A lot of the focus of the media and medical experts during the pandemic has been on the impact of COVID-19 on the elderly who live in care homes.
The residents and employees of long-term care facilities live and work in very confined spaces, increasing the risk of infecting each other. Malta’s care homes appear to have largely managed that risk quite well. But coronavirus is affecting the homes in other ways too.
Times of Malta ran a story on Sunday about the financial impact of the pandemic on private and Church-run residential facilities for the elderly. The management of these facilities confirm that their expenses have increased by about 40 per cent.
They have had to pay staff for overtime work, create conditions for them to live on the premises, and have had to foot the bill for cleaning more thoroughly, according to the instructions of epidemic experts. These increased expenses, which may continue to be incurred well into the future, combined with lost revenue from falling numbers of new residents, have made the future of these care homes more uncertain.
The management of these facilities are more than justified to highlight their predicament, even if no one should expect to receive a blank cheque from taxpayers’ accounts.
Private care homes have their business models, and like any other businesses, they take risks in the hope of earning a profit. This concept is perfectly acceptable. Church-run homes, on the other hand, are not-for-profit organisations and depend on the contribution of the Church and voluntary donations to keep running.
The pandemic crisis has strained the cash flow of these non-government care homes to the extent that public support now appears to be needed for them to continue providing this critical health infrastructure to the community.
Our politicians occasionally tell us that Malta has an ageing population. Now is the time for them to properly address this challenge for the long term.
Government support for privately-run care homes should be two-pronged. The first line of assistance should be immediate cash flow injections to ensure day-to-day operations are not curtailed. When this crisis abates, the government should then engage with private and voluntary operators to strengthen their health infrastructure.
Public financial support has to be linked to improvements in the human and physical resources on which the homes of the elderly depend.
Carers for the elderly are often underpaid, inadequately trained and enjoy little job security. In this crisis, care home workers, like other medical professionals, have suffered great physical and psychological stress as they often struggled to cope.
They must be assured of full support from their employers going forward.
Some homes will also need to employ clinical psychologists on a more permanent basis to help residents cope with the mental health challenges brought about by isolation.
Investment in the physical infrastructure of care homes will also become inevitable soon.
Care homes, for example, will need to have separate units for residents who need to be isolated because of some infectious disease.
Long-term government support for privately-run care homes must also be linked to improvements in the business model used by the managers of these facilities. The same criteria should apply for homes run by the Church.
We are sadly getting used to defining older people by their health conditions. This attitude does not make us a caring society.