← We The People Platform Download .docx

AGING-IN-PLACE

IMPLICATIONS

How the Platform Interacts with Long-Term Care, CCRCs, and Aging Support Services

How does the platform interact with continuing care retirement communities and assisted living?

What does the platform do (and not do) about long-term care?

How are home and community-based services treated under the platform?

An Analytical Framing Document

Jason Robertson

v1.1 · Created May 5, 2026 for v2.18 · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.21 (Medicare Advantage interaction clarified for dental/vision)

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 AARP/Genworth Cost of Care surveys (the $475 billion aggregate long-term care expenditure figure); Census Bureau population estimates by age cohort; BLS workforce data for caregiving labor projections.

The Question This Document Addresses

Approximately 12 million Americans live in arrangements specifically designed for older adults: roughly 750,000 residents in approximately 1,900 Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), approximately 1 million residents in assisted living facilities, approximately 1.3 million residents in nursing homes, and several million more in age-restricted independent living communities, naturally occurring retirement communities, and other arrangements. Tens of millions more older Americans receive aging-related support services while living in their own homes, including home health care, adult day programs, transportation services, and meal delivery. The Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (Programs of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)) serves approximately 70,000 frail elderly Americans through coordinated medical and social care.

Long-term care is the largest unaddressed gap in the platform's healthcare architecture. The Federal Program Integration Plan explicitly acknowledges this: universal healthcare absorbs Medicare's hospital and physician services but does not address long-term care, which under current arrangements is funded primarily through three channels — Medicaid (after the recipient spends down assets to near-poverty), private long-term care insurance (a financially distressed market with declining participation), and out-of-pocket payment by individuals and families. Informal caregiving by family members provides the largest single source of long-term care, with estimates of its economic value ranging from $400 billion to $500 billion annually.

This document examines the interaction between the platform's commitments and the aging-in-place ecosystem, identifies the specific failure modes that arise from the platform's silence on long-term care, analyzes how CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community) residents and other older adults in specialized arrangements experience the platform, and outlines the design space for future platform versions to integrate long-term care more substantively. As with prior documents in the phased scope expansion, the analysis is framework-level rather than benefit-formula-detailed; specific Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver programs vary by state and would require state-by-state expert review, and specific CCRC contract structures (Type A, B, and C entrance-fee arrangements) involve mechanics that require contract law and gerontology expertise to address comprehensively.

The Long-Term Care Funding Gap

Long-term care expenditures in the United States total approximately $475 billion per year as of recent estimates. Roughly 30 percent is paid by Medicaid (after recipient spend-down to near-poverty asset levels). Roughly 20 percent is out-of-pocket by individuals and families. Roughly 10 percent is paid by private long-term care insurance (a market with declining participation; major insurers have exited the market and remaining policies have seen substantial premium increases). The remainder is covered by various federal programs (Medicare for limited post-acute skilled nursing facility coverage, Veterans Health Administration for eligible veterans, Older Americans Act funding for some community-based services), state programs, and other sources. Critically, this $475 billion does not include the value of informal caregiving by family members, which is largely unpaid.

The current funding architecture forces a substantial fraction of older Americans into Medicaid through asset spend-down. A retiree with $200,000 in retirement savings who needs nursing home care at $100,000 per year typically spends down those savings within two to three years before qualifying for Medicaid long-term care. The household's surviving spouse may be left with limited resources after spend-down, though Medicaid spousal-impoverishment protections preserve some assets and income for the community spouse. This dynamic produces enormous financial stress for older households facing care needs and creates a perverse incentive structure where households without significant assets (already Medicaid-eligible) receive better immediate financial protection than households with moderate assets (who must deplete those assets first).

The platform does not modify any of this. The platform's universal healthcare absorbs Medicare's working-age and Medicare-age coverage but does not extend to long-term care. Medicaid long-term care continues under existing rules with existing spend-down requirements. Private long-term care insurance markets continue with their existing financial distress. Informal caregiving remains uncompensated. The platform's silence on long-term care is the largest single coverage gap in its healthcare architecture and is the subject of explicit acknowledgment in the Federal Program Integration Plan rather than implicit treatment.

Continuing Care Retirement Communities

Continuing Care Retirement Communities provide a continuum of care from independent living through assisted living to skilled nursing, all within a single community. Residents typically enter while still independent (in their late 60s or 70s) and remain through any subsequent care transitions. CCRCs operate under three primary contract types: Type A (extensive contracts) charge a substantial entrance fee that prepays future care costs, with monthly fees that remain relatively stable as care needs increase. Type B (modified contracts) charge a moderate entrance fee with some prepayment but with increased monthly fees as higher care levels are needed. Type C (fee-for-service contracts) charge a lower entrance fee but full market rates for care services as needed.

Entrance fees range substantially: from approximately $100,000 for some Type C arrangements to over $1 million for premium Type A arrangements. Monthly fees range from approximately $2,500 to over $10,000 depending on contract type, location, and care level. The entrance fee may be partially refundable to the resident's estate (typical structures: 0 percent refundable, 50 percent refundable, 90 percent refundable) — refundability decreases the entrance fee's effective cost but increases the up-front payment. Refundable entrance fees often function as estate-preservation tools rather than as care-cost prepayment. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

CCRC residents are typically affluent older adults who have planned and saved for retirement housing. They often own their homes prior to entering the CCRC and use home sale proceeds to fund the entrance fee. Their pension and retirement income (Social Security, defined benefit pensions if any, IRA and 401(k) withdrawals) covers monthly fees. CCRC residents are not typical of the broader older adult population; they are a relatively privileged subset. But they are politically engaged, often well-organized through CCRC resident councils, and their concerns about platform interactions warrant explicit attention.

Under the platform, CCRC residents experience the universal commitments through standard channels. Universal healthcare integration with their existing Medicare coverage provides comprehensive medical care; the platform does not modify their CCRC's care delivery arrangements. Their pension and retirement income is unaffected by the platform's Community Contribution Plan transition (per the v2.16 pensioners analysis). The platform's wage floor exemption applies to their taxable retirement income through standard treatment. CCRC residents are largely unaffected by the platform's transition.

The specific question for Type A CCRC residents is whether their entrance fee's prepaid care benefit (which includes future skilled nursing care at the CCRC) is affected by the platform's universal healthcare. The answer is generally no: skilled nursing facility services are part of long-term care, which the platform does not address; the CCRC's prepaid skilled nursing benefit remains the resident's contractual entitlement; universal healthcare is supplementary medical coverage rather than substitutionary care. CCRC residents who carefully selected Type A contracts to insulate themselves from future care costs are not adversely affected by the platform's long-term care silence.

Assisted Living and Nursing Homes

Approximately 1 million Americans live in assisted living facilities and approximately 1.3 million in nursing homes. Assisted living typically provides housing, meals, social activities, and limited assistance with activities of daily living (medication management, bathing, dressing) for residents who can mostly manage independently but need some support. Nursing homes provide skilled nursing care, full assistance with activities of daily living, and medical supervision for residents with substantial care needs. The boundary between assisted living and nursing home care is not sharp; some assisted living facilities provide higher levels of care while some nursing homes provide more independent-living-like environments for less acute residents.

Assisted living is generally paid for out-of-pocket by residents and their families. Some long-term care insurance policies cover assisted living. Some state Medicaid HCBS waiver programs cover assisted living for eligible low-income residents. Medicare does not cover assisted living. Average assisted living costs are approximately $5,000 per month or $60,000 per year, varying substantially by region and facility quality.

Nursing home care is paid through a mix of Medicaid (the largest single payer, covering approximately 60 percent of nursing home residents), Medicare (limited post-acute coverage, typically up to 100 days following hospitalization), private long-term care insurance, out-of-pocket payment, and Veterans Health Administration for eligible veterans. Average nursing home costs are approximately $108,000 per year for a private room or $94,000 for a semi-private room, again varying substantially by region. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

The post-COVID nursing home environment has been particularly difficult. Many facilities closed during 2020-2022; staffing shortages persist; ownership patterns have shifted toward private equity, which has been associated with concerning quality patterns in some research. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has implemented minimum staffing requirements that some facilities have struggled to meet. The nursing home sector's structural challenges are independent of the platform but interact with the platform's silence on long-term care: the platform does not address nursing home staffing, financing, ownership patterns, or quality regulation beyond what current federal authority provides.

Assisted living and nursing home residents under the platform receive universal healthcare for their medical needs, the same as other older Americans. Their long-term care arrangements continue under existing rules. The Medicaid spend-down dynamic continues for residents whose savings are inadequate for facility care; the out-of-pocket burden continues for residents with moderate assets; long-term care insurance continues for those with policies. The platform produces no direct effect on the long-term care funding architecture.

Home and Community-Based Services

Most older adults who need long-term care prefer to receive it in their homes rather than in institutional settings. Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) include home health aide services, adult day programs, respite care for family caregivers, transportation, meal delivery, and various other supports. HCBS is funded through multiple channels: Medicaid HCBS waiver programs (state-administered, vary substantially by state and population served), Older Americans Act funding (provides core services through Area Agencies on Aging), Veterans Health Administration for eligible veterans, private payment, and informal caregiving.

Medicaid HCBS waiver programs are the most consequential funding mechanism. States may apply for federal waivers to provide HCBS as alternatives to nursing home care for eligible Medicaid recipients. Most states have multiple HCBS waivers serving different populations (frail elderly, adults with intellectual disabilities, adults with physical disabilities, individuals with traumatic brain injury, etc.). Eligibility, services covered, and waiting list lengths vary enormously across states. Some states have well-developed HCBS systems serving most eligible Medicaid recipients in community settings; others have limited HCBS programs with long waiting lists and most Medicaid long-term care recipients in institutional settings.

The platform's universal healthcare does not extend to HCBS. Older adults who need home-based care continue to access it through existing channels: Medicaid HCBS waivers if eligible and if services are available; Older Americans Act services if available; Veterans Health Administration if eligible; private payment otherwise; informal caregiving in many cases. The state-by-state variation in HCBS access continues; the spend-down requirement for Medicaid HCBS continues; the workforce shortages and quality variation in home health continue. The platform does not modify any of this.

The Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) provides comprehensive medical and social care to frail older adults who would otherwise need nursing home care, allowing them to remain in their communities. PACE is funded through capitated Medicare and Medicaid payments and serves approximately 70,000 participants nationally through approximately 175 PACE organizations. PACE has demonstrated strong outcomes: lower hospitalization rates, lower nursing home placement, high participant satisfaction. But PACE remains a small program because of administrative complexity for providers and limited geographic availability. The platform does not modify PACE; the program continues under existing rules.

Informal Caregiving

Informal caregiving by family members is the largest source of long-term care in the United States by economic value. Estimates of the annual value of informal eldercare range from $400 billion to $500 billion, exceeding all formal long-term care expenditures combined. Approximately 53 million Americans provided unpaid care to an adult or child with health or functional needs in recent years, with the vast majority of care recipients being older adults with age-related needs. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

Informal caregivers face substantial economic and personal costs. Caregivers commonly reduce work hours, leave the workforce entirely, or experience career disadvantages. Lifetime earnings losses for family caregivers have been estimated at $300,000 or more for those who provide intensive long-term care. Social Security retirement benefits for caregivers are reduced because of years out of the workforce. Health outcomes for caregivers are worse than for non-caregivers in measures including depression, chronic disease prevalence, and mortality. Caregiver burnout is a recognized clinical phenomenon.

The platform's commitments do not directly support informal caregivers. Pillar Eight (Universal Paid Family Time, added in v3.2.0) provides wage replacement during caregiver leave, partially addressing the informal-caregiver wage-replacement gap. Pillar Eight does not include caregiver tax credits or Social Security credit for caregiving years out of the workforce; these remain unaddressed by the platform's current architecture. Some federal proposals address these issues (the Family Act for paid family leave, the Credit for Caring Act for tax credits, various Social Security caregiver credit proposals) but none are part of the platform's current commitments. The platform's silence on informal caregiving is most consequential for the multigenerational households analyzed in v2.17 and for the approximately 53 million Americans currently providing unpaid care.

Universal healthcare and Universal Mental Health access provide indirect support for caregivers by reducing their own out-of-pocket health and mental health costs and by providing better care for the people they support. Universal childcare may indirectly help caregivers who are also raising children. The wage floor exemption reduces tax burden for caregivers who are still working. These are real but indirect benefits; they do not address caregiver-specific economic challenges (reduced work hours, lost retirement savings, lost Social Security credits, opportunity cost of leaving the workforce).

Aging-in-Place Support Services

Beyond formal long-term care arrangements, older adults living in their own homes use a variety of support services to maintain independence. Home modifications (grab bars, ramps, walk-in showers) extend the period during which older adults can safely remain at home. Transportation services address the increasing difficulty older adults face in driving or accessing public transit. Meal delivery (Meals on Wheels and similar programs) addresses nutrition and provides social contact. Adult day programs provide structured activities and social engagement. Senior centers provide community and recreation.

These services are funded through a patchwork: federal Older Americans Act funding flows through Area Agencies on Aging to local providers; state and local government funding supplements federal funding; private payment by individuals and families fills gaps; volunteer organizations and faith communities provide significant unpaid support; some Medicare Advantage plans cover limited supplemental benefits like transportation. The patchwork has significant geographic variation; well-resourced communities may have comprehensive aging-in-place support while under-resourced communities may have limited services.

The platform's Civic Infrastructure pillar's broadband universalization indirectly supports aging-in-place by enabling telehealth, online social connection, and remote service access for older adults. Universal broadband may extend the period during which older adults can safely remain at home by reducing isolation and improving healthcare access. This is a real but indirect benefit. Direct funding for aging-in-place support services is not part of the platform's current commitments.

Why The Platform Doesn't Address Long-Term Care

The platform's omission of long-term care is not accidental; it reflects deliberate scope choice. Long-term care is one of the most challenging policy areas in American social policy, with no broad political consensus on its appropriate funding architecture. The CLASS Act (the long-term care insurance program enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act) was repealed before implementation due to actuarial sustainability concerns. The Build Back Better Act's HCBS funding provisions were substantially reduced before passage. Long-term care policy reform has been proposed for decades without major federal action.

The platform's central commitments (Sovereign Fund, wage floor, Civic Infrastructure, three primary pillars, three adjacent pillars) are themselves a substantial scope. Adding long-term care to this scope would have made the platform fiscally and politically larger in ways that may have exceeded the platform's deployability. Long-term care reform requires its own substantial design work that the platform's current package does not include.

This is an honest scope limitation rather than an oversight. The Federal Program Integration Plan acknowledges long-term care as the largest unaddressed gap. The platform's communications should similarly acknowledge this gap rather than implying that universal healthcare addresses what it does not address.

Future platform versions could substantively address long-term care. Several design directions are plausible. Direction A: Adding a long-term care pillar funded through a dedicated payroll contribution similar to the universal healthcare contribution. The Washington State LTC Trust Act (a state-level program funded through a 0.58 percent payroll contribution providing limited LTC benefits) provides a precedent for this design at federal scale. Direction B: Substantially expanding federal Medicaid HCBS funding through the existing waiver structure, eliminating waiting lists and expanding services. This is administratively simpler than a new federal program but builds on Medicaid's existing means-tested structure. Direction C: A hybrid approach combining universal LTC insurance for catastrophic care needs with continued Medicaid coverage for chronic care needs. Each direction has its own design questions and political viability concerns. None is currently part of the platform.

Failure Modes

The Implicit Coverage Failure Mode

Some older Americans may incorrectly assume that universal healthcare addresses long-term care. This assumption is reasonable on its face — universal healthcare sounds comprehensive — but is wrong. The platform's communication infrastructure must explicitly address this misconception. Older Americans planning their retirement and their families planning eldercare should not be misled into believing that the platform solves the long-term care problem. Generic platform communications focused on healthcare savings will not adequately convey this distinction; specific aging-focused communications are needed.

The Spend-Down Continuation Failure Mode

Households facing long-term care needs continue to face the Medicaid spend-down requirement under the platform. The platform's other commitments may improve household financial position before care needs arise (universal healthcare reduces premium and out-of-pocket costs throughout retirement; the wage floor reduces tax burden; the Bridge Credit smooths transitions), but when intensive care needs eventually develop, the existing spend-down requirement continues to deplete household assets. The platform does not solve this; older households should not be misled into thinking it does.

The Caregiver Continued Cost Failure Mode

Approximately 53 million informal caregivers continue to face the substantial economic and personal costs of caregiving without platform-funded support. The platform's universal childcare may help working-age caregivers raising children; universal healthcare reduces caregivers' own medical costs; Universal Mental Health helps with caregiver burnout. But the central economic challenges of informal caregiving (reduced work hours, lost retirement savings, lost Social Security credits, opportunity cost of leaving the workforce) continue. The platform's silence on caregiver support is most consequential for this population.

The Geographic Variation Failure Mode

HCBS access varies enormously by state. The federal-state cooperation analysis (v2.14) identified this as a general pattern; for aging populations specifically, the variation is most consequential because long-term care needs are inevitable for most who live long enough. An older adult in a state with well-developed HCBS may receive comprehensive home-based care; an identical older adult in a state with limited HCBS may have only nursing home care available. The platform does not modify this dynamic; the state cooperation framework's federal-direct fallback options are limited for HCBS specifically because home-based care requires local provider networks the federal government cannot easily build directly.

Open Questions

Should a future platform version add a long-term care pillar? The platform's current scope omits long-term care explicitly. Future versions could plausibly add this scope through Directions A, B, or C above. The political and fiscal trade-offs warrant explicit analysis.

How should the platform's communication infrastructure address the long-term care gap? Older Americans evaluating the platform need explicit acknowledgment that universal healthcare does not address long-term care, accompanied by clear explanation of what the platform does and does not change in their financial planning.

Should the platform support informal caregivers? Paid family leave, tax credits for caregivers, and Social Security caregiver credits are all options. The platform's current commitments do not include these but the multigenerational households analysis (v2.17) and this aging-in-place analysis both flag informal caregiving as a substantial unaddressed area.

How does the platform interact with Medicare Advantage plans that older adults rely on for supplemental benefits? Medicare Advantage's market share is growing and many enrollees rely on its supplemental benefits (vision, dental, hearing aids, transportation, meals). With v2.21 the platform's universal healthcare commitment explicitly includes basic dental (preventive and restorative) and basic vision (exams and eye disease treatment) per the German GKV standard, which substantially narrows the Medicare Advantage supplemental-benefit gap relative to v2.20 framing. Hearing aids, transportation, and meals remain Medicare Advantage supplemental benefits that have no platform equivalent; the platform's interaction with Medicare Advantage on these specific supplemental benefits is not currently specified and warrants explicit design work in a future platform version.

How should the platform interact with state HCBS waiver programs? The federal-state cooperation framework applies but specific HCBS implications have not been worked out.

How does the platform's broader fiscal architecture create capacity for future long-term care reform? The Sovereign Fund's mature steady-state disbursement capacity could in principle fund substantial long-term care expansion. Whether this should be a platform priority for future versions is a strategic question.

How does the platform interact with the long-term care insurance market? Private LTC insurance is in financial distress; whether the platform should help stabilize the market, replace it, or let it continue declining is unspecified.

How does the platform handle the small but real population of younger adults with long-term care needs (people with severe disabilities, traumatic injuries, chronic conditions)? Long-term care is associated with aging but is not exclusively age-related. Adults under 65 with long-term care needs face their own funding gap that this document focuses primarily on aging populations to address.

Closing

Aging-in-place implications represent the platform's largest single coverage gap. Long-term care funding remains substantially unaddressed by the platform's universal healthcare commitment, and the platform's silence on informal caregiving leaves approximately 53 million Americans providing unpaid care without platform-funded support. CCRC residents are largely insulated from these gaps because their entrance-fee structures prepay future care; assisted living, nursing home, and HCBS recipients continue under existing funding arrangements; aging-in-place support services continue through the existing patchwork of federal, state, local, and informal funding.

The platform should be honest about this gap in its communications. Older Americans evaluating the platform deserve explicit acknowledgment that universal healthcare does not address long-term care, accompanied by clear information about what the platform does change (premium and out-of-pocket medical costs, wage floor exemption, Bridge Credit availability) versus what continues unchanged (long-term care funding, caregiver economic burden, state-administered HCBS variation). Generic platform communications focused on healthcare savings will not convey this distinction; aging-focused communications are needed.

Future platform versions should consider adding long-term care as an explicit scope area. Direction A (LTC pillar with dedicated payroll contribution), Direction B (Medicaid HCBS expansion), and Direction C (hybrid universal/means-tested design) all represent plausible expansion paths that the Sovereign Fund's mature steady-state capacity could in principle fund. The choice depends on political viability, design complexity, and the broader strategic priorities of platform development. None of these are committed in the current platform; all are real possibilities for future development. The platform's current architecture leaves room for this expansion without requiring fundamental redesign.