Tag Archives for Meals on Wheels

Bush’s “just guns, no butter” policy hurts senior programs

Published in the Pawtucket Times on March 31, 2003

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Guns and Butter” policy is not in fashion today.

In a recent Washington Aging Report, radio commentator Bill Benson predicted future federal funding of program and services for seniors will take a back seat to President Bush’s worldwide fight against tourism, the high-tech war against Iraq and tax breaks for the upper income Americans.

In his Marh 24 commentary, Benson, a former assistant secretary with the U.S. Administration on Aging and now a principal at Health Benefits ABC – sees tough times ahead for the federal funding of programs and services, especially the creation of a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program.

“Guns and Butter” was coined nearly 40 years ago, describing President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two-front war. Back then, a large infusion of federal dollars allowed the Democratic president to fight a war abroad – in Vietnam – along with a war on the domestic front, against poverty and social ills, especially those facing the elderly.

“By the end of 1965, with Vietnam escalating, we had the Medicare program and the Older Americans Act,” noted Benson, adding Medicaid was also created at this time to help millions of low-income older people afford the cost of nursing home care.

Benson’s radio commentary charged the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are fully committed to funding the “guns” but not “butter” policy initiatives.

“It would be one thing if the commitment to guns over butter was for the president while we topple Saddam and occupy Iraq, and combat terrorism everywhere. “Instead, it looks like the Bush administration is committed to making butter a scarcer commodity for years to come,” said Benson.

According to Benson’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year suggests it won’t be both “guns and butter,” especially in light of the president’s efforts to pursue large tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

What about the spending for guns?

According to the Washington Post, Bush’s proposal for the fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, calls for defense spending that is 16 percent more than the combined total of all other discretionary spending excluding what he would spend on homeland security.

And that figure does not take into account the cost of the war in Iraq, nor expenditures to combat terrorism, Benson says.

Meanwhile, Benson said the Washington Post noted secretary of defense Donald Rumford has proposed a $20 billion increase for defense for each of the next six years, would follow what have been six straight years of real increases in defense spending. The result by 2010 would be annual spending for defense of more than half a trillion dollars.

Combine increased defense with the cost of the Iraq war.

Benson noted the White House estimated the cost for Iraq and related matters will be nearly $75 billion over the next six months.

Benson said that by 2011, the first baby boomer s will turn age 65, and will begin placing huge demands up on Medicare, Social Security and other services for the elderly.

“President Bush’s FY 2004 budget calls for $ 400 billion spread over 10 years for a prescription drug plan for senior,” said Benson.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare beneficiaries will in fact spend more than $1.8 trillion over the same 10 years for prescription drugs.

That means, said Benson, the president’s plan would cover only a bit more than 20 percent of wat seniors will actually spend. And that is if the $ 400 billion actually goes for drug coverage when there will be many other demands for additional Medicare dollars.

Bush also purposes to cut funding for the Older Americans Act – a federal program that supports such services as Meals on Wheels, transportation for the elderly and ombudsmen to investigate problems in nursing homes -by $24 billion, Benson said.

With a worldwide war on  terrorism combined with the ongoing war in Iraq, the debate regarding “guns and butter” spending must begin in earnest.

Hard choices must be made in times of war, but seniors must continue to press both the Bush administration and Congress for adequate federal funding to create a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program, and to shore up the ailing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In this new era of huge defense spending, the Bush administration and Congress will have to make very painful choices in allocating its limited discretionary funds to support a wide variety of domestic policy initiatives.

Only an intense lobby of aging advocates and seniors will keep programs and services benefiting the nation’s elderly on the radar screens of federal officials and lawmakers.

Confronting the Long-Term Care Dilemma in Uncertain Times

Published in the Pawtucket Times on January 14, 2002

 Aging advocates are about to find out how many slides you can cut the Rhode Island budgetary pie, especially when lawmakers are predicting that the state’s deficit could soar to hundreds of millions.

With the backdrop of a recession, pushing to keep funding at current levels for existing programs and services this legislative session may be their only hope as advocates for affordable health care and housing, education, disabled persons, seniors, and low-income families call for their fair share, too.

Meanwhile, CHOICES, a broad-based coalition of provider organizations and advocate organizations, will push this legislative session for more funding to keep Rhode Island seniors in their homes.

The coalition representing home care agencies, assisted-living facilities, adult day care, housing, senior center, disabled and senior advocates and Meals on Wheels, will continue its efforts to urge the General Assembly for reforms to Rhode Island’s long-term care system, said Paula Parker, Executive Director of Rhode Island Partnership of Home Care and a CHOICES member.

“Consumers must have options to choose programs and services that can provide them with greater independence in familiar surroundings,” Park told ALL About Seniors, adding that this is an underlying principle of CHOICE’S philosophy.

During the state’s prosperous years, Rhode Island’s allocation for home and community-based services slowly inched up from seven to eight percent of the state’s total long-term care budget.  Parker noted, however, that General Assembly funding for long-term care services continued to be heavily weighted toward funding institutional facility care.

“The challenge today is to continue the momentum of increasing state support for home and community-based services in less prosperous times,” Parker said, because the start’s rising elderly population creates a need to expand options in long-term care.

Susan Sweet, a consultant, long-time consumer advocate and CHOICES member, added that the seven-year-old coalition plans to continue its education efforts to inform legislators and the public about the cost savings of home and community care for elders as opposed to institutional care.

For example, Sweet stated that full-time adult day care five days a week may cost up to $ 10,000 annually as compared to an average $38,000 bill for nursing facility care.

Options in the state’s continuum of care include assistance with the costs of pharmaceutical drugs, community-based programs, rehabilitation facilities and nursing facility care. Sweet said, “A menu of available choices allows seniors and their families to seek out and receive the most appropriate and cost-effective care for their current situation. That’s what CHOICES is all about.”

Can long-term care options assist lawmakers in controlling the state budget while providing needed services for seniors?

Yes, said Sweet. “Not only is the quality of life greatly enhanced for elders and their families when institutionalization is delayed or eliminated, but also individual assets and state contributions to care through the Medicaid program are greatly reduced or eliminated,” she said.

Recognizing that lawmakers must work within severe budgetary constraints. Sweet said she believes it should be fiscally short-sided not to recognize the significant budgetary savings that home and community-based care- and preventative care- bring to situations that, without intervention, would lead to costly health care such as hospitalization and protracted institutional stays.

“The challenge for Rhode Island is to continue progress on creating less restrictive and less expensive community services while continuing funding for needed acute and long-term care,” Sweet said, stressing that in a tie of decreasing revenues, this will not be an easy task.

Lawmakers must either conform the long-term care crisis now for today’s seniors in the shadow of the state’s current budget deficit or in later years, when the state’s demographic time bomb I ready to explode. For today’s seniors and for the aging baby boomers who follow in their footsteps, lawmakers, state agencies, providers and seniors  must cooperate in crafting a seamless long-term care system with options that enhance quality of life and provide independence. This may take years.

But until then, amid competing interests for limited state dollars, advocates for better long-term care will have to roll up their shelves with the support of senior and disabled constituents to get this year’s slice of the state budget pie.