Posted on 07/09/2005 10:14:47 PM PDT by Sunshine55
Massachusetts has begun paying family members to house and care for their frail older relatives in an effort to keep them out of nursing homes and save the state money.
The program pays $1,500 a month to caregivers to make it more feasible for family members to provide round-the-clock care to a senior who needs extensive help with everyday tasks, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and using the toilet. It has enrolled 21 seniors since beginning on a trial basis in March, and will expand this fall to as many as 80 low-income seniors or disabled people, funded by $2 million in the state budget signed into law last week.
The state's goal is to provide the housing and home care that seniors want while reducing admissions to expensive nursing homes. The state expects to spend $1.6 billion for nursing home care this year.
''It's offering people a more compassionate level of care provided by people they know they're comfortable with . . . at a cost about half that of a nursing home," said Representative Barbara L'Italien, an Andover Democrat who pressed for inclusion of the money in the budget. She and other officials expect the program will be expanded to serve many more in future years. Advocates say as many as 8,000 people could be eligible, depending on the criteria ultimately set by the state.
A growing number of states pay family members to house and care for seniors. But the practice has spread slowly because some people question whether society should pay for services that relatives have long provided for free. In addition, there are concerns about the quality of care and potential abuse of seniors.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
So i'm curius to know what you guys think of this program.
I'm already thinking when my mom gets older she's always welcome to stay with me.
It wasn't that long ago people took care of their elders until death, back in the days when "the familly" was an American tradition.
Why should they get paid for what they should be doing in the first place?
I can see deducting the expenses from your taxable income, and from what ever income the elderly parent might have, but to be PAID?
I can't imagine either being paid by the govt. to do something that should just come naturally anyway.
Nathan Zachary wrote:
"I can see deducting the expenses from your taxable income, and from what ever income the elderly parent might have, but to be PAID?"
--It's Massachusites, that's why probably.
I agree with your idea, sounds much better.
NOT. Jack@ss politicians.
I guess I'm a little old fashioned, or just plain old. None of my grandparents, or any relative for that matter, ever saw the inside of a retirement home.
I guess it's the thing to do for the younger generations that follow mine. It used to be that only those who didn't have familly wound up in those places.
Jeeze, Liberals paying people to do what they SHOULD do anyway.
I took 24 hour care of my Father with Alzheimers for 4 years and now, same for my mother for the last two.... After all, they took care of me for a heck of a lot longer.
There was a time that caring for elderly relatives was EXPECTED.
sigh...
I think this is a terrific idea. My grandmother lived with my parents until she became incontinent, as well as too weak to get out of bed in a timely manner to reach the bathroom. My parents had to put her in a nursing home, since my mother was not physically strong enough to give her the came she needed. My grandmother was never happy with that decision, and would have lasted longer at home, IMHO, but my parents simply did not have that option because my mom just physically couldn't do it. If a young strong nurse's aide could have come by and given them help during the day, when my dad couldn't be at home, I think they could have kept her in their home till the end and everyone would have been happier.
Nursing home expenses paid by Medicaid must be controlled. Almost anything that keeps people out of the nursing home is good both socially and fiscally.
Seniors do not like to know that they are a burden to their loved ones , even if they do not charge them. I approve.
School vouchers are an apt illustration.
The entitlement is necessary, BTW, because a lot of older folks don't have families that can or will take care of them. By the same token, public education is necessary because homeschooling only works if the parents are capable and committed, and a lot aren't. But once the entitlement is in place, it has a not-entirely-unintended levelling effect, as it creates a tangible incentive to dump an expensive obligation on a lowest-common-denominator public system.
Shifting social welfare spending toward refundable vouchers is probably the right way to go. It certainly is in education and low-income housing. Why should long-term care be different?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.