Cutting Older Americans Act funding could cost older Americans their independence

As the U.S. population ages, a study on the Older Americans Act Nutrition program reveals it delivers more than just food—recipients say it prevents nursing home placements, supports caregivers and provides a crucial daily social link.

From 2020 to 2024, the number of older adults in the U.S. climbed by 13%. Meanwhile, the number of working-age adults—ages 18 to 64—grew by just 1.4% and the number of children declined by nearly 2%. As the nation’s population continues to age, and as more older adults are homebound, home-delivered meals provided by programs like Meals on Wheels can be a lifeline.

Roughly one-third of meals provided by Meals on Wheels are funded through the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program (OAA) of 1972. Despite its clear benefits, 86% of older, low-income and food-insecure adults today have no access to home-delivered meals and potential cuts to the OAA would likely worsen the situation.

Brown researchers have long examined how home-delivered meals support the physical and emotional health of older adults. A new study confirms that home-delivered meals reduce hunger, food insecurity and social isolation; improve physical and emotional well-being; and help participants maintain independence and remain in their own homes. The study also found that these services ease stress and financial strain for family caregivers.

Em Balkan, a doctoral candidate at Brown, led the study with co-authors Emily Gadbois, assistant professor of health services, policy and practice, Emma Tucher, a 2024 graduate of the program, Kim Bernard, senior research scientist, and Kali Thomas, associate director of health services research at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing and adjunct professor at Brown. As part of a larger Deliver-EE clinical trial, the team conducted in-depth interviews with 54 participants of the Meals on Wheels program, finding that these services “not only achieve their intended outcomes but also yield meaningful health-related benefits beyond their stated purpose that remain to be quantified.”

Balkan’s personal academic research focuses on Medicare Advantage and access to Medicaid benefits for older adults, as well as healthcare access for transgender adults. A native of Queens, they worked at the New York City Council as the senior policy analyst in the legislative division for the Health Committee and Hospitals Committee. In 2020, they also worked on the COVID committee, specifically on pandemic-related policy issues.

We spoke with Balkan about their new study, the unexpected health benefits of Meals on Wheels, and why fully funding the OAA matters.

Most of us are familiar with Meals on Wheels, which delivers meals with obvious nutritional benefits for recipients. But you also found benefits for caregivers in your study. Can you explain how home-delivered meals help ease the burden on caregivers?

Some recipients of Meals on Wheels are caregivers themselves. It’s kind of a double impact. For example, one interviewee was both an older adult receiving meals and a caregiver to their sibling, who also received meals. Hearing them talk about how the program helped both of them was really moving.

Their sibling’s appetite was unpredictable–they’d often just want a snack instead of a full meal–so having one dependable, balanced meal every day was a huge relief. It helped emotionally and financially, since trying to keep up with unpredictable eating habits can be exhausting and expensive.

We also heard from many people who relied on others for food and found the program gave them more autonomy. I don’t think people always realize how physically demanding it is to go grocery shopping, carry groceries, prep and cook food, and clean up afterward. For many, having meals delivered made them feel more independent, and some even said that having this kind of support is what allows them to keep living at home.

One participant talked about how their son is their main caregiver, but they really don’t want to move in with him; they want to stay in their own home. At the same time, their appetite fluctuates, so they don’t want to ask for groceries on a set schedule because the food might go to waste. The meals helped them navigate that balance, to maintain independence without feeling like a burden. So overall, it’s a twofold benefit: the program supports caregivers as well as the people who rely on them, and it really enhances quality of life on both sides.

We’ve known about the benefits of home-delivered meals for some time. Were there any surprises that came out of your in-depth interviews with participants?

What really stuck with me was the financial impact. Most older adults are living on extremely low, fixed incomes. There are federal reports showing that about 52% of Americans aged 65 and older live on less than $30,000 a year, and one in four live on less than $15,000. When you think about that—paying rent, covering medications and then trying to budget for groceries—even spending $150 a month on food becomes really difficult.

We actually first didn’t go into the interviews asking specifically about finances, but when we asked people to reflect on life before and after receiving home-delivered meals, financial relief kept coming up again and again. It was such a recurring theme that we ended up asking about it more directly,  saying something like, “Some people have mentioned that this program affects their finances. Has that been true for you?” And almost everyone said yes.

Some participants who received SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) told us that, for the first time, their benefits were actually lasting through the month. That’s huge. These are people who qualify for federal food assistance but are still struggling to make it to the end of the month before getting these meals.

So, the depths of the financial benefit was the thing that really surprised me. I hadn’t gone in expecting to hear so much about it, but it came through very strongly.

Your study notes that 86% of low-income, food-insecure older adults do not receive home-delivered meals. What would you say to policymakers who are considering cuts to the Older Americans Act?

The sad reality is that the people we spoke with represent just a tiny fraction of those who actually need meals.

What I’d want policymakers to understand is that it’s not news that older adults experience food insecurity. This has been a known, bipartisan issue for decades, and it’s something the federal government has long cared about. The nutrition program within the Older Americans Act was created in the 1970s for exactly that reason. I don’t think the challenge is convincing policymakers that this matters. The challenge is that the program has been chronically underfunded for generations.

The funding simply hasn’t kept pace with inflation or with the aging of the baby boomer generation. To put it in perspective, if total appropriations for the Older Americans Act had kept up with inflation since 2001, federal funding for fiscal year 2024 would have been about $620 million higher than it actually was. That’s how much purchasing power the program has lost over time.

So what I’d tell policymakers is this: We all agree that no one should go hungry, including older adults who often struggle to leave their homes or prepare meals for themselves. We already have a policy framework designed to address this, but we’re not giving it the resources it needs to work. Instead of cutting funding, we should be increasing it to meet the actual demand. In fact, the study population for our randomized controlled trial came directly from Meals on Wheels waiting listswhich exist because demand already far exceeds supply. That, to me, says everything.

If total appropriations for the Older Americans Act had kept up with inflation since 2001, federal funding for fiscal year 2024 would have been about $620 million higher than it actually was. That’s how much purchasing power the program has lost over time.

Em Balkan GS lead author of the study and fourth-year HSR doctoral student at Brown
 
Em Balkan, doctoral student at Brown

Participants emphasized positive interactions with delivery drivers. How powerful is that social link for the people you spoke with?

What I realized through those conversations is just how powerful even a short interaction of 30 seconds to a few minutes can be. A majority of the people we spoke with either said directly or implied, “You’ve really picked the right people for this job.” They felt genuinely cared for.

Drivers often went above and beyond in small ways. We overheard some of the deliveries during data collection, and even when interactions lasted only a minute, they might say things like, “You’re looking better today,” or “Happy holidays,” or “I love your shirt.” Simple, positive exchanges that meant a lot. Rain or shine, these meals arrive five days a week, and the drivers are a consistent presence—a friendly face who checks in, even briefly. That consistency itself is powerful.

We also heard stories of drivers helping beyond the delivery. One participant needed stamps and asked the driver to pick some up; they gave the driver money, and the next day, the driver brought back the stamps. Small gestures like that really stuck with people.

What really struck me was how thoughtful recipients were; many of them were very conscientious about not taking up too much of the drivers’ time. And it’s not like the drivers ever seemed rushed, quite the opposite. But the recipients would say things like, “I know they’re busy delivering to other people, so I just try to keep it brief.” That level of mindfulness came up again and again.

Even those who said they didn’t want to “bother” the drivers with requests told us they looked forward to their visits every day. When we asked, “If you ever did need help, would you feel comfortable asking?” Nearly everyone said yes. To quote one participant, they would “bend over backward” to help. They trusted the drivers completely.

“ Without these programs, people would have to rely on convenience foods or takeout, which are more expensive and often less nutritious. Nutritional deficits, in turn, could worsen chronic conditions and increase dependence on others for basic needs. ”

Em Balkan GS lead author of the study and fourth-year HSR doctoral student at Brown

These programs are under threat from budget cuts. What’s at stake if that support disappears?

Well, everything. To put it simply, older adults will go hungry. A lot of people we spoke to told us that before receiving meals, they relied on fast food or easy-to-prepare foods—canned soup, tuna sandwiches, things like that. I don’t know if all younger, able-bodied people realize how hard it can be to get to a grocery store, cook a meal, and clean up afterward.

For example, one person we interviewed, who’s quoted in the article, relied on an oxygen tank. They said they didn’t have enough oxygen in their tank to both prepare a meal and wash the dishes afterward, so cooking was extremely challenging. That really puts things in perspective.

Without these programs, people would have to rely on convenience foods or takeout, which are more expensive and often less nutritious. Nutritional deficits, in turn, could worsen chronic conditions and increase dependence on others for basic needs. And if someone doesn’t have anyone to rely on, what happens then?

We even heard from a few people—one of whom we quoted directly—who said that without these meals, they believed they’d have to move into a nursing home. Overall, participants said that they were healthier, more financially secure and happier because of this program. So, really, we can infer that cuts to the program wouldn’t just mean more hunger, it would mean increased financial strain, more health complications and more people losing their independence.