Older Adult Population will Surpass Younger Age Groups in 2029 as ‘Notable Shifts’ Occur

McKnight’s Senior Living | By Kimberly Bonvissuto
 
The US older adult population is expected to surpass the size of younger age groups in 2029, according to the latest US Census Bureau population projections, which also forecast that the nation’s population will reach a high of almost 370 million in 2080 before declining to 366 million in 2100.
 
The 2023 national population projections indicate that the US experienced “notable shifts” in components of population change over the past five years, including the increasing older adult population.
 
The statistics are being watched closely by the long-term care industry as it clambers to capture a growing number of prospective residents while also addressing workforce shortages.
 
“In an ever-changing world, understanding population dynamics is crucial for shaping policies and planning resources,” Sandra Johnson, a Census Bureau demographer, said in a statement. 
Continued declines in fertility are projected to shift the age structure of the population to more older adults compared with children aged fewer than 18 years beginning in 2029. By 2100, 29.1% of the population is projected to be 65 or more years old compared with 16.4% of the population being aged 18 or fewer years. The 85-and-older population also is projected to increase from 1.95% of the population in 2022 to 7.46% of the population in 2100.
Similarly, the median age of the US population, which represents the age at which half the population is older and half is younger, is projected to increase over time. In 2022, the median age for the total population was 38.9. In 2100, the median is projected to increase to 47.9 years. 
 
The US Census Bureau’s 2020 Service Annual Survey showed that aging adults boosted the bottom lines of assisted living and continuing care retirement communities. More recent studies, however, show that up to 80% of older adults— 47 million — don’t have the financial resources to cover the care they may need down the road. 
 
Read Full Article

Societal Polarization Regarding Vaccinations Found to be Distorting Accuracy of People's Recall of Pandemic

Medical Xpress | By Bob Yirka

A quartet of psychologists, economists and health behaviorists from the University of Bamberg, the University of Chicago, the University of Vienna and the University of Erfurt, respectively, has found that people's political views on vaccinations is colorizing their memories of the severity of the global pandemic.

In their paper published in the journal Nature, Philipp Sprengholz, Luca Henkel, Robert Böhm and Cornelia Betsch, describe how they conducted surveys of people regarding the pandemic and what they learned from it.

The editors at Nature have posted a Research Briefing outlining the work done by the team on this effort and also an Editorial discussing possible implications of their findings.

Most health organizations around the world have deemed the global pandemic to be over despite the fact that people all over the world are still being infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus—this is because of the degree of immunity that has been built up, both by people being infected and those who have been and continue to be vaccinated.

By all accounts, the pandemic was a major event in modern world history—in addition to the many people who were made ill or died, most economies around the world took a major hit. And because it was such a major event, many in the science community have begun to take a look back—some at its many impacts, and others looking for lessons learned.

In this new effort, the research team suggests that one of the lessons that needs to be learned is that once a pandemic is over, people will remember it differently, depending on their political views—in this case, on their views regarding vaccinations.

To learn more about how people remember the severity of the pandemic, the research team surveyed over 10,000 people living in 11 wealthy, Northern Hemisphere countries, asking them to rate their risk of infection. Some of those people living in Germany had responded to a survey conducted earlier, by the same group, asking them the same questions. On the second go-round, those people in Germany were also asked to try to remember how they had rated their risk in the first survey…

Read Full Article

Updated OASIS-E Manual

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a revised Outcome and  Assessment Information Set (OASIS-E) Manual with an associated Change Table. There are no changes to the OASIS-E instrument. 

The changes incorporate guidance into the manual and Q&As from the CMS Quarterly Q&As dated July 2022 through October 2023. 

Please see the two links below:

• Outcome and Assessment Information Set OASIS-E Manual (cms.gov)
• Change Table Summarizing 2024 Update to the OASIS-E Guidance Manual (cms.gov)

Industry Still in Shock Following Release of Home Health Final Rule

McKnight’s Home Care | By Adam Healy
 
Home health and hospice providers are still reeling from the release of last week’s home health rule. The regulation slapped home health providers with more Medicare cuts and finalized a Special Focus Program for hospices based on what providers believe is a flawed algorithm.
“It’s a punch in the gut, really, for providers,” Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge, said to McKnight’s Home Care Daily Pulse in a press conference at LeadingAge’s annual meeting. “And it’s really baffling to me that you can have an administration that says we need to support our older adults, we need to provide quality care, and yet we can cut reimbursement.”
 
The rule, released last Wednesday, included a permanent behavioral adjustment of -2.89%, prompting outcry from providers and advocates for the home health industry. These cuts came atop a permanent rate reduction of 3.925% this year, and many organizations like LeadingAge believe it may be too much for agencies to handle.
 
“It further squeezes the home health providers out there who are already struggling with workforce issues, increased costs,” Sloan said. “I have no idea what the thought process is. They clearly have done a disservice.”
 
How the cuts were implemented may unevenly affect providers of different sizes, markets or types, LeadingAge’s experts also said. 
 
“Doing it in aggregate means you’re treating all people equally,” Mollie Gurian, vice president of home based and HCBS policy at LeadingAge, said in an interview with McKnight’s Home Care Daily Pulse at the meeting. “Even whether their margins are 30% or whether their margins are 2% or negative. And it’s going to cause closures.”
 
The Special Focus Program for hospices also drew criticism for the algorithm that determines what providers are to be placed on the list. Since the provision was finalized without modification in the rule released last week, LeadingAge has explored ways to delay or prevent the SFP before it goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024, according to Gurian.
 
“We’ve been strategizing about whether there’s a legislative approach that could help to delay it,” Gurian said. As to whether this possibility could be successful, “Probably not, but it’s worth trying, and I think we have support,” she said.
 
Luckily, CMS left room for further discussion, according to Katy Barnett, director of home care and hospice operations and policy, in an interview with McKnight’s Home Care Daily Pulse.
“There was some language in there after each of the sections finalizing the proposal that they really did clearly think that more conversation would be necessary,” Barnett said.
 
But if implemented, the SFP is expected to create a sort of “chilling effect” among providers, which might steer consumers away from unfairly-targeted hospices. It may not cause providers to halt hospice services, but it could reduce access to quality care, she noted.
 
“I don’t think it necessarily will drive providers out,” Gurian said. “I don’t think people will stop doing hospice because of the existence of a special focus program. But we do think if the wrong providers are identified, it could have a scarlet letter effect that is unfortunate … which would affect access ultimately.”