I've said for some time that the Aging at Home Strategy in Ontario will fail. Of course, my perspective has met with plenty of derision and comments from defenders of the program. I understand their perspective and why I might be seen as unsupportive but to be honest, I agree that people should be able to stay in their own homes and have support to do so...it just won't be possible for many seniors for many reasons.
First, I should be clear on what I mean by "fail".
If the Aging at Home Strategy was intended to keep seniors in their homes longer then it may accomplish this at least for some seniors but not all.
I give this noble intention a qualified "Pass".
If it was designed to save costs on long term care then it is not likely to do this largely because the costs of maintaining patients in their own homes is substantial and many seniors are not in a position to be able to afford the rising property taxes, the rising food costs and the rising costs to heat their own home let alone the private support workers that many people will be required to pay for (if they can find them).
I give this goal a "Fail".
If it was designed to save costs on health care then it is not likely to achieve this simply because the better we become at providing care ie new medications, new procedures, new technologies, better support, the greater the improvement in longevity which has its own associated costs.
I give this goal a "Fail" as well.
This is to say that the Aging at Home Strategy recommended by experts is a noble plan but a little like looking for a way forward in the dark with blinders on. Look out for the speeding demographic bus turning the corner.
It just won't work for large numbers of seniors and for those it does work for the potential for the arrangement to be short lived is very possible. One fall, one infection and the patient will be in hospital...and at age 80 plus, going home even with support may not be an option.
So we need more long term care facilities and more options for long term care. It can't be either home or hospital or an institutional type long term care setting.
And...people need to be made aware of the costs of long term care as the health care system and improvements in public health get better and better at prolonging life.
And...people need to understand that it is not everyone else's responsibility to look after the elderly-in many instances family arrangements need to be considered.
But the reality is that many seniors will not have support from their families. If government is to fund potentially $500,000 to $1,000,000 plus per person for long term care then how will this be paid?
We must have this discussion as a society now.
An excellent series is running in the Toronto Star on the inability of seniors to access support from the Aging at Home Strategy as funds for this program are diverted to dealing with ALC/ER problems.
Our population has only just begun to age this year with the first Boomers hitting 65. As the next two decades arrive we can expect the number of workers to decrease by half.
How can these workers be used in the most productive and efficient way to provide care for seniors?
Given that the key factor for decreased ER visits by the elderly is a caregiver (not a health care provider) one way is to consider small group homes with caregiver on site such as The Green House Nursing Home concept.
We need to be discussing the costs of long term care both from an individual payor perspective but also from a tax payer perspective and understand that there are trade-offs to be made.
If long term care can be covered through government coverage for all, what would have to be traded?
As always, thank you for your insightful comments and contributions.
I've said for some time that the Aging at Home Strategy in Ontario will fail. Of course, my perspective has met with plenty of derision and comments from defenders of the program. I understand their perspective and why I might be seen as unsupportive but to be honest, I agree that people should be able to stay in their own homes and have support to do so...it just won't be possible for many seniors for many reasons.
First, I should be clear on what I mean by "fail".
If the Aging at Home Strategy was intended to keep seniors in their homes longer then it may accomplish this at least for some seniors but not all.
I give this noble intention a qualified "Pass".
If it was designed to save costs on long term care then it is not likely to do this largely because the costs of maintaining patients in their own homes is substantial and many seniors are not in a position to be able to afford the rising property taxes, the rising food costs and the rising costs to heat their own home let alone the private support workers that many people will be required to pay for (if they can find them).
I give this goal a "Fail".
If it was designed to save costs on health care then it is not likely to achieve this simply because the better we become at providing care ie new medications, new procedures, new technologies, better support, the greater the improvement in longevity which has its own associated costs.
I give this goal a "Fail" as well.
This is to say that the Aging at Home Strategy recommended by experts is a noble plan but a little like looking for a way forward in the dark with blinders on. Look out for the speeding demographic bus turning the corner.
It just won't work for large numbers of seniors and for those it does work for the potential for the arrangement to be short lived is very possible. One fall, one infection and the patient will be in hospital...and at age 80 plus, going home even with support may not be an option.
So we need more long term care facilities and more options for long term care. It can't be either home or hospital or an institutional type long term care setting.
And...people need to be made aware of the costs of long term care as the health care system and improvements in public health get better and better at prolonging life.
And...people need to understand that it is not everyone else's responsibility to look after the elderly-in many instances family arrangements need to be considered.
But the reality is that many seniors will not have support from their families. If government is to fund potentially $500,000 to $1,000,000 plus per person for long term care then how will this be paid?
We must have this discussion as a society now.
An excellent series is running in the Toronto Star on the inability of seniors to access support from the Aging at Home Strategy as funds for this program are diverted to dealing with ALC/ER problems.
Our population has only just begun to age this year with the first Boomers hitting 65. As the next two decades arrive we can expect the number of workers to decrease by half.
How can these workers be used in the most productive and efficient way to provide care for seniors?
Given that the key factor for decreased ER visits by the elderly is a caregiver (not a health care provider) one way is to consider small group homes with caregiver on site such as The Green House Nursing Home concept.
We need to be discussing the costs of long term care both from an individual payor perspective but also from a tax payer perspective and understand that there are trade-offs to be made.
If long term care can be covered through government coverage for all, what would have to be traded?
As always, thank you for your insightful comments and contributions.