Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County highlights growing demand for in‑home and veterans‑directed care
Summary
County staff told the advisory board that in‑home services target seniors on Medicaid who meet a nursing‑home level of care; staff said slot limits and rising provider costs have increased waiting lists to roughly 40–50, and local funds have subsidized services to expand capacity.
Get email alerts on the Home Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sean Ellis presented an overview of Davis County in‑home services and related programs, telling the advisory board that services are aimed at people 65 and older who must meet a nursing‑home level of care and Medicaid financial eligibility. "They have to meet a nursing home level of care, and that's determined by our nurse," he said, summarizing eligibility and the program's core services (personal care, adult day care, medical equipment, respite and case management).
Ellis described administrative challenges following a state rollout of a new computer system for case management and a cap tied to state slot allocations; he said the county has its largest number of allocated slots in recent years but still faces a waiting list. When asked, staff estimated roughly 40–50 people waiting for services at present, and board members noted rising provider costs reduce the number served for a fixed budget. One board member highlighted that Davis County contributes local funds (staff estimated at least $200,000 in local support) to sustain services.
Ellis also summarized Veterans Directed Care: veterans enroll through the VA and receive a monthly stipend and may hire caregivers; Davis County provides case management and uses a third‑party fiscal agent to handle payroll and taxes. Board members discussed eligibility nuances, program accountability and the need for additional funding to reduce the waiting list.
The board asked staff to include waiting‑list numbers in the four‑year plan and to track demand for future budget requests. No formal vote or policy change was taken at the meeting.
