Los Angeles Times: Higher costs could be unintended consequence of deep cuts

[marmar]

Higher costs could be unintended consequence of deep cuts
Eliminating home care, adult day care and other state services is likely to push recipients into more expensive programs, experts say.

By Michael Rothfeld and Evan Halper
July 19, 2009


Reporting from Sacramento -- Irene Steinlage has trouble walking, getting dressed, making her bed, taking a bath. She has stayed in her Folsom home with the help of a health aide, one that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the state can no longer afford.

The governor's plan to take away such care is meant to save money. But it could end up costing California more by forcing the 85-year-old, who has Parkinson's, osteoporosis and other ailments -- and thousands like her -- into nursing homes.

"I couldn't possibly afford a nursing home," Steinlage said. So the state could be saddled with a Medi-Cal tab that is triple the cost of her home care worker, who receives $10.40 an hour five days a week.

As the governor and legislative leaders race to cut programs to plug a $26.3-billion deficit, advocates and experts say that eliminating some services will push people who rely on them into costlier alternatives.

It is a matter of constant debate in budget negotiations: Do those costs ultimately leave the public paying more than they would if taxes were raised to keep the services intact? ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cuts19-2009jul19,0,5553190.story

[Delphinus]

1. United Senior Action,

at least here in Indiana, has been saying this for years - it's cheaper to let folks stay at home with health aides than sending them to a nursing home.

[madrchsod]

2. same thing is happening in Illinois

at this time our cuts are not as severe as california`s. if the state does`t pass a tax increase this fall our cuts will be just as bad as california`s.

[GoesTo11]

3. Who could have predicted this?

Oh, the irony.

[haele]

4. Didn't Irene get the message?

She was supposed to save for her old age. Or make sure her kids would be there to take care of her in her old age. Or just die before she became expensive.
What did she expect? Spending most of her life working to raise children and take care of a family, as well as possibly holding down a job and being a contributing member of the community "entitled" her to some sort of special consideration when she became too old or sick to work and her children unable to care for her because they themselves are stretched to the economic limit?

So says the people I know who claim that they're the only ones who are "working hard" so they don't become a burden on the taxpayer when they retire (early, of course) with the millions they are supposedly uniquely entitled to because of their moral stature and special patriotic position in society.

Haele