Last week the nation's paper of record the New York Times ran an interesting front page piece exploring the homecare marketplace and the pros and cons of using so-called "full service" agencies versus hired friend and neighbors - what the Times labeled "gray market" freelance workers.
New Options (and Risks) in Home Care for Elderly took what I believe were a few unfair shots at agency offerings, including suggesting (in the words of one expert) that agencies offer little distinction over self-hireds, except for the ability to conduct criminal background checks. (Not true: Agencies not only screen, but they train, closely supervise, support, provide back-up and benefits to their aides.)
Worth pondering is the fact that demand for home-based help - of either type - is bound to exceed demand as the baby boomer bubble moves to the "elder" stage. The NY Times reports that home health aide wages nationally average $9.34 an hour; but here in Massachusetts our own wage and salary survey data indicate that the average hourly wage now exceeds $12.00. Still not a lot - but at least we are trying, with the resources we have to improve wages, and working conditions.
This could easily turn into a rant about how society in general undervalues the services of certain sectors (homecare workers, teachers, social workers) while excessively rewarding others (athletes, entertainers); but that's been done; and its dull, boring and unalterable.
So.. the question is posed: what do consumers value in a home care transaction? Agency directed care vs. self hired? Have you tried either? Both? And where will needed new workers come from?
The New Yorks Times just scratched the surface of this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment