Social welfare programs support the income, education, nutrition, and medical care needs of many of this country’s elders and children. Over the past twenty years, however, three times as many children as elders have lived in poverty, and poverty rates for children have consistently exceeded those for the elderly. Given the continued disparity in poverty rates, it is important to track levels of public spending for each group and the generational balance in allocating limited public funds. This Issue Brief evaluates trends in social welfare spending for children and the elderly from 1980 to 2000, and the relationship of national economic trends to public spending patterns

Alessandri, Evaline A

Keren, Ron

Pati, Susmita

Schwarz, Donald F

English

ScholarlyCommons@Penn

University of PennsylvaniaScholarlyCommonsIssue Briefs Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics11-24-2004Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap isGrowingSusmita PatiUniversity of PennsylvaniaRon KerenUniversity of PennsylvaniaEvaline A. AlessandriDonald F. SchwarzFollow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefsPart of the Social Work CommonsThis paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefs/47For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.Pati, Susmita; Keren, Ron; Alessandri, Evaline A.; and Schwarz, Donald F.. Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap isGrowing. LDI Issue Briefs. 2004; 10 (2). http://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/public-spending-elders-and-children-gap-growingPublic Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is GrowingAbstractSocial welfare programs support the income, education, nutrition, and medical care needs of many of thiscountry’s elders and children. Over the past twenty years, however, three times as many children as eldershave lived in poverty, and poverty rates for children have consistently exceeded those for the elderly. Given thecontinued disparity in poverty rates, it is important to track levels of public spending for each group and thegenerational balance in allocating limited public funds. This Issue Brief evaluates trends in social welfarespending for children and the elderly from 1980 to 2000, and the relationship of national economic trends topublic spending patterns.DisciplinesSocial WorkLicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.This brief is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefs/47Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsLDI Issue BriefVolume 10, Number 2November 2004Susmita Pati, MDLDI Senior FellowRon Keren, MDLDI Senior FellowEvaline A. Alessandri, MDLDI Senior FellowDonald F. Schwarz, MDLDI Senior FellowPediatric Generalist Research GroupChildren’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaSocial welfare programsdiffer for children and eldersContinued on next page.Public Spending on Elders and Children:The Gap is GrowingEditor’s note:  Social welfare programs support the income, education, nutrition, andmedical care needs of many of this country’s elders and children. Over the past twentyyears, however, three times as many children as elders have lived in poverty, and povertyrates for children have consistently exceeded those for the elderly. Given the continueddisparity in poverty rates, it is important to track levels of public spending for eachgroup and the generational balance in allocating limited public funds. This Issue Briefevaluates trends in social welfare spending for children and the elderly from 1980 to2000, and the relationship of national economic trends to public spending patterns.Public spending on social welfare programs constitutes a safety net for children and theelderly.  The adequacy of this net, however, depends on the level of public spending,which in turn depends on funding mechanisms and eligibility criteria for each program.• Social welfare programs can be universal, applying to all children or elderly (forexample, Social Security and K-12 education) or means-tested, for low-income peopleonly (for example, Medicaid and food stamps).• The federal government finances and administers programs such as Medicare andSocial Security, while other programs such as K-12 education and Medicaid areadministered at the state level and involve joint federal-state funding.• Most programs serving the elderly are federal and universal. Children’s programs, onthe other hand, are primarily state-based and, except for education, means-tested.Policies enacted over the past 20 years have reduced the federal contribution tomeans-tested programs, shifting responsibility for funding to the states. Since manychildren’s programs are means-tested, these trends raise the question of whetherchildren’s basic needs are being met.• A previous study found that spending on children declined during the recession of theearly 1980s, while spending on the elderly grew modestly. The authors concluded thatduring times of economic downturn, children’s programs are much more vulnerablethan programs for the elderly. The study described below sought to confirm andupdate these findings.Pati and colleagues examined trends in public spending for children and the elderly from1980-2000.  They collected data from various federal and state agencies and comparedspending across time in constant 2000 dollars (to adjust for inflation).• The investigators included a broad array of social welfare programs that provide cash,in-kind, or medical benefits to the elderly, children, or both groups. Cash programsStudy examines socialwelfare spending on childrenand elders from 1980-2000Spending on universalprograms is stable over time,but means-tested programsfluctuatepredominate public spending for the elderly; in-kind programs (specifically, fundingfor K-12 education) predominate spending for children.  The table below lists eachprogram included in the analysis.• The study did not include social welfare spending by private organizations, such ascharities.  It also excluded programs providing energy assistance, public housing, andtax-based benefits, such as earned income tax credits and tax-deferred retirementaccounts.• To analyze the sensitivity of public spending to larger economic forces, theinvestigators divided the study period into four categories: 1980-1984 (recession);1985-1989 (growth); 1990-1994 (recession), and 1995-2000 (expansion). Inflation ispresent during periods of growth, but not in an expansion.Social welfare spending for both children and the elderly grew over the study period.However, the distribution of this spending changed over time for children, while itremained stable for the elderly.  Universal programs tended to grow consistently, whilemeans-tested programs fluctuated.• In constant dollars, spending on children increased from $281 billion in 1980 to$459 billion in 2000.  Spending on the elderly increased from $380 billion in 1980to $649 billion in 2000.• As a percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, social welfare spending onboth groups was relatively unchanged, at about 4.5% for children and 6.5% for theelderly.• The table below shows the distribution of spending in 1980 and 2000.  Educationrepresented the majority of public spending on children, accounting for 70.3% in1980 and 81.2% in 2000. Conversely, programs that provide cash to needy familiesconstituted a smaller part of public spending on children over time.  Programs such asTANF/AFDC, OASDI and SSI shrunk from 10.8% in 1980 to 4.5% in 2000.• Social Security and Medicare represented the majority of spending for the elderly, andboth programs grew consistently over time.  They constituted 85.7% in 1980 and91.4% in 2000.Distribution of Social Welfare Spending on Children and EldersProgram 1980 2000K-12 education 70.3 81.2* Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF),   9.1  2.3Aid to Families with Dependent Children(AFDC) and Emergency AssistanceOld Age, Survivors, and Disability   1.4   1.0Insurance (OASDI)* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)   0.3   1.1* Food stamps   4.5 2.4* Child nutrition (school food programs)   2.6 1.6* Women, Infants and Children (WIC)   0.5 0.9* Medicaid   3.9 5.0* State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP)   0.0 0.6* Maternal and child health   0.7 0.6Child welfare   0.6 0.1* Means-Tested ProgramsProgram 1980 2000Social Security 58.7 61.7* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)   1.0 0.6Railroad retirement   2.5 1.3Veterans’ pension   1.7 1.1* Food stamps   0.5 0.2Medicare 27.0 29.7* Medicaid   8.1 5.2Older Americans Act   0.5 0.2Spending onChildren (%)Spending onElders (%)Continued on back.Federal funding andadministration providesstable base for elderlyprogramsTo account for differences in population growth, Pati and colleagues examined per capitasocial welfare spending.  While per capita spending increased for both groups, the gapbetween the amount spent on the elderly and on children increased by 20% from 1980to 2000.• In 1980, the public spent $11,000 more for each elder than for each child ($15,404vs. $4,464).  By 2000 that gap had grown to $13,000 ($19,702 per elder vs. $6,380per child).• Most of the widening gap between children and the elderly can be explained bydifferences in medical spending over time.  In constant dollars, per capita medicalspending on children grew from $174 in 1980 to $358 in 2000; per capita medicalspending on elders grew from $5,402 in 1980 to $7,009 in 2000.The investigators analyzed how spending levels for children and the elderly changedduring periods of growth and recession, and identified specific policy changes thataffected public spending.  The figure below shows per capita spending for each group ineach period, in constant dollars.• Children were particularly hard-hit in the recession of 1980-1984.  Substantial cuts inmeans-tested programs were authorized by the 1981 Omnibus Budget ReconciliationAct (OBRA) and the Economic Recovery Tax Act.  As a result, Medicaid and AFDCspending for children declined by 10.7% and 7.2% during this recession.• In the recession of the early 1990s, differences in per capita spending on the elderlyand children increased, as the growth of spending on children failed to keep pace withthat of the elderly.  During that recession, per capita spending (in constant dollars)increased 6% for children and 7.7% for elders.• Two public policy changes—the Family Support Act of 1988 and the 1996 PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act—created stronger workrequirements for welfare recipients and reduced enrollment in cash programs, foodstamps and Medicaid.  Largely as a result of implementing these policies, socialwelfare spending on poor children through AFDC/TANF and Medicaid peaked in1993 and steadily declined thereafter. Spending levels returned to their 1993 levels by1999, partly due to the implementation of the new SCHIP block grants in 1998.The growing gap between spending on the elderly and children may stem from thedifferences in how social welfare programs are structured.  Most social welfare programsfor the elderly are federal, while most programs for children are state-based.• Although all public funding is affected by larger economic forces, the federal budget isbigger, and better able to withstand short-term economic downturns than state budgets.• The federal government can, and does, run budget deficits, something states cannotdo.  State governments cannot deficit-spend as revenues decline, and must cutspending to balance their budgets.Spending on children isparticularly vulnerableduring economic downturnsPer capita spending gapbetween elderly and childrenwidens by 20%Per Capita Social Welfare Spending On Children and Elders$0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,00019801982198419861988199019921994199619982000Recession Growth Recession ExpansionChildrenEldersThis Issue Brief is based on the following article: S. Pati, R. Keren, E.A. Alessandrini, D.F. Schwarz.  Generational differences in U.S. publicspending, 1980-2000.  Health Affairs, September/October 2004, vol. 23, pp. 131-141. Also, see earlier study: A.E. Benjamin, P.W. Newacheck,and H. Wolfe. Intergenerational equity and public spending. Pediatrics, 1991, vol. 88, pp.75-83.Published by the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6218.Janet Weiner, MPH, Associate Director for Health Policy, EditorBenjamin Isquith, Health Policy InternDavid A. Asch, MD, MBA, Executive DirectorIssue Briefs synthesize the results of research by LDI’s Senior Fellows, a consortium of Penn scholars studying medical, economic, and social and ethicalissues that influence how health care is organized, financed, managed, and delivered in the United States and internationally. The LDI is a cooperativeventure among Penn schools including Dental Medicine, Medicine, Nursing and Wharton, and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. For additionalinformation on this or other Issue Briefs, contact Janet Weiner (e-mail: weinerja@mail.med.upenn.edu; 215-573-9374).Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. PostageP  A  I  DPermit No. 2563Philadelphia, PA 19104Issue Brief Published by theLeonard Davis Instituteof Health EconomicsUniversity of Pennsylvania3641 Locust WalkPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6218215.898.5611fax 215.898.0229ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED© 2004 Leonard Davis InstituteVisit us on the web at www.upenn.edu/ldiThis study indicates that public spending on children is sensitive to larger economicforces.  Policies that limit mean-tested programs can have a differential impact onchildren, especially on spending for children’s medical care.  Conversely, spending on theelderly is relatively resistant to economic forces, and has not been the target of policychanges enacted in response to economic forces.• Spending on children is especially vulnerable in economically slow periods.  Whereasthe elderly have a basic guarantee of support regardless of economic and politicalchanges, funding for children’s welfare remains vulnerable to these fluctuations.• The continued transfer of responsibility for funding of children’s social welfareprograms from the federal government to the states endangers the stability of thesafety net, especially for health insurance. The majority of states now face budgetshortfalls that will limit their ability to meet the needs of poor children.• The recent expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage will mostlikely widen the spending gap between the elderly and children.• Persistent disparities in the proportion of children versus elders living in poverty arguefor increased spending on children’s welfare. Rather than have one vulnerable groupcompete with the other for resources, policymakers should instead look for ways tostabilize funding for children and assure that their basic needs are met.POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is Growing

Kosmopolis

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
Issue Briefs Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
11-24-2004
Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is
Growing
Susmita Pati
University of Pennsylvania
Ron Keren
University of Pennsylvania
Evaline A. Alessandri
Donald F. Schwarz
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefs
Part of the Social Work Commons
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefs/47
For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.
Pati, Susmita; Keren, Ron; Alessandri, Evaline A.; and Schwarz, Donald F.. Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is
Growing. LDI Issue Briefs. 2004; 10 (2). http://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/public-spending-elders-and-children-gap-growing
Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is Growing
Abstract
Social welfare programs support the income, education, nutrition, and medical care needs of many of this
country’s elders and children. Over the past twenty years, however, three times as many children as elders
have lived in poverty, and poverty rates for children have consistently exceeded those for the elderly. Given the
continued disparity in poverty rates, it is important to track levels of public spending for each group and the
generational balance in allocating limited public funds. This Issue Brief evaluates trends in social welfare
spending for children and the elderly from 1980 to 2000, and the relationship of national economic trends to
public spending patterns.
Disciplines
Social Work
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
This brief is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/ldi_issuebriefs/47
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
LDI Issue Brief
Volume 10, Number 2
November 2004
Susmita Pati, MD
LDI Senior Fellow
Ron Keren, MD
LDI Senior Fellow
Evaline A. Alessandri, MD
LDI Senior Fellow
Donald F. Schwarz, MD
LDI Senior Fellow
Pediatric Generalist Research Group
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Social welfare programs
differ for children and elders
Continued on next page.
Public Spending on Elders and Children:
The Gap is Growing
Editor’s note:  Social welfare programs support the income, education, nutrition, and
medical care needs of many of this country’s elders and children. Over the past twenty
years, however, three times as many children as elders have lived in poverty, and poverty
rates for children have consistently exceeded those for the elderly. Given the continued
disparity in poverty rates, it is important to track levels of public spending for each
group and the generational balance in allocating limited public funds. This Issue Brief
evaluates trends in social welfare spending for children and the elderly from 1980 to
2000, and the relationship of national economic trends to public spending patterns.
Public spending on social welfare programs constitutes a safety net for children and the
elderly.  The adequacy of this net, however, depends on the level of public spending,
which in turn depends on funding mechanisms and eligibility criteria for each program.
• Social welfare programs can be universal, applying to all children or elderly (for
example, Social Security and K-12 education) or means-tested, for low-income people
only (for example, Medicaid and food stamps).
• The federal government finances and administers programs such as Medicare and
Social Security, while other programs such as K-12 education and Medicaid are
administered at the state level and involve joint federal-state funding.
• Most programs serving the elderly are federal and universal. Children’s programs, on
the other hand, are primarily state-based and, except for education, means-tested.
Policies enacted over the past 20 years have reduced the federal contribution to
means-tested programs, shifting responsibility for funding to the states. Since many
children’s programs are means-tested, these trends raise the question of whether
children’s basic needs are being met.
• A previous study found that spending on children declined during the recession of the
early 1980s, while spending on the elderly grew modestly. The authors concluded that
during times of economic downturn, children’s programs are much more vulnerable
than programs for the elderly. The study described below sought to confirm and
update these findings.
Pati and colleagues examined trends in public spending for children and the elderly from
1980-2000.  They collected data from various federal and state agencies and compared
spending across time in constant 2000 dollars (to adjust for inflation).
• The investigators included a broad array of social welfare programs that provide cash,
in-kind, or medical benefits to the elderly, children, or both groups. Cash programs
Study examines social
welfare spending on children
and elders from 1980-2000
Spending on universal
programs is stable over time,
but means-tested programs
fluctuate
predominate public spending for the elderly; in-kind programs (specifically, funding
for K-12 education) predominate spending for children.  The table below lists each
program included in the analysis.
• The study did not include social welfare spending by private organizations, such as
charities.  It also excluded programs providing energy assistance, public housing, and
tax-based benefits, such as earned income tax credits and tax-deferred retirement
accounts.
• To analyze the sensitivity of public spending to larger economic forces, the
investigators divided the study period into four categories: 1980-1984 (recession);
1985-1989 (growth); 1990-1994 (recession), and 1995-2000 (expansion). Inflation is
present during periods of growth, but not in an expansion.
Social welfare spending for both children and the elderly grew over the study period.
However, the distribution of this spending changed over time for children, while it
remained stable for the elderly.  Universal programs tended to grow consistently, while
means-tested programs fluctuated.
• In constant dollars, spending on children increased from $281 billion in 1980 to
$459 billion in 2000.  Spending on the elderly increased from $380 billion in 1980
to $649 billion in 2000.
• As a percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, social welfare spending on
both groups was relatively unchanged, at about 4.5% for children and 6.5% for the
elderly.
• The table below shows the distribution of spending in 1980 and 2000.  Education
represented the majority of public spending on children, accounting for 70.3% in
1980 and 81.2% in 2000. Conversely, programs that provide cash to needy families
constituted a smaller part of public spending on children over time.  Programs such as
TANF/AFDC, OASDI and SSI shrunk from 10.8% in 1980 to 4.5% in 2000.
• Social Security and Medicare represented the majority of spending for the elderly, and
both programs grew consistently over time.  They constituted 85.7% in 1980 and
91.4% in 2000.
Distribution of Social Welfare Spending on Children and Elders
Program 1980 2000
K-12 education 70.3 81.2
* Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF),   9.1  2.3
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) and Emergency Assistance
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability   1.4   1.0
Insurance (OASDI)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)   0.3   1.1
* Food stamps   4.5 2.4
* Child nutrition (school food programs)   2.6 1.6
* Women, Infants and Children (WIC)   0.5 0.9
* Medicaid   3.9 5.0
* State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP)   0.0 0.6
* Maternal and child health   0.7 0.6
Child welfare   0.6 0.1
* Means-Tested Programs
Program 1980 2000
Social Security 58.7 61.7
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)   1.0 0.6
Railroad retirement   2.5 1.3
Veterans’ pension   1.7 1.1
* Food stamps   0.5 0.2
Medicare 27.0 29.7
* Medicaid   8.1 5.2
Older Americans Act   0.5 0.2
Spending on
Children (%)
Spending on
Elders (%)
Continued on back.
Federal funding and
administration provides
stable base for elderly
programs
To account for differences in population growth, Pati and colleagues examined per capita
social welfare spending.  While per capita spending increased for both groups, the gap
between the amount spent on the elderly and on children increased by 20% from 1980
to 2000.
• In 1980, the public spent $11,000 more for each elder than for each child ($15,404
vs. $4,464).  By 2000 that gap had grown to $13,000 ($19,702 per elder vs. $6,380
per child).
• Most of the widening gap between children and the elderly can be explained by
differences in medical spending over time.  In constant dollars, per capita medical
spending on children grew from $174 in 1980 to $358 in 2000; per capita medical
spending on elders grew from $5,402 in 1980 to $7,009 in 2000.
The investigators analyzed how spending levels for children and the elderly changed
during periods of growth and recession, and identified specific policy changes that
affected public spending.  The figure below shows per capita spending for each group in
each period, in constant dollars.
• Children were particularly hard-hit in the recession of 1980-1984.  Substantial cuts in
means-tested programs were authorized by the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (OBRA) and the Economic Recovery Tax Act.  As a result, Medicaid and AFDC
spending for children declined by 10.7% and 7.2% during this recession.
• In the recession of the early 1990s, differences in per capita spending on the elderly
and children increased, as the growth of spending on children failed to keep pace with
that of the elderly.  During that recession, per capita spending (in constant dollars)
increased 6% for children and 7.7% for elders.
• Two public policy changes—the Family Support Act of 1988 and the 1996 Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act—created stronger work
requirements for welfare recipients and reduced enrollment in cash programs, food
stamps and Medicaid.  Largely as a result of implementing these policies, social
welfare spending on poor children through AFDC/TANF and Medicaid peaked in
1993 and steadily declined thereafter. Spending levels returned to their 1993 levels by
1999, partly due to the implementation of the new SCHIP block grants in 1998.
The growing gap between spending on the elderly and children may stem from the
differences in how social welfare programs are structured.  Most social welfare programs
for the elderly are federal, while most programs for children are state-based.
• Although all public funding is affected by larger economic forces, the federal budget is
bigger, and better able to withstand short-term economic downturns than state budgets.
• The federal government can, and does, run budget deficits, something states cannot
do.  State governments cannot deficit-spend as revenues decline, and must cut
spending to balance their budgets.
Spending on children is
particularly vulnerable
during economic downturns
Per capita spending gap
between elderly and children
widens by 20%
Per Capita Social Welfare Spending On Children and Elders
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
Recession Growth Recession Expansion
Children
Elders
This Issue Brief is based on the following article: S. Pati, R. Keren, E.A. Alessandrini, D.F. Schwarz.  Generational differences in U.S. public
spending, 1980-2000.  Health Affairs, September/October 2004, vol. 23, pp. 131-141. Also, see earlier study: A.E. Benjamin, P.W. Newacheck,
and H. Wolfe. Intergenerational equity and public spending. Pediatrics, 1991, vol. 88, pp.75-83.
Published by the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6218.
Janet Weiner, MPH, Associate Director for Health Policy, Editor
Benjamin Isquith, Health Policy Intern
David A. Asch, MD, MBA, Executive Director
Issue Briefs synthesize the results of research by LDI’s Senior Fellows, a consortium of Penn scholars studying medical, economic, and social and ethical
issues that influence how health care is organized, financed, managed, and delivered in the United States and internationally. The LDI is a cooperative
venture among Penn schools including Dental Medicine, Medicine, Nursing and Wharton, and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. For additional
information on this or other Issue Briefs, contact Janet Weiner (e-mail: weinerja@mail.med.upenn.edu; 215-573-9374).
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage
P  A  I  D
Permit No. 2563
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Issue Brief
Published by the
Leonard Davis Institute
of Health Economics
University of Pennsylvania
3641 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6218
215.898.5611
fax 215.898.0229
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
© 2004 Leonard Davis Institute
Visit us on the web at www.upenn.edu/ldi
This study indicates that public spending on children is sensitive to larger economic
forces.  Policies that limit mean-tested programs can have a differential impact on
children, especially on spending for children’s medical care.  Conversely, spending on the
elderly is relatively resistant to economic forces, and has not been the target of policy
changes enacted in response to economic forces.
• Spending on children is especially vulnerable in economically slow periods.  Whereas
the elderly have a basic guarantee of support regardless of economic and political
changes, funding for children’s welfare remains vulnerable to these fluctuations.
• The continued transfer of responsibility for funding of children’s social welfare
programs from the federal government to the states endangers the stability of the
safety net, especially for health insurance. The majority of states now face budget
shortfalls that will limit their ability to meet the needs of poor children.
• The recent expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage will most
likely widen the spending gap between the elderly and children.
• Persistent disparities in the proportion of children versus elders living in poverty argue
for increased spending on children’s welfare. Rather than have one vulnerable group
compete with the other for resources, policymakers should instead look for ways to
stabilize funding for children and assure that their basic needs are met.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS


https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&amp;context=ldi_issuebriefs

Public Spending on Elders and Children: The gap is Growing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarlyCommons@Penn

Kosmopolis