Editor’s note: John G. Perry is vice president of the board of the Northeast Area Agency on Aging.
An open letter to my legislators:
I write today to urge your careful review of the administration’s proposed reduction in funding for Choices for Care, the program that provides for services to frail seniors and their families who receive their care at home, or in residential care homes.
The administration proposes cuts to this funding of some $800,000. The cuts to state funds will create further cuts by the loss of $600,000 in federal funds. This alone strikes me as cutting our nose to spite our face. I mean, I’m all for reducing our dependence on federal taxes, but it would be better, I would think, to cut unleveraged state funds somewhere else, and keep the federal revenue coming in.
Like many attempts to reduce funding, the real impact of these cuts is masked by the mechanism used to achieve them – the money will be “saved” by changing the reimbursement “formula” for home health agencies and the area agency for aging from a pay-as-you-go hourly reimbursement rate to a “flat rate” per month. The shift may make the administration accountants feel better, since it is “only” a change to the “formula” on the spreadsheet, and the math all works out so much better.
However, where the spreadsheet hits the reality of the lives of Vermonters, it isn’t a formula any more. It isn’t a quick calculation in the care for our seniors. The programs being cut are the programs which support seniors who live at home, where they are familiar with the hand-holds on the way to the bathroom, where their family caregivers know the way they like to be tucked in, and their favorite afternoon TV program, and where the Meals on Wheels neighbors can deliver hot, nutritious dinners and check on their mobility at the same time and ask, “How are you doing today?”
The programs being cut are the programs that mean that seniors can live at home. The programs being cut are the programs that bring services to the seniors, where they live. The programs being cut are the home health nurse who makes a visit to the senior in her home on the mountain road in Newark, or at the Colonial Apartments in St. J. The programs being cut are the case manager for the widower who lives on a back road in Barnet, who fell last month and broke his arm, but is home now, and needs help with managing all of his medications. The programs being cut are the investigator who discovers the senior who has been the victim of a phone scam and is on the verge of sending his Social Security check to a crook who is impersonating his grandson.
But it is beyond pound-foolish to make cuts in programs which help folks stay in their homes, keep their dignity and maintain their independence. The few dollars “saved” will result in millions more in spending for the result: more seniors in nursing homes, longer stays in hospitals, more failures of health by seniors who live at home but don’t get checked on, and “don’t want to bother” their doctor with a question about whether to take the Quinipril or just aspirin when they are feeling dizzy.
This is not simply a matter of services for poor people.
This is a matter of building a future for Vermont, with a growing population of seniors, who like every one of us on the planet, is getting older. It is a matter of deciding now, not later, that we want to age in a community which cares about us, and in which we can trust our neighbors to help when we need help, and leave us alone when we are doing just fine.
Thanks for your help.
