Fears that provisions in a coronavirus-related relief action by the US government could have severely curtailed the workforce in senior assisted living, independent living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities provide a cautionary tale. The bill, HR 6201, is a multi-billion dollar aid package known as Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The bill has recently been signed into law by the US President. Influential leaders, CEOs, and corporate Presidents in the senior care and housing industry addressed facility workforce concerns directly to the House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) before the passing of H.R.6201.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Law expands unemployment and Medicaid benefits, provides for free coronavirus testing, and mandates paid sick leave and childcare. Now that schools have closed throughout the country for an indefinite time, the fear is that many senior care workers will, unsurprisingly, put their family before their healthcare worker employment. A reprieve of sorts was added before the law being enacted, which states that only certain employees can qualify for paid sick leave.  Because of these loopholes, healthcare workers like first responders, and hospital and nursing home staff are ineligible for paid sick leave per the Families First Coronavirus Response Law (FFCRL) amid fears of staffing shortages among medical providers.

Healthcare worker exemption from some FFCRL benefits is a relief to the senior housing industry but by no means mitigates other workforce challenges during the coronavirus pandemic. The pervasiveness of this contagion means that healthcare workers will be exposed to, and some will fall ill with full-blown coronavirus symptoms and illness. Obviously, in these cases, the healthcare worker will be removed from the senior living facility for quarantine and recovery and to protect the facility’s residents and staff. One coronavirus confirmed healthcare worker begins a domino effect within a facility. Regular operations become short-staffed, and operators face the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) protocols that co-workers must also face quarantine.

Beyond coronavirus exposure, symptoms, and the diagnosed virus itself, there is the problem of how healthcare workers respond in a pandemic. The non-stop news and social media coverage of the coronavirus has put many Americans on edge, including health care workers. In a crisis, some people respond logically and calmly, while others may become fearful of their own circumstances and respond emotionally. Most healthcare workers would put their own family’s health needs and care before any employment, and in a free society, there is nothing to compel them to stay in a job if they choose to tend first to their own family.

If your loved one is in a senior living facility, what can you do to mitigate the negative consequences of workforce disruption due to the coronavirus? In the short term, if you are able and your senior is well enough, you can put them under your care. Beyond family care, unless you have the resources for private pay at any cost, you, like the rest of us, are in the system and have to wait out the virus and its effects. There is no guarantee moving forward how the coronavirus will play out in senior living communities, America, and around the world.

One of the few things you do have control over is to assure your loved one has proper legal documents for end of life decisions. Take the time to review them to ensure they are in order. A do not resuscitate order (DNR), durable medical power of attorney, and end of life wishes should be on file with your loved ones living facility and the local hospital. Additional legal copies of these documents should remain in your car or on your person in the event a facility is unable to locate the paperwork. Preparing for the worst-case scenario is a harsh reality; however, it could make the difference between chaotic suffering and a peaceful passing.

We can help draft appropriate documents for you and your loved ones. If you have questions or need guidance in your planning or planning for a loved one, please do not hesitate to contact our Cincinnati, Ohio office by calling us at (513) 771-2444.

In family law we deal with clients that are going through probably the worst period of their lives, and do our very best to minimize the damage and help them rebuild healthy productive lives. I joke with my friends in transactional law about how placid their work is compared to mine. “You mean the contract may fall through and X company may not be able to tout their new project by the next annual shareholders meeting? My clients only have the custody of their children at stake, but your client REALLY has it bad” said no one ever. Still, it is important to keep things in perspective. Some of our clients may have the custody of their children at stake, but no matter what happens, they will not be declared criminals and fined should they have more than one child. This article will look at the Chinese policy that has made the news recently because of the Chinese government’s relaxation of what is commonly known as the “One-child policy,” discuss the policy’s controversies and supposed benefits, and outline the changes purportedly being made.

The Policy

Within the People’s Republic of China (not to be confused with the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan), families in a large minority of the population are subject to strict implementation of a law restricting them to only having one child. Families who have twins are not penalized. Families may also apply to have a second child, but are usually only permitted if their first child was a girl or was physically or mentally handicapped. Semi-autonomous regions (such as Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet), as well has foreigners living in China are also immune from the policy, leaving a little over a third of the population subject to strict-implementation. Violators of the policy are subject to a large annual fine, known as the shèhuì fǔyǎngfèi, or social fostering fee, that usually represents a large portion of their income, and the extra child is usually not eligible for any state benefits, including education.

Criticism

Western nations and scholars have generally harshly criticized the policy for a number of reasons. More libertarian countries like the United States across the board find the policy an abhorrent interference with a fundamental right of human beings to procreate. Other criticisms point to the markedly negative effects of the policy, including the considerable sex-based birth rate disparity in the PRC. For every 100 girls born in China, 115-120 boys are born. This is most likely due to selective abortion practices, and allegedly to a lesser extent abandonment, adoptions, and infanticide. Restriction to only one child also arguably exacerbates what some consider to be sexist aspects of conservative interpretations of Confucianism.

Effect

The policy was of course implemented as a result of China’s population boom crisis of the 1960s,70s, and 80s which left the population greatly vulnerable in years of famine,  so vulnerable in fact it was the basis for a wonderfully stereotypical (and probably somewhat racist) gimmick American parents used to use to guilt children into eating their food, which has since fallen out of style (see e.g. the film “A Christmas Story”). Estimates vary greatly as to the effectiveness of the policy, but approximately 100 (according to critics) to 400 (according to the Chinese government) million persons were not born as a result of the policy. The purported benefits of the policy on top of lessoning the possibility of famine include reductions in other problems associated with overpopulation such as the spread of disease, slums, and crime rates. Social services are also not overwhelmed, and families limited to only one child can use the funds that would otherwise be used for the children on things like improving their standard of living, and investment.

Relaxation of the Policy

Chinese officials officially announced this week that Chinese families with at least one parent that is an only child may have a second child themselves. This in effect allows the two youngest adult generations to have two children if their parents in turn honored the policy. Communist party leaders have also indicated their willingness to relax the shèhuì fǔyǎngfèi, but no concrete commitment has been made.

Conclusion

This article has hopefully been more educative than admonishing. I, like probably most Americans find the People’s Republic of China’s family planning laws to be unacceptable restrictions to fundamental human liberties, but then again I grew up in a country with a five times higher per-capita income rate with one quarter of the people within a land mass approximately equal in size. My perspective is somewhat different. However you the reader feel about the realities outlined in this article, always remember that all these problems we have in the First World, are just that, First World problems.