Eldercare In The United States: Inadequate, Inequitable, But Not A Lost Cause
Eldercare, like other forms of care work, is often taken for granted and undervalued. The burdens as well as the failures of providing care for the elderly are often borne disproportionately by women. This paper documents inequality of access and low quality of care for the elderly in the United States. It argues that public funds used to subsidize nursing homes are poorly spent and that profit-maximizing competition in the nursing home industry adversely affects the quality of care provided. In seeking to address these problems, policy-makers can learn important lessons from several different sources. The experiences of several European countries, current regulatory efforts in the state of Massachusetts, and more decentralized volunteer efforts to promote humane visions of eldercare all offer some hope for the future.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 11 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RFEC20|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Geoff Schneider & Jean Shackelford, 2001. "Economics Standards and Lists: Proposed Antidotes for Feminist Economists," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 77-89.
- Wilson, Randall & Eaton, Susan C. & Kamanu, Amara, 2003. "Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative (ECCLI) Round 2: Evaluation Report," Working Paper Series rwp03-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:11:y:2005:i:2:p:37-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.