Since I started my job at B’nai B’rith International, I have written several blogs being critical of the Trump Administration and Congress’ proposals to cut funding from affordable housing. Over the past twenty months, there have not been many opportunities to applaud our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. for bi-partisan legislation that looks to tackle the severe shortage of reasonably priced homes in this country. Consequently, the recently introduced bipartisan Senate legislation, called the Task Force on the Impact of the Affordable Housing Crisis Act, should be positively recognized. The purpose of this task force is to study how affordable housing financially impacts other government programs (federal, state and local), different facets of people’s lives (i.e. health, nutrition, education, employment, etc.) and make policy recommendations to Congress on how affordable housing can strengthen additional federal programs.   
​
Working at B’nai B’rith offers me the unique opportunity to see how housing is intertwined with other areas of senior’s lives, especially health care. One of the goals of B’nai B’rith is to “age in place” which we accomplish through our sponsored Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 housing. Older Americans are able to “age in place” because service coordinators connect residents with community based services, which have demonstrated a greater likelihood of retaining residents in their existing buildings and therefore avoiding more pricey institutions like a nursing home.

The benefits of the Section 202 program go to the very heart of what this potential task force is hoping to accomplish, that is, to find ways affordable housing can help other federal programs. For example, the financial cost of three seniors in a Section 202 building with home and community-based services is about the same as one person in a nursing home. Keep in mind that Medicaid is a key subsidizer of nursing homes. According to HUD, 38 percent of Section 202 tenants are frail or near-frail, and consequently need help with daily activities, making them potential candidates for long-term institutional care. Therefore, the more Section 202 buildings that can be developed for frail or near-frail seniors, the less financial resources Medicaid will require for nursing homes.
​
In addition, bi-partisan policy solutions generally have a better chance of becoming law, especially in the Senate. This legislation was introduced by U.S. Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Angus King (I-Maine), along with cosponsors from both political parties. Furthermore, the people who serve on the Task Force will be appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. These Senators should be commended for taking an important “first step” toward discovering how integral affordable housing is to other federal programs. 
 
Obviously, the introduction of this legislation is a far cry away from being sent to the president’s desk for his signature, and even further away from any policy recommendations from the task force to Congress. However, you have to walk before you can run. Hopefully, this legislation becomes a reality, and the policy proposals are Congress’ full sprint towards creating additional affordable housing in the country. 

Currently the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects people with pre-existing conditions by outlawing health insurance companies from refusing to sell plans to individuals because of existing health issues. These protections are particularly important for older Americans who obviously are more likely to have a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately, these protections could be compromised by Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision not to defend the ACA’s in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 19 other states. The basic premise behind the litigation is that because of last year’s tax reform legislation, the individual mandate has been effectively eliminated because people will no longer be taxed for not carrying health insurance. Taken one step further, these 20 states argue that because the individual mandate is so integral to the ACA, that the rest of the legislation should be found unconstitutional (it should be noted the administration is only arguing pre-existing protections and community ratings should be found invalid). Currently around 25 million older Americans (50 to 64) could be denied insurance in the individual market if the protections for people with pre-existing health conditions are eliminated.   

First the DOJ’s  decision is concerning because it runs contrary to its own long standing tradition of generally defending federal law in litigation, even if the current administration is ideologically opposed to the policy. Law professor Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan who used to work at the DOJ said, “I am at a loss for words to explain how big of a deal this is. The Justice Department has a durable, long-standing, bipartisan commitment to defending the law when non-frivolous arguments can be made in its defense. This brief torches that commitment.”
In addition, in a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to House Speaker Paul Ryan regarding this litigation, Sessions argues that without the individual mandate, “individuals could wait until they become sick to purchase insurance, thus driving up premiums for everyone else.” Meaning people could go without insurance until they become sick, and because of pre-existing conditions protections insurance companies would be forced to sell sick people policies, thus driving up the costs for everyone else. If I understand this correctly, Congress and the White House repeal the individual mandate, which will likely drive up health insurance premiums, and their solution to this problem is to deny protections for people with pre-existing conditions. 

While a final resolution regarding this litigation is a ways off, currently the ACA has been instrumental in providing improved health care protection and coverage for older Americans. For example, according to the Commonwealth Fund in 2010, 43 percent of individuals between the ages of 50 to 64 who attempted to purchase health care coverage where either rejected, charged higher premiums or had certain health conditions omitted from policies. The ACA combats these problems by not allowing people to be denied for pre-existing conditions, limiting what insurance companies can charge older Americans compared to younger people and regulating individual’s insurance premiums through tax credits. The Commonwealth Fund reports between 2012 to 2016 older Americans between 50 and 64 saw the uninsured rate drop from 13 to 8 percent. Clearly older Americans have seen substantial improvements in health insurance access since the ACA was enacted; eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions will inevitably cause older adults health care costs to increase.

Furthermore, as I have reported in my previous blog, Repealing and Replacing The Affordable Care Act And Its Impact on Medicare, older Americans who don’t have health insurance prior to turning 65 are more likely to require more expensive health care once they enroll in Medicare.  The Justice Department’s decision not to defend pre-existing conditions in litigation will only make older adults less healthy before they enroll in Medicare by potentially limiting access to health insurance.  

Lastly, this litigation flies in the face of public opinion. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, support for pre-existing protections is solid across the political spectrum with support amongst 84 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents and 59 percent of Republicans.

Thankfully, the ACA is still standing and our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have been unable to repeal and replace the ACA. Realizing that a legislative repeal of the ACA might be unworkable, everything has been done to weaken this legislation. The administration has drastically reduced the ACA’s advertising budget, eliminated the cost-sharing subsidies and expanded short-term health plans which don’t offer key ACA protections.

Sadly, the current lawsuit’s end result could potentially strip away basic health care protections for older Americans. What happens if the court sides with the plaintiffs and gets rid of pre-existing conditions protections? Are older Americans expected to go back to a health care system where their plans are more expensive and protections are less stringent? Let’s hope for the sake of all Americans our court system protects safeguards put in place by the ACA for people with pre-existing protections.

As most Americans are aware, our country is fighting an opioid epidemic that claims thousands of people’s lives a year.  What may surprise you is that sometimes, grandma and grandpa are the ones selling drugs in your neighborhood. I imagine some readers are saying, it’s not possible that “grandparents” are the drug dealers on the streets of America!  Unfortunately, due to a variety of unfortunate circumstances relating to economics and vulnerability, some seniors, have resorted to selling drugs.  

Maybe more than any other population group, seniors have relatively easy access to prescription drugs. Obviously, older Americans more so than younger people, because of their physical condition, are more regular candidates for potent prescription medication.  For example, according to the American College of Preventive Medicine, elderly people make up 13 percent of the American population but receive one-third of all prescribed medications. Considering how accessible prescriptions drugs are for seniors, older persons are in a unique position to turn around and sell their medication. However, according to Sharon Walsh, director of the University of Kentucky Center for Drug and Alcohol Research, seniors are not dealing drugs in the traditional sense, but rather selling these pills to a network of family and friends.

So, what’s going on with seniors that make them more likely to sell their drugs?  First countless seniors live on a fixed-income in addition to being riddled by poverty. Keep in mind this money has to be stretched every month for basic expenses like housing, health care, nutrition and transportation. Imagine only having $1,000 a month to live on. Unfortunately this helps to explain why seniors supplement their income through illegal streams.  Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, County Drug and Alcohol Director Steve Ross issued a report stating, “Our seniors are in a very volatile state right now because what we’re learning is that there are a number of seniors out there who are selling the prescription painkiller to pay for their other medications and/or for food.”

Furthermore, seniors have fallen prey to younger, more sophisticated drug dealers who purposefully target the elderly. Because of their easy access to prescriptions, drug dealers promise seniors money in exchange for their medication, which the drug dealers will later sell for large profits. According to a report by the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network, “Reportedly, dealers stand outside of drugstores and approach seniors about selling their prescriptions, or dealers will convince a senior to go to the doctor and fake pain to get a prescription.” The report goes on to state, “If the senior agrees, the dealer will drive the senior to the doctor and to the pharmacy to fill the prescription and will then pay them.” “That's the only way they (seniors) can make ends meet.” 

With seniors turning to selling drugs to pay for their basic necessities, are grandma and grandpa going to jail? While, elderly Americans are being arrested for their unfortunate role in the opioid crisis, prosecutions are uncommon, and when prosecuted sentencing is light. Captain Jeff Orr, president of the Ohio Task Force Commanders Association said in reference to older drug dealers, “If we get information about sellers, we are following up on it.  Are they going to prison for it? No. They are being diverted to probation at that age.”

While it’s comforting to learn that our grandparents aren’t doing hard time, the mere thought of them being arrested and thrown in the back of a police car should make people pause.

So what is being done to combat the opioid epidemic in our country? While the White House and Congress have taken steps to combat the opioid crisis, I think our elected leaders in Washington, D.C. would be better served if they more thoroughly investigated the root causes of why people sell drugs. Specifically, as it relates to this issue, why seniors need to sell drugs to earn enough money for their basic necessities. Clearly many older Americans are financially strapped.  Consequently, the policies which the administration and some members of Congress have endorsed, such as cutting financial resources for health care and affordable housing programs that benefit seniors, could make elderly people more impoverished and more susceptible to selling medications.
​
Common sense dictates if we want to get seniors to stop selling their medications then we should enact laws that  provide them with the financial security they need, so they are not tempted to sell drugs to pay for their rent, health care or food. 

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

On February 14 the gun debate in the United States was forever changed because of the terrible shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Since the shooting, teenagers from that high school and thousands of other students from across the country have strongly advocated for common sense gun reforms. Student activism should be strongly encouraged and applauded, as these young people are making their voices heard on a topic that has unfortunately touched the lives of countless people.  

Fortunately for these students they are not marching alone; grandmothers across the country have joined the fight for reasonable gun control measures. During the massive March for Our Lives protest, that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets of Washington, D.C. and across the globe to protest gun violence; senior citizens were marching right alongside everyone else. In Washington, D.C. a group of grandmothers banded together to show their support. These grandmothers protested for two and half hours to condemn the National Rifle Association (NRA), support universal background checks and labeled themselves “grannies for gun control.” 

“We want to get people’s attention. So we made sure to include some signs that people might find upsetting. You know, things like ‘’bury guns, not kids.’ If that makes you uncomfortable, good,” Tina Hobson, one of the protesters, told the Washington Post.

Senior activism regarding gun control is nothing new. Grandmothers Against Gun Violence (GAGV), a group from Seattle, has been fighting since 2013 for gun reform.  Inspired by the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Margaret Heldering, president of GAGV, and three of her friends (all grandmothers of kids 6 and 7 at the time) started GAGV in order to contribute to our national dialogue about gun control. Today,  GAGV has grown from four members to more than 700.  

GAGV’s work embodies the following principles: 1) Closing the gun sale loophole and requiring universal background checks on gun sales; 2) banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines; 3) banning the sale of military style assault weapons; and 4) safe storage of guns. Their accomplishments and passion for trying to bring about positive change is laudable. For instance, they have organized a mayoral debate in Seattle regarding gun violence, donated $10,000 to firearm research and have visited with law makers.

Gun violence impacts more than just our countries’ grandchildren, but also senior citizens. B’nai B’rith International serving as the largest national Jewish sponsor of subsidized housing in the United States, with 38 buildings in 28 communities, unfortunately has to train staff members of our buildings on active shooter drills. We have worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and outside experts to teach our building’s staff members on best practices in the event of an active shooter. Staff members who attended, were able to create an emergency preparedness plan for potential active shooters in the building. “In the United States shootings don’t happen in a vacuum. Staff members who work for senior communities need to be trained on the proper procedures in case they are confronted with a potential active shooter. And training should not stop for when the shooter has been neutralized, buildings need to be aware of how traumatized residents will be and how best to respond with counseling,” B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services Associate Director Janel Doughten said.

Given the horrible impact that occurs in the United States from gun violence, I still can’t understand why groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) take such a militant approach towards reasonable gun reform. These types of organizations like to point to the second amendment, and how gun control measures for military style assault weapons are an encroachment on people’s freedom. Let’s say for the sake of argument we accept the NRA’s position that the second amendment does allow someone to own a firearm. Okay, having said that, why can’t we have reasonable restrictions for weapons whose only purpose is for war? As noted above, GAGV has some pretty fair and reasonable restrictions on gun sales. Does anyone really need to own a military style weapon? Does it really violate the second amendment and impinge on people’s freedom to close the gun show loophole?
​
While certain members of Congress’ response to gun violence over the years have been woefully inadequate, hopefully our elected representatives can learn from the oldest and youngest members of our society. It’s great that Americans are coming together like never before to make their voices heard regarding gun violence. Seniors and students have done a great job of pushing the gun reform movement, which has unfortunately been stagnant in Congress for far too long.   

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

More than 25 years ago President George H.W. Bush signed into law, with bi-partisan support, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is legislation that provides civil rights protection for people with disabilities. Amongst the many protections the bill affords the disabled community is the ability to access places of public accommodation. Because of the ADA, disabled persons have an easier time entering doctor’s offices, shopping centers, grocery stores, restaurants and other public places. 

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), which despite its name, does severe harm to disabled persons. The bill creates additional and unnecessary roadblocks for the disabled community to file civil actions for violations of the ADA regarding places of public accommodation. Under current law an aggrieved individual who can’t access a business can file a complaint with United States Department of Justice, bring litigation or talk with the business owner. It should be noted under federal law that people who file lawsuits and are victorious are only entitled to injunctive relief (removal of the barrier) and attorney’s fees. They are not entitled to damage awards.

Under H.R. 620 the burden would be unfairly shifted to disabled persons to make sure the business community is complying with the ADA. For example, this legislation would force the aggrieved party to file written technical notice, often needing a lawyer, give the offending party 60 days to respond, then force the victim to wait another 120 days to see if “substantial progress” is made to fix the problem, before the matter can legally enter the court system. Is the United States Congress reasonably expecting people with a non-legal background to understand the technical intricacies of the ADA to file notice?

In addition, if businesses are not legally required to make their accommodations accessible under the ADA, what incentive do they have to comply before a complaint is filed in court? Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) who uses a wheelchair said on the House floor, “The idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for six months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.”
 
Presently, 16 million seniors have one or more disabilities, with mobility issues being the most common. Are proponents of the bill going to argue the elderly community should have to wait six months or more to visit a hospital or doctor’s office because it’s not accessible? Not to mention being barred from everyday activities like going shopping or the movies.   

The ADA has been the law of the land for the past 28 years. Are members of Congress going to argue that businesses have not had enough time to comply with the ADA’s requirements? The ADA National Network, funded by the federal government, offers no cost technical assistance to businesses about how to comply under the law. Furthermore, this assistance is offered at 10 regional centers around the country, and there are tax credits available to businesses that remove barriers for the disabled community. Having almost 30 years of notice, tax credits and the ADA National Network, it’s hard to cry foul that the ADA is too onerous. 
 
Lastly, proponents of the bill believe it’s a necessity because of unethical attorneys who are bringing frivolous lawsuits. People on both sides of this debate can agree that unwarranted litigation is a problem in this country. However, this bill does nothing to fix that problem! First, as referenced above, federal law does not permit plaintiffs to collect damages for cases filed under Title III of the ADA. While it’s true some states permit monetary damages for violations, the current proposal does nothing to change state law. Most importantly, what other member of a federally protected class must wait months to exercise their civil rights against discrimination?   
​
When Bush signed the ADA he said, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” Sadly this legislation recreates exclusionary walls for disabled Americans that the ADA fought so hard to knock down. Presently, the United States Senate has shown better judgment than the House of Representatives, with 42 Senators promising to block any vote on this shameful legislation. While that is good news for the disabled community, let’s hope these senators’ commitment does not waiver. 

​​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

Working at B’nai B’rith International during the past year has afforded me the opportunity to visit our sponsored Section 202 buildings across the country.  B’nai B’rith in partnership with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsors Section 202 housing for low-income seniors throughout the United States comprising 38 buildings that serve more than 4,500 people. While touring the properties, I have gotten to talk with residents and see exactly how seniors benefit from living there. Learning about affordable housing is always a humbling experience, never more so than visiting the food pantries in the buildings. Staff members in multiple buildings explained to me how residents, unfortunately, at the end of the month, often don’t have enough money for food. Consequently, these food banks provide vital nutrition for low-income seniors who now don’t have to choose between food and healthcare.
 
According to HUD, the average annual income for a Section 202 household is around $13,300 or $1,108 or a month. Clearly Section 202 residents are not a group of people from great wealth. Given the type of resident these buildings attract, I am saddened a proposal introduced by HUD may RAISE residents’ rental contributions. 

For people reading this blog, you have read correctly! The policy recently proposed by HUD could raise the rent on low-income seniors!   

First the proposal changes how HUD calculates Section 202 rental contributions from 30% of adjusted income to 30% of gross income. Simply put this change will subject more of low-income seniors very limited financial resources to rental contributions. Secondly, the bill is requesting $50 a month minimum for rental contributions. To put this in perspective, this impacts people who make less than $2,000 a year, the exact type of person who the government should be looking to shield from further financial hardship.    

The Administration and some members of Congress argue that government spending is out of control with our country’s debt reaching around $20 trillion dollars. There is no argument that our country’s debt needs to be tackled.  However, addressing our debt on the back of elderly Americans is not acceptable.  How is a better way of governing, one that leaves seniors without a roof over their head?          
                 
The proposed legislation slashes assistance for our most needy seniors by reducing their assistance for affordable housing.  If taking away basic necessities for low-income seniors is required to return our country to greatness, I think the Administration’s definition of greatness is in my humble opinion morally bankrupt! 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

​In December, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted (3 to 2) to repeal net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T should treat all internet content equally. For example, net neutrality ensures that ISPs cannot charge more money or vary internet speeds based on the type of content you are trying to access. That could be news, social media, streaming video or the website of a business or friend. 
 
Unfortunately, the FCC’s recent decision to repeal net neutrality could completely undue basic fairness for consumers by allowing ISPs to charge higher rates or vary internet speeds based upon the content users are trying to access. This means ISPs will be able to charge for content you currently receive for free or lower speeds for competitors’ products. 
 
Furthermore, the FCC’s decision flies in the face of the public’s support for net neutrality which has surprising bi-partisan approval. A recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland indicated that 83 percent of respondents favored net neutrality. Breaking down the numbers even further, support for net neutrality was discovered amongst 89 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Independents. 
 
While many associate this problem with younger individuals, older Americans will also feel the negative impact from the FCC’s decision. Research demonstrates that seniors actively use the web, with 67 percent of Americans 65 or older using the internet regularly. Taken one step further, 76 percent of seniors who use the internet do so at least once a day. Given how vital the internet is for so many seniors, it’s clear that the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will have an impact on their daily lives.
           
Most importantly, older Americans have started to use the internet to gain better access to health care. Telemedicine and telehealth allows for patient monitoring, video chatting with doctors and an easier ability for physicians and their patients to transfer medical information. People are able to get the medical attention they need without having to travel long distances, which can too often be a daunting challenge for seniors in rural communities. According to the 2015 American Hospital Association report, 20 percent of Americans are from rural areas “where many do not have access to primary care or specialist services.” Older Americans in rural areas with chronic health conditions might find it challenging to travel to physician’s offices because of transportation or mobility issues. The internet has allowed people the ability to get medical attention without the hassle of long travel. However, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality could permit ISPs to play favorites between websites; resulting in web based health care services with slower internet times, or leave their customers with costlier bills. 
           
According to Leslie Lenert, chief research information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, the benefits to telehealth such as direct consultations, medical education and the transfer of medical information from patients personal devices (i.e. heart rate monitors) to physicians, “could be constricted if they were treated differently than preferred traffic .”  Consequently, older Americans might have to spend more money on internet fees to get the identical medical care they received before the FCC’s decision. 
 
The internet has also helped seniors deal with social isolation by giving them an inexpensive way to stay in touch with family and friends. Tragically, eight million individuals over the age of 50 are impacted by isolation. Services like Facebook, FaceTime and Skype allow seniors to stay connected through the internet instead of traditional telephones. Seniors can video chat with grandchildren through FaceTime and Skype, and view pictures of family on Facebook. The FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will allow ISPs to potentially charge consumers additional money to use this content which could place an unnecessary financial strain on older Americans for that valuable connection.
 
Too often, low-income seniors have to save pennies just to pay for health care, rent and food.  Seniors living on a limited income should not be forced to absorb another unnecessary hike in their monthly expenditures stemming from more costly internet access. Whether it’s receiving vital medical care or simply staying in touch with family, the internet has made life easier and more enjoyable.
 
However, all is not lost for seniors! Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) recently introduced a bill that would overturn the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality. The legislation has bi-partisan support in the Senate, and should be endorsed by the White House and members of the House. 
 
Sadly, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality may place roadblocks on older Americans ability to access the content they often need and use on the internet. Hopefully Congress and the Trump administration can build on Markey’s legislation and work together to ensure elderly Americans affordable access to the internet.  

Ever wonder why so much attention is paid to the Census every ten years? Or why every decade the number of members in the House of Representatives for each state potentially changes? The answer is the United States Constitution mandates that every ten years the government conduct a population count of the country. Afterwards that statistical information is used, amongst other things, to reapportion the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and determine how much funding cities and states receive from the federal government.   

So why does the B’nai B’rith Center for Senior Services care about the Census? As the 2020 Census approaches there is a high-risk that seniors could be undercounted. For example, this is the first Census where the government intends for most people to be counted through the internet, with the Census Bureau’s goal of encouraging 80 percent of the population to respond through this medium. However, as many people are aware, seniors are less likely to use the internet. For instance, only 62 percent of seniors use the internet, consequently leaving about 18 million seniors who do not have familiarity to the Census Bureau’s preferred method of surveying people. To put 18 million people in perspective, only four states have populations that exceed 18 million. To make matters worse, the number of low-income seniors (less than 30,-000) who use the internet is 46 percent meaning more than half of these individuals do not use the internet.  

While the Census plans to provide paper forms to neighborhoods with older-adult populations, the Bureau’s budget being terribly underfunded is a cause for major concern. The Bureau requested about $15.6 billion in funding for the 2020 Census, however, Congress only wants to spend $12.5 billion. Congress’ budget for the upcoming Census is the same amount of funding as what it cost to run the 2010 Census. Despite the use of technology, I don’t know how Congress can reasonably expect the Census to be conducted at the same price in 2020 that it cost in 2010, without adjusting for inflation. Consequently, the Bureau has unfortunately been forced to cut corners by canceling plans to test local outreach and messaging approaches that encourage people to participate in the Census. If there is potentially less money for advertising and education, seniors who are not internet savvy could be woefully neglected.

Problems like this have caused the Government Accountability Office, to label the 2020 Census as one of the federal government’s programs at a “High Risk” of failure!  

If seniors are undercounted in the Census, what does that mean for the government programs they have come to rely on?  Every year the federal government sends $600 billion to state and local governments for health programs like Medicaid, which are based on formulas which derive their numbers from the Census. If the Census is inaccurate, cities and states will not get the appropriate amount of funding they need to serve their populations. Furthermore, data from the Census is used to determine the number of seniors which live in a given community and the services they need to live independently, as mandated by the Older Americans Act. Kenneth Prewitt, former director of the Census Bureau explained the negative results of an inaccurate Census, “The consequences of not reaching that goal are substantial. The Veteran’s Administration wants to put a new hospital where it can serve elderly veterans. To do so, it needs measures of age and of veteran status that are accurate. A significant undercount puts the hospital in the wrong town. A poor-quality census means policies that miss their mark.”
​
The Census’ long term influence on important government programs that impact seniors is undeniable — therefore our country should take every step possible to ensure its accuracy. Fully funding the Census at $15.6 billion is a small fraction of the federal government’s budget, making it a smart financial investment for policy that has enormous consequences on all Americans. 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

We are delighted to report that Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) recently visited B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments in Peoria, Illinois. This visit was a great opportunity for the Congresswoman to learn about the Section 202 program and see firsthand how seniors benefit from affordable housing. B’nai B’rith’s long history with Section 202 housing started in 1971 when we formed a partnership with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to sponsor housing for low-income seniors. The B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network in the United States comprises 38 buildings and serves more than 8,000 people. B’nai B’rith International is the largest national Jewish sponsor of low-income housing for seniors in the country.

B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments, like many of our sponsored buildings, are more than just apartment units. It is a residential community where seniors can age in place. The Congresswoman learned about the wonderful amenities the building offers such as low cost meals, salon, gift shop, grocery store, community rooms and libraries.

After taking a tour of the property, the Congresswoman gave remarks, took questions from residents and shared her positions on important topics that touch their everyday lives, such as Social Security, Medicare, rental subsidies and nutrition assistance. In addition, Bustos offered to help the residents with getting federal benefits from agencies like the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Bustos said, “I had a great discussion with the seniors of B'nai B'rith Covenant Apartments today about all of the issues affecting them and their families. Our seniors worked hard all of their lives and they deserve to retire with dignity, and that includes providing them with affordable housing options through the Section 202 program. I believe that all seniors should be able to retire with peace of mind which is why I'm fighting hard to protect the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits they've earned.”

We thank Bustos for all her hard work to protect critical programs for seniors that enable them to retire with dignity. Too often Congress and the White House are debating policies that will inevitably cut important funding from federal programs that impact the lives of ordinary older Americans. Congressional visits like this allow B’nai B’rith residents the opportunity to be their own best advocate by speaking directly with the representative and making them aware of the human faces and stories behind federal programs that benefit seniors.
​
It was great that Bustos’ visit kicked off our 2018 congressional outreach efforts. We are thankful we were able to show off B’nai B’rith Covenant Apartments and most importantly all the great residents who call the building home. 

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

It has been a busy 2017 at the Center for Senior Services (CSS), and we are pleased to report on our advocacy efforts. Throughout the year we have been advocating on a wide range of senior issues relating to health care (Medicare and Medicaid), Social Security and affordable housing. Our work included meetings on Capitol Hill, organizing tours of B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings and co-sponsoring rallies on affordable housing. During the year we were excited that our work was noted by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), The Times of Israel and the New York Jewish Week.

Our advocacy efforts went into high gear in March when the White House’s proposed 2018 “skinny” budget was released, which called for a 13 percent reduction in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget. A few months later when the administration’s more detailed budget was announced, B’nai B’rith was severely disappointed that Section 202, which is housing that was developed for low-income seniors, was underfunded and the White House proposed a rental increase for residents. 

Staying on top of the issue, the CSS team started visiting senator and representative’s offices on Capitol Hill that represent B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings. Specifically, we met with offices that work on the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. These committees are responsible for writing legislation that funds rental subsidies for the Section 202 program.  During the course of these meeting we explained to staff members how damaging the White House’s budget would be for low-income Section 202 residents. While the 2018 budget has not been finalized we are hopeful that our advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill will lead to the Section 202 program being funded more. 

In addition, we followed up those visits by inviting members of Congress and their staff to tour B’nai B’rith Section 202 buildings throughout the country. We are pleased to report that Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), representing both political parties, toured our sponsored properties.  Furthermore, three of the four members who visited B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings work on the Appropriations Committees. These tours were a fantastic opportunity for members of Congress to see the benefits of the Section 202 program, and gave residents a chance to speak with their elected representative. Residents were able to directly tell their member of Congress the vital role Section 202 housing plays in their lives.

B’nai B’rith was also pleased to co-host with LeadingAge the “Save HUD 202” Rally and partner with the National Low Income Housing Coalition for the “National Housing Day of Action” over the summer. These rallies took place on Capitol Hill and featured representatives and senators who spoke about the need for affordable housing. We were certainly delighted  members of Congress who represent B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings attended the event. 

Our advocacy during the course of the year didn’t just stop with affordable housing. We spoke out against the White House and Congress’ attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After analyzing various proposed bills, B’nai B’rith was very concerned how these policies could negatively impact seniors. For example, many of the proposed replacement bills would have cut critical funding to Medicaid, allowed older Americans to be charged more for insurance, repealed vital taxes that help fund Medicare and waive important regulations that protect health care consumers. We spoke out on these issues by releasing press releases, blogs and joined with liked minded organizations opposing this legislation in a full page advertisement in Politico.   

Recently, B’nai B’rith has been very vocal against the recently passed tax reform legislation. We expressed serious reservations about this bill because of the damaging impact it could have on funding for Medicare and Medicaid attributable to rising deficits that will give cover to members of Congress to slash spending. In addition, the negative consequences repealing the ACA’s individual mandate will have on older Americans. We brought our concerns straight to congressional offices during our regular scheduled Capitol Hill visits regarding Section 202. However, we certainly applaud Congress for not eliminating the Low Income Housing Tax Credit which is critical for affordable housing construction, and the medical expense deduction which is incredibly important to countless seniors with high health care costs.
​
The CSS team embarks on 2018 looking to continue our success from 2017. We will certainly look to invite more members of Congress and their staff to B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings, and advocate for the Section 202 program and other policies that are vital to seniors.