Continuing Care Performance Report

Measure: Percent of people with disabilities who receive home and community-based services.

Most people with disabilities, excluding developmental disabilities, who receive services in long-term care programs, get services in community settings instead of institutions. These services are called home and community-based services.
To help track progress, counties similar in size are grouped together and called a “cohort.” Cohort 4 includes Minnesota’s moderately large counties in terms of population and has the highest percent of people in HCBS. All cohorts improved over the past five years.

Why this measure is important?

This measure is important because HCBS are less expensive to provide when people with disabilities can stay in their homes. HCBS also provides people more control over services, which promotes independence. There is less chance to control one’s services in institutions.

What is included in the measure?

The measure includes people with disabilities who receive services long-term care services. This includes people who receive services in institutions and through HCBS. However, the measure does not include people with developmental disabilities.

What does it mean?

A higher percent means more people with disabilities receive services in their homes and other HCBS settings. When the percent is low, more people get services in institutions, not in their communities. A higher percent is desired because that means there are fewer people living in institutions.

How is it calculated?

The number of people with disabilities in HCBS in January of each fiscal year divided by the total number of people with disabilities who receive HCBS and institutional LTC services for the same time. For the most part, this excludes people with developmental disabilities.

Percent of people with disabilities who receive HCBS by graph

raph showing percent of people with disabilities who receive home and community-based services

Percent of people with disabilities who receive HCBS by table / by map

 

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Statewide

93.0%

93.5%

94.0%

93.7%

94.2%

Cohort 1

91.9%

92.2%

92.2%

91.3%

91.3%

Cohort 2

92.4%

92.1%

92.6%

92.0%

92.9%

Cohort 3

93.9%

94.3%

94.6%

93.6%

94.0%

Cohort 4

94.6%

95.2%

95.9%

95.6%

94.9%

Cohort 5

92.6%

93.3%

93.9%

93.8%

94.5%

Data source

DHS Data Warehouse


Rate/Report this page   Report/Rate this page