Thursday, March 03, 2005

Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage

By Dennis CauchonUSA TODAY

After a glut was predicted a decade ago, the number of physicians isn't keeping up with the demands of a wealthy, aging population

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) — and he visits just one day a month.
The doctor sent Bodiford from his hometown of Perry to Tallahassee 50 miles away for surgery. “You can't get the type of operation I needed in my town,” says Bodiford, 68, who was hospitalized for six days in December and is feeling better.
Bodiford experienced what many Americans may soon face: a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.
The country needs to train 3,000 to 10,000 more physicians a year — up from the current 25,000 — to meet the growing medical needs of an aging, wealthy nation, the studies say. Because it takes 10 years to train a doctor, the nation will have a shortage of 85,000 to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon.
The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.
“It didn't happen,” says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicinearticle on the doctor supply. “Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers.”
The nation now has about 800,000 active physicians, up from 500,000 20 years ago. They've been kept busy by a growing population and new procedures ranging from heart stents to liposuction.
But unless more medical students begin training soon, the supply of physicians will begin to shrink in about 10 years when doctors from the baby boom generation retire in large numbers.
“Almost everyone agrees we need more physicians,” says Carl Getto, chairman of the Council on Graduate Medical Education, a panel Congress created to recommend how many doctors the nation needs. “The debate is over how many.”
Getto's advocacy of more doctors is remarkable because his advisory committee and its predecessor have been instrumental since the 1980s in efforts to restrict the supply of new physicians. In a new study sent to Congress, the council reverses that policy and recommends training 3,000 more doctors a year in U.S. medical schools.
Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an “oversupply exists or is immediately expected.”
“The truth is, we don't know if there's a shortage of physicians,” says AMA President John Nelson, a Salt Lake City obstetrician. “It looks like there are enough physicians for the short term, but maybe we need more because of the aging population.”
The United States dramatically expanded the number of doctors being trained in the 1960s and 1970s, creating two new physicians for every one that retired, says Richard Cooper,director of the Health Policy Institute at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
But the production of new doctors has changed little since 1985. Today, new physicians roughly equal the number of doctors retiring. Within a decade, baby boom doctors licensed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s will retire in large numbers that will outstrip the 25,000 new doctors produced every year, Cooper says.
The effective number of physicians will fall even more, Cooper says, because doctors work shorter hours today. “The public expects good, innovative health care, but we're not producing enough physicians to provide it,” Cooper says.
The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves.
Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors.
To become a physician, students spend four years in medical school. Graduates then spend three to seven years training as residents, usually treating patients under supervision at a hospital. Residents work long hours for $35,000 to $50,000 a year. Even doctors trained in other countries must serve medical residencies in the USA to practice here.
Medicare, which provides health care to the nation's seniors, also is the primary federal agency that controls the supply of doctors. It reimburses hospitals for the cost of training medical residents.
The government spends about $11 billion annually on 100,000 medical residents, or roughly $110,000 per resident. The number of residents has hovered at this level for the past decade, according to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
In 1997, to save money and prevent a doctor glut, Congress capped the number of residents that Medicare will pay for at about 80,000 a year. Another 20,000 residents are financed by Veterans Affairs and Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. Teaching hospitals pay for a small number of residents without government assistance.
Medicare, which faces enormous financial pressure in coming decades, already spends 3% of its budget training physicians and may not have the resources to spend more.
Cooper says the nation needs 200,000 more physicians because aging and wealthy countries demand more health care.
The portion of U.S. income spent on health care rose from 8.8% in 1980 to 15.4% in 2004 and will reach 18.7% in 2014, according to Medicare estimates. That means more doctors are needed, whether it's for hip replacements or prescribing new drugs.
Demographic changes in the medical profession also contribute to the need for more physicians. Nearly half of new physicians are women, and studies show they work an average of 25% fewer hours than male physicians, Cooper says.
Physicians older than 55 work about 15% less than younger doctors. And medical residents have been limited to 80-hour weeks since 2003, ending decades of 100-plus-hour weeks.
Most worrisome, the retirement of baby boom physicians means the number of doctors will start falling just as the first baby boomer turns 70 in 2016, says Ed Salsberg, a workforce specialist at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The United States stopped opening medical schools in the 1980s because of the predicted surplus of doctors. The Association of American Medical Colleges dropped this long-standing view in 2002 with the statement: “It now appears that those predictions may be in error.” Last month, it recommended increasing the number of U.S. medical students by 15%.
Florida State University's College of Medicine, the first new medical school since 1982, will graduate its first class this year. Arizona, Nevada, California and Florida are considering opening additional medical schools. Other states are considering expanding theirs.
Florida State won approval from the state Legislature to become the nation's 126th medical school by emphasizing family practice and other specialties needed in rural areas and inner cities, where the doctor shortage is already acute.
Florida State medical student Shannon Price, 34, plans to return to her hometown of Perry when she becomes an obstetrician in 2010. She knows firsthand how having too few doctors hurts Perry.
The only person in her family to attend college, Price worked in a munitions factory after high school. Laid off, she went to junior college, then became a nurse.
“People go without health care in my hometown,” she says. “Women go five or six years without Pap smears. We'd deliver babies in the emergency room. My family didn't go to the doctor, other than occasional visits to the health department.”
Doctors' Memorial Hospital in Perry is paying Price's medical school tuition to encourage her return. “She could go anywhere she wants in the country, yet she wants to come back here,” hospital administrator Rick Brown says. “We appreciate that.”
Because physicians are affluent and in short supply, they tend to locate where they want to live — not, as McDonald's or a Chinese restaurant might, where the most customers are.
Jackson Hospital, a 120-bed hospital in Marianna, Fla., a town of 6,200 an hour west of here, needs a urologist, a radiologist, an ear, nose and throat specialist and a gynecologist. “It's supply and demand, and it's hard to get doctors here,” hospital administrator Charles Ellis says.
Particularly scarce are old-fashioned specialists — general surgeons, radiologists, anesthesiologists — who have a wide range of duties. Jackson Hospital has one radiologist who does the work of two or three doctors. He works 15 to 18 hours a day.
New radiologists are not very interested in traditional radiology, Ellis says. They prefer cutting-edge radiology using catheters to treat cancer, blood clots and other problems, which is more lucrative and has predictable hours.
“It's hard to find a radiologist and orthopedic surgeon who want to focus on broken bones, especially at 3 a.m.,” Ellis says. “But that's what we need.”
Some medical policy specialists say the USA doesn't have too few doctors, just poor distribution of them.
“We have more and more physicians taking care of fewer and fewer patients,” says Kevin Grumbach, chairman of family and community medicine at San Francisco General Hospital.
He says doctors gravitate to high-paying practices — such as sports medicine and total body scans — that serve the wealthy and well-insured at the expense of Medicare patients and others.
“It's wrong to think that we can produce more physicians and have them trickle down to where they are needed,” says Grumbach, who favors a government-run, national health care system. “Investing billions of dollars to produce more doctors is a foolish way to spend money.”
Others worry that more physicians will drive up the cost of medical care, not make it cheaper and more accessible. Physicians will order more tests, more procedures and more drugs — without improving the nation's health, they say.
“Doctors create their own demand,” says physician Don Detmer, co-chairman of an Institute of Medicine committee that, in 1996, recommended cuts in funding for medical residents. “If we produce an abundance of doctors, there's little incentive for the system to become more efficient.” The Institute of Medicine is an independent group created by Congress for advice on medical issues.
But Cooper, a former medical school dean, says it's foolish to limit doctors as a way to control health care costs. “Doctors don't drive medical costs,” he says. “Sickness does.
“We face at least a decade of severe physician shortages because a bunch of people cooked numbers to support a position that was obviously wrong,” Cooper says. “This is a desperate situation. And we need to act now because it takes a long time to train a doctor.”

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Views On Prescription Drugs And The Pharmaceutical Industry

Kaiser Health Poll Report

This Featured Topic uses current and historical public opinion data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and other polling organizations to examine the public’s attitudes towards prescription drugs and pharmaceutical companies.

Views On Prescription Drugs And Drug Safety
Prescription drugs play a part in half of all adults’ daily lives, and most agree that these medications have a positive value to society. Majorities say that prescription drugs have had a positive impact on the health and quality of life of Americans in general (78%) and have made a “big difference” in the lives of people with chronic conditions such as heart disease (72%) and cancer (63%).
Despite recent news attention to prescription drug safety following the recall of the drug Vioxx, most Americans feel confident about the safety of prescription drugs sold in the United States (80%) and similar shares feel confident in the FDA’s ability to ensure this safety (77%).
Views On The Pharmaceutical Industry
Understanding the public’s views on the pharmaceutical industry is important because these views can influence policy preferences. Although the public is generally positive about the value of prescription drugs to society, they have much more mixed views of pharmaceutical companies themselves. One-half of adults have an unfavorable opinion of pharmaceutical companies with drug companies ranking ahead of oil and tobacco companies in favorability, but behind many other groups such as hospitals, airlines and banks.
And while nine in ten (91%) adults say that drug companies make an important contribution by researching and developing new drugs, beliefs about the motivation behind drug companies’ work are less positive. Seven in ten (70%) agree that drug companies put profits ahead of people, while one-quarter (24%) agree that companies are more concerned with saving lives and improving quality of life than profits.
Ratings of pharmaceutical companies’ customer service have been on a decline since 1997 when almost eight in ten (79%) people said drug companies generally do a “good job” serving consumers. In 2004, for first time, more people said drug companies generally do a “bad job” (48%) than a “good job” (44%) of serving consumers.
Views On Drug Costs
The public views pharmaceutical companies as major contributors to rising health care costs. In 2004, seven in ten (69%) adults say that high profits made by drug companies are a “very important” reason behind rising health care costs, and almost a quarter (24%) say drug company profits are the most important reason, ahead of malpractice lawsuits (20%) and greed and waste in the system (20%).
Furthermore, an argument sometimes put forth by the pharmaceutical industry that prescription drugs decrease overall medical costs by reducing the need for other services does not resonate with the majority of adults: fewer than a quarter (23%) agree with this view, compared with six in ten (59%) who agree that prescription drugs increase overall medical costs (11% do not think prescription drugs affect the nation’s medical costs).
Most of the public do not believe that research and development drive the cost of prescription drugs, instead three-quarters (74%) say drug company profit margins or marketing costs are the largest contributors to the price of prescription drugs and eight in ten (81%) say that drug costs are not justified because companies charge more for medications than necessary.
Prescription Drug Advertising
The vast majority of adults (90%) have seen or heard advertisements for prescription medications, but many are skeptical of the information provided. Fewer than two in ten (18%) say they can trust what pharmaceutical companies say in their ads “most of the time”, a much smaller share than in 1997 when 33% said they could trust drug company ads “most of the time”.
Despite this skepticism, many people are paying attention to these ads. Almost two-thirds (64%) of people who have seen prescription drug ads say that these advertisements generally provide useful information at least some of the time. One-quarter (26%) of people who have seen drug ads say they have talked to a doctor about a medication as a result of seeing an ad and more than half of these people said the doctor prescribed the particular medication.
Government Regulation of the Drug Industry
The public’s concerns about prescription drug prices and drug company profits translate into support for many proposals to control drug costs. For example, in 2005, almost two-thirds (65%) of the public say there should be more government regulation of prescription drug prices, and 70% of these people (or 46% of all adults) continue to support more regulation of prices even it leads to less research and development of new drugs.
And, in November 2004, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults supported the idea of allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from Canada and eight in ten (80%) favored changing the law to allow the government to use its buying power to negotiate lower drug prices for people on Medicare. The argument that these policies would lead drug companies to do less research and development does not resonate with most Americans: 70% disagree that importing drugs and 64% disagree that negotiation would affect development of new medications.

Monday, February 28, 2005

U.S. Workers Greatly Underestimate How Much Their Employer Contributes to Their Medical Insurance

Business Wire
February 28, 2005 Monday 4:05 PM GMT

Majority of U.S. Workers Greatly Underestimate How Much Their Employer Contributes to Their Medical Insurance, According to MetLife Study NEW YORK Feb. 28, 2005-

Employers' Under-Communication Yields Under-Appreciation -Despite the escalating cost of healthcare insurance, few employees understand the full and growing magnitude of their company's investment. More than one-quarter (28%) of full-time employees believe that their company spends less than $1,000 per employee annually on medical and nearly half (49%) believe their company spends less than $2,000, according to the recently released MetLife 2004 Employee Benefits Trend Study.

Only 27% of full-time employees estimate correctly that their company spends $4,000 or more per year. Nationally, companies spend an average of $7,289 per employee annually for family coverage and $3,137 for single coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Education Trust.

Divorced/separated employees and those in a domestic partnership are most likely to assess their employer's contribution realistically, with 41% and 44% of these employees respectively estimating their company's investment at $3,000 or more per year, compared with 38% of employees overall. Employee communications may be partially to blame for the misperceptions by today's workers.

Currently, only 31% of employees give their companies' benefits communications program high marks. Roughly the same percentage (36%) give high marks to their companies' benefits package, up only slightly from last year (32%).

"Rising healthcare premiums are having an impact on many companies' bottom lines," notes Beth Hirschhorn, chief marketing officer, MetLife. "Yet far too many employers are not taking the time to educate their employees on the value of their investment, causing employees to underestimate the worth of their individual and family benefits."As a result, many employees take their employer-funded benefits for granted and do not invest the time to research the products that best fit their needs.

More than half (57%) of the full-time employees surveyed by MetLife, for example, report that they spend 30 minutes or less making benefits decisions during open enrollment. On average, employees spend 62 minutes making their enrollment decisions. The median is 30 minutes.Currently, 60% of full-time employees (and 71% of those aged 21-30) don't understand which benefits best meet their needs. To fill the gap, 27% of full-time employees overall (and 40% of those age 21 - 30) rely on friends and relatives for financial advice, while 46% don't consult with anyone. Among older workers, 53% of employees age 51 - 60 and 56% of employees age 61 - 69 don't consult with anyone."

A robust communication and educational plan is a critical component of any benefits program," notes Hirschhorn. "Our research shows that when employees understand their insurance, savings and retirement needs, they make better benefits decisions and have higher levels of benefits and job satisfaction. In fact, among full-time employees who are highly satisfied with their companies' employee benefits, overall job satisfaction is nearly three times as high as it is for employees who are not satisfied."

As voluntary benefits (i.e., benefits for which employees pay all or most of the cost) become increasingly popular, benefits education is all-the-more critical. "With employees now responsible for funding an ever-increasing percentage of their own benefits, they need better decision support tools to make informed decisions," adds Hirschhorn.More than one-third (34%) of the full-time employees surveyed say they are interested in having their employer provide a wide array of voluntary benefits.

Employees view the payroll deduction associated with voluntary benefits as a "convenient way to make payments" (62%) and as a means for becoming "more disciplined about saving" (51%).The ability to sign up for insurance without going through a medical exam is also a strong selling point for 50% of employees. In terms of buying patterns, young workers (25%) - in addition to African American (28%), Hispanic (25%) and Asian (20%) employees - are more likely than their peers to purchase their financial and protection products at work.

The MetLife Employee Benefits Trend Study was conducted during the third quarter of 2004 and consisted of two distinct surveys. The employee survey, fielded by NOP World, polled 903 full-time employees, age 21 and older, at companies with at least two employees, and 1,542 voting-age consumers. The employer survey was conducted by TNS NFO and polled a total of 1,528 HR/Benefits executives from companies with at least two employees participated in the employer survey.

STUDY: PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM TO SUFFER STRAINS IN COMING YEARS

February 24, (BestWire) -
With national health-care spending expected to grow faster than the economy and private health-care premiums rising faster than per capita disposable income, a new government study projects that population growth will outstrip growth of enrollment in private health insurance in the next 10 years.

This means more and more people will be turning to government-funded health insurance and "strain the current system of employer-sponsored insurance coverage," according to the study by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services."No one should find this surprising," said Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute. "The government has long been the largest provider of health care, and that's only going to be more so the case in the future."

Growth of private health-care spending is expected to slow to 7.4% for 2004, down from 9% in 2001-2002. By 2005, growth of private spending will drop to 6.6% and in 2006 it will "sharply dip" to 3.1%, the study predicts. The average annual growth for private health-care spending is projected to be 6.4% for 2004-2014, below the 1965-2003 average of 9.3%.

The cause for this slowing of spending, according to the study, is slower growth in the use of medical care and the introduction of Medicare Part D, a new prescription-drug benefit under the public health insurance plan for the elderly, in 2006. Medicare Part D is "anticipated to have only a minor impact on health spending" but signifies a shift from private payers and Medicaid to Medicare.

The study predicts public funding of health care to exceed 49% by 2014. It currently is at about 46%.By 2014, total health-care spending is projected to be 18.7% of the gross domestic product, up from 15.3% in 2003, according to the study.Hartwig said the government-funded programs would be "filling the void left by the private sector." Many companies, he said, are cutting back on the employer-sponsored benefits they offer as a cost-saving tactic."There's a general cheapening of the benefits employers provide," Hartwig said, noting higher deductibles, less choice in doctors and more costs to employees as prime examples. "That can be expected to continue for the future."
"There's no end in sight for this trend," Hartwig said. "Many people believe there is a health-care crisis in this country, with millions without health care."Private health insurance premiums per enrollee will slow in growth from 9.9% for 2003 to 7.7% for 2004, the study predicts, citing a slowdown in the growth of the underlying costs of benefits per enrollee from 8.9% in 2003 to 7.7% in 2004.The premium cost per enrollee rose at an annual rate of 9.3% from 1998 to 2003, while per capita disposable personal income only rose by 5% a year.


The study predicts premium costs will continue to exceed personal income by 1.4 percentage points in the next 10 years, further straining the system.Out-of-pocket spending for health care grew to 7.6% in 2003, up from 6% in 2001-2002, the study said. The study expects out-of-pocket spending to "keep pace" with growth in private health insurance spending.Prescription-drug spending has slowed from 14.9% growth in 2001-2002 to 10.7% growth in 2003, reflecting several factors that include the now over-the-counter status of former prescription drugs, and is expected to rise to 11.9% growth for 2004, the study found."Health-care spending in this county is simply out of control," Hartwig said.

As the health insurance market swings more toward government-funded programs and farther away from employer-sponsored benefits, Hartwig said private health insurers would have to compete differently than what they do now."They're not necessarily cut off," Hartwig said. "But instead of providing through an employer-sponsored health care plan, they may end up bidding on public contracts."

BestWeek: February 25, 2005

State may go after estate to fund care; Homes of those who use Medicaid are fair game after death

10:19 PM CST on Sunday, February 27, 2005
By BOB MOOS / The Dallas Morning News
Beginning Tuesday, older Texans who apply to Medicaid for long-term care will need to read the fine print.
The state may try to get its money back from their estates once they die.
"These seniors are going to have to understand the long-term financial consequences for their families," said Anne Dunkelberg, assistant director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.
Congress, grappling with soaring Medicaid costs, required all states to implement "estate recovery" programs 12 years ago.
Texas, where belief in property rights runs strong, is one of the last to comply.
The program's launch this week pits people who believe the law promotes taxpayer fairness against critics who fear it will deny heirs their rightful inheritances.
Though experts characterize the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's rules as among the most lenient in the nation, the program could affect tens of thousands of families that don't do estate planning.
Medicaid is the biggest safety net for older people in long-term care, Ms. Dunkelberg said. Seven of 10 Texas nursing home residents – or about 60,000 people – depend on the federal-state health care program each month.
"When an elderly parent begins to decline, many families are surprised to discover that Medicare doesn't cover custodial care," said Trudi Matthews, a health policy expert for the Council of State Governments.
$40,000 a year for care
Long-term care averages $40,000 a year, so even people with a hefty nest egg for retirement quickly deplete their savings and become eligible for Medicaid, she said.
But because Medicaid exempts houses and certain other assets when applicants sign up for benefits, "it's possible for someone with a very nice home to collect public dollars for his long-term care," Ms. Matthews said.
The thought of subsidizing seniors who still own comfortable houses has fueled support for recovering tax dollars after death, she said.
Under Texas' program, the state can file a claim in probate court against the estate of a Medicaid beneficiary older than 55 who applied for long-term care benefits on or after March 1. The estate includes the home and any other assets that remain.
State officials emphasize that the new rules don't cover anyone now on Medicaid.
They also say they won't file a claim if there's a surviving spouse, a child under 21, a child of any age with a permanent disability or an unmarried adult child who's lived in the beneficiary's home for at least a year.
Other relatives may seek hardship waivers to ward off the state's recovery efforts, and state officials say they'll consider those on a case-by-case basis.
"The Medicaid dollars we recover will be plowed back into long-term care," said Don Rogers, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, which will administer the program.
Mr. Rogers said the state has no estimate of how much it will recover. Experts familiar with other programs said Texas can expect to reap about $8 million annually within several years, though they warn that state-to-state comparisons are unreliable because programs vary widely.
Recovery average: 1%
The national average for estate recovery has been less than 1 percent of overall Medicaid spending. Even so, almost all states are leaving no stones – even gravestones – unturned when searching for ways to pay for long-term care.
Long-term care costs Texas about $2 billion a year and accounts for about 30 percent of the state's Medicaid spending, according to the Health and Human Services Commission.
People who work with Texas seniors disagree about the merits of the new rules.
Lynda Ender, chairman of the Texas Senior Advocacy Coalition, said the state is being a good guardian of taxpayers' money.
"We're strapped for Medicaid dollars in this state – many seniors are having to wait for at-home care," she said. "Estate recovery will produce some revenue that may make that care more readily available."
Patricia Sitchler, president of the Texas chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, says the rules are hardhearted.
"One way families improve their economic standing is for elders to pass on something to the next generation," she said. "The state's new rules will take that opportunity away from many Texas families."
Hardship waivers
Some senior advocates say the state was careful to make allowances for lower-income families.
"These rules have been misportrayed as seizing the homes of poor folk – that's just not true," said Bruce Bower, director of advocacy and client services with the Texas Legal Services Center. "There will be no liens against homes."
The hardship waivers are among the most generous of any state's, he said.
Texas will exempt $100,000 of a homestead's appraised value in lower- and middle-income families and exclude farms and ranches that provide at least half of families' livelihood, Mr. Bower explained.
But specialists in elder law warn that the exemptions are narrowly drawn and that much property will be subject to recovery, particularly in the state's urban areas, where home values generally are higher.
"Many older Texans will be tempted to transfer their property directly to their children to avoid falling under the estate recovery law," said H. Clyde Farrell, an elder law attorney in Austin.
Yet that has its own risks, especially if the children get into financial trouble and have to sell the house, Mr. Farrell said.
"The family would have escaped the state's grasp, but it still would be left with nothing," he said.
Elder law attorneys urge older adults and their families to seek professional help to find legal ways to protect their assets.
"One is to transfer the homestead into a revocable trust," Mr. Clyde said. "After death, the title passes to the heirs. And because the property doesn't go through probate, it won't be subject to recovery."
Avoiding Medicaid
Both critics and supporters agree that estate recovery may cause families to think twice about applying for Medicaid when an elder requires long-term care.
"I'm advising clients to avoid using Medicaid, if they can, by purchasing long-term care insurance or better managing their assets," Mr. Clyde said.
Mr. Bower of the Texas Legal Services Center believes estate recovery will give families another incentive to care for elders themselves.
"As long as the family is capable, that would be good," he explained. "Some adult children have been too eager to put Mom or Dad in a nursing home and let Medicaid foot the bill."
Some health policy experts say the contentious debate over estate recovery laws shows how poorly this nation has prepared for the long-term care of its aging population.
"The only publicly financed system we have for paying for long-term care is Medicaid," Ms. Matthew said. "A system that was meant to be a safety net for the poor has turned into a middle-class entitlement."
Taxpayers can't sustain the current system, she said.
Nationally, Medicaid spending has increased 63 percent in the last five years, and the Congressional Budget Office projects it will grow an average of almost 8 percent annually in the next decade.
Policy experts say the nation needs a comprehensive solution to the mounting costs of long-term care.
"Someone's nursing care can easily approach six figures," Ms. Matthews said. "What will we do when 76 million baby boomers begin to require it?"