3 ms·

$50,000 / year * 5 care takers at a time * 3 shifts * 2 (staff, food service, laundry, billing, social services, etc.) * 1.2 (employers part of taxes)

$50,000 / year * 5 care takers at a time * 3 shifts * 2 (staff, food service, laundry, billing, social services, etc.) * 1.2 (employers part of taxes) ------ $18,000,000 / year ÷ 20 patients ------ $90,000 / year ÷ 12 months year ------ $7,500 / month That's just in labor/staff costs, let alone the fact that this is a highly regulated medical establishment. Edit/correction - thanks subtra3t!

subtra3t 3y ago
I think at the last stage you meant to write month and not year.
pyb 3y ago
This. Night shift is probably fewer than 5 staff, but even then, 24 hour care is not cheap.
solardev 3y ago
Would it be cheaper just to hire someone to be a full time, live in caretaker for them?
- OnACoffeeBreak 3y ago
  My partner does at-home one-on-one care for people with dementia. No degree. No qualifications other than she really cares and is amazing at it. $25 an hour cash (no taxes). 24-hour care, that comes out to over $18k per month.
  - lastofus 3y ago
    Not judging here, but that’s some serious consequence tax fraud if caught.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - p1esk 3y ago
    Somehow I think if the standard salary for this kind of work is 50k/year (~4k/mo), it shouldn’t be too hard to find people willing to do it for double that (8k/mo) especially if it means living rent free.
- toast0 3y ago
  If you need 24/7 coverage, that's a job for 4 people. And you need someone to coordinate and hire (probably a service).
toast0 3y ago
You can't cover three shifts 7 days a week with three groups of people, unless there's a lot of overtime; that's 56 hours per person. Four groups of people covering a week is 42 hours per person, which you can either take the overtime, adjust individual shift start /stop to manage (assuming you don't need exactly 5 staff on duty at all times), or have managers provide coverage.
- p1esk 3y ago
  Do you really need 24 hour coverage? Are these patients really such a danger to themselves or others that you have to keep an eye on them at all times day and night? It seems to me that even 4 hour a day care would already result in a huge quality of life improvement over no care at all.
  - toast0 3y ago
    At a live in senior home facility? Almost certainly. At a memory care facility, even more so; some of these patients can't sleep normal hours, and they can do some pretty disruptive stuff in general. Does it need to be the same staffing at night and during the day, probably not. For seniors that are generally independent or cared for by family? 4 hours of care could be plenty, sure.
  - muzani 3y ago
    It's usually not all but there's an outlier in there somewhere. Many are critically ill. Some are on dialysis. Many are sick and yet refuse to take their medicine, and yet insist on doing heavy labor. There's also some who can't go to the bathroom without help. These aren't dangerous, but they require a lot of attention. There's dementia. There's people who poop on the ground then sort their shit. But many overlap with the above - the ones who can't move about pick up all kinds of illnesses. Pills for both mental health and physical health damage the organs, and so on. We do see them cutting costs where possible, but nobody can do this on their own in a shift. An old lady who has fallen off her bed can be carried by 1-2 strong people with the right technique, but you still have the others. There's also the question of nobody wanting to do so. We interviewed a bunch of maids to see if they'd take care of the elderly, and nearly all rated it as their last option, compared to watching kids, cleaning cat litter, cooking, etc. There's the legal liability of being the caretaker of a paying customer who's at death's door. Many of the people who leave them there do not care about them, won't even visit them during holidays, they're just paying someone else to watch them die.

subtra3t 3y ago

I think at the last stage you meant to write month and not year.

pyb 3y ago

This. Night shift is probably fewer than 5 staff, but even then, 24 hour care is not cheap.

solardev 3y ago

Would it be cheaper just to hire someone to be a full time, live in caretaker for them?

OnACoffeeBreak 3y ago
My partner does at-home one-on-one care for people with dementia. No degree. No qualifications other than she really cares and is amazing at it. $25 an hour cash (no taxes). 24-hour care, that comes out to over $18k per month.
- lastofus 3y ago
  Not judging here, but that’s some serious consequence tax fraud if caught.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- p1esk 3y ago
  Somehow I think if the standard salary for this kind of work is 50k/year (~4k/mo), it shouldn’t be too hard to find people willing to do it for double that (8k/mo) especially if it means living rent free.
toast0 3y ago
If you need 24/7 coverage, that's a job for 4 people. And you need someone to coordinate and hire (probably a service).

toast0 3y ago

You can't cover three shifts 7 days a week with three groups of people, unless there's a lot of overtime; that's 56 hours per person. Four groups of people covering a week is 42 hours per person, which you can either take the overtime, adjust individual shift start /stop to manage (assuming you don't need exactly 5 staff on duty at all times), or have managers provide coverage.

p1esk 3y ago
Do you really need 24 hour coverage? Are these patients really such a danger to themselves or others that you have to keep an eye on them at all times day and night? It seems to me that even 4 hour a day care would already result in a huge quality of life improvement over no care at all.
- toast0 3y ago
  At a live in senior home facility? Almost certainly. At a memory care facility, even more so; some of these patients can't sleep normal hours, and they can do some pretty disruptive stuff in general. Does it need to be the same staffing at night and during the day, probably not. For seniors that are generally independent or cared for by family? 4 hours of care could be plenty, sure.
- muzani 3y ago
  It's usually not all but there's an outlier in there somewhere. Many are critically ill. Some are on dialysis. Many are sick and yet refuse to take their medicine, and yet insist on doing heavy labor. There's also some who can't go to the bathroom without help. These aren't dangerous, but they require a lot of attention. There's dementia. There's people who poop on the ground then sort their shit. But many overlap with the above - the ones who can't move about pick up all kinds of illnesses. Pills for both mental health and physical health damage the organs, and so on. We do see them cutting costs where possible, but nobody can do this on their own in a shift. An old lady who has fallen off her bed can be carried by 1-2 strong people with the right technique, but you still have the others. There's also the question of nobody wanting to do so. We interviewed a bunch of maids to see if they'd take care of the elderly, and nearly all rated it as their last option, compared to watching kids, cleaning cat litter, cooking, etc. There's the legal liability of being the caretaker of a paying customer who's at death's door. Many of the people who leave them there do not care about them, won't even visit them during holidays, they're just paying someone else to watch them die.