The road to a better LTC system was hard. Now ... it's still hard. (AP photo/Keith Baum)

The federal Commission on Long-Term Care (LTC) — the panel created when Congress repealed the CLASS Act — had only a little time to grapple with a complex issue.

The panel had just a few months to try to improve the U.S. LTC delivery and finance systems.

Few expected it to come up with an ambitious proposal that could attract broad, bipartisan support in Congress.

That said, there was always the chance that advocates for a new social program could grab the agenda.

Members of my group, the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI) (AALTCI) (AALTCI) (AALTCI), support private long-term care insurance (LTCI) and tend to associate with others who do. But not everyone in the world advocates for the existence of private LTCI.

There was always a chance that the people who created the original, doomed, CLASS Act voluntary government LTC benefits program would use the commission’s reform design project as a chance to propose a CLASS 2.0 program.

However, in the end, when the commission released its report and recommendations, it did not recommend a CLASS 2.0 program, or much of anything else to address the looming long-term-care crisis.

The report is almost 100 pages long, and it lays out the problems facing the U.S. LTC finance and delivery systems well.

The commission explains that those most intimately involved in long-term care know only too well that the individuals in need of such services often lack the money to pay for the services. Most rely on family and friends for care. The caregivers are often overburdened and underpaid.

With 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 each day, the LTC problem is a problem that, if left unaddressed, will certainly get worse.

But the report itself shows that there is clearly no groundswell for another attempt at a government program along the lines of the CLASS Act program.

The commission did recommend creating a permanent advisory committee, and it seems as if the work of that committee would provide ample opportunity for more dialogue about developing a solution that involves both the public sector and the private sector.

See also: