Funding levels stuck in the past: As aging population grows in state, senior services shrinking for lack of money

Many who age well do so because they have to take care of themselves.
But let’s face it, much like it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a community to care for its aging population.
Not only to create sites that offer the opportunity for catching up with old friends, meeting new ones and engaging in social activities.
But to also provide for congregate meals — those that are served in community and senior centers, churches or senior housing facilities.
There’s also the need to assist seniors who have functional needs, such as with personal care, mobility, nutrition and housekeeping. Other more specific programs might address those with Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia as well as their caregivers.
This week, AARP West Virginia and West Virginia Directors of Senior and Community Services announced survey results on the importance of senior services and what they mean to remaining independent.
Some 93 percent of the 800 respondents — 40 and older — attested to the extreme importance of having such services available to them or loved ones who wish to live independently.
It’s safe to say almost everyone recognizes the value of these programs and what they mean to senior citizens and their families.
The problem is not everyone is agreed on matching the value of these services with adequate funding.
That is, funding from the state budget has not kept pace with the aging population’s growth.
For instance, in the past decade the number of congregate meals offered statewide is 300,000 less than was provided in 2009.
Meanwhile, about 27,000 West Virginia baby boomers are turning 60 every year.
Many of the vehicles used for meal delivery to the homebound are 2009 models, which was also the last time rates for funding for these meals changed.
Reimbursement rates in the FAIR (Family Alzheimer’s In-Home Respite) program, for people who care for people with Alzheimer’s or dementia, are the same as they were in 2006.
We echo the call of these groups for the state to increase funding for senior service if for no other reason than the way we look after the most vulnerable members of our society is the best measure of who we are.
But if you need another reason, consider that a $5 million state investment in these programs is recouped with only 250 seniors not in nursing homes.
The funding level of these services has declined for far too long. We call on the governor and the Legislature to increase funding for senior services.
This issue will not just take care of itself.