← We The People Platform Download .docx

Pillar Nine: Architecture, Funding, Delivery, and Transition

v1.0 · Created May 7, 2026 for v3.3.0 (Pillar Nine added; first of four planned new pillars per v4.0.0 architecture proposal, sequenced one at a time per Jason's direction) · Jason Robertson · Ohio · 2026

Sources Baseline. Numerical claims in this document derive from the canonical sources cataloged in 05_Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx, including: long-term care expenditure data from CMS and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)/Genworth Cost of Care surveys (the $475 billion aggregate long-term care expenditure figure from existing analysis); Census Bureau population estimates by age cohort 2023; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) workforce data for caregiving labor projections; CBO long-term care cost projections; CLASS Act archival materials and lessons-learned analysis; state long-term care insurance program data (Washington WA Cares; California; Hawaii); and international comparative data from Germany's Pflegeversicherung, Japan's Long-Term Care Insurance, and the Netherlands' AWBZ/WLZ. Empirical claims requiring external credentialed review are tracked in the Open Issues Registry under future RESEARCH items as they emerge from external engagement.

# Why Long-Term Care Is the Ninth Pillar

The platform's first eight pillars address contribution-and-benefit architecture, retirement security, education access, healthcare access, childcare, mental health, civic infrastructure, and paid family time. Long-term care has been visibly absent from this list. The Aging In Place Implications document acknowledged the absence and tracked long-term care as adjacent to but outside the platform's pillar architecture. v3.3.0 closes that gap by elevating long-term care to its own pillar.

The case for elevating long-term care to pillar status is straightforward. Approximately fifteen million Americans currently need long-term services and supports, and the number is projected to grow substantially as the baby-boomer cohort ages into the seventy-five-and-older bracket where long-term care needs concentrate. Long-term care expenditures total approximately $475 billion per year in formal spending; the value of unpaid family caregiving, by AARP estimates, is approximately $600 billion annually on top of that. Most Americans become eligible for Medicaid long-term care benefits only after spending down their assets to near-poverty levels, a structurally cruel feature of the current system that turns aging-related care needs into mandatory impoverishment. The CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act) was enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act with the intent of establishing voluntary long-term care insurance, but was repealed in 2013 after the Department of Health and Human Services determined the program could not be implemented in a financially sustainable form under the voluntary-enrollment design. Washington State's WA Cares program, enacted in 2019 and operational from 2026, is the first state-level mandatory contribution-funded long-term care program in the United States; its experience is the closest existing analogue for what Pillar Nine attempts at federal scale. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

Long-term care fits the platform's architectural pattern. It is a population-scale need, not a niche one; it is partially served by existing insurance and benefit systems (Medicaid principally; Medicare for a narrow subset of medically-coded post-acute care; long-term care insurance for the small minority who carry it) but the existing patchwork creates predictable financial catastrophe for affected households; the policy mechanism that addresses it cleanly is universal-access funded by a small payroll contribution, parallel to the architecture used for healthcare, childcare, mental health, and paid family time.

# The Pillar Nine Architecture

## Contribution Rate (Canonical)

Pillar Nine is funded by a 1.0 percent combined payroll contribution split as 0.6 percent employer contribution and 0.4 percent employee contribution. This rate calibration follows the platform's convention for adjacent pillars: a small payroll contribution that aggregates to enough revenue to fund universal access at the target benefit specification. The 1.0 percent combined rate is calibrated against the projected benefit cost (described below in the financing math section); the 0.6 / 0.4 employer-employee split follows the asymmetric pattern used in Pillar Five (Universal Childcare), Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health), and Pillar Eight (Universal Paid Family Time), where the employer contribution is the larger share. The contribution applies to wages up to the same wage base used for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the platform's other payroll-funded pillars.

## Aggregate Revenue Generated

At full implementation, the 1.0 percent combined payroll contribution generates approximately $200 to $300 billion per year in aggregate revenue, depending on covered-wage-base assumptions and macro-economic conditions. The lower bound assumes a wage base aligned with the FICA cap (currently approximately $168,600 in 2024); the upper bound assumes a higher cap or no cap (the platform has architectural flexibility on this). The expected operating range is approximately $250 billion per year. This revenue is dedicated to long-term care benefits and program administration; it does not flow through general revenues and is not available for other purposes. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

## Coverage Specification

Pillar Nine provides universal access to long-term services and supports for U.S. residents who develop functional limitations meeting eligibility criteria. The covered services include: personal care assistance with activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, eating, toileting, transferring, continence) provided in the home or community; homemaker services including meal preparation, light housekeeping, laundry, and grocery shopping; adult day services; respite care to support family caregivers; assistive technology and home modifications; care coordination and case management; nursing home care for individuals whose functional limitations cannot safely be supported in home or community settings; and specialized services for individuals with cognitive impairment including dementia. Coverage is universal in the sense that eligibility is based on functional need rather than income or asset levels; there is no asset spend-down requirement, no income test, and no marriage-status-dependent eligibility rule.

## Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility for benefits is established through functional assessment using a standardized instrument similar to the assessment tools used in existing state-level programs (Washington's WA Cares uses an Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living assessment). Individuals are eligible when they meet at least one of three criteria: (a) they require assistance with at least three Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); (b) they have a cognitive impairment requiring substantial supervision; (c) they have a chronic condition or combination of conditions producing functional limitations that the assessment instrument codes as eligibility-meeting. Assessment is conducted by licensed clinicians or qualified assessors trained in the standardized instrument. Reassessment occurs at intervals appropriate to the individual's condition (typically annually or upon material change in condition). Eligibility is not contingent on enrollment duration; eligible individuals access benefits when they need them, parallel to the model in healthcare and disability insurance.

## Benefit Specification

Benefit value is calibrated to functional need, not to a fixed dollar cap. The program covers the cost of authorized services at provider-payment rates set by the program; individuals do not face copays, deductibles, or asset-test impositions. For home and community-based services (the largest category by enrollment and the platform's preferred-default care setting), the typical per-individual annual cost in the program's projected operating range is approximately $25,000 to $50,000, varying with severity of need; for nursing home care, costs are higher, in the range of $80,000 to $120,000 per year, also varying by need and region. The benefit is portable across geographic areas and provider settings (an individual can move from one state to another without losing benefits, and can transition between home, community, and institutional settings as needs change without re-establishing eligibility from scratch). Benefits include support for family caregivers, including respite care and limited compensation for family members providing direct care under structured caregiver-employment models (parallel to Medicaid's existing self-directed care options). (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

## Integration with Existing Pillars

Pillar Nine is integrated with Pillar Four (Universal Healthcare Access) for medically-coded long-term care that overlaps with healthcare delivery; the boundary between the two pillars follows the existing Medicare/Medicaid distinction with care taken to eliminate the patchwork that currently produces beneficiary confusion and unintended cost-shifting. Pillar Nine is integrated with Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health Access) for individuals whose long-term care needs include cognitive or psychiatric components; care planning is coordinated rather than parallel. Pillar Nine is integrated with Pillar Eight (Universal Paid Family Time) for working-age individuals providing care to family members; Pillar Eight covers the worker's wage replacement during caregiving leave, while Pillar Nine covers the care-recipient's services. Pillar Nine does not require Pillars One, Two, Three, or Seven structurally; it can be borrowed independently as a universal-long-term-care proposal under whatever overall fiscal architecture a borrowing organization adopts.

# Transition Mechanics

The transition from current state to full Pillar Nine implementation occurs over approximately a fifteen-year horizon, parallel to the transition periods used for Pillar Four and Pillar Five. Year one through year three: legislative authority established, federal program structure created, contribution collection initiated, state-program coordination agreements negotiated. Year three through year eight: phased benefit rollout starting with home and community-based services in early-eligibility cohorts; provider network expansion; assessment capacity buildout; existing state-level long-term care programs (WA Cares; Washington Medicaid LTC; California's IHSS; New York's Medicaid LTC; Massachusetts MassHealth LTC) integrate or align with the federal program through state-cooperation agreements. Year eight through year fifteen: full benefit availability; institutional care fully integrated; family-caregiver support fully operational; cross-state portability functional. The transition revenue ramps up alongside the benefit rollout: contribution collection at full 1.0 percent rate begins in year one (revenue accumulates against future benefit obligations), benefits ramp from approximately twenty percent of full-implementation cost in year three to full cost by year ten.

During transition, Medicaid long-term care continues to operate for individuals not yet covered by the full Pillar Nine benefit; as Pillar Nine rolls out, Medicaid LTC enrollment shifts to the new program, freeing Medicaid resources for non-LTC-Medicaid functions. State-level long-term care programs (WA Cares principally) integrate with the federal program; states that adopted such programs early are credited for prior contributions in transition rules to be specified in implementing legislation.

# Financing Math

The financing math relates contribution revenue to projected benefit cost at full implementation. Contribution revenue: 1.0 percent of approximately $25 to $30 trillion in covered wages produces approximately $250 to $300 billion per year in steady-state revenue. Benefit cost projection: approximately fifteen million Americans currently need long-term services and supports; full Pillar Nine coverage would add coverage for individuals currently uncovered (approximately five to six million additional individuals at any given time). Per-individual annual benefit cost averages approximately $35,000 across the eligible population, weighted toward home and community-based services which are less expensive than institutional care and which the program's design prefers. Total benefit cost: approximately fifteen to twenty million eligible individuals multiplied by approximately $35,000 per year equals approximately $525 to $700 billion per year. This exceeds the contribution revenue by a meaningful margin. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

The gap between contribution revenue and projected benefit cost is closed by three mechanisms. First, savings from existing federal long-term care expenditures: federal Medicaid currently funds approximately $200 billion per year in long-term care services; as Pillar Nine substitutes for Medicaid LTC, those federal dollars become available to support Pillar Nine's gap. Second, savings from existing state expenditures: states currently fund approximately $120 billion per year in long-term care through Medicaid and state-only programs; under Pillar Nine, states transition contributions to a federal-state coordination structure that captures part of these savings for the federal program. Third, the platform's high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge plus wealth surcharge plus wealth tax) provides backstop revenue for any residual gap; specific allocation between Pillar Nine and the platform's other commitments is determined in implementing legislation. The net effect: Pillar Nine is fiscally sustainable at the 1.0 percent payroll contribution rate when the full transition revenue picture (contribution plus existing-program-substitution plus high-earner backstop) is considered. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

Sensitivity analysis. The financing math depends on three primary parameters: covered-wage-base assumption (FICA cap versus higher cap or no cap); per-individual benefit cost assumption (currently estimated at approximately $35,000 average; sensitive to home-versus-institutional-care mix); and eligible-population assumption (approximately fifteen to twenty million; sensitive to functional-assessment threshold calibration). Plausible range of full-implementation cost: $400 billion at the lower bound (tight eligibility, home-care-heavy mix, current covered population) to $750 billion at the upper bound (broad eligibility, more institutional care, expanded covered population). The 1.0 percent contribution rate plus existing-program-substitution covers the lower-to-middle of this range; the upper bound requires either rate adjustment, eligibility tightening, or expanded high-earner-architecture backstop. Pillar Nine's actuarial review (a future RESEARCH item to be added to the Open Issues Registry) is the credentialed-external work needed to refine these parameters.

# Workforce Considerations

Long-term care delivery is workforce-intensive in a way that healthcare and mental health are not. Direct care workers, including home health aides, certified nursing assistants, and personal care aides, comprise the largest single occupational category in the U.S. health-services workforce; the BLS projects the category to grow faster than nearly any other occupation through 2032. Current workforce shortages in the long-term care sector are well-documented; many states report serious provider-network gaps, particularly in rural areas. Pillar Nine's full implementation requires substantial workforce expansion.

Workforce strategy includes: wage floor improvements for direct care workers (current median wage is approximately $14 per hour, well below platform-canonical Pillar Two wage floors for service occupations at $28,000 minimum, which translates to approximately $13.50 per hour at full-time; Pillar Nine compensation would be calibrated above this floor); training and credentialing pathways with subsidized tuition for credential-acquisition; career-progression structures from entry-level direct care to credentialed nursing roles; worker protection frameworks including portable benefits, access to Pillars Four and Six (Healthcare and Mental Health), and the existing FLSA and OSHA frameworks; family-caregiver-employment options where family members providing direct care can be compensated through Pillar Nine on a structured employment basis; and immigration-policy interaction (a substantial fraction of the existing direct care workforce is foreign-born, and immigration policy directly affects workforce-availability projections).

Workforce transition timing aligns with the benefit rollout; the workforce build-out is part of the transition mechanics, not separate from it. The fifteen-year transition horizon assumes workforce expansion proceeds at approximately the same pace as benefit-availability expansion; if workforce growth lags benefit growth, the transition extends rather than letting benefit promises outpace delivery capacity.

# Comparison with Existing Programs and Approaches

## Comparison with the CLASS Act

The CLASS Act, enacted in 2010 and repealed in 2013, attempted to establish voluntary federal long-term care insurance with premium-based financing. The program failed to launch because the Department of Health and Human Services determined that voluntary enrollment would produce adverse selection (sicker individuals enrolling at higher rates than healthier ones), making premium calibration impossible at sustainable rates. Pillar Nine differs from the CLASS Act in three structural ways. First: enrollment is mandatory through payroll contribution rather than voluntary, eliminating adverse-selection risk; this is the same pattern that makes Social Security and Medicare actuarially viable when private long-term care insurance markets are not. Second: the program is funded by ongoing payroll contributions rather than premiums calibrated to enrollment-period risk pools, giving the program access to the working-age population's earnings rather than only to those who choose to enroll. Third: the benefit is tied to functional need at the time of need, not to enrollment-period contributions, making the program redistributive across-cohort and not just across-individual within cohort. These three structural differences are why Pillar Nine can be actuarially viable where the CLASS Act could not.

## Comparison with Washington WA Cares

Washington's WA Cares program, enacted in 2019 and operational from 2026 (as of platform analysis date), is the first state-level mandatory-contribution long-term care program in the United States. Architectural similarities to Pillar Nine: contribution funded (0.58 percent of wages employee-paid in WA Cares; 0.4 percent employee plus 0.6 percent employer in Pillar Nine); functional eligibility (assessment-based); benefit calibrated to need rather than premium. Architectural differences: WA Cares is state-only with limited portability outside Washington; Pillar Nine is federal with full cross-state portability. WA Cares benefit cap is approximately $36,500 lifetime (in 2026 dollars); Pillar Nine benefit is calibrated to need without lifetime cap. WA Cares allows opt-out for individuals with prior private long-term care insurance; Pillar Nine does not (though private insurance can supplement). The WA Cares experience is the closest empirical reference for Pillar Nine's expected operational characteristics; ongoing monitoring of WA Cares enrollment, claims, and fiscal trajectory will be valuable for refining Pillar Nine parameters. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

## Comparison with International Long-Term Care Programs

Germany's Pflegeversicherung, enacted in 1995, established mandatory long-term care insurance funded through payroll contributions (currently 3.4 percent of wages; 1.7 percent employer / 1.7 percent employee, with childless adults paying an additional surcharge). Coverage is universal; benefit calibration is based on graded levels of need (Pflegegrade 1-5). Japan's Long-Term Care Insurance, enacted in 2000, established mandatory contribution-funded coverage for individuals 40 and older, with benefits available at age 65 (or earlier with qualifying conditions); contribution rates vary by income and municipality. The Netherlands' AWBZ, replaced by the WLZ in 2015, established universal long-term care funded through general taxation. Pillar Nine sits between these international models in design choices: payroll-contribution-funded like Germany and Japan; universal coverage like Germany and the Netherlands; benefit calibrated to need with home-and-community preference like all three. The 1.0 percent combined contribution rate is substantially below Germany's 3.4 percent because Pillar Nine's benefit specification is more conservative and because the platform's existing Pillars Four and Six absorb some functions that German programs assign to long-term care insurance. International experience suggests Pillar Nine's overall design is feasible at the proposed scale; specific parameter calibration requires actuarial work.

## Comparison with Medicaid Long-Term Care

Medicaid is currently the largest payer for long-term services and supports in the United States, covering approximately fifty-seven percent of total long-term care expenditures. Medicaid LTC eligibility requires asset spend-down (states vary in specific limits, but most require individuals to reduce assets to approximately $2,000 or less to qualify, with limited exceptions for spousal protection and home equity in some states). The result is a system that turns aging-related care needs into mandatory impoverishment for affected individuals, with related distortions including transferring assets to family members in advance of need (subject to look-back rules) and substituting institutional care for home-and-community-based care because institutional care has historically been more reliably reimbursed under Medicaid than home-and-community-based care has been. Pillar Nine eliminates the asset spend-down requirement entirely; eligibility is based on functional need without consideration of income or assets. This is a structural improvement of substantial magnitude: it eliminates the cruel feature of the current system while delivering benefits to the same population at lower aggregate cost (because functional-need-based eligibility is more efficient than asset-test-based eligibility, and because the program's home-and-community-based-services preference is less expensive than institutional care). (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

# Open Issues and Limits

Pillar Nine has the same kinds of open issues as the platform's other adjacent pillars: actuarial work to refine financing parameters; specific institutional design choices for federal-state coordination; provider-network design and payment-rate setting; workforce-development strategy specifics; transition-rule design for individuals already receiving benefits under existing state and federal programs at the time of Pillar Nine implementation.

Specific items requiring credentialed external review, to be added to the Open Issues Registry as they emerge from external engagement. First: actuarial validation of the contribution-rate calibration. The 1.0 percent combined rate is plausible based on international comparisons and on the relationship between Washington WA Cares' rate and benefit-cap, but a credentialed actuarial review is needed to confirm sustainability under stress scenarios (recession; demographic shift; benefit-cost growth). Second: institutional design for federal-state coordination. Long-term care delivery is currently substantially state-administered (Medicaid LTC in particular); transitioning to a federal program while preserving state-administration capacity is an institutional-design question that benefits from public-administration expertise. Third: provider-payment-rate design. Pillar Nine's payment rates affect the viability of the existing provider network; rates set too low produce network gaps, rates set too high inflate costs without improving access. The healthcare PERSONA-SIG-3 rate-setting analysis is partially relevant; long-term care has its own specifics. Fourth: family-caregiver-employment policy specifics. The structure under which family members can be compensated for providing direct care to family members has both labor-economics and family-policy dimensions and benefits from credentialed review. Fifth: cognitive-impairment-specific care design. Individuals with dementia have different care requirements than individuals with non-cognitive functional limitations, and the program's coverage for dementia-specific care benefits from gerontology expertise.

# Cross-References

This document is the primary substantiation document for Pillar Nine (Universal Long-Term Care). It is referenced from the master We The People Platform document's Pillar Nine section (added in v3.3.0). The pillar's contribution rate is documented as canonical in Open Issues Registry OPEN-1. The pillar's adoption guidance for advocacy organizations is documented in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx (updated in v3.3.0 to include Pillar Nine). The pillar's fiscal stream is documented in 05_Federal_Fiscal_Impact_Analysis.docx (updated in v3.3.0). The Aging In Place Implications document provides background on the long-term care landscape that motivates Pillar Nine; it predates Pillar Nine and remains valuable as descriptive context. The platform's Sources and Derivation Convention document (05_Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx) catalogs the empirical sources from which this document's claims derive.