skip to content
Primary navigation

Continuing Care performance report

Measure: Percent of long-term care spending for home and community-based services for people with developmental disabilities.

Most people with developmental disabilities receiving services in Minnesota's long-term care programs are getting services in community settings instead of going to institutions. These services are called home and community-based services.

To help track progress, counties that are similar in size are grouped together and called a "cohort." Cohort 4 includes Minnesota's moderately large counties in terms of population. Cohort 4 has consistently had the highest percentage of spending in HCBS. However, there has also been steady improvement across the other cohorts in the past five years.

Why this measure is important?

This measure is important because HCBS are less expensive to provide, so it saves money when people with developmental disabilities can stay in their homes and other HCBS settings.

This also is important because people have more control over their services in HCBS, which promotes their independence. There is less opportunity to control one's services in institutions.

What is included in the measure?

The measure includes spending for people with developmental disabilities who receive LTC services. The measure includes spending on people who receive services in institutions and home and community-based services.

What does it mean?

A higher percent means counties are spending more of their LTC funding on HCBS. That means more people get services in their homes or other HCBS settings. A lower percent means more people get services in institutions rather than in the community.

How is it calculated?

The amount spent on HCBS for people with developmental disabilities divided by the total amount spent on people with developmental disabilities who receive HCBS and institutional LTC services.

Percent of HCBS spending by graph

Graph of percent of HCBS spending

Percent of HCBS spending by table / by map (PDF)

Year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Statewide

86.1%

86.7%

87.1%

87.4%

87.7%

Cohort 1

84.6%

85.4%

85.6%

85.3%

86.3%

Cohort 2

88.2%

89.4%

89.4%

89.4%

89.6%

Cohort 3

87.0%

87.4%

87.7%

88.1%

88.3%

Cohort 4

92.0%

93.1%

93.3%

93.7%

93.7%

Cohort 5

84.3%

84.7%

85.4%

85.8%

86.2%

Data source

DHS Data Warehouse

back to top