1. An important portion of the findings were left out of this article summary. When the researchers adjusted the data for the frailty of the AL population, they found that the AL population had *less* unmet needs than those not living in AL. Bottom line, and perhaps most important, the frail population living both inside and outside an AL setting have unmet needs related to ADLs, and we need to focus on how we can continue to address their needs, whether they are living at home or in an AL setting.

    From the NY Times summary:
    When the researchers controlled for those variables, the differences in unmet needs pretty much evaporated. That is, people in senior housing and in assisted living didn’t report significantly more unmet needs or negative consequences, over all, than those living in their own homes.

    In fact, after those adjustments, people in assisted living were less likely than community dwellers to have negative consequences like not going outdoors, not moving around indoors, not getting dressed or managing medications.

    “They’re less likely to have unmet needs,” Dr. Freedman said. “Someone is helping them.”

  2. This article by Emily Study ends with a completely opposite conclusion than the Paula Span article. Did she not read to the end of Paula's article?

  3. The article spends 12 (of 18 paragraphs) implying residents in AL have more unmet needs, however in the last five paragraphs points out that, adjusted for acuity, they actually have fewer unmet needs. Not a well done article by the NYT, and anyone with an interest should comment on its site to point out this misrepresentation.