“I think the biggest misperception is that it doesn’t work. It cost too much money to build, or the operating are too much, or the decentralization of it makes it too difficult to manage. False, false, false. I couldn’t disagree more,” explains John Ponthie, Member, Summit Health Resources

While you might hear that Green House homes don’t work financially, data-driven feedback from Green House home operators widely supports financial feasibility of the model.   

Average results over traditional models, as reported by Senior Care & Housing Journal:

7%

...higher occupancy rates

24%

…higher private pay occupancy

= or Less

…in capital costs, vs. similar culture change models.

0%

…average change in staffing costs. While direct care staffing hours are higher, these costs are more than offset by reductions in supervisory and administrative staffing.

“Having fewer administrative staff saved money—as much as $124,000 per year” Get the Case Study

Ready to build your own business case? 

The Green House Project consultants are ready to help.  Download the Financial Feasibility Model application here.  

The ROI is compelling. Executives share how:

Dollars and Sense: Making the Business Case for The Green House Project”

Financial Implications of The Green House Model

“People are very willing to pay 10% more to live in a Green House model vs. a traditional model of care.”

Betsy Mullen, Chief Operating Officer, Chelsea Jewish Foundation

“Since The Green House home opened, in comparison to prior years, my admissions have gone up 30%.”

Toni Davis, CEO & President, Green Hill

“It has been demonstrated not only in our organization but around the country that it does work and it can be financially viable."

Roger L. Meyers, President & CEO, Presbyterian Villages of Michigan