Jun 30 2009

Disrespecting our Elders

Why would the state of California actually want to save money?
by Clint Reilly

John F. Kennedy once said that the strength and durability of a society can be judged by how it treats its elderly.

Proving his point more than four decades later, the careening state of California is considering cutting off vital in-home services to thousands of dependent seniors.

Of course, with the Golden State staring down the barrel of a $24 billion deficit that swells with each passing nanosecond, we must expect our elected officials to make difficult spending decisions.

But the proposal to dramatically slash In-Home Supportive Services is best described with one word: “stupid.”

Or perhaps two: “astonishingly stupid.”

IHSS is one of a select breed of programs that serve thousands and actually save the state money.

The program helps pay for in-home caregivers for more than 400,000 elderly and disabled Californians.

These home-care providers are often responsible for the most intimate self-care tasks that most people take for granted, like feeding, bathing and dressing. They also do day-to-day chores, provide transportation to and from medical appointments and administer various other medical and domestic services.

It’s a big job, but it doesn’t exactly equate to big bucks. The statewide average hourly wage for an IHSS provider is less than $10. In many rural California counties, home-care providers are making minimum wage for their efforts.

So, yes; IHSS costs the state money. But consider the alternative.

According to the AARP Public Policy Institute, family caregivers provide unpaid health care services valued at $48 billion.

Without IHSS assistance, the overwhelming majority of recipients would be shunted unceremoniously into far more expensive skilled nursing facilities.

California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office puts the annual cost of keeping a disabled or elderly person in a nursing home at more than $55,000 per year.

By comparison, the LAO estimates that providing in-home care costs less than $10,000. Not only is it vastly cheaper, but it also allows the elderly and the disabled to remain in their own homes, which greatly enhances their quality of life.

Critics argue that IHSS deserves to be cut because of waste, failing to see the irony in their flawed logic. Budget hawks have intimated that relatives will just have to pick up the slack.

But families already stretched to the breaking point by unemployment, plummeting home values, dwindling savings and shredded retirement accounts will be forced into a difficult predicament. If they stay home to “pick up the slack,” many won’t be able to pay the mortgage or put food on the table.

Obviously, the moral imperative to preserve and protect IHSS is strong, but the economic rationale is even more compelling given our dire fiscal situation.

Then again, this is California. Why would we want to retain a program that actually saves the state millions every year when we’re busy negotiating a fiscal tsunami of epic proportion?

Some pundits speculate that this is just another of the governor’s maneuvers in a game of budgetary chicken with his recalcitrant partners in the legislature.

They argue that Schwarzenegger’s early proposals to close state parks, end the state’s SCHIP program for uninsured kids and pare down IHSS are just there to establish an initial negotiating position.

This could be true. Politics is a game of smoke and mirrors and the vast majority of deals are cut behind the scenes, the details of which rarely make it into a reporter’s notebook.

Nevertheless, we’re past the point of scare tactics and political gambits. The stakes are too high this time.

If legislators are serious about cutting a program like IHSS, they need to check their math.