The rapidly growing elderly population in this country, as in most others in the EU and around the world, presents some formidable challenges.

It will, as we have been made acutely aware, have a huge impact on public finances as pension and social welfare spending skyrockets and the cost of hospitalisation and institutionalisation balloons.

As people live longer, the burden on families caring for their infirm and disabled relatives, especially those living into their 80s and 90s, will also become heavier to bear, even because more women are going out to work and departing from their traditional role of caregiver or, at least, having less time for it.

This means State residential homes, already creaking under the weight of demand, will be put under even greater pressure, although the private sector may soak up some of that need and a gradual shift to more community care may help to alleviate it. Governments have not been idle in examining the problems of an aging population. Task forces have been set up, reports written and conferences held, all engaging with the complexities of these multiple challenges, trying to envision solutions and recommending ways forward.

But one can’t help feeling we are still being too complacent about certain issues. From the financial point of view, the EU has warned Malta several times about the urgency of deeper pension reform, for example.

There is another aspect that urgently needs tackling: the quality of social care. This is suggested by a report out the other day, from the Office of the Commissioner for Mental Health and Older Persons, which deals with the dispensing of medication in residential homes.

The conclusions should have raised alarm bells across the board. The audit found patients’ safety to be at risk because half of elderly people’s homes have unsatisfactory documentation for medication and one in five do not dispense medication “appropriately”.

This is, frankly, too much to be wrong in such a crucial component of elderly care. Medicine is there to prolong lives not put them in danger due to the risk of being badly administered.

It begs the question: if we are failing in this sphere — because, let’s make it clear, it is a failure of the State’s duty of oversight if half the homes have been allowed to get away with this — which other areas are rife with bad practice?

No doubt, plenty of homes across the sectors – State, Church and private – do a good job at caring for their residents. Others, on this evidence, do an atrocious one.

Fortunately, we are making progress. The existence of the office of the commissioner itself to point out these shortcomings is already testament to that. After the medication story broke, the government was quick to point out it was preparing draft legislation that would lay down legally-enforceable minimum standards at homes. Not a moment too soon, surely.

A conference for health professionals on improving medication use in older persons, organised late last year by the office of the commissioner, is another example that the issues are being taken seriously. It drew strong attendance.

While still on paper, the many recommendations that emerged show how much better care for the elderly could become all round. An interdisciplinary approach, better coordination of care and a rapid access team for social support are but a few examples of the direction proposed.

There is now a national policy on active aging. The not-so-active elderly require equal attention.