Consumer and Surrogate Preferences for a Cash Option Versus Traditional Services: Florida Adults with Developmental Disabilities

Mental Retardation

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 87-103

  Simon Rusinowitz, L ^c   Mahoney, K J ^c   Shoop, D M ^c   Desmond, S M ^c   Squillace, M R ^a   Sowers, J A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b Center on Self Determination   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; CUSTODY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAID; MEDICAL CARE; MENTAL PATIENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ARKANSAS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; FLORIDA; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAID; MEDICAL ASSISTANCE; MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS; NEW JERSEY; PROXY; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAMS;

EID: 0035318340     PISSN: 00476765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2001)039<0087:CASPFA>2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abery, B. H. (1994). A conceptual framework for enhancing self-determination. In M. Hayden & B. Abery (Eds.), Challenges for a service system in transition (pp. 345-380). Baltimore: Brookes.
2. Ansello, E. F., & Eustis., N. N. (1992). A common stake? Investigating the emerging intersection of aging and disabilities. Generations, 16, 5-8.
3. Ashbaugh, J., Bradley, V., & Blaney, B. (1994). Implications for future practice and systems design. In V. Bradley, J. Ashbaugh, & B. Blaney (Eds.), Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels (pp. 491-508). Baltimore: Brookes.
4. Barnes, C., & Sutherland, S. (1995, April 17), Context of care, provider characteristics, and quality of care in the IHSS program: Implications for provider standards (Interim Report to the California Department of Social Services). California State University, Sacramento Institute for Social Research.
5. Benjamin, A. E., Matthias, R. E., & Frank, T. (1998, September) Comparing client-directed and agency models for providing disability-related supportive services at home (Report prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Policy and Social Research.
6. Bradley, V., Ashbaugh, J., & Blaney, J. (Eds.). (1994). Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate for change at many levels. Baltimore: Brookes.
7. Cotten, P., & Sowers, J. (1996). Choice through knowledge: Knowledge = power. Durham: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.
8. Doty, P. (1997). Internal briefing paper addressing possible fraud and abuse issues in the cash option. Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
9. Doty, P., Kasper, J., & Litvak, S. (1996). Consumer-directed models of personal care: lesson from Medicaid. Milbank Memorial Fund, 74, 377-409.
10. Fenton, M., Entrikin, T., Morril, S., Marburg, G., Shumway, D., & Nerney, T. (1997). Beyond managed care: Volume II. Durham: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.
11. Geron, S., & Chassler, D. (1994). Guidelines for case management practice across the long-term care continuum (Tech. Rep.) Bristol: Connecticut Community Care.
12. Glickman, L. L., Brandt, K. J., & Caro, F. G. (1994). Self-direction in home care for older people. University of Massachusetts Boston, Gerontology Institute and Center.
13. Hayden, M., & Abery, B. (Eds.), Challenges for a service system in transition: Ensuring quality, community experiences for persons with developmental disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
14. Hayden, M., & DePaepe, P. (1994). Waiting for community services: The impact on persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. In M. Hayden & B. Abery (Eds.), Challenges for a service system in transition: Ensuring quality, community experiences for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 173-206). Baltimore: Brookes.
15. Herman, S. (1991). Use and impact of a cash subsidy program. Mental Retardation. 29, 253-258.
16. High, D. M. (1994). Surrogate decision making: Who will make decisions for me when I can't? Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 10, 445-462.
17. Jackson, M. E. (1994). Rationing case management: Six case studies (Rep. for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation).
18. Kapp, M. (1996). Enhancing autonomy and choice in selecting and directing long-term care services. Elder Law Journal, 4(1), 55-97.
19. Kapp, M. B. (1999). Healthcare in the market place: Implications for decisionally impaired consumers and their surrogates and advocates. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 24, 1-51.
20. Knoll, J., Covert, S., Osuch, R., O'Connor, S., Agosta, J., & Blaney, B. (1990). Family support service in the United States: An end of the decade status report. Boston: Human Services Research Institute.
21. Litvak, S., Zukas, H., & Heumann, J. E. (1987). Attending to America: Personal assistance for independent living. A survey of attendant service programs in the United States for people of all ages with disabilities. Berkeley, CA. World Institute on Disability.
22. Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1990). New models for the provision of personnel assistance services. Appendix B: Chartbook of tables from FY 1983 Personal Assistance Program Survey Data (NIDRR Grant No. G008720134). Berkeley, CA: World Institute on Disability.
23. Litvak, S., & Kennedy, J. (1991). Policy issues and questions affecting the Medicaid personal care services optional benefit (Contract No. HHS-100- 89-0025). Berkeley, CA: World Institute on Disability.
24. Mahoney, C. W., Estes, C. L., & Heumann, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Toward a unified agenda: Proceedings of a National Conference on Disability and Aging. San Francisco: University of California and World Institute on Disability.
25. McHorney, C. A. (1996). Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: Practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 Health Survey. The Gerontologist, 36, 571-583.
26. Meyers, J., & Marcenco, M. (1986). An evaluation of Michigan's Family Support Subsidy Program: Coping with the cost. Detroit: Wayne State University, Developmental Disabilities Institute.
27. Moseley, C. (1999). Making self determination work. Durham: University of Hew Hampshire, National Program Office on Self-Determination, Institute on Disability.
28. Rimer, S. (1998, March 15). Blacks carry load of care for their elderly. The New York Times, p. 1.
29. Sciegaj, M., & Kyriacou, C. K. (2000, Spring). Study examines racial and ethnic differences in preferences for consumer direction. Consumer Choice News, 4, 5, 7.
30. Simon-Rusinowitz, L., Mahoney, K. J., Desmond, S. M., Shoop, D., Squillace, M. A., & Fay, B. S. (1997). Determining consumer preferences for a cash option: Arkansas survey results. Health Care Financing Review, 19(2), 73-96.
31. Simon-Rusinowitz, L., & Hofland, B. F. (1993). Adopting a disability approach to home care services for older adults. The Geronologist, 33(2), 159-167.
32. Tennestedt, S., & Chang, B-H. (1998). The relative contribution of ethnicity versus socioeconomic status in explaining differences in disability and receipt of informal care. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B, S61-70.
33. Tomlinson, T., Howe, K., Notman, M., & Ross- miller, D. (1990). An empirical study of proxy consent for elderly persons. The Gerontologist, 3(1), 54-60.
34. Wallace, S. P., Levy-Storms, L., Kington, R. S., & Andersen, R. M. (1998). The persistence of race and ethnicity. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 53B, S104-112.
35. Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. (1985). Family support guidelines and procedures. Madison: Author.
36. Wolfe, P. S., Ofiesh, N. S., & Boone, R. B. (1996). Self-advocacy preparation of consumers with disabilities: A national perspective of ADA training efforts. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 81-87.
37. Zacharias, B. L. (1997a). CCDE demonstration and evaluation. A study to determine the preferences of consumers and surrogates for a cash option (Rep. on New York State Focus Groups). Unpublished report, University of Maryland, Center on Aging.
38. Zacharias, B. L. (1997b). CCDE demonstration and evaluation. A study to determine the preferences of consumers and surrogates for a cash option (Rep. on Florida focus groups). Unpublished report, University of Maryland, Center on Aging.