Tag Archives for AARP

Grandparents Take an Active role in Parenting and Caregiving

Published in Pawtucket Times on August 12, 2002

Susan Sweet, an elder rights advocate and a full-time consultant to nonprofit groups, has a jam-packed schedule that consumes much of her time.

However, the East Providence resident puts her two small grandchildren at the top of her schedule.

Grandparenting is the best time in Sweet’s life, who noted this role allows her to share both life experiences and wisdom with Zackary, age seven and a half and his sister Erika Lee, who is almost 10 months.

“My job as a grandparent is to expose Zackary and Erika Lee to things that they would not other wise be exposed to,” the 61-year-old Sweet says.

New experiences with the youngish grandmother include exposure to the world of music, art and cultural and ethnic diversity of the world.

With her grandchildren living on Cape Cod, Sweet keeps in constant contact through e-mail and telephone calls. Zachary visits grandma every two weeks, where she takes him out and about the Providence Children’s Museum, Waterfire and even to the aquarium in Mystic, Conn. Erika will get her turn to visit Sweet when she gets older.

“Grandparents are magical to their grandchildren,” especially those who don’t have the burden of everyday parenting responsibilities, Sweet insists. Moreover, the elder generation becomes the repository of a family’s history, where grandchildren can learn where they came from.

Like Sweet, grandparents across the nation are becoming actively involved with intergenerational parenting and caregiving, and this role is becoming more commonplace.

A newly released AARP study finds that aging baby boomers and seniors are taking a more active role in raising their grandchildren.

Almost half of those surveyed were under 50 when their first grandchild was born. The ages of those surveyed ranged from 45 6o 100 years, with a mean age of 64.

According to the AARP study, today’s grandparents believe they are teaching their grandchildren values and family history, entertaining them and listening to their problems.

About 68 percent of those surveyed see a grandchild every one or two weeks, and almost 24 percent say they see their grandchild from once a month to once every few months.

However, the study found that a principal barrier to more frequent contact was living too far away – almost 45 percent of the respondents said their grandchildren live more than 200 miles away from them. Another barrier to frequent contact was the grandchildren’s busy schedules (22 percent).

In those case, grandparents reach out and touch a loved one by phone – eight in 10 grandparents (80 percent) contacted a grandchild by telephone at least once every couple of weeks.  A smaller number (12 percent) reported using traditional mail  (i.e. letters, greeting cards, or videos) at least once every couple weeks, and 54 percent sent traditional mail at least every few  months.

The AARP survey found the most popular topics of conversation between grandparents and grandchildren are issues relating to school (84 percent), morals or values (78 percent), planning future visits (72 percent) and daily activities (72 percent).

However, conversations between grandparents and their grandchildren did not shy away from sensitive topics.

Almost 65 percent speak with their grandchildren about religion and spirituality. Conversations also centered on cigarettes (47 percent), alcohol (43 percent) and illegal drug use (45 percent). Almost a quarter (24 percent) said they talk with their grandchildren about sex.

Grandparents are also providing significant financial support for their grandchildren on a day-today basis. On average, grandparents report they spend $500 a year on their grandchildren with many spending money on their basic daily needs. About 52 percent provide financial help with the educational needs of their grandchildren, and almost 45 percent report they hep with living expenses. Meanwhile, about 25 percent say they assist with a grandchild’s medical expenses.

Fifteen percent of grandparents reported they provide child day-care services for their grandchildren to assist the working parent, nearly 24 percent of those also say they provide such care at least once a week to once every couple of weeks while the parents are not at work. Almost 80 percent who provide child care are looking after one or two grandchildren; another 17 percent care for as many as three or four grandchildren.

Finally, the survey finds that grandparents of all ages are involved in some form of physical activity with their grandchildren. More than half (53 percent) have exercised or played sports with their grandchildren within the past six months, and at least half in each age group engage in such activities with grandchildren.

Congress to Debate Pharmaceutical Drug Benefit

Published in Pawtucket Times on June, 24, 2002

A looming November election is prodding Congress to get serious and tackle one of the hottest issues of interest to seniors – skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs that hit them hard in their pocketbooks.

At press time, two House Committees have now marked up the 255-page GOP prescription drug proposal. The final GOP bill is expected to be brought to the House floor for a vote later this week.

Congress is now poised to consider three prescription drug benefit proposals – two would expand Medicare and one would follow a private marketplace approach toward creating a meaningful prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Under the 10-year GOP proposal, which has a $ 350 billion price tag, drug coverage would be directly purchased by Medicare beneficiaries from insurance companies. Seniors would pay a $250 annual deductible along with a $ 34 monthly premium.

For low-income beneficiaries, Medicare would pick up the tab, paying for both premiums and deductibles. The GOP drug benefit would cover 80 percent of senior’s annual prescription drug costs up to $ 1,000; 50 percent up to $ 2,000 and none of the costs between $ 2,000 and $ 3,700, after which a catastrophic benefit would kick in.

In sharp contrast to the GOP plan, the Democratic House proposal costing about $ 800 billion includes a $ 25 per month premium with an annual deductible of $100.

Under a new Part D in Medicare, beneficiaries would pay 20 percent of the drug costs -up to $ 2,000, after which Medicare would pay 100 percent. Under a Senate Democratic proposal, costing up to $ 500 billion, seniors would pay a $ 25 premium but have no deductible. The Senate version would also set a limit of $ 4,000 in out-of-pocket expenses and require co-payments of $ 10 for generic drugs and $ 40 for preferred brand-name medications.

A vote on the Senate prescription drug package is expected to take place next month.

Democrats and Republicans are now cranking up their public relations machinery to take potshots at each other’s bills and tout their own proposals as “the real drug benefit.”

The bipartisan bickering surrounding the prescription drug-coverage issue is complex at best, especially for the senior voter ho must attempt to understand the minute details of the Democratic and Republican proposals.

Even wading through the pounds of press releases and background papers, generated by both parties’ spin machines and special interest groups, can become a challenge task at best.

Literature created by the House Republican Speaker’s Prescription Drug Action Team calls the Democratic prescription drug proposal an “election-year gimmick.”

The GOP plan stays within an already-agreed upon federal budget of $ 350 billion over 10 years to strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, a flyer says, noting that the Democratic plans “simply spend billions more.”

Furthermore, the Republican generated literature announces that Health and Human Service Secretary Tommy Thompson has thrown the administration’s support firmly behind the GOP House proposal.

The HHS agency report finds competition among private insurers that offer the pharmaceutical benefit, concluding this approach would provide real financial relief for seniors.

According to HHS, analysis of the GOP proposal, seniors would save as much as 70 percent on their overall out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions. In addition, seniors would save 60 to 85 percent per prescription.

Meanwhile the Democrats have taken aim at the GOP proposal charging that it only serves the interest of the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) gives his thumbs-up to the House Democrats plan, considering it to be the best legislative fix for protecting seniors against spiraling  costs. The Rhode Island congressman told All About Seniors the GOP proposal would pay, at most, 25 percent of the costs of medications. Moreover, Kennedy added seniors would face an enormous  gap in drug coverage, too. Seniors would be responsible for paying the tab if their medication costs fall between $ 2,000 and $ 3,700.

Washington, DC-based aging advocacy groups are also throwing their two cents into this complex congressional debate on prescription drug coverage.

In March 2002, the AARP, the nation’s largest advocacy group, released survey findings that indicate aging baby boomers and seniors see a public-sector response as the way to bringing meaningful pharmaceutical coverage to seniors.

According to the survey, eight in 10 Americans age 45 and over favor making prescription drug part of the Medicare system. Sixty-seven percent strongly favor this benefit.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a national group that advocates for high quality, affordable health care, charged the “House Republican prescription drug plan is far designed to provide political protection for House incumbents than drug cost relief for America’s seniors.”

“The proposal provides precious little assistance and keeps prescription drugs unaffordable for millions of seniors,” Pollack said.

The closer you examine the provisions in the GOP prescription drug proposal, you will see major flaws, Pollack stated. “The proposal provides a very meager benefit and forces seniors to pay the lion’s share of drug costs,” he says, adding this will result in many seniors not being able to affordable medications they need.

Meanwhile, Pollack stated that using private insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage is the wrong approach. He said there is no guarantee insurance companies will offer drug coverage in specific communities, and the GOP proposal allows insurance companies to define the coverage they offer in different locations.

“Seniors will have no certainty about the premiums they need to pay, the cost-sharing they will bear, the drugs that are covered and under what conditions they can obtain those drugs,” notes Pollack.

When both chambers pass their prescription drug proposals, U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he believes the Senate and House can reach a compromise at the conference committee table.

However, he warned a compromise cannot come at the expense of a senior’s bank account.

I hope Congress listens to and hears a key message from AARP’s 2002 survey – that is eight in 10 of those participating consider providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit to be an extremely important priority for the President and Congress.

With pharmaceutical drug costs continuing to increase, millions of senior voters can no longer afford to wait for a solution blocked by political bickering.

At best, with a little more than four months until the November elections, Democratic and Republican lawmakers might just choose to put politics aside and strike a compromise that can achieve  widespread bipartisan support in both chambers for passage of a meaningful pharmaceutical benefit law.

It’s that time.

All Ages Ultimately Benefit from AARP Advocacy

Published in the Pawtucket Times on June 17, 2002

Everyone has seen newspaper articles reporting how direct m ail pieces sometimes do not reach their attended audience.

Years ago, a friend of mine snickered when told me of a published account of a dog who received a draft notice. Now that’s humorous.

Or than there was an article gleefully reporting a fund-raising snafu where a high-ranking Democratic Congressman was invited to a very costly fundraiser. It was a no brainer for this lawmaker- he just chooses not to go.

Many of my colleagues dread receiving AARP membership solicitations, especially those persons in their late 40s. The mailing is viewed as a reminder that we are reaching midlife and growing older by the day.

With a deadline fast approaching and being “temporarily devoid of brow-furrowing themes,” Rhode Island columnist Philip Terzian told the tale of a misdirected AARP membership solicitation. He reports that his 17-year-old son recently received an invitation to join AARP, 33 years before his 50th birthday. In his tongue-in-cheek piece, Terzian talks about how his son was “haunted by the AARP.”

In that membership solicitation, AARP told the youngster “You have to be 50 or over to join- but you don’t have to be retired,” quipped a bemused Terzian. He speculated that his son was targeted by AARP membership because of the youngster’s unusual hobby. Being an amateur ornithologist, the young man’s name probably ended up on the mail lists, ultimately purchased by AARP to recruit new members, Terzian speculates.

Discounts, pharmacy services, a subscription to the glitzy Modern Maturity, along with lots of helpful information for aging baby boomers and seniors did not influence the late 40-ish Terzian to join, the ranks and file of AARP.

“Senior citizens as a political constituency are now almost as insatiable as veterans, nearly as ubiquitous as victims of cultural insensitivity,” says the aging baby boomer writer expressing why he chose not to send in his membership check.

Responding to Terzian’s piece, AARP-Rhode Island President Phil Zarlengo apologized for the marketing faux pas of putting the young Rhode Islander on the group’s mailing list. He publicly pledged to immediately remove the youngster’s name from a future membership solicitation.

At the top AARP spokesperson Zarlengo strongly disagreed with Terzian’s assertion that AARP’s political constituency to “insatiable,” in their efforts to lobby for federal dollars for senior programs.

AARP is pushing for prescription drug benefits that benefit all Rhode Island seniors, even those choosing not to purchase a minimally priced AARP membership, he said.

AARP’s misdirected mailing to a 17-year-old may well help us to ultimately rethink how we age in America.

No longer should we fear turning age 50, waiting for that AARP membership solicitation to drop through the  mailing slot, announcing midlife has approached, and that we are moving quickly toward our senior years.

Our society is aging.

In just 20 years, the proportion of the state’s population who are older than 65 will skyrocket to nearly 19 percent. Like other states, the percentage of Rhode Islanders who are older than 65, than 75 and even 85, is growing.

We also see a surge in the number of growing baby boomers, too – those born between 1946 and 1964.

Some like Terzian, have expressed dismay over AARP’s strong political muscle.

Right now, political battles are being waged at both the state and national levels for adequate pharmaceutical drug coverage, a coordinated long-term care  system, and more importantly, for a better quality of life for elders.  However, the national aging group’s struggle is not  shameless act to benefit one generation.

Ultimately, AARP’s actions will assist every generation that follows in today’s elder’s footsteps.

Aging baby boomers their children and grandchildren will benefit from sound aging policy, implemented through the successful results of AARP’s lobbying efforts.

It is now time for society to not judge age in chronological terms.  You are only as old as you feel, the old adage says. That’s how we should view aging.

Maybe it is time for AARP to rethink its membership age requirement.

With the graying of America, maybe we should view it as a humorous mistake when a 17-year-old receives an invitation to join AARO.  Tomorrow’s AARP members, who represent every generation, could work together on a redefined organizational mission.

Rather than working on late-life issues, the newly directed membership organization could strive to make a person’s journey throughout their entire lifespan a little easier, a bit better and brighter.

Now isn’t that worth the cost of an AARP membership?