skip to content
Primary navigation

Continuing Care performance report

Measure: Percent of seniors on the Elderly Waiver and Alternative Care Program with high needs and are served at home.

The percent of seniors Elderly Waiver (EW) or Alternative Care (AC) Program with high needs and are served in home has increased.

To help track progress, counties that are similar in population size are grouped together and called a "cohort." Cohort 5 includes Minnesota's largest counties by population and has the highest percent of seniors with high needs who receive services at home.

Why this measure is important?

This measure shows that seniors with high needs are staying in their homes. In the past, people with greater needs were not able to stay in their homes because the services they needed were only available in institutions or other residential settings.

This measure shows that the long-term care system has been able to develop and offer more flexible and specialized services for people at home. That is important because people prefer to stay in their homes and have more choices for their services. It is also less expensive to serve people in their homes than in institutional or other residential services.

What is included in the measure?

The number of seniors with high needs that receive services on EW or AC.

What does it mean?

A higher percent is better because it means there are more people with high needs that get the services they need in their homes. When the percent is lower, more people with high needs are being served in institutions or other residential settings.

How is it calculated?

The number of people served in the EW and AC programs with higher needs and served in their homes, divided by the total number of people with higher needs and served on EW or AC programs.

Percent of seniors with high needs and are served at home by graph

Graph of percent of seniors with high needs and are served at home

Percent of seniors with high needs and are served at home by table / by map (PDF)

Year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Statewide

62.9%

64.2%

63.9%

63.8%

64.4%

Cohort 1

62.1%

63.1%

62.1%

61.0%

60.6%

Cohort 2

53.9%

52.9%

52.3%

51.4%

52.1%

Cohort 3
47.6%
47.7%
45.4%
45.7%

46.3%

Cohort 4

52.9%

56.1%

57.1%

56.7%

56.1%

Cohort 5

73.7%

75.6%

75.8%

75.5%

76.4%

Data Source

DHS Data Warehouse

back to top