Can R.I.’s Next Governor Truly Deliver for Seniors and People with Disabilities and Behavioral Health Issues?

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on October 6, 2026

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Helena Buonanno Foulkes and independent candidate Ken Block squared off Friday, Oct. 2, at a gubernatorial candidate forum focused on issues affecting older Rhode Islanders, people with disabilities, family caregivers and those receiving behavioral health services.

Opening the forum, Carol Anne Costa, SACRI’s Executive Director, noted that Republican candidate Aaron Guckian, who had committed to attend, failed to show up after notifying organizers at 3 p.m. that same day. “We’ve adjusted the program, and we will move forward in a focused and streamlined way so that these candidates who have taken the time to be with this audience get the forum they deserve,” she said.

Introducing the Candidates

Foulkes, 62, a Providence resident, emphasized her 25 years at CVS, ultimately becoming president of CVS Pharmacy, where she worked on employment initiatives for people with disabilities and special needs. She said she doesn’t need to be “the smartest person in the room,” but wants to leverage community expertise. She highlighted her relationships with other governors, including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, as sources of policy ideas. Her policy priorities include housing affordability and healthcare access, and she called for creating a “whole-of-government” approach to senior services.

Block, 60, a Barrington software engineer who founded Simpatico Software Systems, political reformer and author, is an independent candidate who describes himself as an “operational manager” with experience helping large multinational companies reimagine their business operations, contracting and delivery of complicated computer systems. He emphasizes a data-driven approach to problem-solving and decision-making and has firsthand experience with healthcare and aging issues as a caregiver for his mother, who had early-onset Alzheimer’s, and helping his in-laws with aging-in-place challenges.

Block, like Foulkes, has actively sought information from advocacy groups on aging and disability issues throughout his campaign. He focuses heavily on government efficiency, transparency and fixing “friction points” in state operations.

The forum, held at Rhodes on the Pawtuxet in Cranston, was sponsored by the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI), AccessPoint Rhode Island and the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island.

Unlike many gubernatorial forums held throughout the Ocean State that focus heavily on taxes, housing, education and the economy, SACRI’s forum allowed the candidates to address issues that often receive less attention during political campaigns: aging in the community, long-term services and supports, nursing home care, Medicaid, family caregiving, behavioral health and services for persons with disabilities.

Spanning more than an hour, the two candidates fielded questions on strengthening the state’s Office of Healthy Aging, creating a multi-sector plan on aging, establishing a state advocate’s office and expanding long-term care. They also discussed unpaid family caregivers, workforce shortages, accessible housing, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, economic security for older adults and transparency in human services.

Where They Stand

During opening remarks, Foulkes emphasized that seniors are an “untapped resource” of wisdom and expertise. She proposed creating a “senior corps”-style effort and intergenerational mentoring programs. Block shared personal caregiving experiences involving his parents and now his in-laws in their 80s, stressing the importance of advocacy organizations in helping families find needed resources and support.

At that point, the two candidates addressed a multitude of topics during the forum. Here is a sampling.

The SACRI forum highlighted that Rhode Island’s 2009 law setting a 50% goal for Medicaid home and community-based services remains unmet, with general home and community services reaching only 20.1%. The state ranks 44th nationally in community support spending for older adults at $28 per adult age 60 and older, compared with the $53 U.S. average and $222 in Massachusetts.

Regarding long-term care, Block called for cost-effective alternatives to nursing homes for residents with lower care needs, including housing options. He also recognized the possibility of severe budget pressures, including potential Medicaid cuts.

Foulkes highlighted the staffing crisis, fueled by low wages and lack of health insurance for many home-care workers. She also raised concerns about the impact of federal immigration policies on the pool of workers available to provide care.

The candidates were asked about a long-term care workforce crisis that includes 512 nursing assistant openings and only 132 trained applicants; Medicaid reimbursement rates; support for unpaid family caregivers who provide an estimated $2.8 billion in annual care; and the need for accessible housing throughout Rhode Island, with only 85 of 2,194 units under development being handicapped accessible.

Block supported elevating the state’s Office of Healthy Aging (OHA) to a cabinet-level position to ensure seniors have a direct voice to the governor. His rationale: A substantial portion of the Ocean State’s population has interests that align directly with OHA.

Foulkes advocates for a “whole-of-government approach” to providing senior services, with a potential cabinet-level position for aging, looking to Maryland as a model.

Foulkes emphasized the need for creating a master plan on aging with accountability and deadlines. Block also pledged to either issue an executive order or support legislation to develop the state’s aging policies, programs and services.

The candidates split on how to provide sustainable funding for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. Rhode Island’s 988 system has handled nearly 75,000 calls since its launch while maintaining a 98% answer rate.

Block explained his opposition to using a telephone fee to fund the program, citing the regressive burden such fees place on low-income residents. He has no opposition to the program itself. Foulkes supported a small monthly telephone fee, similar to 911 funding, to provide a dedicated funding source for the state’s 988 response system.

Both candidates emphasized government inefficiency and data-access problems. Block described himself as “an operational manager” who specializes in “understanding where an organization doesn’t work well” and called Rhode Island government “a target rich environment.”

He expressed frustration with “Rhode Island state government’s ability to provide data” and promised “dashboards and other things that will ultimately really let us understand much better than we can now where we’re spending the money.”

Foulkes similarly stated, “we need way more transparency everywhere in the state” and endorsed the Inspector General concept to track how government funds are spent.

Direct-care workforce challenges appeared across multiple questions. Foulkes identified “the gap in terms of the number of community healthcare workers” and how “low paid” the work is, noting that “most of them that I speak to don’t even have healthcare insurance themselves.”

Foulkes connected federal immigration policy to the state’s capacity to provide care, raising concerns about home-care providers and healthcare workers who are immigrants. Block pointed again to the nursing assistant shortage during the lightning round.

Foulkes proposed creating a state website to assist families in navigating the long-term care continuum, acknowledging “it’s really hard right now” to find appropriate services. She also called for helping Rhode Islanders at risk of losing Medicaid coverage, proposing a “Medicaid navigator system” using faith-based communities and senior centers to help people complete eligibility paperwork.

Both candidates warned about the severe stress on Rhode Island’s healthcare system. Block noted that Roger Williams Medical Center and Our Lady of Fatima Hospital were “on life support,” stressing their importance to the state’s healthcare system. Foulkes pointed to Rhode Island’s more than $156 million first-year federal Rural Health Transformation Program award as an opportunity to strengthen healthcare delivery.

Foulkes and Block also supported creating a dementia services coordinator position at the Department of Health. They supported continuing the overdose task force’s progress and having dedicated substance-use and mental-health policy staff in the governor’s office.

Finally, in lightning-round responses, both candidates supported continuing Medicaid reimbursement rate efforts for direct-care staff; using 30% of state housing bond funds for accessible housing for older adults and people with disabilities; creating an Office of the Elder Advocate; and developing a multi-sector plan on aging.

While Foulkes supports eliminating the Medicare Savings Program asset limit and providing an annual cost-of-living adjustment to the state’s SSI supplemental payment, Block gave no answer because he did not have a cost estimate.

Here’s the Bottom Line

With federal funding uncertainty, the state’s ongoing structural budget deficit and fiscal limitations, will Foulkes and Block be able to make good on their policy commitments?

Block repeatedly declined to make specific funding promises on a number of policies, stating, “I don’t know what’s coming at us” and “my answer to you, with all sincere respect, is I just don’t know.”

Foulkes also acknowledged Block’s concerns about reduced federal funding and the fiscal limitations facing the next governor. “I need to understand at the end of the day what all of this costs and make sure that I’m not making promises to you that I can’t keep,” she said.

For older Rhode Islanders, people with disabilities and behavioral health issues, family caregivers and the organizations that serve them, that may ultimately be the most important question coming out of  SACRI’s forum: not just what the candidates promise to do, but whether the next governor will have the resources and political will to do it.

Stay tuned.

Block and Foulkes address Aging, Disability, Behavioral Health at Gubernatorial Forum

Published in RINewsToday on October 5, 2026

By Herb Weiss, contributing writer

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Helena Foulkes and independent candidate Ken Block squared off Friday, Oct. 2, at a gubernatorial candidate forum focused on issues affecting older Rhode Islanders, people with disabilities, family caregivers, and those receiving behavioral health services.

The forum, held at Rhodes on the Pawtuxet in Cranston, was sponsored by the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island, AccessPoint Rhode Island (SACRI), and the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island.

“It was an honor and a pleasure to partner with AccessPoint RI and MHARI to present this forum,” said Carol Costa, Executive Director of SACRI, emphasizing their continued dedication to the intersection of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Aging.

“It was a distinct honor to welcome gubernatorial candidates Helena Foulkes and Ken Block to a forum focused on issues that directly affect older adults, people living with mental health challenges, and communities across Rhode Island,” said Costa.

“We appreciate the candidates’ time and their willingness to engage thoughtfully on these interconnected priorities,” she noted. “At a moment when democracy and civic discourse matter more than ever, their participation demonstrated a meaningful commitment to respectful dialogue, public service, and the people of Rhode Island.”

Unlike many gubernatorial forums that focus heavily on taxes, housing, education, and the economy, this forum allowed the candidates to address issues that often receive less attention during political campaigns: aging in the community, long-term services and supports, nursing home care, Medicaid, family caregiving, behavioral health, and services for persons with disabilities.

Here is a video of the forum, courtesy of Pat Ford, The Coalition Radio Network. Following the video is a “transcript” of the questions and responses.



We edited the questions and candidates’ responses for length, grammar, and clarity. We did not change the meaning of the questions or the candidates’ responses. Refer to the video here for more information.

Carol Costa announced the following at the beginning of the forum:

“Before we begin, you’re all entitled to know that Aaron Gukian committed to taking part in this forum. He accepted my invitation and we planned this program around his participation. He is not here today. I received a phone call at 3:00 PM that he would not be here. I’m not going to let that take time away from this value forum. We’ve adjusted the program, and we will move forward in a focused and streamlined way so that these candidates who have taken the time to be with this audience get the forum they deserve. But you should know he did make a commitment to this community and he did not keep it.”

Here is what Foulkes and Block told more than 80 attendees at the forum.

Opening Remarks

  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

I really wanted to thank the SACRI for pulling this together, the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island, and AccessPoint Rhode Island for all you do.

I want to say that I feel very strongly that the senior population in our state is an incredibly untapped resource.

The wisdom, the expertise—and we’re going to talk a lot tonight, I’m sure, about caring for many of the elder folks and others in our state who need our support. But I think we often forget how much wisdom exists and how much more we could benefit as a state by tapping into all of your expertise.

I am very excited to be looking to the senior community to help me think about things like a Senior Corps-style effort. How do we take, as I said, the wisdom and expertise and tap into your sense of volunteerism?

I’ve been crisscrossing this state for the last few years, mostly in people’s kitchens and living rooms, listening, showing up, and asking people, “What’s one thing you’d love the next governor to do for you?”

  • Ken Block (Independent):

I’m very happy to be here tonight. Helena and I have been in front of many forums this year, hosted by advocacy groups for different purposes, all providing services or looking out for the interests of different groups of people.

This group has been remarkably effective at educating me about their issues and talking with me about the challenges different groups experience as they age.

I have been on this journey with my parents as they’ve aged and passed away. My wife’s parents are now in their 80s and are experiencing a very different journey than my parents did. They’re aging in place, let’s say, challengingly.

Dealing with that remotely has been a challenge for both my wife and me. It makes me realize that while my parents and Jen’s parents have been really supported, others on the journey don’t have the level of support and family involvement we had.

That’s where groups like this, or advocacy organizations like the ones we have here representing different services that can provide the help people need, are so vitally important.

  1. As governor, what would you do to strengthen the Office of Healthy Aging (OHA) and better support healthy aging and aging in the community?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

On this topic, I absolutely am open to the idea of a cabinet-level position. I need to understand it more closely, but I would say Maryland is a place where this does exist.

I’m good friends with Wes Moore. So this is an example where, using some of my relationships and even many other governors, I’d love to understand what does great look like as we think about serving the senior population.

I also want to speak to the fact that I think we need a whole-of-government approach. Tonight, it’s really hard to give you a hard commitment on dollars given that I don’t know what the state of the budget will be.

You look at education, the Department of Labor and Training, and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority—lots of places where seniors need access to support. And we’ve got to have, under my leadership, a government that is really focused on how we serve seniors in the state because, to Maureen’s point, it’s a huge portion of our population, higher than most other states.

I would also like to have a master plan on aging. I’m sure many of you have parts of that. I want to pull it together.

So that’s where we need a governor who will set the expectation that I want to see – a plan. I’ll have deadlines because I want to benefit from the expertise, as I mentioned, involving you. Still, I also want to make sure we have a plan where we can hold ourselves accountable to making seniors’ lives better.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

Yes. I believe OHA should be a cabinet-level position for a simple reason: a substantial portion of our population has interests that line up directly under OHA.

And as governor, I want to make sure every large group of people who live here has a voice I can hear. Having OHA as a cabinet-level position gives me the ear I need to hear their needs.

I don’t disagree with anything Helena just said, but I would like to tackle the issue a little bit differently because I don’t think the state is being responsive enough.

I hear a lot of dismay and unhappiness with how responsive the state is to the needs of advocacy groups and the nonprofits that work with it. Several areas of dysfunction seem to be particular sticking points, especially OHHS.

So I describe myself as an operational manager. I’m a specialist in understanding where an organization doesn’t work well, where the friction points are, and what changes we need to make to improve it.

And I look at Rhode Island as a—right now, Rhode Island government’s kind of a target-rich environment.

  1. What steps would you take to reduce the number of lower-acuity residents living in nursing homes?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

I want to start on a human level around this question because I think the idea that more of our senior citizens should be able to live at home and have caregiving at home is a really great aspiration.

I think one barrier is not having the home healthcare workers we need to support folks in the state.

I speak to a lot of caregivers who don’t even talk about the dignity of their own work, how challenging it is, how low-paid it is. Most of the people I speak to don’t even have healthcare insurance themselves.

So I think we need to start by understanding what the gap is to get to this target, what the gap is in terms of the number of community healthcare workers who can do these jobs, and how do we make sure more of them get trained up, paid appropriately so that we can really be providing service.

You have Donald Trump, who is now essentially targeting many of these home-care providers and healthcare workers by threatening to send immigrants out of this country.

And I’ll use the Haitian community as one example of that. An incredible community of hardworking, loving, dedicated healthcare workers who are now unsure whether they’ll be able to stay here.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

Research shows that care for nursing home residents who need lower levels of care can be provided more cost-effectively outside nursing homes.

So from the governor’s office perspective, my job would be to make sure that we can pave the way for these alternative treatment and housing solutions, that they’re available, and that we can help families who might be taking on some of the burden of caregiving by providing resources to them to make the job easier.

As you all know, the state budget is under tremendous pressure, both from within and without. Washington, D.C., is threatening us. We have a structural deficit coming into this budget year, and Helena and I have both heard requests for what I estimate to be billions of dollars in additional funding this year from the different groups we’ve spoken to.

I have no idea how we prioritize all the different needs or how we can pay for them. It’s going to be very difficult.

But what you have done here, and what other groups have done, has demonstrated beyond a doubt that your requests are worthy.

  1. What would you do to expand home – and community-based care for persons with disabilities and behavioral health conditions?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

What I’ll add to my last answer is the idea of helping families navigate the complexity of this and thinking about this concept of “no wrong door.”

The idea is that I could go to a state website and get help figuring out how my loved one gets the best level of care in the state.

It’s really hard right now.

And what I’ve always said in my career is I don’t need to be the smartest person in the room. You all know much more about this than I do.

But what I want to do is ask all of you, as it relates to something like this, what are all the stupid things we do? What barriers do we put in your way, and how can we make it much easier for families navigating the complexities of this issue?

  • Ken Block (Independent):

With developmental disabilities, you have a challenge at some point where the severity of it is such that a home-based solution can be not only very difficult, but at times could also be maybe somewhat dangerous.

So I believe that the state government, the governor’s office, our job would be to make sure that people understand whatever services are available, whatever programs of support are available.

It’s a good idea when it works and as long as we can do it safely. That would be my biggest concern: making sure everybody can be safe.

We know that moving eligible individuals out of group homes or institutional settings and into the home environment can often lead to better results.

  1. What would you do to ensure implementation of the nursing home behavioral health per diem and protect the principles of Olmsted regardless of federal challenges?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

The last couple of years, the drumbeat around healthcare has gotten really loud. People are really worried that their primary care doc is going to retire and they won’t be able to find anyone.

We have two hospitals in our state that are on life support, I would say: Roger Williams and Fatima. We made a deal to keep them alive earlier in the year, but there’s still a real risk in those hospitals.

We have the federal government, which is just ruthlessly attacking people around healthcare in this country, with 40,000 Rhode Islanders who are going to lose access to Medicaid starting in January.

It’s so cruel. It’s so inhumane.

So a big thing that I’ve been focused on, in all honesty, is: how do we make sure people don’t get kicked off of Medicaid?

I want to use the faith-based community. I want to use senior centers. I want to go into some of the high-rises where seniors are living and bring the paperwork and resources to people, because the really sneaky thing about President Donald Trump and what he did with H.R. 1 is he’s making the paperwork so complicated that people won’t get through it and will give up.

I think healthcare will be the tsunami that will hit the next governor.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

I’m really glad Rhode Island cannot mint its own currency, because it would let politicians overcommit.

One of the easiest things for someone like me sitting here facing a room with people like you, on every question that asks, “Can you fund us? Can you fund us? Can you fund us?” The simple question always has the simplest answer, and the one you want to give as a candidate is, “I’ve got you.”

In this circumstance, I can’t tell you that I’ve got you. The General Assembly can’t tell you that they’ve got you. We don’t know what is coming at us.

So what I will tell you is I fully understand the need. I understand completely how important the program is. I get it. I really do.

But what I can’t tell you right now is, because I don’t know what’s coming, to make a promise now that I don’t keep is something that I really want to avoid.

I don’t want to be the guy who said, “Yep, absolutely.” And two months after I get into office, it’s like, “Oh my God, I can’t keep any of the promises that I made.”

My answer to you, with all sincere respect, is I don’t know.

  1. What role should Eleanor Slater Hospital play in meeting the long-term care needs of older Rhode Islanders and persons with disabilities?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

From talking to folks in the community, I know this sector of healthcare has been under a lot of strain for quite some time.

Getting people together and thinking about a holistic healthcare strategy in our state is a big priority of mine.

I think we’ve been putting Band-Aids on a lot of problems, but not really stepping back and asking: how do you serve people, and what assets do we have in the state that can help us do a good job for folks?

And Eleanor Slater is one component of that.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

I’m definitely open to using any existing resources that we have to address the issue.

So the direct answer to your question is I’m open to it. Yes.

  1. What steps would you take to implement Rhode Island’s 2025–2028 State Plan for Family Caregivers, including respite services, the Temporary Caregiver Insurance Program and a family caregiver tax credit?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

I think this relates to having a really solid plan that I talked about at the beginning and, in each one of these, understanding what is required. What’s the community’s priority?

If we can’t get everything done, what do you all see as most important?

It’s an incredibly stressful extra job that caregivers take on. I’ve spoken with many, many caregivers in the same generation, who are obviously working themselves, taking care of kids, and having parents.

And then you talk about the economic stress of just not being able to take time off.

I absolutely believe we need to expand caregiver assistance and support, but I need to understand, at the end of the day, what all of this costs and make sure I’m not making promises I can’t keep.

I won’t do that.

What are your mission-critical issues, and how do we actually work to get them done?

  • Ken Block (Independent):

I watched and participated firsthand in my relative’s home healthcare.

My mom was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s at age 61. We moved them to Providence, to an independent living facility. And my dad was my mom’s caregiver, and I watched the toll that it took on him.

One day I got a phone call, and he said, “Ken, your mom just kind of slumped down.”

I was like, “Oh my God.”

And he’s like, “No, she’s okay. She just slumped down, but she can’t get up, and I can’t lift her, and I don’t want to call anybody at the facility because they’re going to kick us out.”

I raced over, lifted her onto the bed, and that was it.

I realized right at that moment that my dad’s ability to care for my mom had ended.

The emotional and physical toll on caregivers is enormous. Enormous. I’ve watched it.

My dad aged 40 years while he cared for my mom.

And one of the things that I think the state has to watch out for, especially if we’re going to begin subsidizing people to provide care at home, is: how are we going to make sure that we are not putting many more people at risk because they want to take advantage of the money without regard to what the toll is really for both the patient as well as the caregiver?

We have to make sure that we are smart about it.

  1. How would you help older Rhode Islanders and persons with disabilities pay for long-term services without having to rely on Medicaid or sell their homes?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

This is a really hard problem, and I’ve met lots of families who have been put in this situation of selling the family home to put a loved one in a nursing facility.

I believe we need to raise Medicaid rates in the state. Our state has an older, poorer population than most of New England.

And Medicare, unfortunately, is fixed. The federal government sets it. It’d be great if it went up, but we can’t plan on that.

Medicaid: we have an opportunity to raise Medicaid rates by $70 million, and this last session we could have gotten a $126 million federal match. And that would make a real difference in the healthcare system.

I’ve met so many healthcare providers who live in this state and work in Connecticut and Massachusetts every day because they can make 20 or 30% more just by crossing the border.

I will also make sure someone on my team is dedicated to getting every single dollar of federal funds that we can.

And so, the needs are quite great, but a big part of it starts around funding Medicaid the way we need to.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

Medicaid is at the root of a lot of our healthcare challenges.

And in this case, the cost of assisted living is dramatically raised because the same facilities that provide higher-end services, like full-on nursing and memory care, are under-reimbursed by Medicaid, and they make up for that shortfall by sticking it to the private people who are paying for assisted living.

Everyone has to recoup costs, and we see this repeat in many different areas throughout our healthcare system over time.

So, interestingly, the answer to your question is that we have to figure out how to raise reimbursements for both Medicaid and Medicare.

If we do that, in theory, assisted-living costs should come down.

We spend a lot of money. Many different people have told me some of the money’s being well spent, some of the money’s not being well spent, and we have to make some hard decisions and assessments.

So I don’t think we can take the Medicaid budget from $5 billion to $7 billion. We don’t have the capacity for that.

But in that $5 billion, let’s make sure every penny is spent right. And the pennies that aren’t spent right, then we have to put them towards the things that solve the most problems.

  1. Would you support Medicaid reimbursement rates that reflect the cost of care and fair compensation for direct-care workers, while helping build and sustain the long-term care and behavioral health workforce?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): Yes.
  1. Would you support using 30% of state housing bond funds for older adults and persons with disabilities, increasing accessible housing units, and publicly tracking accessible and supportive housing?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): No.
  1. Would you support a small monthly telephone fee, similar to 911 funding, to sustainably fund Rhode Island’s 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and broader behavioral health crisis response system?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): No (opposed burying another fee in the utility bill. Supports program but not the proposed way to pay for it.)
  1. Would you support eliminating the Medicare Savings Program asset limit and providing an annual cost-of-living adjustment to the state’s SSI Supplemental payment?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): No answer given because he didn’t have a cost estimate.
  1. Would you support developing and providing resources for a Rhode Island Multi-Sector Plan on Aging?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): Yes.
  1. Would you support legislation creating an Office of Elder Advocate?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat): Yes.
  • Ken Block (Independent): Yes.
  1. What would you do to improve transparency and accountability in the delivery of human services?
  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

Yes, we need much more transparency across the state.

Think about bridges and roads, the lack of transparency there. And it really breeds mistrust.

One thing I feel deeply, as I’ve been listening to people over the last few years, is that people have lost faith in government. They’ve lost faith that those of us who are working in government are committed to making life better.

And I know there are so many dedicated public servants, but it is so trust-corroding when we’re hiding information.

So I support anything we can do to increase transparency and make sure people have access to the information.

What programs are working really well? What programs aren’t working?

I was also a big proponent of the Inspector General because I thought, look at the billions of dollars that we got during the Biden administration. We don’t even know where that money went.

What worked? What didn’t work? What should we keep doing? What should we stop doing?

Those are really basic questions we’re not answering today, and I’m very committed to transparency.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

Pretty much my entire adult life has been spent following the data and letting it take me wherever it leads.

I’ve been more frustrated than happy with Rhode Island state government’s ability to provide data. And I know many people have asked the state for information.

They’ve been frustrated, and sometimes people within government can’t even get the data that they need to make decisions.

So this is an area where I literally eat—this is what I do professionally.

I’d like to see a whole—this is really nerdy stuff—but I want to see a bunch of dashboards and other tools that will ultimately help us understand much better than we can now where we’re spending the money and where the data is, so we can make informed decisions.

We can’t make good decisions without the underlying information to tell us what to do.

The challenges that are in front of us are daunting, but they’re fixable. We have seen other states tackle hard problems. We can tackle hard problems.

On the transparency side of things, we have not covered ourselves in glory, and I’ll issue executive orders immediately upon becoming governor that get right at the issue of transparency and make sure that, moving forward, our government is accountable to you.

Government doesn’t serve itself. Government serves, temporarily, the people who elected it into power.

Closing Remarks

  • Helena Foulkes (Democrat):

Thank you all so much for being here, for the great questions, and for your time and energy on these topics.

I want to be a governor for everyone. One reason I did so well in the Democratic primary is that I know Rhode Islanders are ready for change. They’re hurting. Everywhere I go, people talk about how much pain there is in this state, but at the same time, how much people love it here.

I’m optimistic we can do great things together.

When I think about our state, I want it to be a place where our children and grandchildren can live a good life.

I want this to be a place where people can afford healthcare. They can send their kids to a good school. They can have bridges and roads that actually work for them.

So many basic things aren’t working, and I think people lose hope. They lose faith that government can work.

Last night I was talking to a young man, and I always say, “What do you want the next governor to do?” And he said, “I want someone who will be honest with us.”

I’ve never thought I was the smartest person in the room. I will absolutely be leveraging your expertise. You can expect to hear from me, and I’ll be an advocate and a champion for the people that you’re serving.

  • Ken Block (Independent):

Thank you for the opportunity to come here tonight, and thank you for the advocacy work that you do. Thank you for the services that you provide. Thank you for caring so much about the issues that have come out here.

Our government doesn’t work without people outside government making sure it doesn’t forget what it’s supposed to do.

You have seen in both of us tonight the hesitancy and the challenge when we talk about the funding and what’s coming at us.

We’re all feeling the pinch throughout the healthcare system. We are under tremendous stress from the physicians, the providers, all the way across.

For me, as someone looking to buy private health insurance, it’s probably close to $4,000 a month for my family of four.

That is unaffordable for the vast majority of Rhode Islanders. That’s way more than most Rhode Islanders pay on the mortgage.

So, we have what I lovingly call a mess.

And a problem of this magnitude requires a detailed thinker, somebody who’s going to pull the experts together and drive the conversation, and look to provide some structure on something that’s very unstructured right now.

And we have to find savings wherever we can, and put that money to better use.

Shoring Up the Nation’s Fraying Social Safety Net

Last week, AARP Foundation announced its analysis of newly released Census data on poverty, income and health insurance coverage in 2025.

“At first glance, it sounded like good news,” observed AARP Foundation President Claire Casey during an 18-minute virtual media briefing on Sept. 24. “Poverty fell, and household income hit a record high, but the headlines can be deceiving and not reflect what is happening to older Americans,” she said.

Casey stressed to attending journalists that the key takeaway was that senior poverty, measured using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), has risen for the fifth consecutive year, a trend not seen by any other age group. The SPM accounts for unavoidable costs like housing and health care.

According to the SPM, more than 10 million people age 65 and older are living in poverty, a number that has jumped roughly 45% since 2019. “And for perspective, we’re talking about an incredibly low bar. For a single renter, the poverty line starts at just over $19,000 a year,” Casey said.

Between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of Americans 65 and older living in poverty increased from 9.4% to 15.4%, according to the SPM, the largest increase for any age group measured.

Casey also highlighted the continuing economic disparities facing older women, whose poverty rate is about 17%. She attributed this, in part, to lifetime inequalities, including the gender pay gap and career interruptions for child care and elder care.

Taking a Look at Poverty Before Retirement

To better understand why senior poverty keeps rising, Casey argues that we have to look at what happens before people turn 65.

While discussing the newly released Census data, Casey compared it with findings from AARP Foundation’s new Economic Security Monitor, a quarterly survey tracking financial stability among adults age 50 and older living on low incomes.

The latest Monitor found significant hardships among adults ages 50 to 64, a group traditionally considered to be in their peak earning years.

Nearly one-third reported running out of food before they had money to buy more, 70% said their household expenses had increased in just the last three months, and one-third could not cover an emergency expense of more than $100.

Many assume that employment in their 50s brings peak financial stability, but for millions of Americans preparing to retire, the numbers tell a different story.

More than 7 million people between ages 50 and 64, about one in eight, are already living in poverty, Casey pointed out.

“That’s our warning sign. If people are already struggling this much before retirement, we know where they are headed,” Casey said, noting that “we have to act now or senior poverty will keep rising.”

“But what’s even more troubling is that you don’t have to be in poverty at 55 to age into it,” Casey warned. An individual can work full-time throughout a career, do everything right, and still end up impoverished in retirement. Only one in four older adults with low incomes has access to a workplace retirement plan, she noted.

Casey also pointed to problems facing low-income workers between ages 50 and 64, particularly those who lose jobs or work in low-paying occupations because of age discrimination or early health complications. They are more likely to experience long-term unemployment, and only 10% will find a new job with equal or higher pay, she said.

Programs exist to help seniors facing poverty, but getting those benefits can be difficult. “Older adults miss out on an estimated $58 billion in benefits each year because the system is hard to access,” Casey said.

“As Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid requirements change, I worry that eligible people, especially those 55 to 64, will lose access,” Casey said, stressing the importance of maintaining these lifeline benefits and helping states deliver them more effectively.

“Each year since 2020, more and more older adults have fallen into abject poverty,” Casey said. “Today’s release confirms what we see every day in our work—that rising prices, an eroding social safety net, and diminishing access to quality jobs are creating extreme precarity for older adults in our communities.”

Advocacy Groups Weigh In

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says the Census numbers underscore the need to protect Social Security as Congress considers how to address the program’s long-term financial shortfall.

“The 2025 Census poverty data and AARP analysis make one fact unmistakable: retirees and future retirees are being pushed into deeper economic insecurity,” Richtman said. “Cutting earned benefits would intensify the crisis,” he cautioned.

The National Committee believes Congress should require wealthy Americans to contribute more to extend Social Security’s solvency while improving benefits for current and future generations.

Here in Rhode Island, advocates say the numbers tell a similar story.

Carol Anne Costa, Executive Director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI), points to Census data, the Elder Index, and United Way of Rhode Island’s ALICE report as evidence that many older Rhode Islanders struggle to pay for housing, food, health care, utilities, and transportation.

“The data tells a troubling story,” Costa said. “The share of older Rhode Island households living below the federal poverty level rose from 8.9 percent in 2019 to 12.3 percent in 2024. This is not an abstract statistic, she said, noting it represents older adults having to make impossible choices between paying rent, filling prescriptions, keeping the heat on, or buying groceries.

Costa added that one in four older Rhode Island households has income below $25,000 a year. According to the 2026 Elder Index figures cited by SACRI, an older adult renter in good health needs approximately $34,152 annually to meet basic expenses. An older couple in poor health who own their home needs approximately $45,996.

But poverty statistics alone do not tell the whole story.

“The federal poverty measure does not capture the full extent of hardship facing older adults,” said Maureen Maigret, SACRI Policy Advisor. She pointed to the recent United Way of Rhode Island ALICE report, which found that 53% of older Rhode Islanders do not have enough income to meet necessities.

“This situation is getting worse, not better,” Maigret said. “Rhode Island must treat affordability impacting older adults as an urgent public policy priority.”

SACRI is urging state policymakers to move forward with its Older Adult Affordability Agenda, beginning with eliminating the asset limit for the Medicare Savings Program.

“Eliminating the asset limit would allow thousands more eligible older Rhode Islanders and people with disabilities to qualify for help with their Medicare Part B premiums,” Maigret said. For eligible individuals, she noted, that can mean savings of at least $2,400 each year because the federal government pays the Part B premium.

Costa calls it a practical solution that would put money back into the pockets of low-income older adults while bringing additional federal dollars into Rhode Island.

The Economic Progress Institute (EPI) also warns that the federal poverty numbers do not fully capture the financial squeeze facing Rhode Islanders.

Nina Harrison, EPI’s Policy Director, points out that although the Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure fell by 0.5 percentage points nationally in 2025, the broader Supplemental Poverty Measure did not change significantly. She contends that even though incomes may have risen, they did not rise enough to offset higher costs.

Harrison also warns that changes in federal healthcare and food assistance policies will put additional pressure on low-income Rhode Islanders. She cited the loss of enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits and federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid as particular concerns.

EPI’s 2026 Rhode Island Standard of Need report, scheduled for release Monday, takes a closer look at what Rhode Island households need to cover basic living expenses. Harrison says its findings show that nearly 40% of Rhode Island households cannot afford their basic needs, including many older residents. More than half of Rhode Island women age 65 and older who live alone cannot meet their basic needs, she said.

“Without significant intervention and harm reduction, OBRA and related federal policies are sure to increase the poverty rate and human suffering,” Harrison warned.

She is urging the General Assembly to find ways to protect food and healthcare assistance for Rhode Islanders who lose federal benefits and to strengthen other programs serving low-income residents.

A Final Note…

As previously stated, the numbers the Census Bureau released tell us something important. The nation’s overall poverty rate may have fallen in 2025, but millions of older Americans are being left behind.

Casey’s warning at the start of the press briefing deserves the attention of Congress and state legislatures. Since millions of older Americans face financial difficulties, it is no surprise that many ultimately end up in poverty after retirement.

For many, the financial problems begin years before they collect their first Social Security check. They retire with little savings, no pension or workplace retirement plan, and not much room in their monthly budget to cover increased rent, a broken refrigerator, or an unexpected medical bill.

AARP Foundation efforts to call attention to senior poverty should serve as a troubling warning to Congress as it debates the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and SNAP.

Congress must address Social Security’s long-term financial problems before automatic cuts to program benefits take place in 2032.  Tens of millions of retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors already living on the financial edge would see their situation worsen. Congress must also ensure that changes to the nation’s social safety-net programs don’t make it harder for eligible older Americans to get the help they need.

Rhode Island lawmakers also have their work to do. Eliminating the asset limit for the Medicare Savings Program would be one concrete step toward helping low-income older Rhode Islanders stretch their limited monthly incomes.

To review AARP Foundation’s June 2026 Economic Security Monitor (full report), go to  AARP Foundation Economic Security Monitor Fact Sheet.

To review AARP Foundation’s June 2026 Economic Security Monitor (fact sheet), go to AARP Foundation Economic Security Monitor Fact Sheet

Download the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2025 Poverty Report,  go to Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2025

___