Block and Foulkes address Aging, Disability, Behavioral Health at Gubernatorial Forumof Healthy

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.

Bipartisan efforts strengthens the Dementia public health infrastructure

Published in RINewsToday on December 2, 2024

In the waning days of the Biden administration, Congress has moved one step closer to assisting states to continue to effectively implement dementia interventions.  Following passage of H. R. 7218 on Sept. 17th, by voice vote on Nov. 21st, the U.S. Senate passed S. 3775, also without objection. At press time, the bipartisan legislation now heads to President Biden’s desk to be signed into law.

Once signed, the new law re-authorizes the Building Our Largest Dementia (BOLD) Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act (P.L.115-406) enacted in 2018, empowering public health departments across the country to implement effective dementia interventions in their communities.

In a March 2024 fact sheet, the Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) calls for Alzheimer’s and other dementias to be considered an urgent public health issue, noting that nearly 7 million seniors across the nation are currently living with Alzheimer’s.

While partisan bickering has reduced the number of bills passed during the 118th Congress, Democratic and Republican lawmakers seek solutions for containing the skyrocketing costs of care, finding a cure for debilitating brain disorders, and supporting caregivers. 

The nation spends more than $360 billion per year, including $231 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid. Barring any major breakthroughs to prevent, slow down, or cure Alzheimer’s, the number of Americans with Alzheimer’s is expected to double by 2060, costing the nation more than $1.1 trillion per year, says AIM’s Fact Sheet.

Congress continues funding of Dementia effective interventions

In the Senate, S. 3775 was spearheaded by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and cosponsored by Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse.  It’s companion measure, H.R. 7218, was introduced in the House by Reps. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, along with Chris Smith (R-NJ), Paul Tonko (D-NY), and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

With its enactment in 2018, P.L. 115-406 accelerated a multi-pronged public health approach to reduce risk, detect early symptoms, advance care, improve data, and ultimately change the trajectory of this devastating disease.

Headed by the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), the reauthorization would authorize $33 million per year, in line with current appropriations, over the next five years to support:

1.  Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Public Health Centers of Excellence dedicated to promoting effective Alzheimer’s disease and caregiving interventions, as well as educating the public on Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive decline, and brain health. 

2.  Public Health Cooperative Agreements with the CDC that are awarded to State Health Departments to help them meet local needs in promoting brain health, reducing risk of cognitive decline, improving care for those with Alzheimer’s, and other key public health activities. 

3.  Data Grants to improve the analysis and timely reporting of data on Alzheimer’s, cognitive decline, caregiving, and health disparities at the state and national levels.

Since the original Bold Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act passed, the CDC has made 66 awards to 45 state, local and tribal public health departments to help them implement effective dementia interventions such as reducing risk, increasing early detection and diagnosis, and supporting the needs of caregivers.

“Alzheimer’s disease is one of the greatest and most under-recognized public health threats of our time. Nearly seven million Americans—including 29,600 Mainers—are living with the disease, and that number is soaring as our overall population grows older and lives longer,” said Maine Sen. Collins, a founder and Senate co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease in a statement announcing the passage of the legislation.  

“The passage of this bipartisan legislation is a tremendous victory for families and communities nationwide. By reauthorizing the BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act, we are reaffirming our commitments to providing the tools needed to fight this devastating disease, and to not let Alzheimer’s be one of the defining diseases of our children’s generation as it has ours,” says Collins.

“Since the original BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act passed, public health departments have been able to improve brain health across the life course in their communities,” said Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and AIM president. “The BOLD Reauthorization Act will help public health departments implement effective strategies that promote brain health, address dementia, and support individuals living with dementia and their caregivers,” said Egge. “We urge the President to support the Alzheimer’s community and swiftly sign this bipartisan bill into law,” he says.

Rhode Island response

“Getting this bill across the finish line is a win for the 25,000 Rhode Islanders living with Alzheimer’s, their adult children who work tirelessly as unpaid family caregivers, and for the health and economic needs of the next generation too.  We must continue the progress we’ve made against Alzheimer’s.  We’ve got to find better treatments for Alzheimer’s and related dementias. The federal government must do its part to reduce risk, detect early symptoms, and advance care while lifting the burden on unpaid caregivers,” said RI Sen. Reed.

Since the original BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act passed in 2018, Reed noted that the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) has been awarded $3.8 million in BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act grants from the CDC. RIDOH has used the federal BOLD grant funds to help to implement effective Alzheimer’s interventions, including boosting early detection and diagnosis, reducing risk, and preventing avoidable hospitalizations, he says.

Victoria O’Connor, program manager at the RIDOH’s Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders (ADRD), who chairs the state’s Advisory Council on ADRD, agrees with Sen. Reed’s assessment about the positive impact of this federal grant on state-wide public health interventions for those caring for persons with dementia.

“The RIDOH Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Program leads a statewide Advisory Council, convening critical partners, subject matter experts, and people with lived experience to advise implementation of the BOLD funded workplan as well as oversee the Rhode Island State Plan on Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders 2024-2029. This collaborative approach has led to successful implementation of public health interventions statewide that aim to empower all individuals impacted by dementia to achieve their best quality of life.” says O’Connor.

Other congressional actions to combat Alzheimer’s  

Earlier this year, Sen. Reed helped pass the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA) Reauthorization Act and the Alzheimer’s Accountability and Investment Act (AAIA).  Sen. Whitehouse was also a cosponsor of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA) Reauthorization Act.  Both bills were signed into law by President Biden. 

The NAPA Reauthorization Act (P.L.,118-93) reauthorizes NAPA through 2035, considered a roadmap to coordinate federal efforts in responding to Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.  Since NAPA was first passed in 2011, Alzheimer’s research funding has increased seven-fold.  Today, funding for research into Alzheimer’s and other dementias totals over $3.8 billion.

The Alzheimer’s Accountability and Investment Act (P.L. 118-93) would require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to submit an annual budget to Congress estimating the funding necessary to fully implement NAPA’s research goals.  This will help ensure Congress can make a well-informed decision to determine necessary Alzheimer’s research funding levels.

We have made tremendous progress in recent years to boost funding for Alzheimer’s research, which holds great promise to end this disease that has had a devastating effect on millions of Americans and their families,” said Sen. Collins, who authored NAPA and AAIA.

“These two bills will maintain our momentum and make sure that we do not take our foot off the pedal just as our investments in basic research are beginning to translate into potential new treatments. We must not let Alzheimer’s to be one of the defining diseases of our children’s generation as it has ours,” she says.

And as a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Sen. Reed helped provide a $275 million increase for Alzheimer’s disease research in the fiscal year 2025 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related Agencies Appropriations bill.  In 2019, NIH awarded Brown University researchers, along with Boston-based Hebrew SeniorLife (HSL), over $53 million in federal research funds  to lead a nationwide effort to improve health care and quality of life for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, as well as their caregivers.

Next November, Let Seniors Vote on Social Security Fixes  

Published in RINewsToday on May 13, 2024

By Herb Weiss

The recently released 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report shows an improved outlook for these programs. This year’s projections show that Social Security can pay its benefits and cover administrative costs now until 2035, one year longer than projected in last year’s report. But, after that, it can only cover 83 percent of benefits, even if Congress fails to take no action to fix the program to ensure its financial viability.  

Medicare’s fiscal health improves even more, says the Medicare Trustees Report. It projects that the program’s Part A (Hospital) fund will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2036 — a full five years later than estimated by the trustees last year. 

Under the Social Security Act of 1935, the Board of Trustees is required to submit the annual reports on the current and projected financial status of the trust funds to Congress on April 1 each year. 

It’s Time for Congress to Protect Social Security

“This year’s report is a measure of good news,” says Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a statement recognizing the impact of “strong economic that have yielded impressive wage growth, historic job creation and a steady, low unemployment rate.”  

“So long as Americans across our country continue to work, Social Security can — and will — continue to pay benefits,” says O’Malley, calling on Congress to take action to ensure the financial viability of the Trust Fund “into the foreseeable future just as it did I the past on a bipartisan basis.”  

“I will continue to urge Congress to protect and support Social Security and restore the growth of the funds. Whether Congress chooses to eliminate the shortfall by increasing revenue, reducing benefits, or some combination, is a matter of political preference, not affordability,” observes O’Malley, noting that there are several legislative proposals that address the shortfall without benefit cuts — it should debate and vote on these and any other proposals. 

Social Security Advocacy Groups. Key GOP Lawmaker Issue Statements 

With the May 6 release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, statements were generated by Social Security advocacy groups and Congressional lawmakers to give their take on the projections. 

Even with the report pushing back the expected depletion dates for Social Security and Medicare, Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare (NCPSSM) called for Congress to immediately act to strengthen the Social Security program for the 67 million beneficiaries. “We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983.  The sooner Congress acts, the less painful the remedies will be, says Richtman.

In responding to comments that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt, Richtman says: “Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers’ payroll contributions, so the program will never be ‘broke.’ But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly.  A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.” 

Richtman warns that seniors will take a devastating financial hit if Congress is forced to make cuts in 2035. “Average Social Security benefits are already very modest — about $23,000 per year, which is only $3,000 higher than the federal poverty line for a household of two,” he says, noting that wealthier beneficiaries can afford to contribute more to the program without hurting them financially. 

“Social Security has an accumulated surplus of $2.79 trillion. It is 90 percent funded for the next quarter century, 83 percent for the next half century, and 81 percent for the next three quarters of a century. At the end of the century, in 2100,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, noting that the program is projected to cost just 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (“GDP”). 

Like the SSA Commissioner and NCPSSM’s Richtman, and Altman urges Congress to act sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security’s modest benefits. “That will restore one of the most important benefits Social Security is intended to provide to the American people — a sense of security,” she says.

As to Medicare, the released report notes the life expectancy for Medicare part A Trust Fund is extended another five years. 

“It’s great news that the Part A trust fund has an additional FIVE years before it becomes depleted, partly because of the unexpected strength of the U.S. economy.  But current and future seniors expect action to keep the trust fund solvent for the long-term,” said Richtman.

“We support President Biden’s plan to strengthen Medicare’s finances, as laid out in his FY 2024 and 2025 budgets,” says Richtman, noting that the president’s plan would bring more revenue into the program, rather than cutting benefits as some Republicans have proposed.  “Building on the prescription drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act, the President’s budget proposal would lower Medicare’s costs — and some of those savings would be used to extend the solvency of the Part A trust fund,” he says.

According to Richtman, beyond trust fund solvency, the Trustees reported that the standard Medicare Part B premium will rise next year to $185 per month – a $20 or 6 percent monthly increase. “Any premium increase is a burden to seniors living on fixed incomes, who too often must choose between paying monthly bills or filling prescriptions and getting proper health care.  Seniors need relief from rising premiums and skyrocketing out-of-pocket health care costs. Fortunately, the Biden administration is taking steps to reduce those costs,” said Richtman.

Key GOP Chair  Responds to Trustee Reports

Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), of the House Budget Committee, quickly released a statement, responding to the release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report.

According to Arrington, the House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget, while not making any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits, provides a way to prod Congress and the President to address the fiscal insolvency of these programs. The Budget Committee has also reported the Fiscal Commission Act, which will also give Congress the tools it needs to save and strengthen these vital programs,” he noted.

“We have the highest levels of indebtedness in our nation’s history, an inflationary and anemic economy, and the two most important senior safety net programs facing insolvency, says Arrington, noting that this year’s trustees report “only reiterates why we need a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to address the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the $140 trillion unfunded liability on America’s balance sheet.”

“Republicans and Democrats have both proven they will not fix Social Security and Medicare on their own. We must put our seniors and country first and work together to find a solution,” he charges. “Doing nothing is condemning our seniors to automatic benefit cuts and our country to a future debt crisis,” he says.

Fixing Social Security…A Difference in Perspective.

Both NCPSSM and Social Security Works strongly endorse financially shoring up Social Security by bringing in more money into the trust fund by increasing the payroll wage-cap to require higher-income beneficiaries to pay a higher Social Security payroll tax.  Both Social Security advocacy groups endorse Rep. John Larson’s (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act, a legislative proposal would maintain the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well — and dedicating some of high-earners’ investment income to Social Security. 

On the other hand, Republican lawmakers call for cutting earned benefits of younger workers by raising the full-retirement age, means-testing, and replacing the exiting COLA (CPI-W with the Chained CPI-U) that would result in a lower COLA over time. Also, no COLA’s would be provided to high income earners.  

Social Security is considered the third rail a nation’s politics.  Political pundits say that contact with the rail is like touching this high-voltage rail that can result in “political suicide.”  That is why the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee has proposed to create a fiscal commission to give lawmakers political cover to enact the cuts without having to vote on the record.  

Over two months ago, the most recent budget hammered out by the Republican Study Committee, endorsed by 80 percent of the House Republicans, calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security in just the next ten years., including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug costs, repealing a $ 35 insulin, and $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 Additionally, the House GOP budget transitions Medicare to a premium support system that the Congressional Budget Office has found would raises premiums for many seniors.  Finally, it calls for cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $ 4.5 trillion over ten years, taking health care  coverage away from millions of people. 

While President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential candidate, has previous said he wouldn’t make cuts to Social Security, recent interviews reveal a change.  According to a March 11, 2024 web posting by CNN’s Kate Sullivan and Tami Luhby, former President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, “suggested[ in a CNBC interview] he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue.”

At the Polls

Legislative proposals to fix the ailing Social Security and Medicare programs are different as night and day. Rather than to  continue to debate the fine points, let’s put the differing policies on the ballot. With just 177 days left before the upcoming November presidential election, Congress must vote on Democratic and Republican legislative proposals, detailing differing provisions as to how these programs can increase the financial stability of these programs. Larson has already thrown his legislative proposal into the hopper, but it won’t see the light of day with a GOP controlled House.    

Last year, 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits.  This year’s Trustee’s report must send a clear message to these beneficiaries that how Congress acts during the next decade will either make or break the Social Security program. 

So, now House Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-La) and Senate President Charles E. Schumer (D- NY) must allow a vote on both Republican and Democratic legislative proposals in their respective chambers.  Let Senate and House lawmakers go on the record and publicly be tied to a vote as to which legislative political strategy they endorse to financially shore up Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, this can give voters a score card. And if this political issue is as important to them as the economy, abortion, and immigration, they can decide at the ballot box who they should bring back to Capitol Hill. 

That’s the American way to do it.