logo
Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?

Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?

USA Todaya day ago
Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care, the regimen of daily help that many seniors will eventually require.
It does not.
That basic misunderstanding has retirement experts worried. It suggests millions of Americans may have no plan to cover the high costs of aging.
Long-term care is a range of services for people who need help with everyday activities, such as bathing, dressing or eating. More than 80% of us will need that help at some point, according to a recent study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Americans are badly misinformed about the basics of long-term care, a point driven home in numerous surveys and studies. One of the latest, released in June by Nationwide, found that 58% of U.S. adults wrongly believe Medicare covers long-term care.
'Seventy percent of the people who reach 65 are going to need long-term care,' said Holly Snyder, president of Nationwide Life Insurance. 'And if you get there, people seem to think there are public safety nets that will take care of you.'
Long-term care costs can be staggering
Many seniors need long-term care for years. Costs can be staggering. The average assisted living facility charges $5,350 a month, according to T. Rowe Price. A typical nursing home charges $9,733.
Those prices should alarm older Americans. The problem, according to Snyder and others, is that many people assume Medicare will cover them.
'People just don't distinguish between long-term care and health care,' said Gal Wettstein, a senior research economist at Boston College.
Some confusion is natural. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, does cover some short stays in nursing homes.
But Medicare generally does not cover longer stays. The reason: Most long-term care is not considered medical care.
'Someone to make sure Mom eats her food, takes her medicine and, when she wakes up, she doesn't walk out the door: That's custodial care,' said Patrick Simasko, an elder law attorney in Michigan.
And here's where things get really confusing: While Medicare doesn't cover most long-term care, Medicaid does.
Medicaid, the government health insurance program for Americans of limited means, generally covers long-term care for seniors who spend down their assets. In fact, Medicaid is the nation's largest payer of long-term care.
Many Americans 'confuse Medicare and Medicaid,' Simasko said.
Why don't more Americans have long-term care insurance?
The pervasive belief that Medicare covers long-term care may also help explain why so few Americans own long-term care insurance.
Long-term care insurance does just what the name implies: It covers costs of long-term care. Yet, by one industry estimate, only about 4% of older Americans hold policies.
Why do so few Americans purchase long-term care insurance?
'Because so many people think Medicare covers it,' Wettstein said. 'They don't want to buy a product that they think they already have.'
The notion that Medicare covers long-term care is one of several prevalent misconceptions about the costs of aging.
In the Nationwide survey, 41% of respondents said they doubt they will live long enough to use long-term care insurance. In fact, most seniors will eventually need it. The Nationwide survey reached 1,324 adults, ages 29 and up, with household incomes of at least $75,000.
Another survey, fielded in 2024 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), found that only four in 10 workers believed they would need long-term care.
In that survey, employees also vastly underestimated the costs of long-term care, with most believing the tab would not exceed $50,000.
'There's been so much focus on saving for retirement, accumulation, but there's not much talk about addressing the risks associated with aging,' said Bridget Bearden, research and development strategist at EBRI.
Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk
Many older Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk. In one 2024 survey of affluent older Americans, Boston College researchers found, long-term care ranked fifth among financial worries in retirement, behind stock market turbulence, Social Security cuts and other concerns.
Many Americans don't grasp the implications of tapping Medicaid to cover long-term care, Wettstein said. To qualify for the benefit, as a rule, you must spend all of your money.
'It's an insurance product that has 'everything you own' as a deductible,' Wettstein said. 'You have to spend everything you own in order to use it.'
Medicaid requirements yield a long-term care industry of haves and have-nots, according to Wettstein and others. Only affluent Americans can easily afford long-term care costs out of pocket. And only impoverished Americans get it for free.
'When you get old, you'd better have a lot of money, or you'd better be broke,' Simasko said. 'It's those in-between people who are having a hard time.'
If this report has you worried about long-term care, here are a few expert tips.
Consider long-term care insurance
Many Americans consider long-term care insurance prohibitively expensive, Snyder said.
In fact, long-term care policies come in many varieties. Costs rise and fall dramatically according to the dollar amount of the benefit, the length of care covered, and other variables.
A typical policy, providing a $165,000 benefit for a single adult of 55, might cost $950 a year for a man, $1,500 for a woman, the National Council on Aging reports.
One big drawback to many traditional long-term care policies: You collect no money if you get no care.
But the industry is evolving. Under various 'hybrid' policies, if you don't exhaust the long-term care benefits, they go to your beneficiaries when you die.
Shop around for long-term care
Long-term care costs vary widely depending on where you live. Assisted living costs average $8,093 a month in Albany, N.Y., but only $4,600 in Boulder, Colorado, according to the National Council on Aging.
If you live in a high-cost city, look at prices in the suburbs, or in the next county. Consult a cost-of-care calculator. You could buy yourself more years of care.
'Find the best place for the best price,' Simasko said.
Meet with a retirement planner
Financial planners are trained to help people budget for all the potential costs of retirement, including long-term care. A retirement planner can help you unpack the complexities of long-term care and craft a plan to pay for it.
'It really is about talking to your financial professional,' Snyder said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The cruel costs of denying anti-obesity medication
The cruel costs of denying anti-obesity medication

Boston Globe

time2 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

The cruel costs of denying anti-obesity medication

This is a serious public health issue, but it's also deeply personal. It's difficult for me to write about taking weight loss medication, because in my head, it's tantamount to admitting I am not in control of my own impulses. Many Americans think people are fat because they are weak and undisciplined. I can't fault them for it, because if I am being honest with myself, I think that, too. But I am wrong, and they are wrong. Obesity is a disease, and Advertisement I have had obesity all my life. I have lost and gained the same 60 pounds 10 or 11 times over the years. There have been times when I did 90 minutes of cardio six days a week or hot yoga five times a week. I felt better, but it didn't result in significant weight loss. In 2021, at the heaviest I have ever been, I tried again, losing 50 pounds in one year and keeping it off for a year. But then my weight started to creep up, and desperate to avoid the yo-yo, which is detrimental to one's health, I asked my doctor about the drugs. Advertisement I started taking Zepbound just over a year ago, and I am now 70 pounds lighter than I was at my heaviest. Several of my friends had gastric bypass surgery years ago, only to gain back all the weight and more. But they are now on weight loss drugs and are average-sized. Everyone knows someone whose life has been immeasurably changed for the better because of these miracle drugs. The medications work by regulating satiety, making you feel you have had enough to eat. Ask anyone who is on them, and they will tell you that the drugs quiet the voices in their head telling them that they are hungry. They will also tell you that the foods they generally want to eat are healthy, unprocessed foods. The drugs have interrupted the impulses some of us develop in response to foods that have been engineered to make people constantly want to consume more of them. If it sounds like I am describing addictive behavior, it's because I am. It is no coincidence that the explosion in obesity in the United States corresponds with the growth of Big Food in the second half of the 20th century. I believe this industry is as responsible for the increase in the disease of obesity as the Sacklers are responsible for the increase in the disease of substance-use disorder. Advertisement Of course, the When such statements are publicized, what many people hear is 'fat people are causing your insurance premiums to increase.' But there's seldom any discussion of the return on investment from these drugs in the form of long-term health improvements for the many people who take them. For me, there's the obstructive sleep apnea I no longer have, the heart disease I probably won't get, the joint replacements I hope to not need, and the diabetes I have been flirting with for 25 years but may now avoid. I have been able to stop taking drugs for diabetes and high blood pressure. And I am clearly not alone. A Advertisement The insurance company PR machine is now playing chicken with pharmaceutical companies to try to get them to come to the table and negotiate reasonable prices. And people with obesity are collateral damage, terrified about the return of the ravages of their disease. I think I will be OK, because I know how to advocate for myself. My own insurance plan is forcing me to switch from Zepbound, which has been extremely effective for me, to Wegovy, a different drug that may not have the same efficacy. If that doesn't work for me, I will find a way. I have agency and privilege that a lot of other people — including many other women and people of color — don't have. But for those who are losing access to these drugs altogether, the future is stark. If expensive drugs used to treat your chronic disease were causing my insurance premiums to rise, I wouldn't assume that you got that disease because of your lifestyle choices. In fact, I'd fight for your access to those drugs. Please help fight for others' access to drugs that can improve their health and, in the long-term, help reduce costs for everyone.

Medical Risk-Aversion Can Kill, Too
Medical Risk-Aversion Can Kill, Too

Wall Street Journal

time12 hours ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Medical Risk-Aversion Can Kill, Too

Modern life is a series of trade-offs. We drive cars, fly in planes and use power tools, accepting that while these things carry risk, their benefits far outweigh their potential harm. Roughly 40,000 Americans die each year in motor vehicle accidents, yet no one seriously proposes banning cars. We regulate, we inform, and we improve, but we don't walk away from technologies that make life better. Yet in medicine, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and cutting-edge therapies, we seem to forget this logic.

Potentially Toxic Chemicals Are Reaching Toddlers Before Kindergarten, Study Finds
Potentially Toxic Chemicals Are Reaching Toddlers Before Kindergarten, Study Finds

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Potentially Toxic Chemicals Are Reaching Toddlers Before Kindergarten, Study Finds

Young children nationwide are exposed to a large swath of possibly toxic chemicals before kindergarten, new research suggests 'Our study shows that childhood exposure to potentially harmful chemicals is widespread. This is alarming because we know early childhood is a critical window for brain and body development,' said the study's lead author, Deborah Bennett Researchers found that of the 111 chemicals they focused on, 48 were found in more than 50% of the childrenBefore ever stepping foot inside a kindergarten classroom, young children nationwide are already exposed to a large swath of possibly toxic chemicals, new research suggests. The study, published in Environmental Science and Technology on Monday, June 30, analyzed chemical exposure in 201 kids from the ages of 2-4 years old between 2010 and 2021, using urine samples from the children and most of their mothers during pregnancy. Researchers focused on 111 chemicals. 'Our study shows that childhood exposure to potentially harmful chemicals is widespread. This is alarming because we know early childhood is a critical window for brain and body development,' said the study's lead author, Deborah Bennett in a statement from UC Davis, where she is a professor. 'Many of these chemicals are known or suspected to interfere with hormones, brain development and immune function,' Bennett added. Researchers found that of the 111 chemicals, 96 were detected in at least five kids and 48 were found in more than 50% of the children. In addition, 34 were found in more than 90% of the kids — including nine substances "which have not been included in U.S. national biomonitoring." "This study reveals frequent exposure to multiple chemicals in young U.S. children, often exceeding prenatal levels," the authors wrote in a summary. "Expanded biomonitoring of emerging chemicals of concern and studies of their health effects in this vulnerable population are warranted." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. According to UC Davis, the study found children were exposed to phthalates, parabens, bactericides, and various other chemicals through "everyday activities, such as eating, drinking, breathing indoor and outdoor air and touching contaminated surfaces." 'Exposure to certain chemicals in early childhood, such as pesticides, plasticizers and flame retardants, has been linked to developmental delays, hormone disruption and other long-term health issues,' the study's first author, Jiwon Oh, told UC Davis. Read the original article on People

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store