Grant funding should support programs that already help seniors
Saturday’s front page article (“Dartmouth gets millions to study access for seniors,” Aug. 28) is a perfect example of lighthearted jokes that two physician acquaintances of mine occasionally text/share — the chuckle being “Can you believe they’re getting money for THIS?!”
Maybe it’s because I’m a little foggy after five days of cyclosporiasis and its requisite unbalanced diet of recommended bland, nutrient depleted food, but I guess I missed the significance of the study, especially when Clare Shanahan goes on to delineate most major obstacles faced by rural seniors: access to healthcare; transportation; weather; finances; internet access — in addition to obstacles even “urban” seniors face: cognitive challenges; sensory deficiencies; comorbidities; and loneliness/depression, among others.
Well into the article, hope was sparked by mentioning Geisel’s new “project” to provide seniors with home-based physical therapy to save them trips to Lebanon medical facilities. But alas, hope was dashed by the following two examples, both pertaining to studying problems, rather than putting programs into place.
In truth, these problems have been discussed ad nauseum. I would suggest a call to Senior Solutions, Bugbee Senior Center, and/or community nurses (to name a few) — and then spend that money to help fund the programs.
One last thought, perhaps the grant application was written “pre-AI.” Try that. Golly, if AI can provide me a cyclosporiasis care plan with a recommended antibiotic, diet, and modified activities for rehab in a matter of seconds, I’m thinking it can as easily discern healthcare problems and solutions for rural seniors as quickly, and for free.