Why travel insurance is a must for seniors
Travel insurance can be a huge help to anyone, especially older travelers who may have a greater risk of health issues or unexpected travel disruptions and greater concerns about protecting their finances.
CNBC Select explores why travel insurance is so important for seniors and the policies to consider if you're over 65.
Whether you have private insurance or Medicare, your U.S. health care plan probably isn't valid abroad. That's where your travel insurance policy's medical coverage is invaluable. It will cover the cost of doctor's visits, hospital stays, prescriptions and more. If you need to be flown somewhere for treatment or get back home, a good policy will also cover the cost of medical evacuation.
We recommend buying a policy with at least $100,000 in emergency medical coverage and $250,0000 in evacuation coverage. If you're visiting far-flung locales or are particularly concerned about your health, however, look at policies with higher limits.
Travel Insured International has some of the highest limits we've seen. Plans cover up to $250,000 in emergency medical expenses and $1 million for evacuation or repatriation.
Single-trip and multi-trip/annual policies and cruise insurance. Add-ons include Cancel for Any Reason coverage and a travel inconvenience benefit
Add-on to Worldwide Trip Protector Deluxe or Platinum plan that reimburses 75% of nonrefundable costs when purchased within 21 days of initial trip payment
Available if policy is purchased within 21 days of initial trip deposit.
A standard travel insurance policy won't cover pre-existing conditions if they force you to change your plans or seek medical treatment.
A pre-existing condition is any injury, illness or chronic condition that requires treatment or medication, including diabetes, arthritis, cardiac disease or COPD. If you file a claim, your provider will typically look back 60 to 180 days before you enrolled to see if there were any changes in your medical status.
You can get a pre-existing condition waiver, however, which prevents your insurer from reviewing your records when processing a claim. Many companies offer waivers but require travelers to be medically able to travel and to buy their policy within two weeks of booking. We like Nationwide for its more generous 21-day window in which you can buy coverage and still receive a waiver.
Single- and multi-trip plans and cruise insurance, plus add-ons like CFAR and rental car coverage.
Add-on to Prime plan that reimburses 75% of nonrefundable trip costs if purchased within 21 days of booking (Not available in New York or Washington state)
Available with single-trip plan purchased within 20 days of initial trip deposit (14 days for cruise insurance)
Even if you don't have a medical issue on your trip, you might have to cancel your plans because of a health condition, death in the family or other emergency.
Trip cancellation and interruption coverage are among the best reasons to get travel insurance. A comprehensive plan will reimburse up to 100% of your nonrefundable costs if you need to cancel and up to 150% if you need to cut your trip short.Read your policy's terms to see what events are covered, but common scenarios include:
If you're concerned about your situation being covered or don't want to have to submit proof, a Cancel For Any Reason (CFAR) policy will refund a portion of your expenses, regardless of why you scraped your plans.
Most CFAR plans limit you to 50% to 75% of your nonrefundable costs, but Allianz reimburses 80% of expenses.
Single-trip and multi-trip/annual policies and a rental car plan. OneTrip Prime and Premier plans include coverage for one child 17 or younger when accompanying a covered adult.
Reimburses 80% of nonrefundable trip costs if you cancel at least 48 hours before departure.
Included if policy is purchased within 14 days of initial deposit
Read our review of Allianz Travel Insurance
Cruises are particularly popular with retirees, who enjoy the convenience, entertainment and relaxing atmosphere, and have the funds and free time to devote to an extended excursion.
Viking, Holland America and Cunard all market cruises aimed at older travelers.Cruises come with specific risks, though, including the ship breaking down or you missing your connection. We love Seven Corners' cruise insurance policies, which include up to $250 a day for missed connections, $5,000 for an itinerary change and $250 each time the ship is disabled or misses a port of call. Plus, Seven Corners gives you 20 days to buy a policy with a pre-existing condition waiver and covers travelers up to age 99.
The best way to estimate your costs is to request a quote
Policies provide missed and delayed tour/cruise connection coverage. Cancel for any reason coverage and pre-existing conditions waiver are also available if you buy your plan within the specified time. ***CFAR and IFAR are subject to certain eligibility criteria and are not available in all states
Yes
Many travel insurance companies put age restrictions on their policies, limiting coverage to travelers under 79 or even 65. The cost of a policy can also be much more expensive for older travelers.
Seven Corners will approve coverage for travelers up to age 99 and Faye and Travelex don't have any age restrictions at all.
One single-trip plan with optional add-ons for pet care, adventure sports and damage to vacation rentals
Up to 75% reimbursement of nonrefundable trip costs if purchased within 14 days of initial trip deposit.
Available if policy is purchased within 14 days of initial trip deposit.
Essential, Advantage and Ultimate policies plus last-minute Travel Med Go plan and standalone plans for emergency medical and flight coverage. Upgrades include rental car, pet and adventure activities coverage
Upgrade with Ultimate plan covering 75% of nonrefundable trip costs if purchased within 21 days of initial deposit and 31 days of departure.
Included with Ultimate plan if purchased within 21 days of initial deposit
Travel insurance averages between 4% and 10% of your total nonrefundable trip expenses. Because of increased risk, seniors pay on the higher end of that range.
CNBC Select gathered rate quotes for a 65-year-old traveler and a 30-year-old traveler taking the same one-week $3,000 excursion to London and looking for $250,000 in medical coverage and $1 million in evacuation coverage. While the 30-year-old's rate was about 4.4% of their nonrefundable trip expenses, the 65-year-old was quoted a rate of about 7.3%.
There can be a significant difference in price among carriers, so using a travel insurance marketplace like Squaremouth can help you compare rates in minutes.
SquareMouth is a travel insurance marketplace that allows you can compare top-rated providers, including Berkshire Hathaway, Nationwide, Seven Corners and Tin Leg.
Yes
Read our SquareMouth travel insurance review
The best policy for any traveler depends on your specific needs, the length and location of your excursion and other factors. Our top picks for travel insurance for seniors includes Travel Insured International, Nationwide, Seven Corners, Allianz and Faye.
Some companies allow you to buy a policy up until a day or two before your departure, although enrolling within two weeks of booking ensures you have access to a pre-existing condition waiver and other benefits.
Travel insurance typically costs between 4% and 10% of your nonrefundable trip expenses. For seniors, a policy will more likely be on the higher end of that range. We found coverage for a 65-year-old on a one-week vacation in London was 7.3% of the total expense.
Money matters — so make the most of it. Get expert tips, strategies, news and everything else you need to maximize your money, right to your inbox. Sign up here.
At CNBC Select, our mission is to provide our readers with high-quality service journalism and comprehensive consumer advice so they can make informed decisions with their money. Every travel insurance review is based on rigorous reporting by our team of expert writers and editors with extensive knowledge of travel insurance products. While CNBC Select earns a commission from affiliate partners on many offers and links, we create all our content without input from our commercial team or any outside third parties, and we pride ourselves on our journalistic standards and ethics.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
16 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
‘Having Medicaid keeps me alive': Illinois residents anxiously watch as Congress considers Medicaid cuts
Across Illinois, millions of people are anxiously awaiting the next move on a bill that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid across the country. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would slash the program, which provides health care coverage to people with low incomes, in order to help pay for tax cuts and border and national security. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans say the bill would cut waste, fraud and abuse from Medicaid, providing coverage only to those who truly need it. But Democrats, health care leaders and patients say it would devastate those who rely on the program, and the hospitals that serve all patients. Across Illinois, 3.4 million people are on Medicaid — about one-fourth of the state's population. Depending on which proposals are adopted, Illinois could lose billions of dollars — a loss that could force the state to make difficult decisions about who gets coverage and what kind of coverage they get. Though the bill was still in flux as of Friday afternoon, multiple proposals in recent weeks have included work requirements for some people who receive Medicaid, changes to rules surrounding so-called provider taxes, and have threatened coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who receive Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. 'No state, including Illinois, can backfill cuts in federal funding for Medicaid,' said the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, in response to Tribune questions. 'Cuts in federal funding will lead to reduced services and enrollment, putting the full range of Medicaid services at risk.' The Tribune spoke with three Illinois residents on Medicaid about what the cuts could mean to their lives. It's difficult to survive on $1,077 a month. That's how much Kristina Lewis receives in monthly Social Security disability payments. She gets disability payments from the federal government because she can't work due to mental health issues, heart failure and Type 1 diabetes, she said. The 64-year-old Alsip woman, however, has been able to stretch her small income, largely because she receives rental assistance from a local charity and because Medicare and Medicaid pay for her health care needs. She's one of nearly 400,000 people in Illinois who receive both Medicare and Medicaid because of disability, low income and/or age, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. She's scared of what might happen if Medicaid, a state and federally funded program, is cut. She's on five different medications for heart failure alone. 'They do those cuts and I don't know how people like me on certain medications, how we're supposed to survive and live,' Lewis said. 'I know I'm not the only person out there that's terrified of what's going to happen.' House and Senate versions of the bill have included provisions that could make it more difficult for people who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid to keep their Medicaid coverage, according to KFF. Lewis is also one of millions of people in Illinois who may end up dealing with the fallout of Illinois receiving fewer federal dollars overall, if certain proposals become law. Both the House and Senate have proposed changes that could limit the amount of money Illinois and many other states collect in so-called provider taxes, which help boost the amount of money states receive from the federal government for Medicaid. Proponents of provider taxes say they're a necessary way of funding Medicaid, while critics say provider taxes are a way for states to inflate how much money they receive from the federal government. Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas recently called provider taxes a 'Medicaid money laundering scam.' Though the concept of provider taxes may seem obscure and bureaucratic, in Illinois, they account for about $11 billion a year spent on Medicaid — about 25% of the state's spending for medical services, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Senate Republicans' proposal to reduce provider taxes suffered a major setback Thursday, after the Senate parliamentarian shot it down, saying it didn't follow procedural rules, according to The Associated Press. It was not yet clear Friday afternoon if changes to provider taxes would still be part of the final bill. Limiting provider taxes is a 'backdoor' way of cutting federal Medicaid funding for Illinois, said Kathy Waligora, a spokesperson for EverThrive Illinois, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to achieve reproductive justice. 'The provider tax is absolutely going to shrink the size of the Medicaid program in Illinois,' Waligora said of proposed cuts. 'Exactly what benefits are cut, what provider rates are cut, what eligibility will be cut remains to be seen, but it will be across Medicaid.' Lewis is worried about any kind of reduction to her Medicaid benefits. She said she first got on Medicaid about 10 to 15 years ago when she was living in a nursing home because of health issues. Eventually, her health improved to the point where she could live independently. She worries that if her health issues again become unmanageable, she might have to one day return to living in a nursing home. 'I would really, really struggle,' she said of if her Medicaid benefits were cut. 'My biggest fear is to end up in another nursing home. You lose your independence.' If she did have to live in a nursing home again, Medicaid may end up footing the substantial bill. In Illinois, Medicaid pays for about 68% of all nursing home care, according to the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Cornelia Simms, 60, of Auburn Gresham, fears work requirements could make it difficult for her to stay on Medicaid — even though she has a job. Under the bill, childless, able-bodied adults ages 19 to 64 would be required to spend at least 80 hours a month working, doing community service or going to school, in order to stay on Medicaid. Simms already works about 80 hours a month as a home health care aide — a profession she got into after spending years caring for her ailing mother. She discovered that she enjoys helping elderly people and stuck with it after her mom passed away. About 70% of Illinois residents on Medicaid already work, according to KFF. But Simms worries about the paperwork, and the potential problems it could create if she's subject to work requirements. The bill would require states to verify at least twice a year that Medicaid beneficiaries are meeting work requirements. Simms is concerned about being asked to prove that she's eligible twice a year, especially because she said she prefers to verify her eligibility in person, which can require time away from work. It can be tough for her to take days off from work because the person she cares for relies on her help, Simms said. 'I'm mainly her sole person to take her to the hospital, grocery stores and do all those things with her,' Simms said. 'If I have to take off work to see about my Medicaid then she will be lacking the daily things that she needs.' The extra paperwork can also create administrative complications. Once, Simms said she forgot to submit paperwork to verify her continued eligibility for Medicaid. Simms lost her coverage, and it took more than six months to get it back, she said. During that time, she canceled doctor appointments and generally tried not to get medical care. 'I tried not to catch a cold,' Simms said. 'I just prayed and held out.' In Illinois, anywhere from 270,000 to 500,000 people on Medicaid may end up losing coverage for administrative reasons, if work requirements proposed by House Republicans went into effect, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 'What we see in other states where there are work requirements is that having the hoops to jump through, the red tape and the administrative burden keep people from accessing and enrolling in health care,' said Anusha Thotakura, executive director of Citizen Action/Illinois, a public interest coalition that's been working with partners across the state to hold events and drive action to fight Medicaid cuts. 'Many eligible people who are working will still lose access if these requirements are put into place,' Thotakura said. Without Medicaid, Simms said it would be difficult for her to afford health care. She's in the process now of getting about $4,000 worth of dental work, most of which is being paid for by Medicaid, she said. 'No person, unless you've got some money, can afford it, not on a 9-5 (job), not the lower class or middle class,' Simms said of health care. 'It's impossible.' Isaiah Rogers was up in a tree, wielding a chain saw when his vision began to blur. He didn't know what was wrong with him, but he knew he couldn't continue his work trimming trees. Dizzy and in pain, Rogers went home, rested and popped ibuprofen. Eventually, Rogers' son convinced him to go to the hospital. There, he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and told that if he had waited a couple of more days to seek care, he might have died. The hospital helped sign Rogers up for Medicaid, he said. Since that scare several years ago, Rogers has faithfully been going to his doctor appointments and taking insulin and other medications, he said. He has not been able to return to his job trimming trees, and has been working small side jobs. He and his son have been staying with a friend to help them get by. The 61-year-old West Pullman man relies on Medicaid to pay for his doctors' visits and the medications that 'keep me above water.' Rogers is now worried about losing that lifeline. A recent version of the bill proposed work requirements not only for childless able-bodied Medicaid recipients, but also for adults with children older than 14. Rogers' son is 12. The single father is concerned that there might come a point when he would be subject to the proposed requirement to work 80 hours a week or lose his Medicaid coverage. Between his health issues and caring for his son, as well as his lack of a high school diploma, Rogers doesn't think it would be possible for him get a job working 80 hours a month. Rogers drops his son off and picks him up from school each day, taking city buses with him to and from the school. He doesn't envision letting his son take the buses himself. 'At 14, no, not in Chicago,' Rogers said of his son taking the bus alone. 'People who don't ride the bus and don't live in our 'hood, they don't know what's going on. I'm not going to subject my son to that danger.' He knows the dangers all too well. Rogers was incarcerated when he was younger, saying he was once a 'destroyer' of his community. He's since tried to turn his life around, working with Community Organizing and Family Issues to create positive change. But his life now, as he knows it, depends on having Medicaid. He's confident he'll lose Medicaid if he's required to work 80 hours a month. He worries that if he loses Medicaid, he'll no longer be able to afford insulin and his other medications, and he may slip into a diabetic coma or suffer a stroke. 'Having Medicaid keeps me alive,' Rogers said. 'It keeps me going, with the consistent doctors appointments, with the different types of medications. 'Having Medicaid helps me stay healthy to let me take care of my son,' Rogers said.
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Traditional Medicare to add prior authorizations
Medicare is requiring more pre-treatment approvals in its fee-for-service program in a bid to root out unnecessary care, federal regulators announced Friday. The big picture: Traditional Medicare historically hasn't required prior authorizations to access most drugs or services, a major perk for enrollees. Prior authorization in privately-run Medicare Advantage plans has become a hot-button issue, with Congress and federal regulators working to rein in the practice. Federal inspectors found in 2022 that prior authorization in MA prevented some seniors from getting medically necessary care. Major health insurers this week made a voluntary pledge to streamline and improve the prior authorization process across all health insurance markets. State of play: Medicare's innovation center announced that it will solicit applications from companies to run the prior authorization program. Medicare is looking for companies with experience using AI and other tools to manage pre-approvals for other payers, and with clinicians who can conduct medical reviews to check coverage determinations. The program will start Jan. 1, 2026 and run through the end of 2031. It will only apply to providers and patients in New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona and Washington. The change will apply to 17 items and services, including skin substitutes, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's Disease, impotence treatment and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis. CMS selected the services based on previous reports and evidence of fraud, waste and abuse, as well as what's already subject to prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. Overuse of skin substitutes to help heal wounds has especially come under fire in recent years. Medicare spent more than $10 billion on the products in 2024 — more than double what was spent the year before, according to the New York Times. CMS noted that it may make other services subject to the prior authorization program in future years. Providers in the geographic areas can choose whether or not they want to submit an authorization request before delivering a service. But if they decide not to, they'll be subject to post-claim review and risk not getting paid for a service that was already delivered. "In general, this model will require the same information and clinical documentation that is already required to support Medicare FFS payment but earlier in the process, namely, prior to the service being furnished," the notice reads. Zoom in: The companies hired to manage the program will be paid based on how much they saved the government by stopping payments for unnecessary services. "Under the model, we will work to avoid any adverse impact on beneficiaries or providers/suppliers," CMS wrote in the notice.
a day ago
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho -- An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients. The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people. Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
