Caregiving is hot – but practicality is not. The letters to the editor in today’s WSJ print edition were on point following Ezekiel Emanuel’s May 3 article about the Independence at Home program. The article described care in the home provided for an 87-year-old diabetic, post-stroke, oxygen dependent woman receiving six hours of daily home care, supposedly more than she would receive in a nursing home. One doctor observed: “What happens at the seventh hour when she needs help in transferring, falls from her wheelchair or when her blood sugars go out of control?” What happens indeed? And the next letter: "The backbone of home care remains 'Low-paid, low-skill home service workers who cook, clean, bathe and help clients around their home.' And the process for overseeing this industry of workers who help the neediest elderly – actually it’s not much of a process at all. And the distinction in the media between private duty non-medical home care, home health care, geriatric care management, or hospice care in the home? Not much.
AARP/Catalyst study from 2016 matches results from the past. Assume you can get past the demographics of the AARP Catalyst study -- which were well-described, but vague about the characteristics of the care recipient. "More than three-quarters say they are interested in technology that helps them check on or monitor a loved one. Available technologies are in use by only 10% of caregivers. Caregivers say these technologies, while attractive in principle, are too costly and complex, and therefore not worth the investment of time and money." Haven't we heard this before? Remember Caregiving in the US, 2009, when interest in technology was also 'high'? In the Catalyst study, current use rates were low: 71% said they they were interested in using technology, only 7% of caregivers are already using or have used technology available in the market. Greatest interest noted? Technology for requesting and ordering a prescriptionnrefill/pickup.
