The only thing really disturbing thing I read in the piece is this:

> a yell cuts through the noise; an older lady has fallen by the serving hatch and is unable to stand unassisted. “Would you give me a hand, sweetheart?”, she calmly asks, “Don’t touch her!” the bar manager snaps as I bend towards her. “You’re not allowed to touch her!” The woman blinks up at me, confused. “We have to call the care team — otherwise she could sue.” And so, for the next 45 minutes, she lies there

That's nothing to do with profit. Nonprofit and government-run facilities are just as strict about following legally dictated rules to illogical and counterproductive results as for-profit facilities are.

I'm actually impressed that the author found so little to complain about.

On the supposed topic of profiteering, the article is frustratingly light on analysis. It's presented like it's going to be an exposé, but then he gets distracted by his own discovery of the horrors of aging:

> it’s hard to feel sentimental when I recall my own experiences: shepherding confused residents to the toilet; placing cones beside rogue deposits in the restaurant; mopping up suspicious puddles (custard, John Smiths, or other); nudging care teams about overstuffed stoma bags; and politely reminding people of where exactly they live

> It strikes me that no matter the service charge, or the quality of the restaurant — which John chides as “more like a backstreet cafe” — or whether privately owned or council-housed, you may still end up defecating onto your shoe in the middle of a bistro. No amount of ground rent can protect your dignity when there is an intrinsic lack of it in ageing

> “How’s Harry?” I ask. “Dead.” “Helen?” “Dead.” “Lucy?” “In care.” “Pirate Paul?” (he wore an eye-patch and a cap with an anchor on it.) “Dead, I found him.” “Mary One?” “Alive.” “Mary Two?” “Nope.” “Bombay Jan?” “In the bar.” “Little John?” “Had a fall”.

It might have been a better article if he had spared us his personal feelings about aging -- his most interested readers have nothing to learn from him on that topic -- and dedicated those inches to the economics. All he manages to tell us is that people are paying quite a bit, which means nothing in isolation. Are there examples of how it can be done for less?

It also glosses over some details that seem important for analyzing cost and comparing to alternatives, like what level of assistance is provided, though I'm American and this is perhaps not an issue for British readers. (The existence of "care teams" that attend to falls and stoma bags shows that "independent living" means something different in this context than in an American one.)

Speaking as someone with an aging parent who will likely need some kind of daily assistance in the 5-10 years if not sooner, the picture painted by the article doesn't sound like a bad way for my mom to spend her remaining years. I'm not seeing the "sordid reality" the headline promises.