Aging, ageism

Voice tech is pervasive – for some, but hardware market adoption may be slowing.  At the end of April, ninety million US adults were estimated to own smart speakers, one-third of consumers.  The last published eMarketer survey in 2019 sized the software voice assistant market  (Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa et al.) as penetrating one third of the US population – 111.8 million.  But according to a late 2019 AARP survey, only 20% of the 50+ population use voice assistants – and for the 70+, only 12%.  For those that have them, they are being used daily.  What’s holding the others back?  Typically, as in this podcast from 'This Week in Voice' about Aging in Place, one hears the concerns about security and privacy, no doubt because older people have expressed those concerns.   Note that 51% of 5000 responders in this 2020 global marketing survey worry about voice assistants listening to them without their consent. Also note that the survey extended to boomers (those aged 56 to 74) who apparently cared less than younger people.

Is sixty-five the new eighty-five – and is ageism trendy?  Note the interesting behavior of ‘leaders’ during the time of Covid-19.  Consider the EU guidance: "The chief of the European Union's executive has warned the block's elderly that they may have to stay in lockdown till 2021 due to the new coronavirus." And in California, as seniors use more technology to communicate with others, the executive director of the Village Movement California, Charlotte Dickson, observed that EU guidance is consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom’s thinking for California and his March 15 order telling the 65+ to isolate at home: "You’re basically disappearing almost 30% of the state of California, and ageism is all about disappearing people … once you retire, you’re done. If seniors are being asked to continue physical distancing for the better part of the next year or two, divisions between generations may calcify."

Nursing homes – consternation, condemnation are words that rule the day. Rant on. It must be tough to be focal points for nursing home policy these days. Even as a task force is being set up to focus on nursing homes, on the one hand, that seems positive. On the other hand, Leading Age CEO was 'enraged' about shortages of PPE.  And seniors (AARP) who are most likely NOT in nursing homes, demand that workers have adequate PPE, that the public be notified which nursing homes have cases of Covid-19, workers are striking at nursing homes, and so on. Go back to 2019, for just a moment. What were the top issues early in the year?  "Challenges facing nursing homes serving primarily long-stay residents covered by Medicaid; workforce challenges, which are unlikely to dissipate; nursing home regulations; and the growing popularity of Medicare Advantage."

The title should not surprise. The month of April had only one subject – no matter where you looked or what you read. Covid-19 and its impact and implications, starting early in the month following event cancellations, travel bans and stampedes, telehealth insurance changes and senior living visitation lockdowns. That was followed by a collection of companies offering free services for use of their technologies in the context of an increasingly isolated older adult population in senior living communities, nursing homes and at home. But it was a conundrum: so many of those older adults lacked access to or knowledge of technology, let alone the ability to acquire it, learn how to use it or participate in family Zoom sessions. In case you missed them, here are five Covid-19 blog posts from an April that was unlike any other:

AARP recently published several new reports -- all worth a read.  Rant on. The survey reports, about the 50+ gamers and 50+ tech trends, each identify an age band of the 70+, something AARP began a few years ago and kudos to them, that banding continues among some of their research reports.  Not so the Longevity Economy Outlook, which lumps the wealth of the population for those aged 50-100, but no breakout was offered about the spending potential for the population at the higher end of the age bands. From an economic standpoint -- what will they (or their families) spend money on, how is their health, what is the cost of their care, where do they live? Who knows?