Bill Overview
Title: Ruthie and Connie LGBTQ Elder Americans Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses matters related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in certain federal programs serving older Americans, particularly by including an individual's LGBTQ status within the scope of the greatest social needs served by such programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
Target Audience
Population: Older LGBTQ individuals globally
Estimated Size: 2900000
- The bill addresses federal programs serving older Americans.
- It specifically focuses on LGBTQ individuals, which is a subset of older Americans.
- The term 'greatest social needs' implies that the bill targets those who are likely underserved or face unique social challenges.
- Globally, the older population continues to grow, with a significant number identifying as LGBTQ.
- This group's wellbeing will be impacted by their inclusion in specific federal programs.
Reasoning
- Older LGBTQ individuals face unique challenges, including discrimination and social isolation, which are compounded by aging.
- Given the size and focus of the budget, the policy can only practically serve a fraction of the estimated target population.
- While there may not be immediate changes in wellbeing scores, long-term impacts due to increased support and social connections might emerge as the policy matures.
- The relatively small budget compared to the size of the target population means that the impact might be moderate in overall scope but significant for the individuals directly served.
- Many individuals may not directly experience changes from the policy due to its initial budget limitations.
Simulated Interviews
Retired teacher (New York City, NY)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step in the right direction.
- However, living in a supportive community already, I don't feel I need much more help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Part-time art instructor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will improve my access to healthcare and social services.
- It feels like a valuable recognition of the challenges we face.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired farmer (Rural Oklahoma)
Age: 75 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's refreshing to see we haven't been forgotten by the government.
- I hope this means better access to support, but I'm skeptical about it reaching rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 80 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems promising for those less visible in our community.
- I see this as a step to enhance our quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel hopeful about this policy's potential to create inclusive spaces.
- Community is something I lack and need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired healthcare worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 66 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might improve access to specific health services for our community.
- Financial constraints currently limit some of my activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired writer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are vital for ensuring equal rights across all ages.
- I am concerned about the actual reach and awareness of such programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired bank manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am cautiously optimistic; however, I've seen policies like this fall short before.
- The retirement community could benefit from such programs, bringing us together more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired social worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already feel supported, but this would benefit many elders who are not as fortunate.
- Expansion of elder services is always welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Part-time chef (Dallas, TX)
Age: 67 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be transformative, especially in conservative areas.
- Access to the right services could significantly alter my quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $19000000)
Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $21000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $23000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $29000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill addresses social inclusion and aims to meet the unique needs of older LGBTQ individuals, potentially increasing lifespan and quality of life.
- Inclusion in public programs can help reduce isolation, which has proven public health benefits.
- Outreach and adjustment of federal programs can be a complex process requiring additional resources and careful implementation.