News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

The problem with profits: As Ontario’s long-term-care homes stagger under a COVID death toll of more than 3,000, some say it’s time to shut down for-profit homes for good​


Read this link.

(It's a 23 minute read.)

ltc-funds.png


1611678878659.png

1611678924728.png

1611678974875.png
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with for-profit long-term care homes.....it's on the government to regulate them properly which they have failed to do.
 
SunriseChampion said:
There is nothing inherently wrong with for-profit long-term care homes.....it's on the government to regulate them properly which they have failed to do.
Click to expand...

So true. This article is from September, 2019, three months before COVID-19.

Premier Doug Ford's long-term care cuts are harming Ontario seniors​

From link.
One shower a week!

That's what the latest round of budget cuts has meant to vulnerable residents of long-term care homes in Ontario. One shower a week; when summer temperatures all week have been in the thirties. One shower, out of the regular, government-mandated two.

"Respect the vulnerable ." These words were buried in Doug Ford's campaign "Plan for Ontario," along with a promise to, "Commit resources to combat . elder abuse."

Really? As shown by the initial results of the latest cuts to long-term care, it seems the Ford government is more focused on committing elder abuse than combating it:
How is cutting the weekly hours of personal support workers in Ontario LTC homes combating elder abuse?

How does sowing anxiety and fear about their own job security among the uncut personal support workers (PSW), that results in increased sick days and heavier workloads for those who do come to work, combat elder abuse?

How does denying residents, some of whom require two people at a time to help them, the second of only two government-mandated weekly showers, in a heat wave, due to a government-mandated skeleton staff, combat elder abuse?

How is eliminating the number of weekly hours a music therapist can devote to personal, as opposed to group, activity, combating elder abuse?

How does reducing the number of days the chaplain can offer solace to vulnerable residents, from one a week to two a month, combat elder abuse?

How does breaking up teams of PSWs, that have worked successfully to care for and comfort the same vulnerable residents for 10 years and more, to enable "bumping" by outsiders with more seniority, combat elder abuse?

How does cutting the hours of activation therapists, who work to engage isolated residents and reduce their loneliness and boredom, combat elder abuse?

How does no longer funding individual-specific physiotherapy, but basing funding on number of beds per home, combat elder abuse?

How does reducing the number of weekly hours a dietitian can devote to any Ontario LTC home, along with maintaining current funding for food at last year's level, in spite of well documented, constantly increasing pricing, combat elder abuse?

Maybe the Ford government could take note of the response to these Draconian cuts from one Ontario LTC home. They are doubling-down on reduced staffing levels; working longer hours on their own time; and ensuring in every way they can that their vulnerable elderly charges are not further damaged by this government's actions. This could be defined as "combating elder abuse." It could also lead to higher levels of staff burnout.

In light of the findings in the recently released Wettlaufer report, the Ford government has promised only to "study" two of 10 provisions - those related to inadequate staffing levels and the need for increased funding.

However, the same government is currently responsible for reducing the funds allocated to LTC and, in response to outrage from various consumer, professional and opposition groups, has offered only to defer these cuts, which were slated to start on Aug. 1, until October this year.

This government has also promised to review the recommendations in the Wettlaufer report, determine a course of action and provide a full accounting of its decisions to the public in a year.

A year? While we wait to find out what, if anything, the Ford government plans to do about the causative, institutional factors that contributed to Wettlaufer's murderous actions; two of which are clearly flagged as chronic underfunding and understaffing; how many of our most vulnerable citizens have to wait for their end in LTC homes, which can neither care for them properly nor ensure their engagement, comfort and safety?

Our new minister of long-term care, Dr. Merrilee Fullerton, an admitted supporter of two-tier health care, will only commit to unspecified levels of new funding. How much this might be, what it would cover or when it would be available, are questions that remain unanswered.

It appears the government that promised to "work for the people" is ignoring the very people who need them most.
Click to expand...
 
SunriseChampion said:
There is nothing inherently wrong with for-profit long-term care homes.....it's on the government to regulate them properly which they have failed to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, and no.

Here's the problem, long-term care is government funded to a great degree.

The amount per resident/patient is the same whether the person is in non-profit/public care or private, for-profit care.

Many residents can't afford any extra beyond what the government pays for.

So here's the problem.

If the government is paying just enough (almost certainly too little, but I digress) to non-profits to provide care; how exactly is a for-profit company supposed to make any return on investment?

The answer, of course, is by cutting costs everywhere they can, from food, to care, to training, and of course, wages.

Which means they are most likely to have the least qualified staff, the fewest staff, and almost certainly provide sub-optimal care in many cases, even in normal times, let alone when under strain.

You can increase the regulation (and should) on both public and private homes alike.

But the challenge then is............who pays, and how much to meet that standard of care?

If the government increases per resident spending by 20% for public homes; that will still leave any for-profit provider likely to cut corners to drive a return on equity.

It would seem patently absurd to pay extra to for-profit homes simply to pad the wallets of shareholders.

But there isn't likely a good alternative.

Which suggests non-profit/public homes probably make more sense.
 
Northern Light said:
Yes, and no.

Here's the problem, long-term care is government funded to a great degree.

The amount per resident/patient is the same whether the person is in non-profit/public care or private, for-profit care.

Many residents can't afford any extra beyond what the government pays for.

So here's the problem.

If the government is paying just enough (almost certainly too little, but I digress) to non-profits to provide care; how exactly is a for-profit company supposed to make any return on investment?
Click to expand...

Well there's your problem: government intervention that disincentivises proper investment on the part of the owner.

What share of retirement homes are for-profit?
 
SunriseChampion said:
Well there's your problem: government intervention that disincentivises proper investment on the part of the owner.

What share of retirement homes are for-profit?
Click to expand...

You have to make the distinction between long-term care homes and retirement homes.

They are not the same.

The former are entirely private.

They may be profit or non-profit; but the government doesn't subsidize the care in them; unless they have beds classed for LTC.

Retirement homes are simply housing catering to the senior set, which may include any number of luxuries (or not); and which generally provide some enhancements in terms of assisted living, such as having housekeeping services.

****

As at Sept 2020:

1611685988798.png


From: https://www.cihi.ca/en/long-term-care-homes-in-canada-how-many-and-who-owns-them
 
Northern Light said:
You have to make the distinction between long-term care homes and retirement homes.

They are not the same.

The former are entirely private.

They may be profit or non-profit; but the government doesn't subsidize the care in them; unless they have beds classed for LTC.

Retirement homes are simply housing catering to the senior set, which may include any number of luxuries (or not); and which generally provide some enhancements in terms of assisted living, such as having housekeeping services.

****

As at Sept 2020:

View attachment 296450

From: https://www.cihi.ca/en/long-term-care-homes-in-canada-how-many-and-who-owns-them
Click to expand...

I know the distinction....I brought it up because the same problem doesn't exist in retirement homes that we've seen in care homes.

Why might that be? Lack of government disincentives, perhaps?
 
SunriseChampion said:
I know the distinction....I brought it up because the same problem doesn't exist in retirement homes that we've seen in care homes.

Why might that be? Lack of government disincentives, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Retirement homes rarely involve shared rooms except for couples who choose that.

They also don't involve staff routinely going room to room.

In LTCs its been possible to have up to 4 residents in one room.

The government will fund 2 to a room where facilities allow that, and the spread of Covid has been considerably less in such facilities.

The government will not fund private rooms.

However, private rooms are by far the best at preventing spread of contagion.

That is the norm in most retirement accommodation.

Those in LTCs are also sicker/more infirm in the first place vs those in retirement homes.

Making them more susceptible to bad outcomes w/illness.
 
Northern Light said:
Retirement homes rarely involve shared rooms except for couples who choose that.

They also don't involve staff routinely going room to room.

In LTCs its been possible to have up to 4 residents in one room.
Click to expand...
That's the problem, which I mentioned: inadequate regulation.

Northern Light said:
The government will fund 2 to a room where facilities allow that, and the spread of Covid has been considerably less in such facilities.

The government will not fund private rooms.

However, private rooms are by far the best at preventing spread of contagion.

That is the norm in most retirement accommodation.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the government should regulate private rooms and cover the cost of those who cannot afford to cover the costs themselves.

Northern Light said:
Those in LTCs are also sicker/more infirm in the first place vs those in retirement homes.

Making them more susceptible to bad outcomes w/illness.
Click to expand...

That's not something that can be sorted, only mitigated through regulation which does not necessarily require and end to private institutions.
 
mjl08 said:
Horrendous inequality in vaccine distribution in the States

https://twitter.com/x/status/1353885791676739585
Click to expand...

South Siiiiide....if the guns don't get ya, the virus will.

That's a nice little metaphor for wealthy countries getting the vaccine in large number whilst poorer countries sit back and enjoy the ride.....and then we have people moaning about how slow it's all going.
 
Our numbers would be lower if it weren't for stupidity.

University kids not complying??. Who'd have thought! U of G thought it would be a good idea to bring hundreds of students back to residence this month. While we are shut in our homes like prisoners. these kids are partying it up!

$120 fine! What a slap in the face to everyone following lockdown rules. Should be a higher fine and they should send the brats home and forfeit this semester with no reimbursement of tuition.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1354177641004339203
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top