Smart Home Devices and Mental Health: Mostly a Story About Connection

We have written a lot on this blog about technology that helps people stay in their own homes. Fall-detecting watches. Voice assistants. Daily check-in calls. Cameras and smart locks. A fair question follows. Do these devices actually make older adults feel better, or do they only make their families feel better?

A new study in Scientific Reports offers a careful answer. It is encouraging. It is also modest, but the modesty is the useful part.

What the Researchers Did

The authors, led by Lifen Zheng and Li Wang, used three rounds of the China Longitudinal Aging Social Survey, taken in 2018, 2020, and 2023. They followed 4,541 adults aged 60 and older through all three rounds. The authors note that more than 90 percent of older adults prefer to age in place, which is the reason they chose the question.

In 2018, they counted how many of eight types of smart devices each person used. The list is broader than the phrase “smart home” suggests. It includes a smart wheelchair, an electronic blood pressure monitor, a blood lipid analyzer, a smartwatch or bracelet, a smart camera with remote monitoring, a smart home assistant, a sleep monitor, and an audio reading device. 

In 2020, they measured how much social interaction each person had, and how much benefit each person got from being online, such as convenience in shopping, health information, and communication. In 2023, they measured mental health with nine items from a revised depression scale, scored so that higher is better. They accounted for gender, age, marital status, education, self-rated health, chronic conditions, daily-living limitations, and each person’s mental health at the start.

Spreading the measurements across five years let the researchers look at what came first, not just what traveled together.

What They Found

Older adults who used more devices in 2018 had better mental health in 2023, even after the researchers accounted for how those people were doing at the start.

The more interesting finding is how that happened. Once the researchers added social interaction and online benefits to the model, the direct effect of the devices disappeared. The devices weren't lifting mood on their own. They worked through people and through convenience. Device use was linked to more contact with family and friends. That contact was linked to getting more out of technology. Both were linked to better mental health later. 

In plain terms, the gadget was not the cure. The connection and the convenience it made possible were.

Why the Modest Effects Matter

The authors are candid that the effects are small. They describe the impact as “more incremental than transformative.” They also say the devices are one part of a broader set of supports for aging in place, not a stand-alone answer.

For families, that is the honest takeaway. A device is not a substitute for a visit, a phone call, or a neighbor who knows to knock. It works best when it makes those things more likely.

What the Study Cannot Tell Us

The study has some limitations that one must keep in mind:

• It is Observational: The measurements are spread across time, which helps, but it does not prove the devices caused the improvement. People who adopt technology may differ from people who do not in ways the study did not capture. The authors did not control for income, wealth, or homeownership.

It counts device types, not use: The measure records whether someone uses each of eight device types. It does not record how often or how well.

It was done in mainland China: The findings may not translate well to Ohio or Missouri, or the United States, and some of the devices counted aren't what an American family would call a smart home product.

The timing of the middle steps is not fully established: Social interaction and online benefits were measured in the same round.

How This Fits What We Have Already Written

This study does not overturn earlier posts. It sharpens them.

In April 2025, we wrote about reports that frequent technology use may slow cognitive decline. That post drew on a news report. This study doesn't measure thinking skills, but it shows a parallel pattern in mood. The value seems to lie less in the device than in staying engaged.

In March 2025, we reviewed smart home health technologies and the evidence behind them, and we said they work best alongside legal planning. That advice still stands. This study adds that they also work best alongside people.

In September, we wrote about daily wellness check-in services and called them one layer of support, not an emergency system. The new study supports that layered view. It did not test check-in services, and an automated call is not the same as the family contact the study measured. Still, a check-in that leads to a real conversation is worth more than one that ends with a tap. 

And in our 2026 smart home toolkit, we said aging in place is about living well at home, not just staying there. Voice reminders, fall alerts that reach a family member, and a lock that removes the struggle with keys all lower small daily barriers. Those reductions free up attention and energy for the contact the study found matters most. The toolkit’s cautions about privacy and involving the older adult in setup still apply. A device that feels like surveillance is unlikely to produce the connection the study measured.

Most importantly, the study supports our repeated emphasis on home (e.g.,"The Heart of Home Care: Why Family Is the Ultimate Key to Successful Aging in Place and “I Just Want to Be Home”: Emily Ladau’s Powerful Senate Testimony and Why It Matters for Every Senior Aging in Place) and family (e.g., "Family Caregiving: The Powerful Key to Successful Aging in Place" and "The Heart of Home Care: Why Family Is the Ultimate Key to Successful Aging in Place." Whether a family or home is natural or chosen, the combination of both home and family creates the conditions that support a person's health and well-being.

Your Plan

    •Start Small and Match the Tool to the Person: Choose one or two devices that solve a real daily problem or make it easier to stay in touch with family. Prefer relationship-focused tools, such as video calls, shared reminders, and simple check-ins, over pure monitoring.

•    Decide Who May Manage the Devices and Accounts: A watch, tablet, or companion device usually sits behind an account, password, and terms of service. If you lose capacity, someone must be able to keep it running. Your documents should say who can access your digital accounts and devices, and under what authority. Ohio addresses fiduciary access to digital assets in Chapter 2137 of the Revised Code, and your estate planning documents should be written with it in mind.

    •Put Your Own Consent in Writing: Cameras, motion sensors, and location tracking raise real privacy questions, especially if capacity declines. Say now what you are comfortable with, and how you can pause or decline a feature, instead of leaving your family guessing.

    •Tie the Technology to Your Goals: If your aging-in-place directive says you want to remain at home, the tools that make that possible, and the people paying for them, should be named in your plan. Your financial agent or successor trustee must be able to pay the subscription and the aide.

    •Plan for the Human Part: If the study is right, the best technology plan is one that increases contact with real people. Choose tools your family will actually use, and give the people who use them clear permission to act.

The Bottom Line

Smart devices appear to help older adults’ mental health, mostly by helping them stay connected and by making daily life easier. The effect is real but small. They are not a treatment for depression, and they do not replace in-person contact, medical care, or a well-drafted plan for decision-making and care. Treat technology as one piece of a plan that also includes people, money, and good documents.

One Wrong Checkbox- What a New IRS Ruling Teaches Grandparents About Gifts in Trust

A married couple did everything right. One spouse signed an irrevocable trust whose primary purpose was to benefit descendants, funded it from investment accounts, and told the accountant the trust was meant to benefit future generations. The plan was to make the gift exempt from the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax. Then the accountant checked the wrong box on both spouses' gift tax returns.

On October 2, 2026, the IRS released two companion private letter rulings, PLR 202640002 and PLR 202640005, giving each spouse 120 days to fix the mistake. The couple got a happy ending. The way they got it carries lessons for any family that funds a long-term trust meant to benefit grandchildren.

The GST Tax in Plain English

The GST tax is a second, flat tax at the top estate tax rate (40%) on certain transfers that skip a generation. It applies on top of any gift or estate tax. The Code reaches three kinds of generation-skipping transfers: a direct gift to a grandchild or similar "skip person," a distribution from a trust to one, and the point at which a trust passes to that younger generation. Most gifts to grandchildren never incur the tax, because of the annual exclusion and the exemption.

Each person has a GST exemption, which for 2026 is $15 million, matching the estate and gift exclusion. The exemption does nothing until it is allocated to a gift or trust. A sufficient allocation gives the transfer a zero inclusion ratio, generally shielding it and its future growth from GST tax. Later additions to the trust need their own allocation. Miss the allocation, and decades of appreciation can sit exposed to a 40% tax when the grandchildren finally receive it.

The Checkbox: Automatic Allocation and the Opt-out

The Internal Revenue Code tries to help. Under § 2632(c), a donor's unused GST exemption is allocated automatically to an "indirect skip," a taxable gift to a "GST trust." That term covers many trusts that could pass wealth to grandchildren, but the statute carves out several common designs, so not every such trust qualifies. A donor may opt out of automatic allocation under § 2632(c)(5) by making an election on the federal gift tax return, Form 709.

There are sound reasons to opt out, for example when a trust will benefit only children and the donor wants to save exemption for later. Here there was no such reason. The rulings state the accountant "mistakenly" made the opt-out election on each spouse's return. The plan said one thing; the returns said the opposite.

Why Gift-splitting Doubled the Problem

The couple consented to gift-splitting under § 2513, which lets spouses treat a gift by one as made half by each. It is a common way to use both spouses' exclusions on a single gift.

For GST purposes, though, each spouse is treated as the transferor of half the gift. Each spouse's exemption applies only to that spouse's half, and the opt-out sat on both returns. One wrong election became two, and fixing it took two separate ruling requests. That is why the IRS issued two rulings for one gift.

How the IRS Fixed It

The next year, the couple hired a new accountant, who caught the error together with the attorney who drafted the trust. Each spouse then asked the IRS for an extension of time under § 2642(g) and Treas. Reg. § 26.2642-7. Those final regulations, effective May 6, 2024, set the specific standards for this type of GST relief and expressly allow relief from an erroneous opt-out. Both rulings were decided under them.

The regulations require two showings. First, the donor acted reasonably and in good faith, judged by factors such as intent, lack of awareness despite reasonable diligence, and reasonable reliance on a qualified tax professional. Second, relief will not prejudice the government, which looks for hindsight, delay, and intervening taxable distributions.

The facts here fit. The donor had told the first accountant the trust was for future generations. Each spouse represented that the trust had made no distributions, that the spouse had made no earlier GST gifts, and that enough exemption remained. The IRS found the regulations satisfied and gave each spouse 120 days to allocate exemption on an amended Form 709.

Why not simply make a late allocation, which the Code allows without IRS permission? Because under § 2642(b)(3), a late allocation generally uses the trust's value when the allocation is made, not when the gift was made. If the trust has grown, covering the same gift takes more exemption, and if it has grown past the exemption remaining, part of the trust stays exposed. A timely allocation instead uses the gift's value as finally determined for gift tax purposes. The relief the IRS granted extended the time for that allocation, so it can rely on the original gift value. That is exactly why the no-prejudice showing matters: the IRS will not let a family choose its valuation date with hindsight.

Don't Count on a Rescue

A private letter ruling binds the IRS only as to the taxpayer who asked for it; under § 6110(k)(3) others cannot cite it as precedent. It shows how the IRS is thinking, nothing more.

The rescue is also expensive and slow. Each request carries the full letter-ruling user fee plus professional fees. These requests went in on December 30, 2025, and the rulings are dated June 30, 2026: six months of waiting, times two. Had the IRS found the error first, or had the trust already paid out to grandchildren, the outcome could have been harder.

Why this Matters if You Aren't a Millionaire

Most families reading this will never owe GST tax at a $15 million exemption. The lesson is broader: elections on a tax return can quietly defeat a carefully drafted plan. Three situations illustrate the risk.

• Gifts to Irrevocable Trusts Generally: Any gift to a trust above the $19,000 annual exclusion typically requires a Form 709. That includes many asset protection trusts used in Medicaid planning. GST allocation is rarely the main concern there; those trusts are built around the look-back period, income, and control. But the return is often prepared by someone who never saw the trust, and every election on it should match what the trust was designed to do.

• Long-term Trusts for Grandchildren: Exemption amounts change with Congress. Allocating GST exemption to a trust that may last decades is inexpensive insurance against a lower future exemption and a larger trust.

• Portability After a Spouse's Death:. The same week, in PLR 202640003, the IRS gave an estate below the filing threshold 120 days to file a late Form 706 and elect portability of the deceased spouse's unused exclusion. That election is optional, easy to overlook, and can be worth millions to the survivor's heirs. It is the version of this mistake most families are likely to face.

Don't Do-it-Yourself

Even professionals can make errors.  The difference is that when a professional makes an error, they typically invest time and expense to correct the mistake, and in the worst case, have insurance to cover for damages.  If you make a mistake, you pay a professional to fix the problem and, in the worst case, incur the cost any resulting damages.

A Short Checklist for Families

Confirm the Plan:  Ask for it in writing before any Form 709 is signed. The drafting attorney and the preparer should agree on whether exemption is to be allocated. A one-page letter costs far less than a ruling request.

Review the Return: Ask the drafting attorney to review the gift tax return, preferably well in advance of a filing deadline.

Prefer an Affirmative Allocation:  Relying on the automatic rules, rather than affirmative allocations or elections, may not cover every trust.

Check Both Returns:  If you split gifts, check both returns.  Each spouse's elections must match the plan.

Prior Returns Review:  Especially when you change preparers, have the prior returns reviewed. In these rulings, a new accountant caught the error.

Act Quickly: Quick corrective action is necessary  upon finding a mistake.  You should talk with counsel before the trust makes distributions.

Keep Records:  We advise clients with complex trusts to keep and maintain every Form 709 permanently. GST and exemption questions can surface decades later, at the death of the donor or a beneficiary.

The Bottom Line

A trust is only as good as the paperwork that follows it. This couple was fortunate: their advisers caught the error, the IRS was forgiving, and the trust had not yet paid anything out. The better path is to make sure the gift tax return says what your plan says the first time.