{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021034180543382998, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.206521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary: Irrational Exuberance for the Aging in Place of Vulnerable Low-Income Older Homeowners

ABSTRACT This commentary argues that one-size-fits-all aging in place solutions will often not be in the best interests of low-income and frail older homeowners in the United States. This contrarian view runs counter to the reported preferences of this group, various private-sector activities, and U.S. public policies that are increasingly funding home and community-based care. The particular focus is on low-income elderly homeowners living in the oldest housing stock in the country who have demographic characteristics putting them at greater risk of having both unmet care and housing needs, which in turn have spillover effects on their neighborhoods. These vulnerable homeowners would be better served if they relocated to more affordable, easier to maintain, and better designed smaller owned units or rental properties or to planned affordable seniors' rental housing complexes that can offer both light and heavy care. Such residential moves are often not feasible, however, because of the shortage of these housing arrangements.