Justify a Green House
“I think the biggest misperception is that it doesn’t work. It costs too much money to build, or the operating costs 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
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:
...higher occupancy rates
…higher private pay occupancy
= or Less
…in capital costs, vs. similar culture change models.
…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 ROI is compelling. Executives share how:
“Dollars and Sense: Making the Business Case for The Green House Project”
Case Study: Highest Quality at Best Cost
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