Studies show that on average, “for profit” senior facilities in comparison to “non-profit” and publicly owned, provide the worst quality of care. Why? The answer is contained within a report published by the journal PLOS Medicine.
For-profit facilities direct their excess revenue to the owners and stockholders, whereas non-profit and publicly owned net income is used to benefit their clients. For profit tend to have lower costs and lower client to staff ratios because money diverted to investors, leaves less money to pay for staff. The number of serious deficiencies reported by regulatory inspectors was much higher in the facilities with the largest degree of profit which suggests an “inverse effect of profit on quality”.
Has our gov. aware of these facts, implemented a strict system of monitoring to ensure that our seniors are protected from neglect due to the favor of profit? No.
The recommendation by the Ombudsman to apply fines and penalties to ensure compliance was completely rejected by the Health Ministry. The Ministry is so set against enforcement that instead, the Health Authorities apply the system of “progressive compliance”. This allows for operators to commit multiple infractions with no more consequences than verbal and written warnings. The gov. has tried to explain this by saying that the only other recourse is to shut the facility down which would be too much of a hardship on the residents. They failed to mention the one consequence allowed within progressive compliance that could improve the quality of care. That is the appointment of a gov. administrator that attends the facility to implement the required procedures to bring them into compliance. This consequence is very rarely applied. Why? Because this gov. is catering to the corporations that are in the profitable business of neglecting our seniors.
Judy Galley
