Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Delirium and dementia are common causes of cognitive impairment in older populations. Although each may occur independently, delirium and dementia frequently coexist. Dementia is a leading risk factor for delirium, and there is an increased incidence of new dementia and cognitive decline after delirium. Delirium can accelerate the rate of cognitive decline, suggesting that an episode of delirium can result in a more rapid progression of dementia symptoms, leading to earlier functional disability, increased caregiver burden, and rising health care costs. As the population ages, there has been a rapid increase in the incidence and prevalence of delirium and dementia. Better understanding of the risk factors, outcomes, and mechanistic associations between these 2 conditions is therefore critical for developing successful prevention and treatment strategies for this increasing problem.
The conclusions and relevance from the article offers this:
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Delirium in the presence of the pathologic processes of dementia is associated with accelerated cognitive decline beyond that expected for delirium or the pathologic process itself. These findings suggest that additional unmeasured pathologic processes specifically relate to delirium. Age-related cognitive decline has many contributors, and these findings at the population level support a role for delirium acting independently and multiplicatively to the pathologic processes of classic dementia.
A new one hour documentary, Alzheimer's: Every Minute Counts, is scheduled to begin airing nationally on PBS stations on Wednesday, January 25.
In part, the documentary will focus on research funding issues. Dr. Ruby Tanzi, a Harvard Medical School researcher who appears on the film, explained for NextAvenue's website:
We should be absolutely panicked at the government level. When the Medicare and Medicaid [treatment and care] bill for Alzheimer’s goes from one in five dollars to one in three dollars — that could happen over the next decade with baby boomers getting older — we could single-handedly collapse Medicare and Medicaid with Alzheimer’s disease.
Now, the government [research funding for Alzheimer's] has gone up to about a billion dollars. Which is great, it’s more money. It’s still not the billions of dollars that go to other age-related diseases. I’m glad that cancer and heart disease and AIDS get many billions of dollars, but Alzheimer’s has to get as much or more now given the epidemic and the urgency here with how many cases we’re going to have.
It’s going to crush us. Never mind the social burden on the families. I might add that two-thirds of patients are women. And most caregivers are women. What’s going to happen when so much of our female population is (struck) with this disease? So it’s a huge problem and if we don’t throw a ton of money at it now, it’ll be a disaster.
For more information on the documentary, including links to watch it on-line (free!), see PBS "Alzheimer's: Every Minute Counts." There is an important opportunity here for schools, including law schools, to host an airing of the documentary to promote discussion about strategies.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
University of Illinois Law Professor Richard Kaplan responded to my post last week, that questioned the appropriate age to compel IRA distributions, by providing a more in-depth look at the topic, via his own article, Reforming Taxation of Retirement Income.
His recommendations include simplifying how Social Security retirement benefits are taxed, bifurcating defined contribution plan withdrawals into capital gains and ordinary income components, repealing certain exceptions to the early distribution penalty, reducing the delayed distribution penalty and adjusting the age at which it is triggered, and changing the residential gain exclusion to avoid unanticipated problems with reverse mortgages.
The 2012 Virginia Tax Review article demonstrates that increased life expectancy supports an increase to age 74 (from 71.5) as the trigger for mandatory distributions.
Thanks, Dick! As always, you have important analysis to share.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
The New York Times has a recent article that resonates with me. I am spending my sabbatical time in Arizona in order to be of more help to my sister with our parents who are both in their 90s. Neither my sister or I have children and we sometimes question what will happen with us if we reach our parents' age with similar needs. Here's an excerpt from the piece that gets right to the point:
While the demand for caregivers is growing because of longer life expectancies and more complex medical care, the supply is shrinking, a result of declining marriage rates, smaller family sizes and greater geographic separation. In 2015, there were seven potential family caregivers for every person over 80. By 2030, this ratio is expected to be four-to-one, and by 2050, there will be fewer than three potential caregivers for every older American.
For more, read the thoughtful essay Who Will Care for the Caregivers? by Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a resident physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
With the new Presidential administration ahead, many of us are asking what government policies or programs will be "re-imagined." With changes on the horizon, an especially interesting perspective on long-term care is offered by UCLA Law Professor Allison Hoffman with her recent article, "Reimagining the Risk of Long-Term Care," published in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics. From the abstract:
While attempting to mitigate care-recipient risk, in fact, the law has steadily expanded next-friend risk, by reinforcing a structure of long-term care that relies heavily on informal caregiving. Millions of informal caregivers face financial and nonmonetary harms that deeply threaten their own long-term security. These harms are disproportionately experienced by people who are already vulnerable--women, minorities, and the poor. Scholars and policymakers have catalogued and critiqued these costs but treat them as an unfortunate byproduct of an inevitable system of informal care.
This Article argues that if we, instead, understand becoming responsible for the care of another as a social risk--just as we see the chance that a person will need long-term care as a risk--it could fundamentally shift the way we approach long-term care policy.
As one informal caregiver and scholar described: “I feel abandoned by a health care system that commits resources and rewards to rescuing the injured and the ill but then consigns such patients and their families to the black hole of chronic ‘custodial’ care.” What next friends do for others is herculean, both in terms of the time spent and the ways that they offer assistance.
January 17, 2017 in Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Social Security, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, November 24, 2016
We all need a little good news right now. So this one caught my eye. Dementia rates have declined amongst elders (yay). Kaiser Health News reported Dementia Rates Decline Sharply Among Senior Citizens citing to a study recently published in the AMA Journal of Internal Medicine. A Comparison of the Prevalence of Dementia in the United States in 2000 and 2012 reports on a drop from 11.6% to 8.8% on the years of the study.
Here's the abstract:
Importance The aging of the US population is expected to lead to a large increase in the number of adults with dementia, but some recent studies in the United States and other high-income countries suggest that the age-specific risk of dementia may have declined over the past 25 years. Clarifying current and future population trends in dementia prevalence and risk has important implications for patients, families, and government programs.
Objective To compare the prevalence of dementia in the United States in 2000 and 2012.
Design, Setting, and Participants We used data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative, population-based longitudinal survey of individuals in the United States 65 years or older from the 2000 (n = 10 546) and 2012 (n = 10 511) waves of the HRS.
Main Outcomes and Measures Dementia was identified in each year using HRS cognitive measures and validated methods for classifying self-respondents, as well as those represented by a proxy. Logistic regression was used to identify socioeconomic and health variables associated with change in dementia prevalence between 2000 and 2012.
Results The study cohorts had an average age of 75.0 years (95% CI, 74.8-75.2 years) in 2000 and 74.8 years (95% CI, 74.5-75.1 years) in 2012 (P = .24); 58.4% (95% CI, 57.3%-59.4%) of the 2000 cohort was female compared with 56.3% (95% CI, 55.5%-57.0%) of the 2012 cohort (P < .001). Dementia prevalence among those 65 years or older decreased from 11.6% (95% CI, 10.7%-12.7%) in 2000 to 8.8% (95% CI, 8.2%-9.4%) (8.6% with age- and sex-standardization) in 2012 (P < .001). More years of education was associated with a lower risk for dementia, and average years of education increased significantly (from 11.8 years [95% CI, 11.6-11.9 years] to 12.7 years [95% CI, 12.6-12.9 years]; P < .001) between 2000 and 2012. The decline in dementia prevalence occurred even though there was a significant age- and sex-adjusted increase between years in the cardiovascular risk profile (eg, prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity) among older US adults.
Conclusions and Relevance The prevalence of dementia in the United States declined significantly between 2000 and 2012. An increase in educational attainment was associated with some of the decline in dementia prevalence, but the full set of social, behavioral, and medical factors contributing to the decline is still uncertain. Continued monitoring of trends in dementia incidence and prevalence will be important for better gauging the full future societal impact of dementia as the number of older adults increases in the decades ahead.
The authors offer these findings from their study "Population brain health seemed to improve between 2000 and 2012; increasing educational attainment and better control of cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed to the improvement, but the full set of social, behavioral, and medical factors contributing to the improvement is still uncertain."
The Kaiser article offers some perspective about what this drop means: "The number of Americans over age 65 is expected to nearly double by 2050, reaching 84 million, according to the U.S. Census. So even if the percentage of elderly people who develop dementia is smaller than previously estimated, the total number of Americans suffering from the condition will continue to increase, said Keith Fargo, director of scientific programs and outreach, medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association."
So with the end of the semester, and we are grading exams, just think how good this will be for us in the long run!
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Maddy Dychtwald, co-founder of Age Wave, on using virtual reality (VR) to help folks save. How Virtual Reality Can Boost Retirement Savings reports on a project and explains how it unfolded
Professor Hal Hershfield of UCLA’s Anderson School of Management partnered with Daniel Goldstein of Microsoft Research, Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, and several other Stanford researchers to see if connecting people with their future selves could affect their willingness to save for that future self. They took photos of college-age research subjects and digitally altered half of them to create virtual avatars at age 65—complete with jowls, bags under the eyes, and gray hair.
Why don't people do a better job of saving for retirement? According to the article, experts think it's psychological to some extent. "When you’re in your 20s and 30s, you can’t even imagine your life at 65 or 95. If you can’t imagine it, chances are you’re not planning for it."
Back tot he project. Digitally aging the participants wasn't the end of the project. Next the participants were provided with "goggles and sensors and were dropped into virtual reality, where they faced a mirror reflecting either their current self or their future self. As part of the experiment, they were each given $1,000 to spend. They could either buy a gift for someone special, invest in retirement, plan a fun event, or put money into a checking account."
This is getting intriguing. Want to bet what happened? According to the article, "[t]hose research ... greeted by their aged avatar put more than twice as much money toward retirement as those who saw their contemporaneous selves." The researchers, to double check the results, also showed "some research participants ... the aged avatars of other test subjects to see if that impacted their choices. It didn’t. Only those who saw themselves at retirement age were likely to invest in their future."
The WSJ article explains that VR tools are under development "to offer experiential solutions to our nation’s lack of retirement planning... [and] provide a visceral experience that might even immerse [the user] in several different future scenarios, so [the user] can experience, for instance, what it’s like to live with limited funds at 65, 75 or 80."
The article about the study, Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of the Future Self, is available here.
This is the abstract from the research study article:
Many people fail to save what they need to for retirement (Munnell, Webb, and Golub-Sass 2009). Research on excessive discounting of the future suggests that removing the lure of immediate rewards by pre-committing to decisions, or elaborating the value of future rewards can both make decisions more future-oriented. In this article, we explore a third and complementary route, one that deals not with present and future rewards, but with present and future selves. In line with thinkers who have suggested that people may fail, through a lack of belief or imagination, to identify with their future selves (Parfit 1971; Schelling 1984), we propose that allowing people to interact with age-progressed renderings of themselves will cause them to allocate more resources toward the future. In four studies, participants interacted with realistic computer renderings of their future selves using immersive virtual reality hardware and interactive decision aids. In all cases, those who interacted with virtual future selves exhibited an increased tendency to accept later monetary rewards over immediate ones.
Wow, just wow. Now, can we get these for our students?
Monday, October 10, 2016
Will New Federal Ban on Pre-Dispute "Binding" Arbitration Clauses in LTC Agreements Survive Likely Challenges?
My colleague Becky Morgan provided prompt links and important initial commentary for CMS's recently issued final regulations that are intended to "improve the quality of life, care, and services" in Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities. As we start to digest the 700+ pages of changes and commentary, it seems clear the battle over a key section that bans pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements is already shaping up. This rule, at 40 CFR Section 483.70(n), has an implementation date of November 28, 2016.
The regulatory ban on pre-dispute binding arbitration in covered facilities raises the question of "conflict" with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. The 2012 per curium ruling by the Supreme Court in Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, shapes the issue, if not the result.
CMS distinguishes Marmet and presents the rule change as based on authority granted under the Social Security Act to the Secretary of Health and Human Service to issue "such rules as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions of the Department," which necessarily includes supervision of all providers, including LTC providers, who "participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs." CMS points to the long history of regulatory authority over LTC including long-celebrated "patient's rights" legislation adopted in the late 1980s. CMS further explains (at page 399 of the 700 page commentary to the new rules):
Based on the comments received in response to this rulemaking, we are convinced that requiring residents to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements is fundamentally unfair because, among other things, it is almost impossible for residents or their decision-makers to give fully informed and voluntary consent to arbitration before a dispute has arisen. We believe that LTC residents should have a right to access the court system if a dispute with a facility arises, and that any agreement to arbitrate a claim should be knowing and voluntary. . . .
We recognize that an argument could be made that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries can assert in Court the FAA's saving clause if they believe that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement should not be enforced. However, the comments we have received have confirmed our conclusion that predispute arbitration clauses are, by their very nature, unconscionable. As one commenter noted, it is virtually impossible for a resident or their surrogate decision-maker to give fully informed or voluntary consent to such arbitration provisions. That same commenter 402 also noted that refusing to agree to the arbitration clause, in most cases, means that care will be denied.
Furthermore, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are aged or disabled and ill. Many beneficiaries lack the resources to litigate a malpractice claim, much less an initial claim seeking to invalidate an arbitration clause. Rather than requiring Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to incur the additional fees, expense, and delay that would be the direct cost of opposing a motion to enforce arbitration, we have concluded that this is precisely the type of situation envisioned by the Congressional grant of authority contained in sections 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the Act authorizing the Secretary to establish "such other requirements relating to the health, safety, and well-being of residents or relating to the physical facilities thereof as the Secretary may find necessary.”
By coincidence, just hours before the final LTC rules issued by CMS, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enforced pre-dispute arbitration agreements for nursing home residents in Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities (decided September 28, 2016).
The LTC industry seems ready to fight, as reported by industry insiders at McKnight's News on September 29, 2016:
Both the American Health Care Association and LeadingAge expressed disappointment in the arbitration ban in statements provided to McKnight's.
“That provision clearly exceeds CMS's statutory authority and is wholly unnecessary to protect residents' health and safety,” said Mark Parkinson, president and CEO of AHCA.
LeadingAge has supported arbitration agreements that are “properly structured and allow parties to have a speedy and cost-effective alternative to traditional litigation,” but believes CMS has overstepped its boundaries with the ban, the group said.
“Arbitration agreements should be enforced if they were executed separately from the admission agreement, were not a condition of admissions, and allowed the resident to rescind the agreement within a reasonable time frame,” LeadingAge added in its statement.
Stay tuned -- but don't hold your breath as the next round is likely to take some time. My special thanks to Megan Armstrong, Class of 2018 at Dickinson Law, for sharing key links with me for our research on this important development.
October 10, 2016 in Consumer Information, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 1, 2016
A recent report about Boomers and voting made be stop for a moment and go "hmmmm". Pew Research Center's latest FactTank offered that this may be the last presidential election where the Greatest Generation, the Silents and the Boomers have a significant impact at the polls.
This may be the last presidential election dominated by Boomers and prior generations explains that although these demographic groups have dominated at the polls, that may no longer be true; "their election reign may end this November, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data."
[T]he ranks of Millennial and Generation X eligible voters have been growing, thanks to the aging-in of Millennials and naturalizations among foreign-born adults. These generations matched Boomers and previous generations as a share of eligible voters in 2012 and are now estimated to outnumber them. As of July, an estimated 126 million Millennial and Gen X adults were eligible to vote (56% of eligible voters), compared with only 98 million Boomers and other adults from prior generations, or 44% of the voting-eligible population.
However, keep in mind that eligible and actual are not synonymous. In fact, the article reminds us what ultimately matters is who casts ballots. Looking at the data and focusing on actual votes, the report offers that the Boomers and prior generations voted at a rate of about 70% of eligible voters. The younger generations percentage turnout was lower, according to the article.
Not that the generations are in competition or anything. It's just interesting to think about the changing demographics at the ballot box and wonder at the impact on laws and policies as a result.
Among those in the oldest living generation, the Greatest Generation, turnout crested in the 1984 election at 76% before declining. Similarly, turnout among eligible voters in the Silent Generation peaked at 76% in the 1992 election. The Millennial and Gen X generations are likely still on the upswing in terms of their turnout rates, so it is a reasonable guess that at least 54.5% of these adults will vote, and perhaps more.
We won’t know until after November if Boomers and their elders will pass the torch to Gen X and Millennials as a share of voters, but all the available data suggest that the 2016 election will mark the beginning of a new era for U.S. presidential elections.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Dickinson Law Professor Laurel Terry sent me a timely link to an NPR story about Japanese convenience stores. I was already thinking about how retail shopping has changed over the years. For example, on the corner of 7th Avenue and Indian School Road in Phoenix, there used to be a high-end Scandinavian furniture store. I'd only been in it once, and that was to use a gift certificate for what seemed like a huge amount of money at the time as a wedding present. My husband and I realized the most we could afford in the store was a wooden bowl. A very nice wooden bowl, mind you, but still, it was a wooden bowl.
Yesterday, as I passed that corner, I realized there was still a big, fancy sign out front, but the store is now a Goodwill franchise store.
So, with that change in mind, I enjoyed the NPR story, captioned Beyond Slurpees: Many Japanese MiniMarts Now Cater to Elders. From the written account:
Case in point is a Lawson convenience store in the city of Kawaguchi, north of Tokyo. It sells products that an American consumer would never find tucked between the aspirin and the candy bars. For example, there's a whole rack of ready-to-heat meals in colorful pouches. They're rated at levels from 1 to 5, based on how hard it is to chew what's inside.
Or, as the store's manager, Masahiko Terada, puts it, "the higher the level, the less need for you to chew. In the end it's porridge."
This Lawson store in Kawaguchi is one of six in a special line called Care Lawson. The company plans to expand to 30 by early next year. And these Care Lawson stores have another special feature: staff like Mika Kojima.
She's a nursing care manager and she's stationed at this Lawson store. In fact the franchise owner of this store is actually a nursing services company. Anyone who comes in can ask for Kojima's help. For example, she'll go to an older client's home to make sure it's set up so they can live there safely. And she'll connect families with adult day care services.
Convenience stories should be just that, convenient, right? With adults over age-65 making up nearly 27 percent of Japan's population, it just makes sense for retailers to provide customer-specific merchandise that is easily accessible, especially for people who might prefer to avoid large supermarkets. The Lawson chain also offers home deliveries.
The story made me wonder more about Lawson. How was it that the Japanese chain came to have such a non-Japanese name? It turns out Lawson began back to 1939 in Ohio, in the United States, where J. J. Lawson ran a dairy milk store. "'Mr. Lawson's milk store' was locally renowned for its fresh and delicious milk and many customers came to buy milk there every morning." The first Lawson convenience store opened in Japan in 1975 and sold "party food," very different from the model of today.
Friday, August 19, 2016
I'm always just a bit suspicious of books that promise to make me laugh. I think it is because I like to be surprised by humorous moments, rather than feel duty-bound to chuckle, guffaw or giggle.
Nonetheless, I succumbed to the promise in the blurb for Michael Kinsley's 2016 book, Old Age: A Beginner's Guide, that it was a "surprisingly cheerful book ... and a frequently funny account of one man's journey to the finish line."
And I'm glad I did. I did indeed laugh, and at the most surprising of moments, as when he described the need to avoid the doors of his refrigerator because of the magnets that might interfere with the technology in his brain used to keep symptom of Parkinson's Disease at bay. He has the knack of making wry observations about his own mortal state to think broadly about what it is for all of us to age. I can see the short essays that make up this book being useful in a class on elder law or estate planning.
His words are perhaps most poignantly relevant to boomers. For example, on a goal of living longer, he writes:
Even before you're dead, you may want to ask yourself whether this is what you really want. Is being alive all that desirable if you're alive only in the technical sense? Millions of boomers are watching their parents fade until they are no longer there. As they approach their seventies, they start observing their own peer group losing their collective marbles, one at a time. And they reasonably conclude that the real competition should not be about longevity. It should be about cognition.
But he doesn't stop there, exploring other, potentially more important goals for the competitive boomer generation to consider.
This is a short, deep book. And I recommend it, not least of all because it gives readers welcome opportunities to smile.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Not everyone retires. Some don't retire because they love the work they do. Others can't afford to retire. Still others change professions, but keep working. What will you do?
The Pew Research Center released a new FactTank report on June 20, 2016 about elders and work, More older Americans are working, and working more, than they used to. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Pew report explains
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years ... In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The report shows that the increase in elders working is steady across the age ranges (65-69, 70-74, and 75+) but with a slightly greater percentage of elder men over women. And when I say working, I mean they are working. "Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time."
The jobs elders hold fall across a spectrum of mainly white-collar type jobs, "older workers are more likely to be in management, legal and community/social service occupations than the overall workforce, and less likely to be in computer and mathematical, food preparation, and construction-related occupations."
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
We often write here about end-of-life decisions. But, recently a friend shared with me one of the more remarkable accounts of decision-making I have seen, by a couple in their 80s.
I'm not even going to attempt to summarize this story, but I do recommend reading all the way to the end of the Gainesville Sun's report on "After nearly 59 years of marriage, Joe and Jean Subers die together."
Monday, June 13, 2016
Professor Laura L. Carstensen, PhD, who is the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, has an intriguing essay in a recent issue of Time magazine, focusing on research on social engagement among the Boomer generation. She writes
The 55-to-65-year olds just about to join the ranks of the elderly are far less socially engaged now than their predecessors were at the same age 20 years ago. And this pattern emerged across all traditional measures of social engagement: Boomers are less likely to participate in community or religious organizations than were their counterparts 20 years ago. They are less likely to be married. They talk with their neighbors less frequently. And it doesn't stop with participation in communities and neighborhoods: boomers report fewer meaningful interactions with their spouses and partners than did previous generations, and they report weaker ties to family and friends.
She asks, "Should we be worried about these trends?" For her answers, read "Baby Boomers are Isolating Themselves as They Age." (Hint, the subtitle says: "That's bad -- for everyone.")
Friday, June 10, 2016
How long do you plan to work, if you are a Baby Boomer? According to one survey from the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, we are facing a "brain drain" in local governments. The 'Silver Tsunami' Has Arrived in Government explains the survey "indicates that governments are experiencing an uptick in retirements. More than half -- 54 percent -- of surveyed governments reported an increase in retirements last year from 2014, while just 10 percent reported a decrease." Here's where the "brain drain" comes in. According to the story "[b]aby boomers at or near retirement age make up a large share of senior-level managers in many agencies. Compared to the private sector, public-sector workers tend to be older and possess higher levels of education."
The article explores reasons why there seem to be so many retirements these days, including the expiration of union contracts, retirement benefits reductions , etc. And since not all Boomers have hit retirement age yet, the "silver tsunami" is expected to continue "over a number of years given that the youngest baby boomers just turned 52 years old."
The article explains that the survey shows not just retirements but an increase in individuals quitting their jobs.
The survey, 7 pages long with 19 questions and results, is available here as a pdf.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
The Office of Inspector General issues regular reports to Congress, and the most recent report indicates that for the period of October 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016, the total amount of expected recoveries arising from allegations of healthcare fraud was $2.77 billion. That number is "up" by a billion dollars over the first half of fiscal year 2016.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
John Oliver, in his typically over-the-top, but still informative manner, focuses on the industry of debt collection and how it can be especially troublesome for older adults. Indeed, when I was running an Elder Protection Clinic for Dickinson Law, a significant percentage of our clients were struggling with "old" debts, often connected to health care costs, and were dealing with aggressive attempts to recover what has come to be known as "zombie debt." One woman interviewed about $80k in debt arising out of denial for insurance coverage for her elderly husband's hospitalization for breathing problems, describes her fear and frustration after a lifetime of working and saving. She asks, "Is this how my life is going to end?"
Our thanks to Karen Miller, Esq., in Florida, for sending this link.
Friday, June 3, 2016
The Pew Research Center reports that for the first time in the modern era, more adult children ages 18 through 34 are living with their parents than living in other arrangements:
Broad demographic shifts in marital status, educational attainment and employment have transformed the way young adults in the U.S. are living, and a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data highlights the implications of these changes for the most basic element of their lives – where they call home. In 2014, for the first time in more than 130 years, adults ages 18 to 34 were slightly more likely to be living in their parents’ home than they were to be living with a spouse or partner in their own household.
It seems likely that this trend has long-range significance for both young adults and aging families.
Friday, May 20, 2016
I had mentioned previously that I was looking at the Genworth annual cost of care survey. As a corollary, Genworth has information about who provides care, referred to as The Expanding Circle of Care. The website mentions the caregivers, with "[t]he Beyond Dollars Research reveal[ing] 5 key insights on the true impact of long term care." The Expanding Circle of Care Beyond Dollars 2015 explains the 5 "key insights" in the executive summary. The circle of care is explained as:
The financial, physical and emotional demands of providing care for a loved one can sometimes be more than a single caregiver can handle. The good news is that more family members are helping provide care. The opportunity to plan for the likelihood of needing long term care before a crisis situation occurs remains large. Our research has shown that a "Circle of Care" often forms around the care recipient, involving people who provide different levels and types of support.
The second insight is that although caregivers are positive about their role of caregivers, they note that "[c]aregiving can negatively impact health & well-being", including familial relationships and interactions with friends. The third insight is instructive regarding the future: "Caregivers’ savings and retirement funds are at risk"
Caregivers who help provide financial assistance for the care of their loved ones estimate that they pay, on average, a total of about $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
That’s up from an average of $7,285 in 2010. Those financial expenses can include everything from household expenses, personal items, or transportation services, to payment of informal caregivers or long term care facilities.
Most caregivers did not anticipate or plan for this expenditure. In many cases, they are cutting back on personal spending and savings. More significantly, some may be jeopardizing their own financial futures.
It follows logically then that the fourth insight builds from the third one: "Caregivers’ careers and livelihoods are impacted by providing care." The caregivers who work reported a definite impact on their jobs, which in turn impacts the caregiver's bottom line. "Absences, reduced hours and chronic tardiness can translate into a significant reduction in a caregiver’s paycheck."
The executive summary is available here.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Pew Research Center issued a recent Fact Tank on Centenarians worldwide. World's Centenarian Population Projected to Grow Eightfold by 2050 explains the number of centenarians is growing rapidly. Check this out: "[t]he world was home to nearly half a million centenarians (people ages 100 and older) in 2015, more than four times as many as in 1990, according to United Nations estimates. And this growth is expected to accelerate: Projections suggest there will be 3.7 million centenarians across the globe in 2050." We know that the oldest-old have been the fastest growing for some time, so it makes sense that the number of centenarians is growing as well. The report discusses the difficulty in verification of ages for this group for various reasons.
Who has the most centenarians? "[T]he available data suggest that the U.S. leads the world in terms of the sheer number of centenarians, followed by Japan, China, India and Italy." The U.S. population isn't aging as fast as other countries, according to the report, and is "aging at a slower rate than Japan and Italy, partly due to its higher fertility and immigration rates – there are now 2.2 centenarians per 10,000 people." By 2050, China will have the greatest number of centenarians, and "[t]he centenarian share of the populations of the U.S. ... will grow less rapidly. There will be 9.7 centenarians per 10,000 people in the U.S. ..."