Serious question here - why would a business not use a free service that exempts them from liability and costs? The business doesn't care if firefighters are preoccupied with inane calls. It isn't...
Serious question here - why would a business not use a free service that exempts them from liability and costs?
The business doesn't care if firefighters are preoccupied with inane calls. It isn't a line on their expense report. Making an argument about it being immoral or unethical is just talking to a wall. Businesses, especially elderly care businesses, don't care about that.
Yeah this seems pretty obvious. If it's a free service, that could prevent legal liability, then the business will abuse it. Take away it being free, and it will go away
Yeah this seems pretty obvious. If it's a free service, that could prevent legal liability, then the business will abuse it. Take away it being free, and it will go away
They mentioned it in the article, though - these facilities are just going to pass the fee on to the residents. Until it's illegal for the facilities to do that, I don't think adding a fee for...
They mentioned it in the article, though - these facilities are just going to pass the fee on to the residents. Until it's illegal for the facilities to do that, I don't think adding a fee for pick-ups is going to change anything.
Spirit of the law means nothing to business owners in America does it? Because you don't call firefighters to lift someone up is why. Because it's cheaper shouldn't even be on the radar. I...
Spirit of the law means nothing to business owners in America does it?
Because you don't call firefighters to lift someone up is why. Because it's cheaper shouldn't even be on the radar.
I honestly, legitimately, do not understand how you can even ask that question. Why shouldn't they? Because they shouldn't. You went into the business of taking care of the elderly, so you do. This finagling out of responsibilities to save a penny is reprehensible.
I'd be so mad if I saw an article on this in my own country and I'd hope the law would punish that behavior right quick.
Ps. I understand it may sound like I'm attacking you in the third paragraph, I'm not.
Exactly my point. If there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, there is an incentive to abuse the service. Yeah, but the race to the bottom is filled with reprehensible behavior. We need to...
I'd be so mad if I saw an article on this in my own country and I'd hope the law would punish that behavior right quick.
Exactly my point. If there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, there is an incentive to abuse the service.
This finagling out of responsibilities to save a penny is reprehensible.
Yeah, but the race to the bottom is filled with reprehensible behavior. We need to make rules on how to have a functional society because of this.
Spirit of the law means nothing to business owners in America does it?
No, because the spirit of the law is irrelevant. The letter of the law is the rule and you make less money by limiting yourself to the spirit.
Of course, but it just makes me so mad that you can swindle at the level these organisations operate at. A low level con artist scamming a person or two is bad, but this is entire sectors of...
Exactly my point. If there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, there is an incentive to abuse the service.
Of course, but it just makes me so mad that you can swindle at the level these organisations operate at.
A low level con artist scamming a person or two is bad, but this is entire sectors of business unscrupulously coaxing people out of their money.
Law in my country (at least ostensibly) operates on "societal normative reasonability and justicial equity" meaning this wouldn't even need specific regulations to tell businesses to knock it the hell off.
That cultural feeling of "just adhere to social standards (you cretin)" permeates society so much that I don't expect businesses to so grossly misappropriate first responders if a home for the elderly needs to shirk liability. Yet.
I don't understand why so many people do not value pride, honor, and ethics in this equation. I can understand if you're choosing between your family's survival and death - but if you own a...
No, because the spirit of the law is irrelevant. The letter of the law is the rule and you make less money by limiting yourself to the spirit.
I don't understand why so many people do not value pride, honor, and ethics in this equation. I can understand if you're choosing between your family's survival and death - but if you own a retirement home that's not the tradeoff.
Private equity firms have been buying up US healthcare companies, especially assisted care and nursing homes, for decades, and they don't have any pride, ethics, honor, or morals - profit is the...
Private equity firms have been buying up US healthcare companies, especially assisted care and nursing homes, for decades, and they don't have any pride, ethics, honor, or morals - profit is the only thing that matters to them. If they can pawn off liability for free, they will absolutely do it.
Private equity firms operate this way by design - they explicitly cater to people who are living socialist caricatures of capitalists, the ultra-rich who have zero qualms about grinding the country into dust and dooming the entire planet just to enhance their bottom lines. It is fundamentally unsustainable, but they do not care. If they wanted modest returns, they would just park their money in the S&P 500, maybe do some angel investing on the side, and be happy with that; PE firms are the exact opposite - the are for those who have wealth and want to expand it as fast as possible. There is no such thing as a good private equity firm, and there is no low they will not stoop to.
It makes them more money to punish employees who care enough to help than it does to risk helpful employees causing a lawsuit due to the nature of subrogation in the US healthcare system. And until we tackle the real cause of the problem (the rich and privatized healthcare), things will only continue to get worse.
They are catering to your and my investing in business to fund our retirement savings. In the U.S. that puts it on us to vote in and support policy and law that explicitly makes this behavior...
Private equity firms operate this way by design - they explicitly cater to people who are living socialist caricatures of capitalists, the ultra-rich who have zero qualms about grinding the country into dust and dooming the entire planet just to enhance their bottom lines
They are catering to your and my investing in business to fund our retirement savings. In the U.S. that puts it on us to vote in and support policy and law that explicitly makes this behavior unprofitable.
Aren't most people investing in public companies or buying bonds? I would assume private equity firms are an investment avenue mostly for the ultra wealthy.
Aren't most people investing in public companies or buying bonds? I would assume private equity firms are an investment avenue mostly for the ultra wealthy.
I don't buy the argument that regular people like you and I are any less culpable. As investors in our economy, participating Capitalists if you will, we should be doing all we can to vote in...
I don't buy the argument that regular people like you and I are any less culpable. As investors in our economy, participating Capitalists if you will, we should be doing all we can to vote in politicians and policies that discourage predatory behavior.
Maybe you're very active in this regard, but these days I'm mainly politically active at the voting booth.
It really doesn't. To businesses, law is a system to be gamified for maximum profit. This is how we've ended up with such sweeping enshittification across so many businesses, at least in the US.
It really doesn't. To businesses, law is a system to be gamified for maximum profit.
This is how we've ended up with such sweeping enshittification across so many businesses, at least in the US.
I know when something emotionally touches me when I find it difficult to give a comment a vote. Not because I don't appreciate your contribution, I do, but because of the meaning of the content....
I know when something emotionally touches me when I find it difficult to give a comment a vote. Not because I don't appreciate your contribution, I do, but because of the meaning of the content.
You're right, of course, but man do I wish you weren't.
As do I. It is challenging not to be constantly filled with rage. I don't know how any system of government works if those with power don't show restraint. That's supposedly much of how this...
As do I. It is challenging not to be constantly filled with rage. I don't know how any system of government works if those with power don't show restraint. That's supposedly much of how this country was founded: a system of laws that put checks on the most powerful.
This is why big American technology monopolists are being all shockedpikachu.jpg right now after the DMA was instituted in Europe. They think they can maliciously comply with the letter of the law...
This is why big American technology monopolists are being all shockedpikachu.jpg right now after the DMA was instituted in Europe. They think they can maliciously comply with the letter of the law and not have the EU come after them for violating the spirit of the law. We have a strong culture of "haha, the law only says this, so I can circumvent it and fuck people over by finding the corner case," which simply doesn't fly elsewhere.
US justices are very inconsistent and like to pick and choose between strict textual interpretations of law and pulling out a dusty 200-year-old dictionary and speculating on the intent of dead oligarchs, depending on what suits the interest of modern oligarchs.
Not every big company is trying to skirt DMA. Restricting your database to only some parts of the company is a difficult problem to solve on a technical and organizational level. Apple's malicious...
Not every big company is trying to skirt DMA. Restricting your database to only some parts of the company is a difficult problem to solve on a technical and organizational level. Apple's malicious compliance has been particularly egregious though with their sideloading fees and region locking.
I think it’s good to charge them since that aligns incentives. The state-wide law in Oregon preventing this seems like a bad thing. But your take on how incentives work seems a bit reductive?...
I think it’s good to charge them since that aligns incentives. The state-wide law in Oregon preventing this seems like a bad thing.
But your take on how incentives work seems a bit reductive? Businesses aren’t all the same. Cutting costs isn’t everything - another way to make money is to provide better service, resulting in a better reputation. Customers will often accept higher prices if they feel like they’re getting something. Though, that tends to be more true for businesses serving people wealthier people.
With senior homes, there's immense stickiness of service provider. Once you're locked in, the cost to change/move is huge. So it doesn't really matter if the people living there aren't happy, as...
With senior homes, there's immense stickiness of service provider. Once you're locked in, the cost to change/move is huge. So it doesn't really matter if the people living there aren't happy, as long as they're not sufficiently unhappy so as to uproot their entire living/social situation.
That’s true, but there is turnover when people need to go into a nursing home. They still need to attract new customers. Sometimes people put off moving to assisted living longer than maybe they...
That’s true, but there is turnover when people need to go into a nursing home. They still need to attract new customers.
Sometimes people put off moving to assisted living longer than maybe they should, so they don’t stay for that long.
Oh believe me. I'm familiar with the turnover rates. But we're specifically talking about something that the senior facilities do to save money that the current residents are embarrassed by. Who...
Oh believe me. I'm familiar with the turnover rates. But we're specifically talking about something that the senior facilities do to save money that the current residents are embarrassed by. Who are they going to tell? The new people who might be their neighbors soon? Their families? Shame is powerful, and at its worst when it means that someone can keep making money off of the ashamed.
Stories like this one do help to get the word out, somewhat. The relatives of people who are there will talk, so maybe there’s some word of mouth? More could probably be done to get the word out...
Stories like this one do help to get the word out, somewhat. The relatives of people who are there will talk, so maybe there’s some word of mouth?
More could probably be done to get the word out about specific facilities.
(Charging the companies seems like a more immediate solution, though.)
What's super sad is many of these folks have no one to care for them. Kids and grandkids live far away in other cities, other states. In some cases, family will just dump these poor people in a...
What's super sad is many of these folks have no one to care for them. Kids and grandkids live far away in other cities, other states. In some cases, family will just dump these poor people in a facility and then only visit on holidays, if at all.
These businesses know this and use it to their advantage.
I don’t have any experience with assisted living facilities, but in my experience, frequent video chats can help a lot with older relatives who live far away. Highly recommended. I wonder how much...
I don’t have any experience with assisted living facilities, but in my experience, frequent video chats can help a lot with older relatives who live far away. Highly recommended.
I wonder how much they’re set up for that, though? Everything gets harder as people get older.
So many people responding with variations of "it's immoral". I think it is important -- in fact, utterly critical -- to understand this is literally a form of Darwinian evolution at work here. If...
So many people responding with variations of "it's immoral".
I think it is important -- in fact, utterly critical -- to understand this is literally a form of Darwinian evolution at work here.
If you are a business owner of a senior care facility like this, and you do not "take advantage" of this, while other business owners do -- *** then you go out of business *** and eventually, the only businesses left are the ones that are immoral enough to do this.
Extrapolate this out to, pretty much, every single business on Earth, and you begin to see why Capitalism is becoming a problem.
Edit: In fact, extrapolate it out to any social system that seems to be full of bad actors ... "all politicians are crooks" ... "all lawyers are scumbags" ... "all cops are bastards" ... look to the rules of the system that apparently favor the bad actors, and change the rules.
This does not excuse the bad behavior. Bad cops are bad cops, but there are also good people who want to be cops to help people ... and somehow, the process of becoming a cop either teaches them to be bad, or convinces them that selling their soul for this career isn't worth it, and they become social workers (or whatever) instead.
As someone who had a loved one in a care facility, this is status quo almost everywhere. (in the US) Wall of text upcoming. The staff are underpaid and often deal with understaffing. The charges...
As someone who had a loved one in a care facility, this is status quo almost everywhere. (in the US) Wall of text upcoming.
The staff are underpaid and often deal with understaffing. The charges to residents are criminal. There is no way overhead for independent living is much above normal rent, yet they charge residents 2-4 x market rate for a similar unit with utilities included. Part of the scam is they bundle in a certain number of meals. They are usually not creative, tasty, or in some cases very nutritious. My MIL never ate a single meal over several years, yet was always charged the full rate which was non negotiable. Considering how difficult it is to get in to a decent place, they have you by the short hairs amd they know it.
Assisted living is worse. They don't really itemize out costs well, and again bundle services to make it deliberately confusing. Unless the resident has family nearby to make sure proper care is happening in a reasonable and timely manner, things slip through the cracks. Meds not being taken on the correct schedule, incontinent individuals not be cared for with assists and/or changes of Depends, etc. Then there are thefts by staff and other residents, sexual assault which are far more common than one would think. Staffers all have access to keys, so there's little feelings of privacy or safety in many cases. The 911 lifts that are in the article happen alot in AL. They are supppsed to be documented. I assure you this documentation is for the facility so they can move you out if necessary.
Move up to memory care and this all becomes more complicated. There is supposed to be a better staff to patient ratio. Again, understaffing and crappy pay play a part. These residents need far mlre care, are given far less space in general. Think small hospital room. They are forced into group settings. Again costs have risen and many are on Medicaid. If the facility decides you have exhausted your funds (pension, 401k, savings) and they don't take government funds, good luck. These facilities are cold and profit driven, so you are now out of care and a roof over your head. It never got to that point with my FIL, instead, they left him unattended in his wheelchair in his room (against orders) He tried to stand up, fell, and died in the hospital a week later from a broken hip. They family sued and got a pittance. Far less than the facility mafe off my in laws several years there. Lawsuits are baked into their business costs.
So yeah, they will continue to use and abuse this public service until something changes. EMTs are right to be upset about these calls. Staff should be trained to pick up fallen patients/residents. The facility staff should be paid accordingly, there should be proper staffing. But money and profits are more important. If these facilities have to fill out more paperwork and get dinged for non essential calls it might have an impact, but then there might be that chance that the resident needed medical care that staff cannot handle. In that case the EMTs are exactly the right move. It's a hard issue to solve.
Lift-assist 911 calls from assisted living and other senior homes have spiked by 30 percent nationwide in recent years to nearly 42,000 calls a year, an analysis of fire department emergency call data by The Washington Post has found. That’s nearly three times faster than the increase in overall 911 call volume during the same 2019-2022 period, the data shows.
The growth has infuriated first responders who say these kinds of calls — which involve someone who has fallen and is not injured but can’t get up — unfairly burden taxpayers and occupy firefighters with nonemergencies that should be handled by staff at facilities that charge residents as much as $7,000 a month.
Illinois is a hot spot for the controversy: Lift assists here accounted for 1 in 20 of all 911 fire calls, the highest proportion of any state, the data shows. In Rockford, a city of 150,000 residents about an hour outside Chicago, five assisted-living facilities — including Heritage Woods — called for noninjury lift assists 233 times last year, triple the number of calls in 2021.
…
[A]ccording to industry critics and fire officials […] companies want to avoid the risk and expense associated with picking someone up off the floor. Like many cities, Rockford provides lift assists free.
Some senior-care homes say they don’t have the ability to lift fallen residents. Many have adopted “no lift” policies to avoid the risk of back injuries for staff and other potential liabilities. But firefighters and other experts say there are tools to make lifting easier and safer, ranging from $70 cloth straps with handles to $1,500 hydraulic lifts.
…
A nurse who worked at an assisted-living facility in Greensboro, N.C., who requested anonymity because she was not authorized to speak with the media, said her company required caretakers to call 911 even if a resident had just slid harmlessly out of a chair.
“If you’re on the floor, period, you’d have to call,” said the nurse, who left her position last year. She said residents were often embarrassed by the lift-assist calls. Some begged her not to dial 911. She said she had no choice.
Fire officials point out they bring no special skill to such situations — it’s just a matter of who’s doing the work.
The dispute over lift assists comes as improvements in fire safety and the nation’s aging population have changed the nature of a firefighter’s job. Today, fire and EMS agencies are more likely to deal with an older adult fall victim than a fire victim.
…
The calls come often from elderly people living both at home and at facilities. While both situations strain resources, fire officials said senior-care homes should be equipped to handle these calls.
…
A growing number of cities and towns — from Rocklin, Calif., to Naples, Fla., to Lincoln, Neb. — have started pushing back with special fees of $100 to $800 for senior lift-assist calls. Most of the fees are targeted at what fire officials call “the frequent fliers” — assisted-living and senior-care facilities.
In Anchorage, the fire department introduced a lift-assist fee to “prevent assisted-living facilities from understaffing, or having inadequate resources, for people under their care,” Josef Rutz, fire department administrator, said in an email. The first lift is free, but a facility’s second lift assist within 12 months costs $250.
…
After Portland, Ore., imposed fees for what it said were unnecessary 911 calls, the Oregon Health Care Association pushed through a state bill in 2021 that makes it harder for local governments to follow suit. The association is politically powerful; Oregon is seen as the birthplace of assisted living.
Assisted-living facilities, which serve more than 1 million residents nationwide, are not as tightly regulated by the federal government as nursing homes, which serve about 1.2 million people, according to industry estimates. The growth in assisted living has led to new problems: A Post investigation last year revealed that more than 2,000 people had wandered away from assisted-living and dementia-care units or had been left unattended outside these facilities since 2018, resulting in more than 100 deaths — often due to heat or cold exposure.
Serious question here - why would a business not use a free service that exempts them from liability and costs?
The business doesn't care if firefighters are preoccupied with inane calls. It isn't a line on their expense report. Making an argument about it being immoral or unethical is just talking to a wall. Businesses, especially elderly care businesses, don't care about that.
Charge them absurd amounts and make it stop.
Yeah this seems pretty obvious. If it's a free service, that could prevent legal liability, then the business will abuse it. Take away it being free, and it will go away
They mentioned it in the article, though - these facilities are just going to pass the fee on to the residents. Until it's illegal for the facilities to do that, I don't think adding a fee for pick-ups is going to change anything.
Spirit of the law means nothing to business owners in America does it?
Because you don't call firefighters to lift someone up is why. Because it's cheaper shouldn't even be on the radar.
I honestly, legitimately, do not understand how you can even ask that question. Why shouldn't they? Because they shouldn't. You went into the business of taking care of the elderly, so you do. This finagling out of responsibilities to save a penny is reprehensible.
I'd be so mad if I saw an article on this in my own country and I'd hope the law would punish that behavior right quick.
Ps. I understand it may sound like I'm attacking you in the third paragraph, I'm not.
Exactly my point. If there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, there is an incentive to abuse the service.
Yeah, but the race to the bottom is filled with reprehensible behavior. We need to make rules on how to have a functional society because of this.
No, because the spirit of the law is irrelevant. The letter of the law is the rule and you make less money by limiting yourself to the spirit.
Of course, but it just makes me so mad that you can swindle at the level these organisations operate at.
A low level con artist scamming a person or two is bad, but this is entire sectors of business unscrupulously coaxing people out of their money.
Law in my country (at least ostensibly) operates on "societal normative reasonability and justicial equity" meaning this wouldn't even need specific regulations to tell businesses to knock it the hell off.
That cultural feeling of "just adhere to social standards (you cretin)" permeates society so much that I don't expect businesses to so grossly misappropriate first responders if a home for the elderly needs to shirk liability. Yet.
I don't understand why so many people do not value pride, honor, and ethics in this equation. I can understand if you're choosing between your family's survival and death - but if you own a retirement home that's not the tradeoff.
Private equity firms have been buying up US healthcare companies, especially assisted care and nursing homes, for decades, and they don't have any pride, ethics, honor, or morals - profit is the only thing that matters to them. If they can pawn off liability for free, they will absolutely do it.
Private equity firms operate this way by design - they explicitly cater to people who are living socialist caricatures of capitalists, the ultra-rich who have zero qualms about grinding the country into dust and dooming the entire planet just to enhance their bottom lines. It is fundamentally unsustainable, but they do not care. If they wanted modest returns, they would just park their money in the S&P 500, maybe do some angel investing on the side, and be happy with that; PE firms are the exact opposite - the are for those who have wealth and want to expand it as fast as possible. There is no such thing as a good private equity firm, and there is no low they will not stoop to.
It makes them more money to punish employees who care enough to help than it does to risk helpful employees causing a lawsuit due to the nature of subrogation in the US healthcare system. And until we tackle the real cause of the problem (the rich and privatized healthcare), things will only continue to get worse.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/24/nursing-homes-private-equity-fraud-00132001
They are catering to your and my investing in business to fund our retirement savings. In the U.S. that puts it on us to vote in and support policy and law that explicitly makes this behavior unprofitable.
Aren't most people investing in public companies or buying bonds? I would assume private equity firms are an investment avenue mostly for the ultra wealthy.
I don't buy the argument that regular people like you and I are any less culpable. As investors in our economy, participating Capitalists if you will, we should be doing all we can to vote in politicians and policies that discourage predatory behavior.
Maybe you're very active in this regard, but these days I'm mainly politically active at the voting booth.
It really doesn't. To businesses, law is a system to be gamified for maximum profit.
This is how we've ended up with such sweeping enshittification across so many businesses, at least in the US.
I know when something emotionally touches me when I find it difficult to give a comment a vote. Not because I don't appreciate your contribution, I do, but because of the meaning of the content.
You're right, of course, but man do I wish you weren't.
As do I. It is challenging not to be constantly filled with rage. I don't know how any system of government works if those with power don't show restraint. That's supposedly much of how this country was founded: a system of laws that put checks on the most powerful.
This is why big American technology monopolists are being all shockedpikachu.jpg right now after the DMA was instituted in Europe. They think they can maliciously comply with the letter of the law and not have the EU come after them for violating the spirit of the law. We have a strong culture of "haha, the law only says this, so I can circumvent it and fuck people over by finding the corner case," which simply doesn't fly elsewhere.
US justices are very inconsistent and like to pick and choose between strict textual interpretations of law and pulling out a dusty 200-year-old dictionary and speculating on the intent of dead oligarchs, depending on what suits the interest of modern oligarchs.
Not every big company is trying to skirt DMA. Restricting your database to only some parts of the company is a difficult problem to solve on a technical and organizational level. Apple's malicious compliance has been particularly egregious though with their sideloading fees and region locking.
I think it’s good to charge them since that aligns incentives. The state-wide law in Oregon preventing this seems like a bad thing.
But your take on how incentives work seems a bit reductive? Businesses aren’t all the same. Cutting costs isn’t everything - another way to make money is to provide better service, resulting in a better reputation. Customers will often accept higher prices if they feel like they’re getting something. Though, that tends to be more true for businesses serving people wealthier people.
With senior homes, there's immense stickiness of service provider. Once you're locked in, the cost to change/move is huge. So it doesn't really matter if the people living there aren't happy, as long as they're not sufficiently unhappy so as to uproot their entire living/social situation.
That’s true, but there is turnover when people need to go into a nursing home. They still need to attract new customers.
Sometimes people put off moving to assisted living longer than maybe they should, so they don’t stay for that long.
Oh believe me. I'm familiar with the turnover rates. But we're specifically talking about something that the senior facilities do to save money that the current residents are embarrassed by. Who are they going to tell? The new people who might be their neighbors soon? Their families? Shame is powerful, and at its worst when it means that someone can keep making money off of the ashamed.
Stories like this one do help to get the word out, somewhat. The relatives of people who are there will talk, so maybe there’s some word of mouth?
More could probably be done to get the word out about specific facilities.
(Charging the companies seems like a more immediate solution, though.)
What's super sad is many of these folks have no one to care for them. Kids and grandkids live far away in other cities, other states. In some cases, family will just dump these poor people in a facility and then only visit on holidays, if at all.
These businesses know this and use it to their advantage.
I don’t have any experience with assisted living facilities, but in my experience, frequent video chats can help a lot with older relatives who live far away. Highly recommended.
I wonder how much they’re set up for that, though? Everything gets harder as people get older.
So many people responding with variations of "it's immoral".
I think it is important -- in fact, utterly critical -- to understand this is literally a form of Darwinian evolution at work here.
If you are a business owner of a senior care facility like this, and you do not "take advantage" of this, while other business owners do -- *** then you go out of business *** and eventually, the only businesses left are the ones that are immoral enough to do this.
Extrapolate this out to, pretty much, every single business on Earth, and you begin to see why Capitalism is becoming a problem.
Edit: In fact, extrapolate it out to any social system that seems to be full of bad actors ... "all politicians are crooks" ... "all lawyers are scumbags" ... "all cops are bastards" ... look to the rules of the system that apparently favor the bad actors, and change the rules.
This does not excuse the bad behavior. Bad cops are bad cops, but there are also good people who want to be cops to help people ... and somehow, the process of becoming a cop either teaches them to be bad, or convinces them that selling their soul for this career isn't worth it, and they become social workers (or whatever) instead.
As someone who had a loved one in a care facility, this is status quo almost everywhere. (in the US) Wall of text upcoming.
The staff are underpaid and often deal with understaffing. The charges to residents are criminal. There is no way overhead for independent living is much above normal rent, yet they charge residents 2-4 x market rate for a similar unit with utilities included. Part of the scam is they bundle in a certain number of meals. They are usually not creative, tasty, or in some cases very nutritious. My MIL never ate a single meal over several years, yet was always charged the full rate which was non negotiable. Considering how difficult it is to get in to a decent place, they have you by the short hairs amd they know it.
Assisted living is worse. They don't really itemize out costs well, and again bundle services to make it deliberately confusing. Unless the resident has family nearby to make sure proper care is happening in a reasonable and timely manner, things slip through the cracks. Meds not being taken on the correct schedule, incontinent individuals not be cared for with assists and/or changes of Depends, etc. Then there are thefts by staff and other residents, sexual assault which are far more common than one would think. Staffers all have access to keys, so there's little feelings of privacy or safety in many cases. The 911 lifts that are in the article happen alot in AL. They are supppsed to be documented. I assure you this documentation is for the facility so they can move you out if necessary.
Move up to memory care and this all becomes more complicated. There is supposed to be a better staff to patient ratio. Again, understaffing and crappy pay play a part. These residents need far mlre care, are given far less space in general. Think small hospital room. They are forced into group settings. Again costs have risen and many are on Medicaid. If the facility decides you have exhausted your funds (pension, 401k, savings) and they don't take government funds, good luck. These facilities are cold and profit driven, so you are now out of care and a roof over your head. It never got to that point with my FIL, instead, they left him unattended in his wheelchair in his room (against orders) He tried to stand up, fell, and died in the hospital a week later from a broken hip. They family sued and got a pittance. Far less than the facility mafe off my in laws several years there. Lawsuits are baked into their business costs.
So yeah, they will continue to use and abuse this public service until something changes. EMTs are right to be upset about these calls. Staff should be trained to pick up fallen patients/residents. The facility staff should be paid accordingly, there should be proper staffing. But money and profits are more important. If these facilities have to fill out more paperwork and get dinged for non essential calls it might have an impact, but then there might be that chance that the resident needed medical care that staff cannot handle. In that case the EMTs are exactly the right move. It's a hard issue to solve.
From the article:
…
…
…
…
…
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/G8QSW