The Cash and Counseling Demonstration and Evaluation (CCDE) is a policy-driven evaluation of the basic belief that most people, including the elderly, want a say in matters that affect their daily lives. The evaluation is comparing cost, quality, and satisfaction of consumers receiving traditional personal care services with those receiving a consumer-directed cash benefit and information services. This article presents results from a telephone survey conducted as background research to assess the preferences of elders and adults with disabilities for a cash option versus traditional services in New Jersey, one CCDE demonstration state. This preference study provides information about consumer perceptions and attitudes, need for help or training with service management tasks, and outreach messages to emphasize when promoting a consumer-directed cash option.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ansello, E.F., & Eustis, N.N. (1992, Winter). A common stake? Investigating the emerging intersection of aging and disabilities. Generations, 16, 5—8.
2.
Barnes, C., & Sutherland, S. (1995). Context of care, provider characteristics, and quality of care in the IHSS Program: Implications for provider standards (Interim Report to the California Department of Social Services). Sacramento: California State University, Institute for Social Research.
3.
Benjamin, A.E., & Matthias, R.E. (2001). Age, consumer direction and outcomes of supportive services at home. The Gerontologist , 41, 632—642.
4.
Benjamin, A.E., Matthias, R.E., & Franke, T. (1998). Comparing client-directed and agency models for providing disability-related supportive services at home. Los Angeles: University of California, School of Public Policy and Social Research.
5.
DeJong, G., Batavia, A.I., & McKnew, L. (1992). The independent living model of personal assistance in national long-term care policy. Generations, 16, 89—95.
6.
Doty, P. (1997). Internal briefing paper addressing possible fraud and abuse issues in the cash option. Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
7.
Doty, P., Kasper, J., & Litvak, S. (1996). Consumer-directed models of personal care: Lesson from Medicaid. Milbank Memorial Fund, 74, 377—409.
8.
Eustis, N.N., & Fischer, L.R. (1992). Common needs, different solutions?Younger and older homecare clients. Generations, 16, 17—22.
9.
Geron, S., & Chassler, D. (1994). Guidelines for case management practice across the long-term care continuum (Technical Report). Bristol, CT: ConnecticutCommunity Care.
10.
Glickman, L.L., Brandt, K.J., & Caro, F.G. (1994). Self-direction in home care for older people. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Gerontology Institute and Center.
11.
Jackson, M.E. (1994). Rationing case management: Six case studies. Unpublished report. Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluating.
12.
Kapp, M. (1996). Enhancing autonomy and choice in selecting and directing long-term care services. The ElderLaw Journal, 4(1), 55—97.
13.
Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1990). New models for the provision of personnel assistance services. Appendix B: Chartbook of tables from FY 1988 personal assistance program survey data. (NIDRR Grant No. G008720134). Berkeley, CA: World Institute on Disability.
14.
Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1991). Policy issues and questions affecting the Medicaid personal care services optional benefit (Contract No. HHS-100-89-0025). Oakland, CA: World Institute on Disability.
15.
Litvak, S., Zukas, H., & Heumann, J.E. (1987). Attending to America: Personal assistance for independent living. A survey of attendant service programs in the United States for people of all ages with disabilities. Berkeley, CA : World Institute on Disability.
16.
Mahoney, C. W., Estes, C. L., & Heumann, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Toward a unified agenda: Proceedings of a national conference on disability and aging. San Francisco: University of California.
17.
Rimer, S. (1998, March 15). Blacks carry load of care for their elderly. The New York Times, p. 1.
18.
Sciegaj, M., & Kyriacou, C.K. (2000). Study examines racial and ethnic differences in preferences for consumer direction. Consumer Choice News, 4(4), 5.
19.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Bochniak, M.A., Mahoney, K.J., & Hecht, D. (2000a). Implementation issues for consumer directed programs: Views from policy experts. In M. Kapp (Ed.), Ethics, law, and aging review (Vol. 6, pp. 107— 129). New York: Springer .
20.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Bochniak, M.A., Mahoney, K.J., & Hecht, D. (2000b). The status of a common agenda between the aging and disability communities: Where has it been? Where is it going? Views from policy experts. In M. Kapp (Ed.), Ethics, law, and aging review (Vol. 6, pp. 85—106). New York: Springer .
21.
Simon-Rusinowitz, L., & Hofland, B.F. (1993). Adopting a disability approach to home care services for older adults. The Gerontologist, 33(2), 159-167.
22.
Tennestedt, S., & Chang, B-H. (1998). The relative contribution of ethnicity versus socioeconomic status in explaining differences in disability and receipt of informal care. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B(2), S61—70.
23.
Velgouse, L., & Dize, V. (2000). A review of state initiatives in consumer-directed long-term care. Generations, 24(3), 28—33.
24.
Wallace, S.P., Levy-Storms, L., Kington, R.S., & Andersen, R.M. (1998). The persistence of race and ethnicity. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B(2), S104—112.
25.
Zacharias, B.L. (1997a). Cash and counseling demonstration and evaluation. A study to determine the preferences of consumers and surrogates for a cash option. Unpublished report on New York focus groups.
26.
Zacharias, B.L. (1997b). Cash and counseling demonstration and evaluation. A study to determine the preferences of consumers and surrogates for a cash option. Unpublished report on Florida focus groups.
