Last summer, something amazing happened on Capitol Hill. There was an agreement between members of Congress from opposing parties. Astonishing!  Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that there should be paid family leave. Now, before you get too excited, that’s about where the good feelings started and ended.  While both parties agreed on the basic premise, they put forth wildly different proposals. 

Paid family leave is the concept that employees should be granted paid time off from work to take care of family members who suffer from serious health issues, or to care for a newborn child. Currently, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), certain employees may take unpaid leave for 12 weeks and be guaranteed their job upon return. This leave is for serious health issues for an employee or their family member (spouse, parent or child), new child or facts surrounding the deployment of a service member.  The problem with the current FMLA is that employees are not guaranteed income during their leave of absence from work.  

So why should pay be included in our federal laws that govern family leave? First, only about 10 percent of employees are granted paid family leave from their employer.  Furthermore, the employees whose employers offer paid leave are generally higher paid workers. In addition, only six states and the District of Columbia currently have a paid family leave policy. Secondly, not having a federal paid family leave policy causes financial hardship because employees are not receiving their regular income. Research demonstrates that a paid family leave policy with 2/3 wage replacement could reduce family economic insecurity by 81 percent.
 
While most people associate paid family leave with new parents, many people might be surprised to learn that this issue directly impacts seniors. For example, 18 percent of people take FMLA to care for a family member, including parents. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, “The average caregiver over 50 who leaves the workforce to care for a parent loses $303,880 in wages, Social Security and private pensions when they do so.” Furthermore, it’s not just caregivers that need paid family leave. The labor force participation rate for seniors (65+) has grown significantly over the last 25 years. Too often, seniors, because of chronic conditions, must take time off from work to attend to their own serious health matters.

Presently, there are two competing ideas to implement paid family leave. Legislation released over the summer sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio and Congresswoman Ann Wagner would allow new parents, after a child is born, to borrow against their future Social Security for paid parental leave. The benefit from the federal government will last only a few months and will delay people from taking their Social Security benefits by three to six months, for every benefit. 
In theory this legislation sounds promising, especially in the short term. However, paid family leave should not come at the expense of the Social Security retirement system!

According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, studies demonstrate how challenging it is for workers to forecast their fiscal future in retirement. Having to decide between paid family leave and future retirement defeats the entire purpose of Social Security. The main point of the Social Security Trust Fund is to serve as a secure pot of money for retirement, not individual accounts people can borrow against.

In addition, this proposed legislation does nothing to help people who need paid family leave for themselves, like seniors in the workforce, or for adults who need a source of income while taking care of their senior parent.
Fortunately, there is a better approach!

The Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act sponsored by Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro provides a significantly better alternative and does not threaten employees’ future Social Security.  This proposal provides paid family and medical leave for newborn children, care for a family member (including a parent) or an employee’s serious health condition. According to the findings from the FAMILY Act:

1. “The average worker age 50 and older who leaves the workforce to care for an elderly parent loses more than $300,000 in earnings and retirement income. Working caregivers should not have to risk their family’s economic security to fulfill their caregiving obligations.”

2. “The population aged 65 and over is expected to double over the next few decades. The number of people with chronic conditions is expected to reach nearly 160,000,000 by 2020. Many of these individuals will at some point require family care, and for older workers still in the workforce, many will need time off at some point to address serious health conditions.”

3. “Ensuring working family caregivers have paid family leave to care for ailing elders could drive down Medicare costs by decreasing recurrences of ailments and re-admittance into hospitals”.

Furthermore, this legislation funds paid family leave through additional revenue stemming from a very modest increase in the payroll tax split evenly between employees and employers. The average cost to employees would be $2.00 per week.  This would cover the benefit to individuals and the program’s administrative costs.

While, I think the legislation has tremendous promise, it’s not without question.  For example, the Social Security Trust Fund will not be able to meet all its financial obligations around 2034. Should this legislation be part of a bigger plan to place Social Security on more secure financial footing?  Certainly, these are fair questions to ask. However, this all part of the legislative process.
​
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree that paid family leave in some iteration is important. Like all issues, there are competing approaches to solve the problem.  However, funding paid family leave by taking away from Social Security only opens an additional can of worms.  Taking from one hand to give to the other is irresponsible.  A paid family leave approach, guided by the principles from the FAMILY Act, will help ensure that basic economic needs of all types of families are being met. 
​

​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.​​

Since 2013, the federal government has “shut down” four times, three of those times during the Trump administration. A government shutdown occurs when there is a lapse in federal funding because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on appropriations. Usually, this happens because of political brinksmanship, the most recent example stemming from a dispute over the White House refusing to fund the government without first obtaining appropriations to build a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Government shutdowns are inevitably terrible for Americans, especially seniors, because of the loss or slowdown of important government services.  

Many people’s first thoughts about seniors being impacted by a government shutdown are about Social Security and Medicare. While these programs still make payments during a shutdown, Social Security and Medicare still feel the pinch during the government’s closure. For example, basic activities like processing new applications for seniors who desperately need a source of income and health care are delayed, and Social Security has gone as far as terminating the issuance of new cards during a shutdown. 

While Social Security and Medicare are still functional during a government shutdown, our country’s nutrition programs that benefit older Americans, like Meals on Wheels and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), could be impacted more significantly. For instance, the office of Food and Nutrition Services that oversees SNAP could see major staff reductions during any shutdown.  Furthermore, if the shutdown persists too long, SNAP could run out of funding completely, which would impact the 4.8 million people aged 60 and above who rely on the program. Lastly, in the run-up to the government shutdown of January 2018, Meals on Wheels America President and CEO Ellie Hollander, said, “The number of hungry, isolated seniors who may not know where their next meal is coming from has doubled over the past 20 years…A government shutdown for any considerable length of time would lead to a delay in federal funding reimbursements for meals and services delivered, forcing Meals on Wheels programs to make near impossible choices such as suspending meal services, initiating or expanding waiting lists for meals, reducing the number of meals or delivery days or even closing their doors altogether.”

Obviously, B’nai B’rith International, as a sponsor of Section 202 supportive housing for the elderly, takes a keen interest in funding lapses that impact the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  During a short-lived government shutdown, HUD should be able to meet its basic obligations to the Section 202 program.  However, the longer shutdowns last, the greater the likelihood HUD won’t have the funding to meet its core responsibilities.   
​
During any government shutdown, members of Congress or the President should not be advancing their own political agenda at the expense of government programs that benefit seniors and all Americans. Basic needs like nutrition and housing should be fully funded, without the threat of a government shutdown. The exact impact of a government shutdown always varies. However, the harm it causes people remains constant. While the most recent government shutdown will eventually end, at this point in our country’s history, another shutdown always seems sadly inevitable. 

​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.​

Recently, I received a very strange voicemail from my grandfather indicating he had put together the money to bail me out of jail.  Obviously, this message caught my attention, because at that moment I was watching TV on the couch with my fiancé, a far cry from wearing an orange jumpsuit behind bars.  I immediately called back and learned that someone claiming to be a lawyer contacted him indicating I was currently in prison for getting into a car accident due to driving while texting. And of course, I would be released from jail if my grandfather sent the attorney $9,800 for my bail. I quickly informed him none of that story was true, and he should under no set of circumstances send this individual money.  Thankfully, no real harm was done to my grandfather, and this incident will only serve as a cautionary tale for when another con artist inevitably preys on him.   

Later that day, I was on the phone with my grandmother and relayed my grandfather’s story.  During the call, she told me of a different scam she experienced where someone called claiming to be her bank and said she owed them $3,000.  Fortunately, she called my mother to verify the caller’s claim, and my mom quickly realized it was a scam.  

While both of my grandparents were lucky, I know that countless seniors are not so fortunate.  After hearing my grandparents’ stories, I couldn’t help but wonder about other types of sophisticated scams that target seniors. After researching, I learned that con artists call seniors claiming to be from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicating that they owe the government money for taxes, and failure to pay will result in their arrest. Another scam occurs when people read the obituaries, then call the grieving family asking for money, fraudulently claiming the deceased was in their debt.    

Can you imagine the type of low-life who calls seniors, scaring them into thinking they are going to jail, or steals money from the elderly while they are grieving for a loved one?
​
Last March, the Senate Special Committee on Aging had a hearing called “Stopping Senior Scams,” where this was topic was addressed.  During the hearing, Chairman Susan Collins disclosed the IRS impersonation scam had been the most consistently reported to the Committees’ hotline over the past three years.  Furthermore, because of information obtained by the hotline, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration was able to arrest 15 people associated with a scam that stole about $9 million.  However, efforts to fight this type of criminal behavior must continue in earnest, because according to the Department of Justice, about $3  billion continues to be stolen from seniors each year.
 
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seniors are unfortunately susceptible to scams for a variety of reasons. These include: Older Americans tend to own “nest eggs” and have outstanding credit; seniors often do not report fraud because they are embarrassed or unsure of who to contact; and  scam artists know that seniors make poor witnesses because they have a difficult time recalling facts.  A former conman awaiting sentencing in California for the “grandparent scam” explained, “You can make $10,000 sometimes in a day if you do it properly,” despite only generating a 2 percent success rate. Asked why scammers pick on seniors, he said, “We target people over the age of 65, mainly, because they're more gullible…They're at home. They're more accessible. Once you get them emotionally involved, then they'll do anything for you, basically.”
 
So, what can seniors do to avoid being taken advantage of? It’s simple: Never give personal financial information over the phone, unless you placed the call; set privacy settings on social media accounts to their highest levels; and, to ensure that a phone call is really coming from a loved one, ask questions over the phone that only a family member would know.
 
Hopefully, through public awareness and education, seniors can be less vulnerable to these types of scams. However, in the meantime, I applaud my great-uncle, who has been frequently targeted by these types of scams.
 
He simply hangs up the phone, but beforehand, he asks the con artist, “Does your mother know what you do for a living?”  

​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.

Capitol Hill has been relatively quiet recently because members of Congress are back home pounding the pavement stumping for votes. With election day only a few weeks away, now is a great time for me to blog about the important role older Americans will play in the upcoming election. With a rapidly expanding senior population, politicians across the country will have to court seniors if they hope to be victorious. Consequently, older adults are in a great position to make elected officials take notice of the issues important to them, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security or affordable housing.

First, seniors are in an advantageous position to be heard because they are one of the biggest voting blocks in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau, 70 percent of seniors (65+) turned out to vote in the 2016 presidential election, and in a recently conducted poll, 74 percent of seniors say they plan to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. As statistics demonstrate, seniors keep showing up at the polls in large percentages, and the number of older Americans keeps rising. This translates to one important point; our leaders running for political office should be paying attention to the issues important to a good percentage of the electorate: A demographic group which continuously grows!

So why are the 2018 midterm elections so important for seniors? During the past two years our elected representatives in Washington D.C. have debated legislation with major implications for older adults. For example, in 2017 Congress and the administration put forth serious proposals that would have negatively impacted older Americans. These include repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, cutting affordable housing and the enactment of tax reform legislation. Fortunately, with the exception of the tax reform legislation, these bills never became law. On a positive note, the 2018 government funding bill included more than $100 million dollars for the creation of additional low-income seniors housing. These policies play a critical role in the daily lives of older Americans, and illustrate why seniors’ activism is so important.   

One state where seniors can definitely make their voices heard is in Florida, home to about 4 million seniors and the site of a hotly contested Senate race. A state whose population is 20 percent seniors is in a great position to demand that candidates running for public office protect the needs of older Americans. In the 2014 Florida midterm elections voters 50 and over accounted for a whopping 67 percent of ballots cast. Furthermore, a recently conducted poll of Florida residents ages 50 and over revealed that 82 percent of respondents reported Social Security as a very important issue, coupled with 74 percent for Medicare. Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer said, “Candidates who ignore the issues that matter to voters age 50 and up do so at their own peril,” and “Older voters were decisive in the last two elections, and they will likely be decisive this year as well.”

Older Americans should take the time to learn about the positions of candidates running for office.  Go to town hall meetings where candidates take questions from constituents. Ask the candidate if they are going to cut financial resources from important senior programs. Remind elected officials that your contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund were not intended to pay for other government programs.

When Congress returns from election day, lawmakers might feel more emboldened to make big policy changes to senior programs that impact healthcare, nutrition, housing and income security.  
​
Now is the time when every American should make their voice heard, especially seniors!

​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.

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.

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.  

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.

An esteemed neurologist, 72-year-old Harvard University professor Dr. Howard Weiner has devoted his life to the treatment of serious diseases like Alzheimer’s and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) — his primary area of expertise — both at the University and at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where he directs the department of immunology. Given the life and death nature of his profession, the doctor was able to approach his next career move — that of filmmaker—with an attitude of nonchalance.  His award-winning documentary “What is Life?” premiered in 2011.

Perhaps contemplating his own future scenario as one of the ranks of the elderly, Weiner began working on a literary treatment of what could be best designated as a “bromance,” the touching and funny story of the offbeat camaraderie that develops between two very different men who meet in a nursing home. Finally brought to fruition as a film script, the project and its potential for success were linked to two important elements, the portrayal of the yin and yang that drives the friendship, and the ability to convey an authentic experience of life in a nursing home, in its sometimes mundane, and often fearful, aspects. The location, inside and out, had to be a real one. 

“If you look at old people from above, you make them children; if you look at them from below, you put them on a pedestal. These are real people. I mean, teenage boys talk like [the characters in the movie.] There’s nothing wrong with older people talking like that. Tolstoy said when he was 80, ‘I’m 80, but inside I feel 20,’” Weiner said when interviewed about the film, which was selected as a 2017 entry at the Tribeca Film Festival.

With a bit of tweaking from Weiner’s son, a successful screenwriter with well-known credits to his name, the script was polished, and in 2016 the filming of “Abe and Phil’s Last Poker Game” commenced, directed by Weiner himself. Among its financial backers were a number of his medical colleagues, who stepped up to the plate even after being warned that they would probably lose their shirts.

Filmed on the premises of an assisted living facility close to Boston, the movie shines a light on the talents of its two seasoned co-stars, the late Martin Landau and Paul Sorvino, both of whom were able work with Weiner to enhance character development, and illuminate the metamorphosis of their onscreen relationship. Landau was cast as the home’s most recent inmate, retired physician Dr. Abe Mandelbaum, who is resigned to going gently into that good night, but whose plans are detoured by the life-affirming personality of his blue collar pal, lusty fellow resident Phil Nicoletti (Sorvino). The friendship they form provides each with a renewed perspective. After a new employee attempts to locate her long lost father at the home, the boys, both eager to indulge in the joys of having a daughter, jockey for the role. As to be expected, the narrative is greased with a pound or two of schmaltz, and is punctuated by a few over the top high jinks, and perhaps too much detail on the specifics of geriatric medical conditions. With Landau’s final performance reviewed by Variety as “a thing of beauty,” “Abe and Phil” can be described as one of a handful of brave and engaging films that compassionately recognize the emotional consequences of the losses inevitable to the aging process. 

RECAP OF JEWISH FILM FESTIVALS

Co-sponsored with Manhattan’s Jewish Museum, The Film Society of Lincoln Center’s eagerly anticipated 27th annual New York Jewish Film Festival, which took place from Jan. 10-23, showcased a wide variety of offerings from around the world, many of which were announced as New York, American or international premieres. Catering to a diverse audience, the screenings included “Across the Waters,” a World War II drama about the ferrying of Danish Jews to Sweden, during the time of Nazi persecution, and a newly restored version of the haunting 1937 Yiddish classic “The Dybbuk.” The film festival also included “The Cousin,” an Israeli thriller in Hebrew and Arabic about a Jewish actor who comes to the defense of his Palestinian handyman, after he is accused of a violent crime. Sam Pollard’s “Sammy Davis Jr: I’ve Gotta Be Me,” a 2017 documentary about the life of the multi-talented entertainer who converted to Judaism during the height of his career was also shown.
​
Jewish film festivals will soon open in Atlanta and San Diego.