the country like the ones in California.
Monday, February 29, 2016
You recall Medicare's 5 Star Rating System to aid consumers in making choices regarding services and facilities. Kaiser Health News (KHN) ran a story on February 23, 2016 about the difference between how consumers rate facilities vs. how Medicare rates facilities. Dueling Star Ratings May Confuse Some Home Health Patients explains that Medicare assigns stars "primarily based on Medicare’s assessment of how often patients got better. But [looking] further ... may lead to confusion. Medicare also posts stars to convey how patients rate agencies after their care is over."
KHN did a survey on the frequency of these disparities and found that "[s]uch contradictory results between how patients view home health agencies and how the government rates them are hardly unusual."
In a statement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service said the different star ratings should not be confusing. “CMS stresses that website users should look at all of the different types of measures available for a given provider type, including for home health care agencies,” the statement said. “By providing both clinically based and survey-based measures, CMS hopes to make available to the public a range of perspectives and information that consumers can evaluate to help inform their decision about an agency.”
The disparity at least in part is explained: "[s]ome of the differences between home health care patient experience and clinical quality stars can be chalked up to the fact that the two domains focus on different facets of home health care." The article goes on to quote elder care experts on their views about the reasons for the differences in the rankings. The article wraps up noting it is unknown how many Medicare beneficiaries use the 5-star rating system, and understand them.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Kaiser Health News (KHN) ran a story titled The Agonizing Limbo Of Abandoned Nursing Home Residents. The story focuses on the refusal of some California nursing homes to readmit residents after a hospital stay. The story opens with a story of one resident who "had been living[in a nursing home] for four years... [and] the home refused to readmit him, even after being ordered to do so by the state. Nearly nine months later, [the resident] is still in the hospital." It seems that these residents are trapped in a sort of limbo.
Nursing home residents are entitled to hearings under federal law to determine whether they should be readmitted after hospitalization. The state Department of Health Care Services holds the administrative hearings, but has said it is not responsible for enforcing the rulings.
But the state Department of Public Health, which oversees nursing homes, neglects to enforce the rulings and sometimes disagrees with them, according to advocates and court documents.
That leaves residents .... [even those] who won ... [the] hearing .... with little recourse — and not many places to go. And since many nursing home residents have publicly-funded insurance, it means taxpayers are on the hook for hospital stays long after the patients are ready for discharge.
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR) in November, 2015 filed suit against California Health & Human Services on behalf of some of these residents with an upcoming hearing in March of 2016. The suit seeks "to require California to establish a hearing process that complies with federal law and to enforce the rulings." The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Only Limited Authority as Health Care Agents? The Latest Grounds to Challenge Dreaded Arbitration Clauses in NH Cases
The New York Times offers another window into concerns about pre-dispute binding arbitration provisions that are routinely found in nursing home agreements. This is a long-simmering war, with many battlefronts and tactical arguments, as documented in the article. However, the article also focuses on a narrow group of cases where courts have rejected a binding effect for arbitration clauses signed by someone serving "merely" as a health care agent for the incapacitated resident. (I hope my Contracts course students this semester are reading this article!)
The article offers an additional opportunity to consider the tensions between public policies on either side of the debate over "fairness" of arbitration as a forum for consumer claims:
Arbitration clauses have proliferated over the last 10 years as companies have added them to tens of millions of contracts for things as diverse as cellphone service, credit cards and student loans.. Nursing homes in particular have embraced the clauses, which are often buried in complex contracts that are difficult to navigate, especially for elderly people with dwindling mental acuity or their relatives, who can be emotionally vulnerable when admitting a parent to a home.
State regulators are concerned because the secretive nature of arbitration can obscure patterns of wrongdoing from prospective residents and their families. Recently, officials in 16 states and the District of Columbia urged the federal government to deny Medicaid and Medicare money to nursing homes that use the clauses. Between 2010 and 2014, hundreds of cases of elder abuse, neglect and wrongful death ended up in arbitration, according to an examination by The New York Times of 25,000 arbitration records and interviews with arbitrators, judges and plaintiffs.
Judges have consistently upheld the clauses, The Times found, regardless of whether the people signing them understood what they were forfeiting. It is the most basic principle of contract law: Once a contract is signed, judges have ruled, it is legally binding.
Mr. Barrow’s case [set for trial in Massachusetts] is pivotal because, with the help of his lawyers, he has overcome an arbitration clause by using the fundamentals of contract law to fight back. As is often the case when elderly people are admitted to nursing homes, Mr. Barrow signed the admissions paperwork containing the arbitration clause on his mother’s behalf.
Although his mother had designated Mr. Barrow as her health care proxy — someone who was authorized to make decisions about her medical treatment — his lawyers argued that he did not have the authority to bind his mother to arbitration.
Our thanks to attorneys Karen Miller in Florida and Morris Klein in Maryland, plus Dickinson Law students Joe Carroll, Corey Kysor and Kadeem Morris in Pennsylvania for sending us the link to the NYT coverage.
February 23, 2016 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, February 22, 2016
Monday, February 1, 2016
Over the last 20 years, I've definitely noticed a change when, during a meeting with a new person, I'm asked "what do you teach?" For many years, I would get a blank stare or, perhaps, "what exactly is elder law?" Now, more frequently the response is "do you have time for a quick question?" (Unfortunately, quick questions rarely have quick answers, even when I begin "Let me suggest you see an experienced attorney in your area....")
I'm hearing more questions about home care workers. One frequent question is about overtime pay, and the type of employment definitely matters. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) website has helpful materials, and the site reports on the effect of recent litigation affecting home care workers.
Recently someone asked me if it was "safe" to assume they don't have to keep track of "overtime" hours, because the individual they have hired has irregular, mutually adjustable hours and is permitted to sleep when they stay overnight. Family members will tell me "we just want someone there in case something happens." That scenario is definitely affected by whether or not the employee's duties are correctly described as "companionship" services. There is a limited exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay requirement for "companionship" employees.
In late 2014, the DOL issued a detailed "Home Care Final Rule" that became effective only after litigation in the federal Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by third-party employers (home care agencies) to implementation. See Home Care Association of America v. Weil. Thus, as of January 1, 2016, the Department of Labor takes the position the Home Care Final Rule is now fully enforceable.
As the DOL explains, its Final Rule defines "companionship services" as the provision of "fellowship and protection." "Companionship services" may also include the provision of care if the care is attendant to and in conjunction with fellowship and protection services, so long as the "care" does not exceed 20 percent of the total hours worked per person and per workweek. Driving "usually" constitutes assistance with instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) and if the employee is working for less than 24 hours per shift, any permitted sleep time must still be compensated. (State rules may also have tighter rules affecting payments.)
DOL provides this example:
Sue, a direct care worker employed solely by Ms. Jones, regularly works 35 hours per week in Ms. Jones' home. Sue primarily provides fellowship and protection to Ms. Jones. If she also spends no more than 7 hours per week (20% of her work time for Ms. Jones) providing assistance to Ms. Jones with ADLs and IADLs, she is providing care within the scope of the definition of companionship services, and Ms. Jones is not required to pay her minimum wage and overtime compensation.
For more, see FAQs about Home Care on the DOL website -- or, better yet, talk to an experienced attorney in your city!
Sunday, January 31, 2016
The Social Security Administration posted on its blog about a Social Security scam involving phishing. According to the post, the scam focuses on "protecting" yourself from identity theft and financial fraud. "The subject line says “Get Protected,” and the email talks about new features from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that can help taxpayers monitor their credit reports, and know about unauthorized use of their Social Security number. It even cites the IRS and the official-sounding “S.A.F.E Act 2015.” It sounds real, but it’s all made up." The post offers a couple of tips to suss out a scam. If the email ended up in your junk folder, it could be a scam. Also, mouse over the URL and see if it is really from SSA, or from a .com site instead.
Always remember-if in doubt, don't click on the link and don't provide personal information.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Our good friend and elder law guru, Professor Dick Kaplan from Illinois has released a new article, Reflections on Medicare at 50: Breaking the Chains of Path Dependency for a New Era. (In my opinion, anything Dick Kaplan writes is a must-read). The article is available for download on SSRN here. The abstract explains more:
On the occasion of Medicare’s 50th anniversary, this Article examines the evolution of this essential program from its enactment in 1965 through implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Persons who are, or soon will be, newly enrolled in Medicare may be especially interested in the first part of this Article, which addresses the coverages, exclusions, and costs of Medicare’s constituent parts and concludes (on pp. 20-21) with seven critical questions that every new beneficiary must consider before enrolling. The Article then proffers policy recommendations to better align Medicare with current models of health insurance and provide more appropriate coverage of long-term care expenses.