5 Powerful Stats Showing COVID-19’s Impact on Home Care

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Woman working on computer

By Connor Kunz, Home Care Pulse

While the situation continues to turn on a dime, data is beginning to paint a more complete picture of what COVID-19 looks like for home care agencies.

The last [six] months have turned home care, society, and life in general upside down.

While the situation continues to turn on a dime, data is beginning to paint a more complete picture of what COVID-19 looks like for home agencies. To help agencies get context on their own experiences during this time, we’ve launched two surveys for agencies about the impact of COVID-19 on their operations.

The first survey largely painted a picture of what things looked like in the early weeks of the pandemic. The second survey, which is ongoing, is designed to provide a quantitative look at the full impact of the pandemic so far and provide some insights on what to expect in the future.

To view the whole report, simply take 5 minutes to complete the survey and you’ll be directed to the report when you submit your survey.

However, we’ve snapshotted a few of the most telling data points here.

#1: 79% of home care agencies have applied for a PPP or EIDL loan.

This statistic lends itself to a sobering thought exercise: if you could somehow look into a crystal ball six months ago and learn that almost 4 out of 5 home care providers would shortly be applying for emergency government aid to stay in business, what would you assume would be the cause?

Many of us in this thought exercise, including myself, would probably have chalked it up to some unforeseen effect of PDGM, and we’d have been wrong.

What do we gain from this thought exercise, besides a moment of reflection?

It’s been said that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. Few of us could have predicted the events of the last few months. Among the many takeaways from this time, we need to reshape our concept of what it means to be prepared for an emergency and recognize that unlikely scenarios are only unlikely until they end up happening.

#2: 37% of agencies now report that they’ve had clients, caregivers, and/or staff diagnosed with COVID-19.

sick young lady on a sofa

It’s been interesting to watch this number trend over time. When we launched the first impact survey on March 30th, that number was 12%. A month later on April 30th, it had nearly doubled to 22%.

Barring the event of a second outbreak, we hope to see this number level off rather than continue on its current trajectory.

In some areas, it’s been easy to try and “get through” the pandemic without a clear plan to handle the eventuality of clients or employees contracting COVID-19. A high percentage of agency owners still report being “unsure” what they’ll do if clients contract COVID-19.

Even as COVID-19 (hopefully) begins to wind down in most areas, it’s becoming harder to make the excuse that it’s unlikely to touch your agency.

#3: 76% of agencies say they’ve seen a drop in billable hours from COVID-19.

Of those agencies, most report losing about 20% of their hours before bottoming out, although some agencies report losing as much as 80% of their billable hours.

Just over 50% have seen those hours return fully. Those for whom billable hours have fully returned are typically saying the process of returning to normal billable hours took between 3-6 weeks, though for a few the process has been much longer.

Amid all this, it’s important to recognize that approximately half of the agencies still haven’t seen their billable hours return to normal. While many indicators show that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, we’re not out of the woods just yet.

#4: 51% of agencies say they’re planning to give remote work options to staff after COVID-19 is over.

businesswoman working remotely

Not everything that comes from COVID-19 is bad. As we’ve discussed in previous blogs and webinars, it’s also forcing new innovations, some of which are long overdue.

As nearly every business has been forced to take workers remote during the crisis, many have found that their employers are happier and more productive working at home.

(Obviously, it’s dependent on circumstances—those with small children at home, or without a designated workspace, might rightfully disagree.)

Erik Madsen, CEO of Home Care Pulse, has addressed the paradigm shift about monitoring employee performance that needs to happen before a business can embrace remote work:

For too long, we’ve been measuring employee performance off the work we see them do—their input. We need to develop better ways of measuring their output—the actual results they’re driving—since that’s what matters anyway. The level of input required to produce that output might vary, and that’s okay.

Focus on employee output, not employee input.

#5: 49% of agencies plan to continue nontraditional visit formats after COVID-19 is over.

While it’s easy to overlook if you saw it in context of the entire Impact Report, this might be the most important number to come out of the report.

Nearly half of agencies we surveyed are interested in continuing visit formats and services they began to explore during COVID, which might include things like virtual visits, grocery drop-off only visits, and doorstep visits.

Before we get too excited, some of this might reflect cases in which agency owners plan to continue nontraditional visits in the event that COVID-19 is never fully eradicated as a threat, or at least remains a danger to seniors for a long time after it stops affecting most of society on a day-to-day basis.

However, we’ve talked to enough agency owners who plan to keep sweeping changes introduced during COVID to know that some of these responses are agency owners embracing new angles to their business model rather than simply continuing precautions for the foreseeable future.

Any changes to an established model take time and experimentation to get right, of course. But in an industry that has struggled with many of the same problems for years—low margins being a root cause of many of them—new visit formats and innovative approaches to services could be a game-changer.

It’s also possible that COVID-19 has changed public preferences and consumer habits in ways that turn previously unprofitable ideas into viable concepts.

We’ll continue to update you on this trend as it unfolds, but we’re hopeful that home care is turning a corner—not just on COVID-19, but in ways that will continue and accelerate its integration with the entire care continuum.

What’s coming next?

The best answer is that no one really knows, but right now there’s reason to be hopeful. From talking to hundreds of providers every day, the pulse we’re getting is that most agencies are settling into a sense of normalcy and security that hasn’t existed for a few months.

Original post by Home Care Pulse

Wyoming

Supported: YES

Wyoming has chosen to use an open vendor model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare has developed a direct integration with CareBridge, Wyoming’s EVV aggregator, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution.


Illinois

Supported: YES

Illinois has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Illinois’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Minnesota

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state ‘s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with HHAeXchange, Minnesota’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information directly to HHAeXchange. 

Michigan

Supported: YES

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has decided to go with an Open Model that allows providers to choose their own EVV system, as long as it meets federal EVV regulations. They are in the process of choosing an aggregator system that will accept data from all EVV systems.

AxisCare meets all state and federal EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management system.

Massachusetts

Supported: YES

Massachusetts has chosen an open model, but has not selected the aggregator.  AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution.  

Maryland

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

Maryland has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.   Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use ISAS to collect EVV required data.

 

Maine

Supported: YES

Maine has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Maine’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Louisiana

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state ‘s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with LaSRS, Louisiana’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information directly to LaSRS. 

 

Kentucky

Supported: CONTACT US

Kentucky has chosen an open model with Tellus serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with Tellus for Kentucky yet (AxisCare supports Tellus integration in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

 

Kansas

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

Kansas has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.   Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use Sandata to collect EVV required data.

Iowa

Supported: YES

Iowa has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, CareBridge) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with CareBridge, Iowa’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Indiana

Supported: YES

Indiana has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Indiana’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.


Idaho

Supported: YES

Idaho has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Idaho’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Missouri

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state’s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Missouri’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.


Hawaii

Supported: YES

Hawaii has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Hawaii’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

 


Georgia

Supported: YES

Georgia has chosen to use an open vendor model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare has developed a direct integration with Tellus, Georgia’s EVV aggregator, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution.

 

Alaska

Supported: CONTACT US

Alaska has chosen an open model with Therap serving as the aggregator.  Therap has not provided the detailed specifications yet, but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us.

Florida

Supported: YES

AxisCare currently provides direct integration with HHAeXchange and Tellus, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution.

 

Delaware

Supported: Coming Soon

Payers in Delaware have selected Sandata and AxisCare is completing the necessary development. We are planning on being fully compliant soon.

 

Connecticut

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

Connecticut has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.  Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use Sandata to collect EVV required data.

 


Colorado

Supported: YES

Colorado has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Colorado’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.


California

Supported: YES

California has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers and MCOs to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, California’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.


Arkansas

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed integrations with HHAeXchange, AuthentiCare, and CareBridge, Arkansas’ contracted aggregators, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Arizona

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state ‘s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Arizona’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information directly to Sandata.

Mississippi

Supported: YES

The Mississippi Department of Medicaid has decided to go with an Open Model that allows providers to choose their own EVV system, as long as it meets federal EVV regulations. They are in the process of choosing an aggregator system that will accept data from all EVV systems.

AxisCare meets all state and federal EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management system.

Montana

Supported: YES

Montana has decided to go with an Open Model that allows providers to choose their own EVV system, as long as it meets federal EVV regulations. They are in the process of choosing an aggregator system that will accept data from all EVV systems.

AxisCare meets all state and federal EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management system.

Wisconsin

Supported: YES

Wisconsin has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Wisconsin’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Rhode Island

Supported: YES

Rhode Island has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Rhode Island’s contracted aggregator, which allows agencies to easily send required visit information.

West Virginia

Supported: CONTACT US

West Virginia has chosen an open model with HHAeXchange serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with HHAeXchange for West Virginia yet (AxisCare supports HHAeXchange integrations in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

Washington DC

Supported: CONTACT US

Washington DC has chosen an open model with Sandata serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with Sandata for DC yet (AxisCare supports Sandata integration in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

Washington

Supported: YES

Washington has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, ProviderOne) while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with ProviderOne, Washington’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

Virginia

Supported: YES

Virginia has chosen to use an open vendor model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare has developed a direct integration with Tellus, Virginia’s EVV aggregator, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution.

Vermont

Supported: CONTACT US

Vermont has chosen an open model with Sandata serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with Sandata for Vermont yet (AxisCare supports Sandata integrations in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us.

Utah

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state’s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an export with UEVV, Utah’s aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information. 

Texas

Supported: CONTACT US

Texas has chosen an open model with TMHP serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with TMHP for Texas yet, but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us.

Tennessee

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

Tennessee has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.   Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use Sandata, Healthstar, and Time4Care to collect EVV required data.

South Dakota

Supported: CONTACT US

South Dakota has chosen an open model with Therap serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with Therap for South Dakota yet, but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

South Carolina

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

South Carolina has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.   Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use AuthentiCare to collect EVV required data.

Pennsylvania

Supported: YES

Pennsylvania has implemented an open model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also integrated with Sandata and HHAeXchange, Pennsylvania’s two EVV aggregators, which allows agencies to easily send required visit information.

Nebraska

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state’s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Tellus, Nebraska’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to send required visit information.

Oregon

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state’s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an export with eXPRS, Oregon’s aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information. 

Oklahoma

Supported: CONTACT US

Oklahoma has chosen an open model with AuthentiCare serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with AuthentiCare for Oklahoma yet (AxisCare supports AuthentiCare integrations in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

Ohio

Supported: YES

Ohio has chosen to implement an open vendor model in which the state selects a single aggregator (in this case, Sandata Technologies) while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with Sandata, Ohio’s contracted aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

North Dakota

Supported: CONTACT US

North Dakota has chosen an open model with Sandata serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with Sandata for North Dakota yet (AxisCare supports Sandata integrations in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

North Carolina

Supported: YES

North Carolina has implemented an open model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers and MCOs may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also integrated with Sandata, HHAeXchange, and CareBridge, North Carolina’s EVV aggregators, which allows agencies to easily send required visit information.

New York

Supported: YES

New York has implemented an open vendor model in which the state selects a single vendor while allowing providers to continue using their existing EVV systems as long as it meets federal EVV guidelines.

New York has chosen to work with three EVV aggregators: eMedNY, HHAeXchange and CareBridge.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have developed integrations eMedNY, HHAeXchange, and CareBridge which allow agencies to easily send required visit information.

New Mexico

Supported: NOT AT THIS TIME

New Mexico has chosen a closed model where AxisCare is currently not able to provide EVV data to the state.   Providers can choose to use AxisCare due to the many advantages but you must use AuthentiCare to collect EVV required data.

New Jersey

Supported: YES

New Jersey has implemented an open model in which the state sets the standards for EVV, and providers may either use their existing EVV system or choose one that best meets their needs.

AxisCare meets state EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also integrated with HHAeXchange and CareBridge, New Jersey’s two EVV aggregators, which will allow agencies to send required visit information.

New Hampshire

Supported: YES

New Hampshire has decided to go with an Open Model that allows providers to choose their own EVV system, as long as it meets federal EVV regulations. They are in the process of choosing an aggregator system that will accept data from all EVV systems.

AxisCare meets all state and federal EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management system.

Nevada

Supported: CONTACT US

Nevada has chosen an open model with AuthentiCare serving as the aggregator.  AxisCare has not developed the integration with AuthentiCare for Nevada yet (AxisCare supports AuthentiCare integration in other states), but if your organization is interested in using AxisCare, please contact us. 

Alabama

Supported: YES

AxisCare meets the state ‘s EVV requirements, so providers may continue to use AxisCare as their EVV and management solution. We have also developed an integration with HHAeXchange, Alabama’s chosen aggregator, which will allow agencies to easily send required visit information directly to HHAeXchange.