Privatization gets blame for declining seniors care
For profit facilities ‘generally inferior’ to public counterparts, report concludes
The provincial policy of privatizing home and community care services for seniors has resulted in less access for people in need, says a new report released today.
Between 2001 and 2016, the closure of 40 care facilities operated by either health authorities or non-profit organizations has resulted in a drop in residential care beds of 11 per cent. During the same period, the for-profit sector increased 42 per cent, according to the report.
“This is a very vulnerable sector with very vulnerable people,” said Andrew Longhurst, the report’s author.
“This direction of turning to the market and to for-profit corporations to deliver care is not in the best interests of seniors or the health care system.”
The report is called Privatiza- tion & Declining Access to B.C. Seniors’ Care by the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
According to Longhurst, the type of ownership of residential care facilities makes a difference to the quality of life of seniors. He said residential care in a for-profit care facility is “generally inferior” to the kind of care delivered in public or non-profit home.
And that quality of care, he said, usually has to do with staffing levels: the higher the ratio of staff to patients, the better the care.
“This is a key determinant of care quality,” he said.
“When you run it for profits as a for profit business, that profit is going into investors’ pockets rather than going into front-line care.”
He said the report shows that the policy pursued by the provincial government favouring privatization has had consequences which include declining access and care quality.
“For the past 16 years, underfunding, privatization and fragmentation of the system have left many seniors, their families and communities patching together care — and even going without,” the report says.
“B.C. seniors have less access to home health care, assisted living and residential care today than in 2001.”
Longhurst did praise the initiative announced earlier this month by the province to provide $500 million in new money over four years. The money is meant to go to increase residential care staffing levels in home and community care facilities that fall below provincial staffing guidelines.
As important as the funding is, Longhurst said, it doesn’t address the issue of increasing access to services for seniors.
The lack of access to a broad spectrum of services for seniors affects the health care system used by everyone, Longhurst pointed out.
What’s happening now across B.C. is that seniors with, for example, dementia are being cared for in hospitals that often aren’t equipped to deal with their complex needs. They’re in hospitals because other, less expensive services such as home and community care aren’t available.
“The downstream consequences of not investing properly in home and community care system is that you end up with longer wait times for surgery, you end up with a more costly system over all because folks are in the most expensive part of the system.”
Longhurst’s report made three recommendations to improve senior care:
“Stop privatizing home and community care services and facilities.”
“Improve access to publicly funded home and community care services provided by health authorities and non-profit organizations.”
“Develop a home and community care framework and action plan to improve access and service integration” as well as “establish legislated standards including staffing levels” based on research evidence.
B.C. seniors have less access to home health care, assisted living and residential care today than in 2001.