Tag Archives for Older Americans Act

Barbara Rayner Leaves Legacy of Support

Published in Senior Digest on August 2004

Barbara Ann Rayner was a tireless advocate for Rhode Island seniors and community-based services for the past 20 years, according to her peers who looked back at her life. They knew her as a dedicated professional with a great sense of humor.

Rayner, who served as Coventry’s human resource director, the first director of the community’s senior citizens center and later as director of Coventry Human Services, died last month after a long illness.

For five years, she served as director of the state’s Department of Elderly Affairs (DEA) being replaced by the then newly-elected Gov. Donald Carcieri.

She served on the Kent County Coalition of Nonprofit Executives and was a Rhode Island delegate for the White House Conference on Aging. She was appointed by the governor to sit on the Advisory Council on Health, the Commission on Care and Safety of the Elderly and the state’s Para-transit Task Force.

As a former director of the Rhode Island Association of Senior Programs and a founding member of CHOICES, a coalition of community-based care providers, Rayner fought to adequately fund services to keep Rhode Island seniors in their homes and independent.

At the national level, Rayner served as the immediate past chair of the National Institute of Senior Centers, a constituent union of the National Council on Aging (NCOA). She was also a contributing author of the revised Senior Center Standards & Guidelines, and was actively involved in NCOA’s policy agenda and international affairs initiatives.

Rayner was recognized nationally for her advocacy’s efforts when she received the Founders Award from NCOA in 1998, and was recognized on the state-level in 1999 with the Thomas A. Lamb Home Care Award.

Maureen Maigret, director of public policy for Lt. Governor Charles Fogarty, remember that Rayner was “very sensitive to the needs of the elderly and to ageism.”

The former DEA director was a passionate, dedicated professional, says Maigret, who noted that Rayner always knew the importance of laughter and having fund.

Under the DEA tenure of Rayner, home and community-based services greatly expanded in the state,” noted Maigret, saying that she recognized the value of the state providing family support services.

Rick Ryan, director of senior services for South Kingstown, worked closely with Rayner for more than 25 years. “We were very close friends and this grew out of our professional life,” he said.

Ryan says that Rayner was fund to be with and had a tremendous sense of human. She was willing to let her hair down, making her very approachable and real to her colleagues, according to Ryan. As a seasoned professional, she even mentored dozens of others in the aging network both locally and nationally over her 25-year career, he said.

At the national level, Rayner and Ryan, who served on NCOA’s Public Policy Committee were successful in changing the language in the federally enacted Older America’s Act. “Provisions noting that ‘states shall’ were changed to ‘states will’.” This strengthened the act and actually put teeth in it, he said.

Paula Parker, executive director of the Rhode Island Partnership for Home Care, remembers Rayner as “being passionate and committed to community based services.”

The members of CHOICES were very pleased to see her appointed as DEA director and then see her translate this passion for home and community based services through her leadership to creating state programming and policy supporting this level of care,” she says.

Joan Crawley, director of the Pawtucket-based Leon Mathieu Senior Center, notes that Rhode Island’s senior centers network owes Rayner “a debt of gratitude.” Under her leadership as director of DEA, support for Rhode Island’s senior centers grew by leaps and bounds,” Crawley observed, noting that new programs and services and initiatives were dramatically increased under her rein.

“It was her vision to see Rhode Island senior centers nationally accredited,” notes Crawley. “To this end, she not only found money to fund this project but she also worked with each of the 14 senior center directors, giving technical support and encouragement for them to successfully prepare for accreditation, Carwly says.

Crawley says that Rayner wanted no senior center left behind. “I can still remember her proud smile as each of us stepped up to the podium during NCOA’s national conference in Colorado to receive the prestigious recognition of accreditation for our senior centers,” Crawley noted.

Barbara Ann Rayner left behind a lengthy list of accomplishments that benefited senior centers and those who work for and with the elderly. She will be missed.

Senior Advocates Push Legislation That Would Save State Money

Published in the Pawtucket Times on April 14, 2003

While the Rhode Island General Assembly is tackling hot-potato political issues like separation of powers and gambling, hundreds of bills have been thrown into the legislation hopper. Senior advocates are tracking about 13 legislative priorities in the 2003 legislative session.

Lawmakers are considering a wide array of legislation -creating long-term care tax credits, expending the Rhode Island Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Elderly Program, strengthening the state’s ombudsman’s office and ratcheting up Medicaid payments to nursing facility providers. One bill would establish special funds to care for severely disabled (age 65 and over) legal immigrant elders who are not eligible for Medicaid.

As they deal with a huge state budget deficit, Gov. Don Carcieri and lawmakers will be wary of enacting legislation that will have a fiscal impact on the state coffers.

But senior advocates are pushing for enactment of several legislative proposals that are either budget neutral or will actually save taxpayer dollars.

One legislative proposal (H 5841/S 876) that would create revisions to the state long-term care ombudsman law to expand the scope and authority for this state’s elderly advocate.

“Previously, the Rhode Island state statute has not reflected federal law, and this bill remedies that oversight,” said Roberta Hawkins, executive director of the Alliance for Better Long-Term Care and  state ombudsman, who noted federal law requires each state’s ombudsman statute to reflect the federal Older American Act.  Currently, Rhode Island’s statute does not.

Hawkins said the proposed statute changes also add additional duties authorized by the federal Older Americans Act to those required of the ombudsman under Rhode Island law. Companion bills introduced in the House and Senate call for the state ombudsman to represent the interest of nursing facility residents or clients of service providers before  government agencies, and to seek administrative, legal and  other remedies to protect their health, safety, welfare and rights.

They also mandate that the state ombudsman review and comment on any existing and proposed laws, regulations and state policies impacting nursing facility residents and clients of service providers.

The legislative proposals would make a new section of the state ombudsman law that fines a person up to $ 1,000 who willfully interferes with the ombudsman duties.

At press time, these bills were approved by the House’s Health Education and Welfare Committee and the Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee for consideration for floor action at a later date.

Meanwhile, Susan Sweet, an elder rights advocate who also consults for nonprofit agencies, noted two legislative proposals would actually save the state money while providing more appropriate services to older Rhode Islanders.

Sweet said these legislative proposals (H 5246/ S 314) would require the Department of Human Resources to reallocate funds to support already federally-approved assisted-living support services. At present, more than 35 people have qualified for this program but still remain in costly nursing facilities (at $ 130 per day) rather than reside in assisted living facilities which cost approximately 50 percent what the state is paying for nursing facility services.

At press time, these legislative proposals are still under consideration in the Senate and House Finance committees.

“If the General Assembly fails to enact funding for federally approved assisted living services, I would hope they would reallocate resources to at least allow those currently on the waiting list – some of whom are already in  nursing facilities costing the state twice as much = to be under the waiver,” said Sweet. “This would save half of the money currently being paid while providing these elders a better quality of life.”

Another legislative proposal (H 5418/ S 506) said Sweet, would establish a fund for severely disabled elderly legal immigrant Rhode Island residents who are not eligible for Medicaid.

Presently, these legal elderly immigrants receive care only from hospital. Sweet said there are currently four or five of these disabled elders residing at Eleanor Slater Hospital at a cost to taxpayers of $ 749 per day per person. If this legislation were enacted, these severely disabled elders could be transferred to a nursing home at the Medicaid rate of less than $100 per day.

At press time, these legislative proposals are still under consideration in the Senate and House finance committees.

Sweet noted the requested allocations for placement in nursing facilities for disabled elders who are legal immigrants is just $ 250,000 a year.

“Considering that we know that care for one persona at Eleanor Slater Hospital costs the state $ 749 per day, more than $ 273,000 annually passage of this bill is a no-brainer,” says Sweet. “In times when money is tight, there is more reason to save money while providing more appropriate services to our elders.”

In the shadow of a huge budget deficit, the Rhode Island General Assembly now has the opportunity the state money. They should seize the day by enacting they legislative proposals.

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.