The author of this opinion piece is Ken Gordon, the executive director of the Area Agency on Aging for Northeastern Vermont.
Vermont lawmakers face difficult choices in the weeks ahead as they finish work on the state’s budget for next year. Another round of belt-tightening will be required in order to make ends meet. All of us will need to step up and do our part to help one another make it through this difficult time.
Most older Vermonters have “stepped up” more than once over the course of their lives to help a neighbor and will gladly do so again. That said, it’s important that we consider the plight of frail older adults when budget cuts are made. Let’s not pull the rug from beneath the very people who have made possible the quality of life that we enjoy today.
Without question, these cuts will force many seniors who are now living in the community to leave their homes. For most, the likely alternative is a nursing home where costs average nearly $70,000 a year. In short order, most people quickly exhaust their savings and become dependent upon the state for the cost of their care.
Gov. Jim Douglas has proposed a series of cuts that will eliminate many of the services that allow our elders to remain in their homes. His budget recommends across the board cuts that will affect Meals-on-Wheels programs, transportation, support for family caregivers, home health nursing, adult day programs and more.
Without question, these cuts will force many seniors who are now living in the community to leave their homes. For most, the likely alternative is a nursing home where costs average nearly $70,000 a year. In short order, most people quickly exhaust their savings and become dependent upon the state for the cost of their care.
Not only is this scenario more costly to the state, it flies in the face of what older Vermonters tell us about the kind of help they want. Few, if any, seniors wish to leave their homes for institutional care, and nearly all them tell us that they want to remain in control of their lives while relying on as few supportive services as possible.
The governor knows this. In 2006, Douglas said, “This is an option that is desired by Vermonters and saves the state money because community services cost less than institutional services. Saving money on nursing home services has enabled the state to reinvest those savings into serving more people.” It was true then; it remains true today.
Sadly, the governor’s budget abandons this cost-effective practice and returns us to a time of several decades ago when nursing home placement was virtually the only alternative for frail seniors.
The budget cuts proposed by the governor create only the appearance of cost savings. In reality, these cuts generate additional expense that will be borne by every Vermont taxpayer. Most experts agree that the cost of providing care for frail individuals in their homes is roughly half that of nursing home care.
Other states facing similar challenges have responded by investing more, rather than less, in home and community-based services as a strategy to both save money and serve older adults in the settings they prefer.
In Ohio, Gov. Ted Strickland recently decided to eliminate the waiting list for a program that helps frail Ohio residents avoid institutional placement. He transferred state funds that had been set aside to support the nursing home industry there. Vermonters would be wise to look to this example for its clarity and long range vision.
But there is a moral question involved here, too. Most older Vermonters have paid taxes and contributed to their communities throughout their entire adult lives without asking for help. Is it just and fair to eliminate the very services that these individuals have helped to make possible, at a time in their lives when they need a small amount of support in order to remain independent?
They deserve better. We can do better. Lawmakers should work to preserve home and community-based services for older adults. It’s the right thing to do.
This governor is a slave to ideology and exhibits no compassion and little common sense. The continuing calls to “do more with less”, “live within our means”, and “make tough choices”, are hollow in the face of his absolute refusal to ask more of the wealthy.
Sadly, the legislature appears unwilling to do so either.
As Mr. Gordon said, it is indeed a moral question. What does this say about our values? Are these the lessons we want to teach children? It’s really quite sad.
Doug, I couldn’t agree more.
The governor is also canny and wants to benefit his rich patrons before he leaves office. He wants to squeeze everything that he can out of us so that his wealthy friends can get even richer. Ever since Ronald Reagan, it has been to transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest, from the most vulnerable to the least vulnerable. That has been the whole aim of the gop, of our government, to take from the poor and give to the rich.
It is still odd, though, that Shap, who beat Douglas twice last year, seems to be going along with it so far.
America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is land of the corporate, home of the exploited. Vermont is not freedom and unity if you are below Douglas’s class.