Bill Overview
Title: DELIVER Act of 2022
Description: This bill increases the standard charitable mileage rate for the delivery of meals to elderly, disabled, frail, and at-risk individuals. The rate shall be equal to the standard business mileage rate (58.5 cents per mile in 2022).
Sponsors: Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
Target Audience
Population: Elderly, disabled, frail, and at-risk individuals
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill addresses the delivery of meals to elderly, disabled, frail, and at-risk individuals.
- Increasing the standard charitable mileage rate may lead to more volunteers delivering meals as they can be reimbursed at a business rate.
- Improved delivery of meals may positively impact the nutrition and health of these individuals, preventing malnutrition and associated health issues.
- Ensuring meal delivery can also help these individuals remain independent in their homes longer, reducing the burden on healthcare systems and caregivers.
- Globally, the number of elderly and disabled individuals is significant and growing due to aging populations and better detection and diagnosis of disabilities.
Reasoning
- The policy serves a target population primarily consisting of elderly, disabled, and at-risk individuals, who number about 30 million in the U.S.
- The increase in charitable mileage rate is likely to incentivize more volunteers to participate in meal delivery programs like Meals on Wheels, thus improving the reach and frequency of meal delivery.
- Enhanced meal delivery is expected to positively affect the nutrition, health, and independence of these individuals, potentially improving their wellbeing over time.
- The policy budget restricts the scale to which these improvements can be realized but aims to make a significant impact over a decade.
- We also consider a portion of the population who are unaffected by this due to being out of scope, such as financially stable individuals who do not require delivered meals.
Simulated Interviews
Retired nurse (Rural Texas)
Age: 82 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on meal deliveries every week. Any improvements or more volunteers would be very beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired engineer (Suburban Ohio)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could bring deliveries more regularly which will be nice, but our local services are pretty consistent already.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Volunteer coordinator (Urban New York)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The mileage rate matched to the business rate will help us recruit more volunteers. It's a great incentive.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Stay-at-home caregiver (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping for more reliable service so we can arrange care schedules better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelancer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in reimbursement rate makes it more feasible to volunteer regularly. Great move!
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired military officer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 91 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the effort. Anything that keeps me out of a nursing home is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Grocery store manager (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The better mileage rate definitely supports my volunteering efforts. I can do more deliveries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired librarian (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 83 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging if this brings more stability to how often meals arrive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High school teacher (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reimbursement makes a difference. I'll be more consistent in volunteering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired educator (Urban Chicago)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might not impact me directly but it's a fantastic initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $21000000)
Year 2: $18540000 (Low: $15450000, High: $21630000)
Year 3: $19100000 (Low: $15900000, High: $22290000)
Year 5: $20250000 (Low: $16840000, High: $23680000)
Year 10: $22700000 (Low: $18870000, High: $26560000)
Year 100: $51000000 (Low: $42300000, High: $59670000)
Key Considerations
- Equity in access to meal delivery services needs to be addressed to ensure underserved areas benefit.
- Balancing the reimbursement increase without disproportionately reducing funds available for other services is crucial.
- Monitoring and evaluation are essential to assessing the effectiveness and unintended impacts of the mileage reimbursement increase.