Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Ken Gordon of St. Johnsbury, executive director of the Area Agency on Aging for Northeastern Vermont.
This fall, between now and Thanksgiving, 12 Americans will be making decisions with profound consequences for the entire country. Those 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans — make up the congressionally appointed “Super Committee” established by the debt ceiling agreement of earlier this year. The Super Committee is tasked with developing a plan to cut another $1.5 trillion off the federal deficit.
The Super Committee’s work will build upon the nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts Congress already approved this summer. In the first round of cuts, programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were spared the chopping block. However, other programs — discretionary programs where Congress determines funding through the annual appropriations process — that provide vital aging services, such as the Older Americans Act, were put at risk.
But now, everything is on the Super Committee’s table – from cutting or drastically restructuring entitlement programs like Medicare or Medicaid to making even deeper cuts in the discretionary programs seniors depend upon. The only way to protect these vital programs is to consider a balanced approach that puts raising revenues firmly on the table, too.
One important discretionary program at risk is the Older Americans Act. The act provides older adults with much-needed services, including home care, senior meals, adult day care, transportation and caregiver support among many others services. These services reflect how people want to age—at home and in the community.
What gets lost in the rhetoric of “revenues vs. cuts” is the effect these changes will have on everyday older Vermonters and their families. If elder care programs are reduced further, or allowed to stagnate under restrictive spending caps, the health and well-being of countless older Vermonters will be placed at risk.
Leaving frail older Vermonters without proper care is a disturbing idea to contemplate; but others, too, will pay the price should these cuts be implemented, particularly family caregivers and those who pay taxes.
Many family caregivers are already doing their level best to help their elderly parents continue to live at home, often at great personal and financial sacrifice. Program cuts mean additional sacrifice and worry on the part of family caregivers — the single largest group of providers of long-term care in the country. We must find every possible way to support these caregivers’ efforts, not undermine them.
We must also remember that cutting programs does not always result in savings for taxpayers. When frail older adults don’t get the help they need to remain in their homes and communities, they often must rely upon more expensive nursing home care. Few older adults have the resources to pay for this care for more than several months, which means that even middle class seniors often must rely upon government-sponsored programs to pay for the cost of their care.
As taxpayers, we must ask ourselves whether it makes sense to help frail seniors remain living in their own homes by providing modest levels of help designed to maintain their health and independence, or to provide these older adults with much more expensive care delivered in an institutional setting.
The good news is that there is still time to let members of Congress — and the Super Committee — know that Vermonters expect a deficit reduction plan that is balanced, that relies on both spending cuts and revenue enhancements, and that does not disproportionately affect older adults and their family caregivers.
Cutting programs that provide critical home and community-based services to older Vermonters places the burden of deficit reduction on the most vulnerable among us. It is hardly shared sacrifice or a balanced approach. We can do better than that.
