Skip to main content

Long-term care beds falling well short of need

The Auditor General reports that the stock of long-term care beds in Ontario has grown only 3% since 2004-5.  Over seven years (until 2011-12) that means an annual average growth rate of  0.42% (or about 319 beds per year).

Photo: Derek Tyson
That falls well short of population growth.  But much more important, it falls far short of the growth of the relevant population - the elderly.  Or as the Auditor General demurely states:  "An increase in the number of LTC home beds of 3% during that period has not kept pace with the rising demand from an aging population."

Ontario Ministry of Finance figures indicate that in the five years between 2006 and 2011 the number of people 85 and over increased 34%.  By 2016 the plus 85 set will have increased by 67% over 2006 -- and the ratio of those 90 and over compared to those between 85 and 90 will have increased from about 50% to 70%.

With a 1.5% annual increase in the number of LTC beds, the Conference Board estimates Ontario would be 127,000 beds short of need by 2035.  

But to fall "only" 127,000 beds short of need, we would have to increase the number of new LTC beds by more than three times the current rate!

The Liberal government constantly talks of dealing with these sort of problems by moving resources from "institutions" to home and community care -- and unfortunately the media has too often innocently bought this line as a panacea.  But the sorts of demographic changes we are facing swamp any such wishful thinking.  Home care can and should be  expanded -- but it can't completely offset  the increasing need for long-term care and hospital services.   

What makes this all the more vexing is that the 'increased' home care funding the government brags about hardly offsets the impact on existing home care services for population growth, inflation, and aging -- never mind making up for the real squeeze on hospital and long-term care services. 

Notably, we are beginning to see sharper measures to curtail the use of long-term care by the government.  The Auditor General notes that the government reduced the wait list for LTC in 2010 by redefining who is eligible for it. There are also reports of hospitals refusing to discuss LTC options with patients or fill in application forms.  

As public home care services are inadequate, the squeeze on LTC will force more elderly people to pay for their own private care, through private retirement homes or private home care.  Paying for private long-term care in the home or in facilities is an unaffordable business for individuals (that's why we have a public insurance system). Some won't be able to afford any such care and many others will be challenged to make do with inadequate care.  

Increased need for more volunteer assistance from family members (especially women) is going to happen too.  

Popular posts from this blog

Deficit? Public spending ain't the cause. Revenue, however...

With the election over, pressure to cut public programs has become quite intense. In almost all of the corporate owned media someone is barking on about it.

Another option -- increasing revenue from corporations and the wealthy is not mentioned.  However, data clearly indicates that Ontario does not have an overspending problem compared to the other provinces.

Instead, it indicates Ontario has very low revenue. 
Ontario has the lowest public spending of all the provinces on a per capita basis (see the chart from the 2014 Ontario Budget below).  So there is little reason to suspect that we have an over-spending problem.  If anything, this suggests we have an under-spending problem.

The Ontario government has also now reported in the 2014 Budget that Ontario has the lowest revenue per capita of any province.  This is particularly notable as other provinces are quite a bit poorer than Ontario and therefore have a much more limited ability to pay for public spending.  (Also notable in this…

Budget underwhelms on health care. Bait and Switch is such a nasty term

Last year the government promised a 4.64% health care funding increase in 2018/19. Then, earlier this month, they announced they would deficit spend to improve hospitals, mental health, home care, and child care.   Three of the four items cited by the government for improvement were part of health care. 

As it turned out the government did in fact promise in today's Budget to deficit spend $6.7 billion. (Due to a $1 billion fall in expected revenue, the extra spend amounts only to an extra $5.7 billion for 2018/19 programs – but that is still a significant chunk of new found cash for program spending.)  
If health care had gotten even a proportionate share of this new $5.7 billion in program spending, it would have added an additional $2.4 billion to health care  --  in other words about another 4% increase.  

But all health care got -- despite the government’s health care rhetoric -- was an extra $284 million. That may sound like a lot but with a total health care spend of $61 bill…

Ford government promise falls far short of solving hospital hallway medicine problem

Tens of thousands of new Long-Term Care (LTC) beds needed just to offset aging
The new Progressive Conservative government in Ontario has promised 30,000 new long-term care beds over the next ten years, often connecting this to their promise to end hospital hallway medicine.  But how does this promise stack up with growing demand for these facilities?
Most people 85 and older live in collective dwellings (LTC facilities, seniors residences, multiple level of care facilities).  The setting with the largest number of elders 85 and older is LTC facilities, with about 35% of the population 85 to 89  years old and almost 40% of the population 90 to 94 years. Older people are even more likely to be in a LTC facility.
The population 85 and older is the main driver of the need for long-term care beds.
An additional thirty thousand LTC beds by 2028 will only partially offset the rapid growth in the 85+ population.  The ministry of finance projects 42.5% growth in the most relevant population (85 a…