When Washington Doesn't ‘Get America

Newswise, October 9, 2016--  Washington doesn’t think very highly of the American people, concludes a yearlong Johns Hopkins University study of 850 non-elected officials working in the nation’s capital….These Beltway insiders, who work in federal agencies, on Capitol Hill and in other Washington policy jobs, tend to think Americans are uninformed, know “very little” about key issues, and have opinions that can be ignored.

The findings by political scientists Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg, will appear in the book, What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People, which will be published by Penguin Random House on Oct. 4.

“This disdain for the public results from the wide gulf between the life experiences of ordinary Americans and the denizens of official Washington,” the authors say.

 “Official Washington is wealthier, whiter and better educated than ordinary citizens. It lives in its own inside-the-Beltway bubble, where Washingtonians converse with one another and rarely interact on an intellectual plane with Americans at large.”

In their 2013 survey, the authors found people who either work in government or directly with it not only have very little in common with other Americans, but have a disturbingly low opinion of them.

They found 73 percent of government officials think the public knows little or nothing about programs aimed at helping the poor, 71 percent think the public knows little or nothing about science and technology policy, and 61 percent think the public knows almost nothing about childcare.

In fact, when it comes to fundamental policy areas like social security, public schools, crime, defense and the environment, it was hard to find government officials who thought the public knew “a great deal.”

Assuming Americans know so little, government officials tend to use their own judgment rather than the people’s when making policy decisions, the authors conclude.

With issues of science and defense, more than half of officials think they should “always” or “mostly” heed their own opinions. With crime, welfare and the environment, at least 42 percent of officials felt the same way.

Government officials actually tended to believe their own views diverged more from those of ordinary Americans than they actually did.

For example, 76 percent of officials believe they disagree with average Americans on half of the policy areas surveyed, but only 12 percent of them really do. The data on “average Americans” is largely drawn from the 2012 American National Election Study.

“This sense of “false uniqueness” reflects a sense of cultural or intellectual superiority,” the authors say. “The officials tend to view the citizenry with a considerable amount of disdain.”

Previously released findings from the book showed:

--Ninety-one percent of those who work for federal agencies are white, versus 78 percent of the public.

--In 2012, federal workers compensation averaged $81,704, or 48 percent more than the private sector average of $54,995, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That puts federal workers in the top 10 percent of American earners.

--Sixty percent of those who work on the Hill are Democrats versus 35 percent of Americans at large.

--In the 2012 presidential election, 97 percent of congressional and White House staffers voted versus 80 percent of other Americans. Sixty-two percent of those Hill staffers believe election votes are counted fairly “very often” compared with 33 percent of other Americans.

--Washingtonians are reading the news at least five days a week compared with about three days a week for the rest of the country.

Bachner is director of the Master of Science in Government Analytics program at Johns Hopkins. She teaches courses in statistical analysis, survey research, public opinion, elections and American political behavior. Her research examines coalition building in Congress, government responsiveness and the growth of online education.

Ginsberg is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science and chairman of the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies. His research interests include American politics, Jewish history, higher education policy, and the societal impact of war and violence. He is the author of 24 books, most recently The Worth of War.

The Coming "Age Wave" That Presidential Candidates Need To Address…But Aren't

May 12, 2016 -- An age wave is coming that could either make or break America. Yet the issue has received little attention in the current presidential campaign.

When our Constitution was crafted, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was barely 36 years, and the median age was a mere 16. In this regard, we are living in truly uncharted territory and longevity is humanity's new frontier.

As the baby boomers turn 70 at the rate of 10,000 a day, America is becoming a "gerontocracy." Already, 42% of the entire federal budget is spent on Medicare and Social Security.

And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this will exceed 50% by 2030. In the 2012 election, older adults out-powered all other age groups with 72% of men and women 65+ voting, while only 45% of those 18-29 did.

This demographic transformation will create new social contribution and marketplace opportunities, as well as potentially devastating medical, fiscal, and intergenerational crises.

Are we prepared? No. Are the candidates addressing this age wave and offering innovative solutions? No. WHY NOT?

These are the questions being asked by Ken Dychtwald, PhD, author of 16 books on aging related issues and CEO of Age Wave. Based on his 40 years of research, dialogue, and analysis, Dr. Dychtwald believes there are five essential transpartisan issues that must be addressed if our newfound longevity is to be a triumph rather than a tragedy.

Issue #1: What is the new age of "old?"

Our economy is hinged to 19^th century notions of longevity and old age. When Otto Von Bismarck picked 65 to be the marker of old age in the 1880s, the average life expectancy in his country was only 45. Similarly, when Social Security began, the average American could expect to live only 62 years, and there were 42 workers paying for each "aged" recipient. Today life expectancy is approaching 79, and due to decades of declining fertility, there are fewer than three workers to pay for each recipient. And we have to ask, is 65—or even 67—the right marker of old age in the 21^st century? As our demography continues to tilt older, the economic impact of these numbers on working Americans will be massive. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is not an issue that only impacts "seniors." The designated age of "old" in the 21^st century is a demographic/social/economic issue that will affect us all. Left unchanged, it will have a particularly brutal impact on the millennial generation.

Issue #2: The diseases of aging could be the financial and emotional sinkhole into which the 21^st century falls.

As a result of modern medical advances and public health infrastructure, we've managed to prolong the lifespan, but we have done far too little to extend the healthspan—with pandemics of heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. In addition to being quite costly, our healthcare system is incompetent at preventing and treating the complex conditions of later life. For example, Alzheimer's (and related dementias) now afflicts one in two people over 85, and it has become the nation's scariest disease. Unless there is a breakthrough, its sufferers are anticipated to grow from 5+ million today to 15+ million, with its cumulative costs soaring to $20 trillion by 2050. But our scientific priorities are out of synch: for every dollar currently spent on Alzheimer's care, less than half a cent is being spent on innovative scientific research. Our doctors are also not aging-ready. We have more than 50,000 pediatricians, but fewer than 5,000 geriatricians. Only eight of the country's 145 academic medical centers have full geriatrics departments, and 97% of U.S. medical students don't take a single course in geriatrics.

Issue #3: Averting a new era of mass elder poverty

According to the Government Accounting Office, roughly half (52%) of all households near retirement (headed by someone age 55+) have NO retirement savings and about half (51%) of our population have no pensions beyond Social Security. We could be heading to a future in which tens of millions of impoverished aging boomers will place crushing burdens on the U.S. economy and on the generations forced to support them. On top of this, we are not fostering financial literacy or responsibility among the young. For example, 37 states require providing sex education to high school students by law, while only 17 states require financial education.

Issue #4: Ending ageism

In Colonial times, elders were respected and honored for their wisdom and experience. During the industrial era, all of that turned upside down. Now, in our youth-focused society, many people of all ages are gerontophobic—uncomfortable both with older adults and their own aging process. And many institutions—from urban planning, to technology, to employment hiring practices, to housing, to popular media (where advertisers will pay networks far more for a 30-year-old viewer than one who is 60) are both youth-centric and ageist. For example, our homes were not built for aging bodies: less than 2% of our housing stock is built to be safe and accessible for elders (and 1/3 of the elderly fall each year).

Issue #5: The new purpose of maturity

Today's retirees feel they are in the best time in their lives to give back. And they do: contributing both more dollars and volunteer time than any other age group—doing everything from teaching schoolchildren to read, to helping their peers recover from loss, to building homes for Habitat for Humanity. Going forward, medical science will increasingly prolong life. But political, religious, and community leaders have yet to create a compelling vision for the purpose of those additional years. For example, our 68 million retirees currently spend an average of 49 hours a week watching television. Ultimately, the problem may not be our growing legions of older adults, it may be our absence of imagination, creativity, and leadership regarding what to do with all of this maturity, experience, and longevity.

A letter is being sent to each major candidate asking them to articulate their views on these five critical issues.

A written copy of Dr. Dychtwald's views and a recording of his April 21 press briefing, including the specific questions on these issues that he believes the candidates must address – with fact sheets and related data and sources, can be accessed at www.agewave.com/candidates.

About Age Wave

Founded in 1986, Age Wave is a pioneer in the exploration of the impact of the longevity revolution. Under the leadership of Founder/CEO Ken Dychtwald, PhD, Age Wave advises businesses and non-profits worldwide on the opportunities and challenges of an aging population.

Money and Influence in 2016 Presidential Campaign Tracked by New Index at Chicago Booth

Newswise, February 5, 2016 — As the 2016 presidential campaign attracts more money and bigger political donations than any campaign in U.S. history, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business has created a financial index to capture the influence that corporations and special interest groups have on politics and the economy.

The George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at Chicago Booth launched the Campaign Financing Capture Index to measure the concentration of campaign funding in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The index ranks the concentration of funding for each candidate with an eye toward predicting how political donations could influence policy decisions under a new president.

The creation of the index comes as the U.S. courts have lifted limits on the size of political donations, and special interest groups, in the form of super PACS, are playing a bigger role in how campaigns are financed.

“The more concentrated the sources of funding to a political campaign, the higher the risk a politician will be influenced by special interests,” said Professor Luigi Zingales, director of the Stigler Center.

“Candidates receiving large donations from few donors may be less willing and able to lead reforms in markets where powerful special interest groups benefit from the status quo.”

The Campaign Financing Capture Index, published quarterly, will track when and how big-money political donations shift during the course of the campaign. Researchers at the Stigler Center expect there to be significant changes in the concentration of donations as the race progresses.

The index measures “concentration” by the number of donors and the amount of each donation. Candidates with highly concentrated funding have the fewest donors giving the most amount of money.

 Candidates with low concentration of funding have the largest number of donors giving the smallest amounts of money. The Stigler Center defines large donations as contribution of $5,000 or more.

“We think that when donations start to exceed $5,000, donors are not just expressing a political preference, they are trying to influence future policies,” said Zingales.

First Round of Results

Republican candidate and former Florida governor Jeb Bush ranked as the candidate with the highest concentration of big donors at 77 percent of total campaign contributions above $5,000.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida ranked second at 59 percent, closely followed by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas at 58 percent.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton fell in the middle of the pack with 32 percent of political contributions above $5,000, followed by Democratic former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley at 17 percent, Republican Ben Carson at 12 percent, Republican billionaire Donald Trump at 2.9 percent, and Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 0.1 percent.

The candidates ranked in the same order when tracking donations of $100,000 or more. Bush had the highest concentration of $100,000-plus donors at 58 percent, followed by Rubio at 47 percent, Cruz at 45 percent, Clinton at 29 percent, and O’Malley at 4.3 percent. Figures for Carson were inconclusive.

Sanders and Trump are the only candidates to have received no political contributions over $100,000. Sanders’ campaign is dominated by individual donations of $200 or less. Trump is in a category of his own, digging into his own pockets to fund much of his campaign.

The funding results are for the campaigns are through Dec. 31, 2015.

Analysis is based on Federal Election Commission data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group.

The Stigler Center is a nonpartisan, academic research institution that is focused on the creation and dissemination of research on competitive markets, regulatory capture and the ways in which special interest groups distort markets.

The Campaign Financing Capture Index is led by Professor Luigi Zingales, along with the University of Chicago’s Milena Ang and Chicago Booth’s Eran Lewis.

Why Washington Is Failing

New book examines the issues behind why politicians won't reach across the aisle

Newswise, January 11, 2016 — Bad feelings about each other rather than competing ideologies keep Republicans and Democrats from encouraging their representatives to compromise and get things done, say the authors of a new book about why Washington won’t work.

“Deeply negative feelings cause more trouble than deep ideological differences would,” said Marc J. Hetherington, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University.

“When you disagree with the other side on the issues, you can often find a middle ground. When you don’t like the other side, you don’t even talk to them.”

“Although citizens have it in their capacity to nudge office holders toward compromise, they don’t trust their opponents enough to push their side’s representatives to compromise with those they increasingly view as the devil.”

That is the argument put forth in the new book Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust and the Governing Crisis (The University of Chicago Press) by Hetherington and Thomas J. Rudolph.

The result is stagnation. The 112th and 113th Congresses, which served from 2011-14, were the least productive since scholars began to measure congressional productivity in the 1940s.

Distrust of the other side

Polls by the American National Election Studies (ANES) show that people’s feelings about their own party have remained steady over time. But their feelings about the other party are incredibly negative.

“Surveys show that our feelings about the party we do not identify with have never been more negative in the history of survey research,” Hetherington said.

“To put the Obama-era scores in perspective, consider that the average favorability scores that Republicans gave atheists and illegal immigrants in 2012 are significantly higher than what they gave the Democratic Party. Similarly, Democrats feel much better about Christian Fundamentalists, their frequent political adversaries, than they do the GOP.

“Because of these negative feelings about the other side, the public reinforces polarization rather than nudging representatives toward compromise.”

That’s not to say that the public themselves are more partisan than ever. Although commentators sometimes claim it to be so, the evidence doesn’t back it up.

“According to data from the ANES, there are about the same percentage of strong partisans now as there were in the 1980s and 1990s,” Hetherington said. “In fact, there are fewer strong partisans now than there were in the 1950s and 1960s.”

When asked, roughly the same percentage of Americans say they are “moderate” as say they are “liberal,” “conservative” or even “haven’t thought enough about it.”

Voter turnout is up

Voters aren’t getting disgusted and turning away, either, Hetherington said.

“Turnout, for the most part, has been on the increase, not the decline,” Hetherington said. “This is not the behavior of an ideologically alienated group of people.”

Voters don’t mind sending ever more radical representatives to Congress, as long as they vote against the other party’s initiatives once they get there. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has built his recent career on that theory, Hetherington said. 

“His unwillingness to compromise may not have succeeded in making Barack Obama a one-term president, as was his stated goal, but it did improve his political fortunes immensely,” Hetherington said. “He moved from being Senate Minority Leader with 41 seats in 2009 to being Senate Majority Leader with 54 seats in 2015.

“What a handsome payoff for being a political roadblock.”

How to end the standoff

Politicians earning trust from voters across party lines could end the standoff, Hetherington said.

“Absent trust, any bridges that form between the two sides are made of sand,” he said.

Thomas J. Rudolph is professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Study: We Trust in Those Who Believe in God

Newswise, January 6, 2016--It's political season and there's one thing you're sure to hear a lot about from candidates vying for support--religion. Talking directly or subtly about religion has become part of the American way in political campaigns.

A new study suggests including religion in campaign speeches feeds a belief that those who are religious to some extent are trustworthy and viewed more favorably. The study was conducted by Scott Clifford of the University of Houston Department of Political Science and Ben Gaskins of Lewis & Clark College.

"Their religious identification reflects a powerful, widespread, but often subtle and unconscious bias in American society against those who do not believe in God," Clifford said. The researchers note that there has been only one openly atheist congressman (Pete Stark, D-California), who lost in 2012.

Their findings were published in the journal American Politics Research.

Clifford and Gaskins say their study shows the challenges for non-religious candidates vying for public office.

Using national survey polling data, the researchers assessed the willingness of voters to support an atheist candidate, the favorability of candidate Hillary Clinton depending on whether she is viewed as religious, and the view that a religious candidate is trustworthy.

"Our findings suggest that not demonstrating religiousness is a significant roadblock for winning public office in the United States, and being perceived as religious increases the level of trust instilled in politicians by voters," Clifford said. 

"For Republicans (showing religiousness) will reinforce their existing support, but Democrats can expand appeal to moderates and conservatives with displays of religiousness." 

Among their findings:

• Believing atheists are moral increases willingness to vote for such a candidate

• 27 percent of respondents said atheists cannot be moral

• Majority said they would not vote for an atheist

• Mormons were 28 percentage points less likely than those with no religious affiliation to vote for an atheist

• Jewish respondents were no more or less likely than those with no religious affiliation to vote for an atheist

Additionally, they found that candidate Hillary Clinton was viewed more favorably and perceived to be more honest if she also was thought to be religious. That view was held most notably by non-liberals, who also indicated they were more likely to vote for her.

Clifford and Gaskins used data from two polls--2007 Newsweek poll of 1,004 adults, 2007 CBS News poll of 1,282 adults.

Three steps to increase access to affordable prescription drugs

By Senator Amy Klobuchar, (Democrat- MN)

Modern medicine is performing miracles every day. From a new type of chemotherapy that helps a patient fight cancer to pain medications that provide relief to those suffering from arthritis, we are living in the midst of a "golden age" for pharmaceutical research and medical innovation. But we recently received a powerful reminder that not everyone has the same opportunity to benefit from today's medical marvels.


Last month, Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Daraprim - a lifesaving drug used to treat an infection called toxoplasmosis - by more than 5,000 percent, from $13.50 per pill to $750. 

This case is particularly shocking, and after a public outcry, Turing ultimately agreed to lower the drug's price. But this isn't a new phenomenon, it's just the latest chapter in the history of a broken system. In 2011, Ovation Pharmaceuticals raised the price of Indocin IV - a critical medicine that helps save the lives of premature babies - by nearly 1,300 percent.

The sky-high cost of prescription drugs is hurting families in Minnesota and across the country. Kyle, a 25-year-old from Roseville with Type I Diabetes, is paying about $4,000 out of pocket each year for the insulin and pump he needs. 

That's a hefty $300 per month bill for someone just starting out in his career. Joyce, a retiree, lost her husband to complications from diabetes, but not before the family paid tens of thousands of dollars a year in prescription drug costs.

Kyle and Joyce are not alone. A recent study showed that one out of four Americans whose prescription drug costs went up said they were unable to pay their medical bills and one out of five were forced to skip doses of their medication. 

Seven percent of people even missed a mortgage payment due to the increase in their prescription drug costs. That's just not right, and our country should do better.

In the United States, we spend about 40 percent more per person each year on pharmaceuticals than any other country. Though many factors contribute to the prescription drug cost crisis we're facing, there are three big things that we can do to address the problem.

First, we need to ensure that consumers are not prevented from purchasing cheaper generic versions of the drugs they need because of harmful "pay-for-delay" deals that keep less expensive generic drugs from entering the market. 

These deals happen when a brand-name drug company pays a generic drug competitor not to sell its products. These "deals" stifle competition and keep affordable generics out of the hands of patients who need them. 

To crack down on this behavior, I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa that will give the Federal Trade Commission more power to block these anti-competitive agreements.

Our neighbors to the north in Canada often pay significantly less for prescription drugs than we do. In 2012, average prescription drug prices were half as expensive in Canada as they were in America. 

This staggering difference motivated me to introduce a bipartisan bill with Sen. John McCain of Arizona that would require the Food and Drug Administration to establish a personal importation program that would allow Americans to safely import a 90-day supply of prescription drugs from an approved Canadian pharmacy.

Finally, while Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs can currently negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, the law bans Medicare from doing so. 

This is a bad policy for our seniors and for taxpayers. That is why I introduced legislation to allow Medicare to directly negotiate with drug companies for price discounts. 

My bill would save Medicare billions of dollars and help cut costs for more than 37 million seniors across the country.

Whether battling a serious disease or taking medication for a chronic condition, everyone deserves access to the prescription drugs that can help them live a long and healthy life. These commonsense solutions will help ensure that Americans have access to the drugs they need at prices they can afford.

Prescription Drug Costs Remain Atop the Public’s National Health Care Agenda, Well Ahead of Affordable Care Act Revisions and Repeal

28% of Public Report Asking Doctor about a Drug They Saw Advertised, and 12% Say Their Doctor Prescribed It

Few Workers Expect Raises if Employers Reduce Health Benefits to Avoid Cadillac Tax as Many Economists Predict

October 28, 2015--With some presidential candidates laying out details of their health care platforms, the cost of prescription drugs remains at the top of the public’s health care priority list for the President and Congress, the October Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds.

Making sure that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis, mental illness and cancer, are affordable for those who need them is the top priority, picked by more than three quarters of the public (77%). It was the top priority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, with at least seven in 10 of each group citing it.

The public ranks government action to lower prescription drug costs second, with 63 percent saying it is a top priority, including a majority of Republicans (56%).  That’s similar to the share of Republicans who say repealing the entire Affordable Care Act is a top priority (58%).

Other priorities picked by more than half of the public include assuring provider networks are adequate, protections against surprise out of network bills, and increasing price and quality transparency.

In contrast, issues specific to the Affordable Care Act, such as repealing several of its provisions or the entire law, fall lower on the list. For example, while the public generally opposes the so-called Cadillac tax on more expensive employer health plans, just 30 percent pick eliminating it as a top priority, ranking it 12th on the poll’s priority list.

Economists generally believe that employers will raise workers’ wages if they reduce the cost of their health benefits to avoid the Cadillac tax. The poll finds few people with employer-sponsored coverage expect that to happen. Just 20 percent think their wages would increase if their employer offered less generous health benefits, while three quarters (76%) think wages would not increase.

Favorable and unfavorable views of the ACA overall were tied this month, with 42 percent holding each view. Compared to when most of the law’s provisions were just taking effect in early 2014, more now say their impression of the law is based on their own experience (35% now, up from 23% in February 2014), while fewer say it is based on what they’ve seen in the media (30% now, down from 44% in February 2014).

The survey also probes the public’s experiences with drug advertisements. A large majority (82%) report they’ve seen or heard such advertising, and 28 percent say they have talked with a doctor about a specific drug they saw advertised.

One in eight adults (12%) say they were given a specific drug after asking a doctor about its advertisements;15 percent say the doctor recommended changes in their behavior or lifestyle;14 percent say the doctor recommended a different prescription drug, and 11 percent say the doctor recommended an over-the-counter option. These findings are similar to the results of previous Kaiser polling in 2008.

About half of the public (51%) say prescription drug advertising is mostly a good thing. Half (50%) also say drug advertisements do a good or excellent job of telling consumers which condition or disease the drug is designed to treat, and nearly as many say the ads do at least a good job telling consumers about the potential benefits (47%) and potential side effects (44%).

The poll also finds a majority (57%) believes that drug companies spend too much money advertising to patients. A similar majority says the same about money spent marketing to doctors (62%), and two thirds (67%) say drug companies have a lot of influence over what doctors prescribe to their patients. In addition, 89 percent of the public favor having the Food and Drug Administration review drug ads for accuracy and clarity before the public sees them, something it does not do now.

The poll was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and was conducted from October 14 to 20, 2015 among a nationally representative random digit dial telephone sample of 1,203 adults. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by landline (481) and cell phone (722).

The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Candidates Must Prioritize Alzheimer’s Disease in Appeal to Voters

New Survey Shows Americans Want Elected Officials to Support Alzheimer’s Now

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 28, 2015 – A candidate’s relatability to voters and ability to understand the challenges they face make or break elections. Millions of American voters have had personal experience with Alzheimer’s disease and understand the dramatic toll the disease takes on families across the country.

As a result, according to a nationwide survey by the Alzheimer’s Association, voters view Alzheimer’s disease as a significant political priority for the 2016 congressional and presidential elections.

The nationwide voter survey indicates that: 1. 73 million voters have had a family member or close friend with Alzheimer’s disease 2.

More than one-third, or 52 million American voters have provided care or personal assistance to a relative, friend or neighbor with Alzheimer’s 3. 82 percent of voters nationwide are concerned about Alzheimer’s disease 4. 87 percent of voters feel unprepared or only somewhat prepared to meet care needs of a family member who develops Alzheimer’s disease 5.

The majority, 64 percent, of voters would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who has pledged to support a major national research effort to fight Alzheimer’s

“The survey findings indicate that 73 million American voters know someone with Alzheimer’s disease, so it’s not surprising that the majority of voters expect our government to make Alzheimer’s research and care a priority,” said Robert Egge, chief public policy officer and executive vice president of government affairs, Alzheimer’s Association.

“As presidential and congressional candidates look toward 2016, they should understand that voters want to know that they plan to address the Alzheimer’s disease and, specifically, what actions they intend to take when it comes to this mounting health crisis.”

Issues important to voters can be controversial but urgently addressing the Alzheimer’s crisis is not. Alzheimer’s disease is an important voter issue that is not controversial for any candidate. All candidates know this is a critical challenge to face; how they will differ is in their approach and plan to quickly address this already enormous and mounting health crisis. Presidential and congressional candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, have already begun to discuss the Alzheimer’s disease crisis while campaigning.

As Alzheimer’s crosses political lines, American voters are recognizing the disease as an issue that must be proactively addressed by those they are considering for office. “Prioritizing Alzheimer’s disease research funding is smart politics for a very important reason,” said Egge.

“Americans understand it’s the only way to change the deadly and expensive trajectory that is bearing down on so many American families.”

Alzheimer's is already America's most expensive disease, costing the country more each year than cancer or heart disease. Alzheimer’s disease also remains the only cause of death among the nation’s top 10 that cannot be prevented, cured, or even slowed.

Today, Medicare spends nearly one in five dollars on people with Alzheimer’s but, by midcentury; the government will spend nearly one in three dollars on the disease, which encompasses 31 percent of Medicare's budget, a nearly twofold increase.

The latest research reveals more than 28 million baby boomers are expected to develop Alzheimer’s between now and midcentury, dramatically increasing already overwhelming costs further—for both voters and the government.

For more information about the voter survey, visit alz.org/survey. ### Alzheimer’s Association® The Alzheimer’s Association is the leading voluntary health organization in Alzheimer's care, support and research. Our mission is to eliminate Alzheimer’s disease through the advancement of research, to provide and enhance care and support for all affected, and to reduce the risk of dementia through the promotion of brain health. Our vision is a world without Alzheimer’s. For more information, visit www.alz.org