From the category archives: Aging Issues
Nearly 30 million Americans suffer from hearing loss yet a small percentage have hearing aids. Why? Many simply can’t afford the high cost...and Medicare does not cover hearing aids and related audiology services.
Currently, Medicare Part B only covers hearing rehabilitation services for cases caused by an illness or accident. Progressive, age-related hearing loss is not covered, leaving many seniors to pay for their own hearing exams and hearing aids. Hearing aids are incredibly expensive, ranging from $600 to over $5,000 each. These high price tags discourage many seniors from seeking a very basic solution that could dramatically improve their lives.
Research shows even mild hearing loss can double the risk of dementia. Untreated hearing loss also contributes to balance problems and falls, isolation, depression and a greater incidence of stress-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Earlier this month, a Report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that hearing loss is a public health priority requiring national attention.
That’s why the National Committee is proud to join the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and hearing expert Frank R. Lin, M.D., in a briefing today on the need to expand Medicare to include hearing aids and treatment:
“Intervention would reduce the risks which come with hearing loss. This is hugely important in the case of dementia which, with the aging of the baby boomers, is a massive public health issue now. Hearing loss may be one of the few modifiable risk factors that could reduce the risk of dementia; however, hearing health care is still broadly inaccessible and expensive.”...Dr. Frank Lin, M.D., Ph.D., Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health
“As always, there will be the critics who say “we can’t afford this” Well, yes we can. When the Affordable Care Act passed, 716 billion dollars in savings from Medicare were plowed right back into the program to provide expanded services such as preventive care and screenings at no cost to beneficiaries. And there are strategies such as restoring the pharmaceutical drug company rebates for medicines prescribed to dual-eligibles, people on both Medicare and Medicaid, which, according to CBO, could generate 121 billion dollars over ten years. If the Congressional will is there, we know it can be done.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Legislation introduced by Reps. Debbie Dingell (H.R. 1653), Jim McDermott (H.R. 5396) and Alan Grayson (H.R.3308) would close this gap in Medicare coverage. This legislation is vital to the health security of millions of Americans.
“Since its implementation in 1965, Medicare has enhanced health care for millions of Americans. But there are still major gaps in coverage. Given the growing numbers of older Americans who suffer from hearing loss, it’s time for that to change,” said Judith Stein, J.D., Executive Director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
"We don’t know exactly how much we spend on cases where we’re dealing with depression because they’re isolated...and hearing loss contributes to both. It’s absolutely critical that for an acceptable quality of life that people need to be able to hear the world around them. In order for seniors to keep a good quality of live, just keeping them alive isn’t enough, we must have good hearing and dental care. This is not beyond our capacity to provide this for seniors.”...Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
“We’ve got millions of Americans over 45 effected by hearing loss. If untreated it has devastating impacts on our nation. Medicare coverage should include audiology care, period. The promise of Medicare to keep Americans healthy is at stake. Medicare should cover all the vital health needs of seniors. Why are we arbitrarily leaving some out? There’s no reason for Medicare to remove the head from the body.”...Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Please call your Member of Congress or Sign our Congressional Petition today and tell them:
We need hearing care coverage in Medicare.
Social Security is still fully funded for nearly two decades, a miniscule COLA increase in 2017 likely, and health care reform continues to preserve Medicare’s solvency.
“What’s likely to be missing in headlines about today’s Social Security Trustees Report is that the program remains well-funded with total income, again, projected to exceed expenses. However, in order to head off a benefit cut in 2034 Washington should embrace the growing movement to lift the payroll tax cap and expand benefits for the millions of seniors struggling to get by on an average $1,300 retirement benefit.
The Trustees also project there will be a tiny .2% cost of living adjustment next year yet Medicare premiums will increase in 2017. Seniors continue to see their modest Social Security benefits eaten away by growing healthcare costs which illustrates, once again, that the current Social Security COLA formula isn’t accurately measuring seniors’ expenses. Congress needs to adopt a fully developed CPI for the elderly (CPI-E) and begin work on the many Social Security expansion bills now languishing in the House and Senate.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Here are some of the key points in the 2016 Trustees Report:
- Trustees project Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the year 2034, the same as projected last year. After that, Social Security will still have sufficient revenue to pay about 79% of benefits if no changes are made to the program.
- Social Security remains well-funded. In 2016, as the economy continues to improve, Social Security’s total income is projected to exceed its expenses. In fact, the Trustees estimate that total annual income will exceed program obligations until 2020.
- Trustees project a .2% Cost of Living Adjustment increase.
- The Trustees report there is now $2.81 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, which is $23 billion more than last year and that it will continue to grow by payroll contributions and interest on the Trust Fund's assets.
On Medicare, the 2016 Trustees report shows slowing the growth of health care costs has improved Medicare’s Trust Fund
You can also read:
- Medicare Part B premiums are projected to increase by only a very small amount for about 70 percent of beneficiaries in 2017 from $104.90 to $107.60. The standard monthly premium is projected to increase from $121.80 to $149.00 while the annual deductible is projected to increase from $166 to $204 for all beneficiaries.
- Medicare solvency remains greatly improved thanks to passage of healthcare reform, with the program paying full benefits until 2028, 11 years later than was projected prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act. However, this is two years earlier than projected in 2015.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's comments
The Social Security Trustees Report
The Medicare Trustees Report
The Economics Policy Institute also has a terrific description of the political spin which always accompanies the release of these reports.
In an effort to regain control of the GOP political debate, House Speaker Paul Ryan, unveiled the first of six policy papers, this one on reducing poverty, to prove the Republican Party has ideas beyond building walls and attacking judges. Let’s just say, the event didn’t go quite as planned.
Donald Trump’s latest racist attack ended up dominating the day, much to Ryan’s consternation and leaving many conservatives lamenting Ryan’s support for Trump in the first place:
“The Caligulan malice with which Donald Trump administered Paul Ryan’s degradation is an object lesson in the price of abject capitulation to power. This episode should be studied as a clinical case of a particular Washington myopia — the ability of career politicians to convince themselves that they and their agendas are of supreme importance.”...George Will
The Ryan agenda on poverty is already well known -- Trump’s is basically non-existent. However, this political roadshow entitled, “A better way forward: Our vision for a confident America” was designed to put the Speaker in control of the party’s policy debate. It is heavy on campaign-style rhetoric and purposefully thin on details, since Republicans in the House apparently couldn’t agree on them:
“...the document focuses on painting a broad picture of a GOP-led social welfare system and the types of policies that could be created in the event a Republican is elected president. Many of the specific policy prescriptions aimed at addressing the problems identified in the paper were left out because members couldn’t agree on details such as how to prevent waste and fraud, according to aides.”...Washington Post
Of course, promising to eliminate poverty and providing the policy prescription needed to make that happen are two very different things. While this document provides scant details, even the broad strokes echo the harmful approaches proposed in past House GOP budgets which shred the safety net and cut benefits.
“Consistent with that philosophy, the plan includes a bevy of policies designed to make it much harder for people in need to access federal programs: tougher work requirements for food stamps, housing aid, or cash welfare; eliminating benefits conservatives believe are making improper payments...eliminating funding for early childhood education lifeline Head Start; sealing off tax credits from some low-income families; and further allowing states to cut certain programs as they see fit.”...Think Progress
Proposals impacting seniors and families include:
- Replacing benefits for children who receive SSI with “services”
- Blocking regulations that require financial advisors to provide counsel based solely on what’s best for their client rather than what’s most profitable for the advisor.
- Blocking the federal government from keeping the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation solvent.
- Reforming retirement security by loosening regulations and sending more of our savings to Wall Street. There is literally zero mention of Social Security retiree benefits in the nearly 1,100 words written on retirement security.
Social Security keeps millions of Americans out of poverty and contributes billions of dollars to our economy each year. You can’t have a serious conversation about addressing poverty in America while ignoring one of the nation’s most successful anti-poverty programs...that is, unless you refuse to acknowledge Social Security’s success in the first place.
Because today’s roll-out event was largely ignored in favor of Donald Trump’s latest racist comments and this first campaign paper provides so few details, we want to provide some other sources with analysis of the GOP poverty plan Speaker Ryan has addressed in the past. Hat tip to Media Matters for this compilation:
Paul Ryan: Federal Government "Does More Harm Than Good" When It Assists The Poor. During a discussion at CPAC 2016, Ryan and Bold Media founder Carrie Sheffield pushed a series of right-wing media-inspired myths. The two derided government assistance programs as "trapping people in poverty, by basically paying people not to work," and dismissed food and housing assistance programs started more than 50 years ago by President Johnson, commonly referred to as the "War on Poverty." Ryan also misleadingly claimed that "we basically have a stalemate on our hands" with regard to reducing poverty in the United States, despite 50 years of work and "trillions [of dollars] spent." [CSPAN3, 3/3/16]
CAP's Rebecca Vallas: While Paul Ryan's Talking Points "May Be Pitch-Perfect," His Policies Are A "Blueprint For Exacerbating Poverty, Inequality, And Wage Stagnation." The Center for American Progress' (CAP) Rebecca Vallas wrote that while "Republicans' sudden concern for struggling families is no doubt newsworthy ... unfortunately their policies remain nothing short of a blueprint for exacerbating poverty, inequality, and wage stagnation," in a January 7 Huffington Post blog. Vallas noted that "Ryan has voted against raising the minimum wage at least 10 times," "has consistently opposed legislation that would help families access paid family and medical leave," and has proposed cutting "critical programs that help keep struggling families afloat -- such as nutrition assistance, housing assistance, and Medicaid -- all to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations." [The Huffington Post, 1/7/16]
NPR: Ryan Seeks To Weaken Food Assistance Programs That Have Kept Millions Out Of Poverty. In response to Speaker Ryan's push to weaken the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), NPR reported on December 29, 2015, that while Ryan claimed SNAP and other programs are "trapping people in poverty," the Council of Economic Advisers found that SNAP alone kept almost 5 million people out of poverty in 2014, the most recent available data, including 2 million children. [NPR, 12/29/15]
MSNBC's Steve Benen: Ryan's Policies Are "Brutal" For The Poor. MSNBC's Steve Benen explained on May 6, 2015, that while Paul Ryan claims to be "focused on poverty," his proposed remedies would be "brutal towards those actually in poverty." Benen added, "Ryan was, and is, perhaps best known for his far-right budget plan that cuts taxes for the wealthy by hundreds of billions of dollars, while slashing investments in programs that benefit working families." [MSNBC.com, 5/6/15]
Chances are if you, or anyone in your family, is 65 or older your life has been impacted by an Older Americans Act program. From Meals on Wheels to senior centers, prevention of physical and financial abuse, computer training to legal assistance, OAA programs touch the lives of millions of seniors and their families. This myriad of programs provide
s home and community-based services making it possible for older adults to remain independent, but they’ve continually faced flat or shrinking budgets at a time of growing needs. Funding programs that allow seniors to age in place is cost-effective; however, the Older Americans Act languished for more than 5 years without Congressional reauthorization.
Thankfully, this year is different. Today we are celebrating Older Americans Month with a newly reauthorized OAA, signed by President Obama just a few weeks ago:
“The President believes in the Older Americans Act because it funds services that are central to older adults’ health and lasting independence, such as meals, job training, transportation, and health promotion. And for those who do need consistent care, the law provides nursing home protections and enhances the Long-Term Care Ombudsman programs.” Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President
The celebration continues as The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (@LCAgingOrgs), chaired by the National Committee, will host a Twitter chat on May 24 @ 1-2 p.m. ET to celebrate Older Americans Month—and call for funding investments in Older Americans Act programs. You’re invited to join the chat using #WeAreOAA.
Join at www.twitter.com/#WeAreOAA or at http://twubs.com/WeAreOAA.
Donald Trump’s flip-flopping on his tax plan this week has many politicos scratching their heads. ABC reported it this way:
“As Donald Trump pivots to the general election battle, he's already walking back his tax plan, the most specific policy proposal he has released during the campaign. 'By the time it gets negotiated, it's going to be a different plan," Trump told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' This Week.
In Trump’s tax plan, the wealthiest individuals would get a tax break, with the top tax rate dropping from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. But when pressed if he wants taxes on the wealthy to go up or down, he predicted that the top rate would be higher than the plan says. ‘On my plan they're going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up,’ Trump said.”
Well, of course any President’s budget plan, tax plan, Social Security plan, Medicare plan (...you get the idea) will be negotiated with a Congress which may hate the idea. That’s why it’s called a “plan” and not “law.” Doesn’t that really go without saying? So what is “The Donald” actually proposing as the presumptive GOP nominee for President?
The Campaign for America’s Future noted Trump’s very similar approach on the minimum wage:
“What Trump actually did was say he would “like to see an increase” then took a position against using presidential power to mandate an increase – and, arguably, against having any federal minimum wage at all! – in deference to the states. It’s lovely that his wish is for those states to propose increases, but refusal to promote federal legislation makes him no different from every other Republican who opposes a federal minimum wage increase.”
So that leads us to the current Trump 2.0 campaign plan (please read our earlier post to compare Trump’s polar opposite views between campaigns) to not cut Social Security and Medicare. Of course, that’s a “plan” too and there are many in the GOP House and Senate who don’t agree, so does that mean this plan is just as illusory as his now morphing tax plan and minimum wage plan? More importantly, in direct relation to his convoluted tax musings, does Donald Trump oppose raising the payroll tax cap so that the wealthy contribute to Social Security based on their full income just as middle-class and poor Americans do?
We certainly don’t know and wonder...does Donald Trump?
Have a Social Security or Medicare question?