Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 8, 1995 TAG: 9503080072
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: SUSAN B. WILLIAMS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Advocates for the elderly encouraged members of the House of Representatives to remove nutrition programs for the elderly (Meals on Wheels and congregate meals) from the nutrition block grant in the Contract With America. The reasons were simple: The proposal called for the use by states of 95 percent of minimum spending levels. But the catch is there are no minimum spending levels for these two programs, so states would have been under no obligation to fund either program at all.
With the very real threat that recipients of Meals on Wheels and participants in congregate meals could lose the hot noon meal, advocates urged that these two programs be left in the existing Older Americans Act rather than being separated into other block-grant programs. Congress heard the message, and these two programs will be considered again when the entire act is re-authorized. The president's budget has proposed level funding for both Meals on Wheels and congregate meals.
We agree with your editorial that Meals on Wheels and congregate meals are worthy programs. They do, in fact, serve a frail elderly population, most of whom are on a fixed income. Meals on Wheels recipients must be age 60 or older, homebound, unable to prepare a hot noon meal and have no one else able to do so. The LOA (League of Older Americans) Area Agency on Aging serves 400 people a day, using volunteers who also check on each recipient's well-being.
According to tracking we've done over the years, people on the waiting list for any length of time enter hospitals and nursing homes more frequently than those who receive meals. Obviously, this cost-effective program reduces Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.
The congregate-meals program (also for people 60 years of age or older) is intended to provide a nutritious meal along with socialization, which in itself has been found to reduce isolation and depression. The meal is important because research shows that older people living alone generally don't eat properly. Malnutrition is still one of the most frequent causes of hospitalization.
Although participants aren't charged for the meal, they do donate from one-third to the total cost. The goal of both programs is to help seniors remain in their homes and communities for as long as possible, and to provide much-needed assistance to family caregivers.
The implication in your editorial, and also in the Feb. 20 Newsweek article to which you referred, is that the needs of the elderly were recognized at the expense of nutrition programs for children. The request to Congress by advocates for removal of nutrition programs for the elderly from the proposed nutrition block grant wasn't at the expense of American children.
The LOA and all programs around the country serving the elderly care deeply about hungry children. Promotion of intergenerational warfare implied in your editorial will be to the detriment of children and older people alike.
While it's true that children don't vote, parents, teachers and grandparents do. Teachers and Parent-Teacher Associations are powerful lobbyists. They need to lead the fight to preserve the nutrition programs so beneficial to children. Agencies serving the elderly and the elderly themselves will be in full support. After all, good nutrition is important to all ages - young and old.
Susan B. Williams is executive director of the LOA Area Agency on Aging in Roanoke.
by CNB