Group items tagged

Currently 76,000 vulnerable seniors live in nursing homes. Thousands more are on regional waiting lists. Hospitals consider them "bed blockers." Private retirement residences aren't equipped to meet their needs. Their families can't take care of them or get enough home care to keep them clean, safe and stable. "I think we see nursing homes as a symbol of failure - failure of the individuals to care for themselves, of families to care for older people, of the medical system to cure them," Armstrong said. "It's something we don't want to think about because we intend to avoid such places when we grow old." That attitude has led to underfunding, understaffing, low wages and high turnover in nursing homes. Care providers don't have time to listen to residents, respond to their needs, help them eat, talk to them or alleviate their boredom. Food service workers lock the dining room between meals. Clothes vanish in the laundry. Government-required paperwork takes precedence over caregiving. It is not unusual to see a dozen seniors - some with dementia, some in wheelchairs, some heavily sedated - lined up in front of a television staring vacantly at a rerun of I Love Lucy.

"They deserve better," Armstrong thought. So she pulled together a team of 26 researchers from six countries (Canada, Britain, Sweden, Germany, the United States and Australia) to reimagine institutional long-term care. Could it be a humane, dignified, financially viable option? The team included doctors, pharmacists, architects, economists, psychologists, social workers, historians, philosophers and communication experts. It began by collecting success stories from Europe and North America and identifying the most promising practices and best ideas in the field. That was five years ago. Armstrong and her colleagues have now done 25 site visits in 10 jurisdictions; interviewed thousands of long-term care residents, workers, managers, policy-makers and advocates for seniors; published 50 academic papers and released an 86-page public report entitled "Promising Practices in Long-Term Care."

Last week, she and co-author Donna Baines, of the University of Sydney in Australia, led a panel discussion in the dining room of Hart House at the University of Toronto. "The reception was very positive. People are excited by the possibilities." It will take many more community forums - and a lot of public pressure - to change the mindset at the ministry of health and long-term care. It regards the elderly as a financial burden and nursing home workers as an expense to be controlled. For one evening, Armstrong and Baines managed to change the public dialogue from failures and shortcomings to promising practices. They provided proof that nursing homes don't have to be grim, depressing places. They offered hope to desperate families, exhausted caregivers and aging boomers contemplating their future.

Armstrong acknowledged afterward that it will take a prodigious effort and a significant public investment to reach the level of long-term care regarded as normal in countries such Germany, Sweden and Britain. But even without a cash infusion, she argued, there are ways to make life better for the residents of Ontario's nursing homes: Label their clothes properly before sending them to the laundry; allow them to make a cup of mid-afternoon tea or go to the fridge for a beer; let them eat chocolate or ice cream if they wish; make the decor less hospital-like and more like a home. Give personal care precedence over paperwork. Reorganize who does what to bolster teamwork and reduce staff turnover. These reforms are not costly. Three principles are vital for high-quality long-term nursing care, the researchers concluded: It fosters person-to-person relationships. It respects individual differences, while striving for equity. It offers dignity to older citizens regardless of their infirmities.

One of the biggest impediments to progress, Armstrong said, is the province's knee-jerk response to scandals. Any time something goes wrong in one of Ontario's 629 nursing homes, the ministry of health imposes blanket regulations. These one-size-fits-all rules reduce the ability of care providers and nursing managers to tailor their practices to the needs of residents. "We've become so obsessed with safety and standardization that we've taken the life out of living." So far, there's been no sign of interest in the project from Queen's Park. That is not likely to change until Ontarians open their eyes and raise their voices. Instead of complaining after their elderly parent is admitted to a nursing home, they need to speak out for everyone's parents. Instead of giving up on long-term care, they need to push back when policy-makers offer visiting part-time help.

What if the Prime Minister linked a climate deal to a health deal? That could be politically explosive. But McGill economist Chris Ragan thinks it's a good idea. One reason is that Mr. Ragan thinks the federal government will end transferring more money to the provinces anyway. Although the growth in provincial health spending has actually slowed in recent years, there are forecasts that it will grow by 3 per cent of GDP - by 2040. Mr. Ragan figures Ottawa will eventually give in, and might one day pay a third, that would be about $30-billion in 2027. The feds might as well admit it now and get a climate-change deal out of it, he argues. In other words, mix talks on health and climate together. "The more things you choose to put on the table, of course it becomes more complicated, but it also becomes a lot easier," Mr. Ragan said. "Because one of the things you bring to the table is a bunch of money."

There are a few problems. One is that Mr. Trudeau's government already wants something else from the provinces, a deal on home care. Ottawa is offering $3-billion and wants provinces to agree to meet targets for home-care services. Another is that Ottawa might not be ready to concede that it's going to have to transfer more to provinces. The recent years of slower growth in provincial health-care costs is an argument that the provinces don't really need the extra money. But that doesn't mean it will stay that way: Many economists believe those costs will rise sharply again in the near future. Then there is politics. Health transfers are to help the sick. Linking it to something else is likely to be seen as crass. But in the end, health-care transfers are dollars, and no one can really identify which dollar is spent on what. Mr. Ragan suggests they could be spent both on health and a climate deal.

Mr. Ragan is also chair of the Ecofiscal Commission, an organization of economists studying climate policy, which argues pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, because it will cost the economy less. The Ecofiscal Commission's models indicate that as long as the revenues are pumped back into the economy in the right ways, the costs of carbon pricing will be modest. In other words, if you are going to reduce emissions, a carbon price is the least costly way. In fact, the premiers, including Mr. Wall, agreed last spring to work on carbon-pricing options. Ms. McKenna is now brandishing a federal carbon tax as a stick to demand they seal a deal. But money is the traditional carrot. Mr. Trudeau might find it too politically dangerous to link health transfers to a climate deal. But it would allow him to offer what it usually takes to make a deal: money.