Older adults are often victims of negative stereotypes stemming from unfavorable cultural and socioeconomic attitudes. Nowadays, ageism is recognized as one of the most prevalent and socially ingrained types of prejudice in America. It entails systematic discrimination against individuals based on age (elderly or younger people). Notably, negative ageist attitudes are manifested in stereotypical behaviors at a personal level and discriminatory institutional policies and practices that sustain inequities between groups. Ageism also increases the risk of mental and physical decline in the victims. Therefore, combating this vice to prevent its harmful effects and benefit the affected groups and society is a priority.
Healthcare Issues
Ageism is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Drawing on the stereotype embodiment theory (SET), the negative effects of ageism on individual wellbeing can be understood. SET includes three aspects: age discrimination, negative stereotypes (behavior and actions), and poor self-perceptions of aging (Chang et al., 2020). Ageism at individual and structural levels causes health inequalities. Widespread prejudice towards older adults affects their well-being as they age, increases the mortality risk, and slows recovery from disease (Chang et al., 2020). Ageist attitudes also contribute to poor mental health outcomes.
In healthcare settings, discriminatory practices affect the quality of care received by older patients, increasing their morbidity and mortality risk. Pervasive ageist attitudes have been reported among health care professionals, including nurses, doctors, and medical students (Levy et al., 2020). Misperceptions about physical and cognitive decline related to dementia in old age affect the treatment options provided. Older patients may be excluded from care due to assumptions related to functional limitations associated with dementia. Thus, age-related stereotypes not only limit access to treatment but also reduce the quality and amount of care received, increasing the vulnerability of older individuals.
Mental health issues are also an adverse outcome of unfavorable stereotypes against older populations. Exclusion from social relationships or tasks is a significant stressor for elderly individuals (Chang et al., 2020). Discriminatory institutional norms restrict their engagement in community activities. Additionally, most social policies do not directly benefit older persons. As a result, this population is prone to cardiovascular stress and reduced self-efficacy perceptions and productivity.
Economic (Cost) Factors
Institutionalized ageist practices impose a significant economic cost on society. In the labor market, ageism can manifest as hiring and promotion policies biased against older workers, forced retirement, and exclusion from certain roles because of age (Levy et al., 2020). Thus, structural ageism limits economic opportunities available to elderly people, increasing their vulnerability. The cost burden of ageism is mostly felt in healthcare. According to Chang et al. (2020), American older individuals cost the economy about $63 billion asan expenditure for treating illnesses attributable to ageist practices. Depression ranks as the most prevalent condition linked to ageism in this population. Therefore, decreasing stereotypes directed at the elderly can improve their health and reduce the cost burden of depressive disorders on society.
Ageism can be seen as an exclusionary practice that perpetuates inequities. Failure to respect or protect the interest of older adults places them at a great economic disadvantage. To illustrate how pervasive ageism is, recently, a Dutch man aged 69 sought to legally lower his age to 49 years, which he felt reflected his emotional state (Moyes, 2018). He cited abuse and discrimination as well as economic challenges as the reasons for seeking to reduce his age. Therefore, reducing ageism would have economic and health benefits for elderly individuals and society.
Impact on Families
The social cost of ageist practices is felt in family life. Long-term exclusion of older parents from economic opportunities and employment can affect the welfare of children, especially those from low-income groups. Retrenchment, forced retirement, and high unemployment rates in this population reduce their capacity to support dependents. Social isolation of the elderly affects family stability and wellbeing, and it can be detrimental to the psychological health of older persons (Levy et al., 2020). Diminished economic prospects, in the absence of legal protections, increase the risk of depression and low self-esteem, which impose a challenge on community social support systems. Chronic depressive disorders linked to ageism also pose an economic burden on struggling families.
Social Policies/Laws Currently in Place
Some policy responses have been adopted to protect older people against ageism. The enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was meant to promote economic and social justice for vulnerable individuals (Levy et al., 2020). ADEA initially protected people aged 40-65 years but with the repeal of the mandatory retirement age provision, even those above 65 years are now covered. Under this law, discriminatory job ads, wages, and workplace practices are prohibited. The intended impact is to raise the employment levels of elderly workers.
Another law protecting older people from ageism is the Equality Act 2010. It prohibits discrimination due to age or the perception that an individual is either too old or young (Levy et al., 2020). Prejudice by association is also prohibited by this law. In healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid provisions also support in-hospital medical treatment for older people. Most hospitals have established policies against discrimination of patients in nursing or social care based on age. All these policies and laws are meant to promote equity in social, economic, and health spheres to stem out ageism.
Recommendation for Changes
Stricter Laws
Anti-discrimination legislation should be strengthened further, especially in the labor market. Recognizing harassment (undue conduct) due to age and the use of proxies by employers to implement discriminatory practices can help reduce subtle forms of ageism. The reform will also require stricter policies to create workplace environments that are not intimidating or degrading to older workers. Introducing federal programs that promote active aging and reduce exclusion can increase the participation of this population in social and economic life. It would also improve the health outcomes of older people.
Enhance Healthcare
Currently, Medicare and Medicaid programs do not cover custodial care. Reforms (public-private partnerships) to cater for long-term care costs will ensure comprehensive coverage and help combat ageism. Additionally, physicians must only be reimbursed for the necessary treatments provided. End-of-life decisions should involve older patients.
Fair Federal Policy Responses
The Family and Medical Act should be reviewed to include older people as caregivers. Grandparents often care for their grandchildren in American homes. Therefore, they should benefit from federal funds and support for family caregivers. This action will improve their wellbeing and combat ageism.
Conclusion
Ageism is a pervasive vice in America with significant consequences on older people and society. The elderly face challenges related to diminished economic opportunities, social exclusion, and health inequities due to age. Existing anti-discrimination laws offer protections against prejudice in employment and healthcare. Further reforms are recommended, including active aging programs, expanded coverage, and family caregiver support, to help combat ageism.
References
Chang, E., Kannoth, S., Levy, S., Wang, S., Lee, J. E., & Levy, B. R. (2020). The global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLoSONE, 15(1), 1-24. Web.
Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., Chang, E., Kannoth, S., & Wang, S. (2020). Ageism amplifies the cost and prevalence of health conditions. The Gerontologist, 60(1), 174-181. Web.
Moyes, D. (2018). 69-year-old Dutchman attempts to legally lower his age to 49. Web.