Volume 1

Long-range program and research needs in aging and related fields : hearings before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, Ninetieth Congress, first session Washington, D.C. December 5 and 6, 1967.

  • United States. Congress. Senate. Special Committee on Aging.
Date:
1968-
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Long-range program and research needs in aging and related fields : hearings before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, Ninetieth Congress, first session Washington, D.C. December 5 and 6, 1967. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/500 (page 12)
    publie education. We can do no less with regard to human goals for the older people of the Nation. Last year, the staff of the National Council on the Aging undertook an assessment of progress in the field of aging since 1950, as background material for our annual meeting, which was on the subject of “Devel- oping Public Policy.” In many respects, this was a rewarding experl- ence, but it was a sobering one also. We were forced to conclude that, in spite of all our efforts, life in these United States has not changed much in the past 20 years for the great mass of older people. In many areas, programs for the elderly have not kept pace with increases 1n the older population. Larger benefits for the many people on social security have not kept pace with the cost of living. Our assessment of progress was by no means an exhaustive study. It was an exploration, based on readily available Government data, on material in the NCOA library files, and on the knowledge and experi- ence of the members of our own staff, and it was undertaken in addition to their already considerable duties. A summary of the report is available to this committee. It did, we believe, point the way to a much more complete study which, taken together with certain minimum standards as national goals, would provide a basis for a national policy for all older people—as distin- guished from isolated demonstration programs which at best benefit only a few. I should like to give a few examples of specific goals. First of all, it is important to remember that, when we consider growth of goods and services in relation to growth of need, we are dealing today with more than 6 million more people over 65 than we were in 1950. Furthermore, we must take into account, in the long-range plans we are proposing, the greater proportional increases in the upper age brackets—the “old old” as distinguished from the “young old.” In 1950, there were slightly more than 12 million people over 65. By 1980, there will be more than 9 million over 75. This is about three-quarters of the number over 65, 30 years earlier. In the over-75 group, the need for many services is more acute. I would like to add one other statistic that relates to Pennsylvania. By 1970, 13 percent of the population in our State will be over 65 years of age, which makes it about 30 percent of the national average, and, vee the exception of Florida, I believe the highest percentage of older citizens. The elimination of poverty in old age must have first priority as a national goal. It is now estimated that some 5 to 7 million people over 65 im this country live in poverty. Forty percent of the women living alone or with nonrelatives are poor. ¥ Nonwhite families are almost three times as likely to be poor as are the white aged of the same family status. The average age of death among Eskimos and Indians is about 43 years, because of poverty and neglect, and I hope we do not adopt neglect as the means of solvine the problems of our elderly. ; The social security amendments recommended this year by the President would increase the minimum annual benefit to $840 rear for an individua Sporn icy > se yee an dividual and $1,260 per year for a couple. The 15-percent Increase would mean that the average social security benefit would still be slightly below the poverty level. Thus does the Government