Thursday, May 2, 2019
If you answered yes to the title question, you are not along. Last month, Financial Advisor published an article, More Than Half Of Americans Want To Live To 100 reporting on a survey by AIG Life & Retirement. Why does someone want to live to be 100? Why not? There are various reasons, and the respondents offered these: "Thirty-nine percent of respondents cited deeper family relationships as the main reason for wanting to live 100 years. Another 32 percent said they wanted to see the world change, and 17 percent wanted to remain productive."
The respondents note that longevity can be accompanied by various issues. "Of the 53 percent whose goal is to be a centenarian, 51 percent are worried that their savings won't last for that long a life." As well, the likelihood of significant health issues took first place among concerns "(35 percent) ... followed by the likelihood of burdening their family (27 percent) and running out of the money needed to live comfortably in retirement (25 percent)." Planning for longevity is important. Although aging happens organically, planning for longevity is responsible aging.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
The GAO published a new report examining the experiences of other countries with phased retirement of workers. Older Workers: Other Countries' Experiences with Phased Retirement reports on "17 countries with aging populations and national pension systems similar to the Social Security program in the United States. These countries also have arrangements that allow workers to reduce their working hours as they transition into retirement, referred to as 'phased retirement.'"
GAO's four case study countries—Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (UK)—were described as employing various strategies at the national level to encourage phased retirement, and specific programs differed with respect to design specifics and sources of supplemental income for participants. Canada and the U.K. were described as having national policies that make it easier for workers to reduce their hours and receive a portion of their pension benefits from employer-sponsored pension plans while continuing to accrue pension benefits in the same plan. Experts described two national programs available to employers and workers in Germany, with one program using tax preferences. Experts also said Sweden implemented a policy in 2010 that allows partial retirement and access to partial pension benefits to encourage workers to stay in the labor force longer.
Even with unique considerations in the United States, other countries' experiences with phased retirement could inform U.S. efforts. Some employer-specific conditions, such as employers offering employee-directed retirement plans and not being covered by collective bargaining are more common in the United States, but the case study countries included examples of designs for phased retirement programs in such settings. Certain programs allow access to employer-sponsored or national pension benefits while working part-time. For example, experts said the U.K. allows workers to draw a portion of their account based pension tax-free, and one U.K. employer GAO spoke to also allows concurrent contributions to those plans. In addition, experts said that certain program design elements help determine the success of some programs. Such elements could inform the United States experience. For instance, U.S. employers told us that while offering phased retirement to specific groups of workers may be challenging because of employment discrimination laws, a union representative in Germany noted that they reached an agreement where employers may set restrictions or caps on participation, such as 3 percent of the workforce, to manage the number of workers in the program. Employers in the U.S. could explore whether using a similar approach, taking into consideration any legal concerns or other practical challenges, could help them to control the number of workers participating in phased retirement programs.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
The GAO has issued a new report, Retirement Security: Most Households Approaching Retirement Have Low Savings, an Update. The report, an update from the 2015 report, is 4 pages long and available here as a pdf. The update incorporates "estimates on the percentage of households aged 55 and over with selected financial resources." Here are the fast facts from this update
The 2015 report on retirement security included estimates on the percentage of households aged 55 and over without retirement savings or a defined benefit plan (traditional employment-based pension plans that offer benefits based on factors like salary and years of service)... We updated these estimates using data from the most recent Survey of Consumer Finances, which was released in September 2017... We found that the percent of households headed by someone aged 55 and over that had no retirement savings decreased from about 52 percent in 2013 to about 48 percent in 2016.
Monday, January 7, 2019
According to AARP, employee benefits most valued by Boomers are Health Insurance, Retirement Benefits Most Attractive to Boomer Workers
Boomer workers tend to place great importance on health insurance benefits and 401(k) matching contributions from their employers, according to a newly released Harris poll of 2,026 U.S. adults.
Gen Xers and younger adults also value these benefits but are somewhat more inclined than boomers to put a priority on paid time off and flexible work schedules, according to the poll, conducted for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
The statistics in the article are interesting. For example, as far as what employee benefits are important: for the Boomers, 71% said health insurance and 67% said 401(k), 54% pensions while the millennials and Xers placed less importance on pensions, 16% and 34% respectively. Millennials placed more importance on workplace flexibility compared to Boomers. How long do the Boomers surveyed intend to continue working? According to the article, 22% may retire within a year, 22% are considering cutting back on the amount they work and 13% are looking at a job change with only 14% likely to work more.
I was chatting recently with Bill Johnston-Walsh, director of Pennsylvania's chapter of AARP. I always enjoy catching up with Bill, as he gets involved in cutting edge issues and projects under development.
One of the hot topics he relayed to me are programs at the state level to support better on-the-job savings for retirement. Almost gone are the days of defined benefit retirement plans and employers may not offer defined contribution plans either. States are beginning to adopt laws that make it possible for employers to offer alternative, low-cost, voluntary approaches for employees, sometimes known as "Work & Save" programs, such as "OregonSaves." Here's a summary from an AARP report in July 2018:
Oregon was the first-in-the-nation to launch this innovative solution with OregonSaves in 2017, and as of July 2018 they already have over 58,000 workers enrolled and nearly $4.6 million saved. Of those eligible at this time, 73% have enrolled, and participants are saving $46.42 per paycheck on average. Check out how OregonSaves is helping workers save here.
Elsewhere, this year, Washington opened the first ever marketplace version of Work & Save, Washington’s Retirement Marketplace, and Illinois started a pilot of their Work & Save program, Illinois Secure Choice, with their official launch coming this fall.
These states are not alone – across the nation, states are recognizing the need to help all workers grow savings so they can take control of their futures and deal with the rising cost of health care and living expenses. In the past 6 years, 40 states have acted to implement, study or consider legislation to create Work & Save programs.
Convenience and portability for the employees seem to be two key components of the new approaches.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
As elderlaw profs, it's likely that we cover Medicare in our courses every semester. Whether you teach the subject or your are a beneficiary, how well do you know Medicare coverage basics? Kiplinger offers a short quiz on Medicare that allows you to test your Medicare IQ. The quiz, Does Medicare Cover That? is easy to complete and each question includes an explanation accompanying the answer. And once you have finished this quiz, take the next one, True or False: Test Yourself on Social Security Claiming Strategies.
Check them out!
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
The more I work in the field of elder law, and teach classes, the more I am convinced that enterprises who market to families and seniors fail to realize greater transparency can help their commercial products and enterprises succeed.
Thus, it is useful to read a New York Times' column on annuities, one that appears to be the first of a series. The author, Ron Lieber, begins his column on The Simplest Annuity Explainer We Could Write:
Annuities can be complicated. This column will not be.
After I wrote two weeks ago about getting tossed out of the office of an annuity salesman, there was a surprising clamor for more information about this room-clearing topic. One group of readers just wanted a basic explainer on how annuities work. For that, read on.
Another group of readers worried that those hearing of my experience might assume that all annuities are bad, and that all people who sell them use subterfuge to do so. Neither of those is true: Next week, I’ll introduce you to some reasonable people who are trying to use certain annuities in new and improved ways.
My thanks to Dickinson Law colleague Laurel Terry for the heads up!
Monday, October 22, 2018
CNBC recently highlighted comparative inflation numbers on assisted living costs and other benchmarks that probably won't help you sleep better tonight:
This retirement living expense has nowhere to go but up.
The annual cost of a private room in a nursing home has cracked the six-figure mark, according to Genworth Financial.
The national annual median cost of a private room in a nursing home is $100,375, the insurer found in its 2018 Cost of Care study.
Overall, the rising cost of care has outpaced inflation. The Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers was 2.1 percent for the first half of 2018. The annual median cost of a room at an assisted living facility grew by 6.67 percent between 2017 and 2018. Meanwhile, the cost of a shared room in a nursing home jumped by 4.11 percent.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
The Pennsylvania Legislature did not reach either SB 884, involving major changes in adult guardianship laws, or HB 2291, that would have blocked state authority to investigate complaints about the scope of services provided in senior public housing or independent living units in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), before adjourning to permit legislators to return to their districts for the final push before the November 2018 elections. It is unlikely that either bill will receive further consideration this session. New legislation would need to be introduced in the next legislative session, for fresh consideration in 2019.
One bill that did pass both Houses on October 18 in the waning hours of the 2017-18 session is HB 2133, Printer's No. 3107 to establish a Kinship Caregiver Navigator Program within the PA Department of Human Services as "a resource for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren" outside of the formal child welfare system. The online navigator program is to be created by an outside contractor. The fiscal note attached to the bill projects an estimated cost of about $2.2 million, with about half of the funds coming from federal sources.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Social Security has released the 2019 numbers. Social Security Announces 2.8 Percent Benefit Increase for 2019 notes a 2.8% COLA and an increase in the SSA taxable maximum amount to $132,900. The indivdiual's amount for SSI for 2019 will increase to $771 per month. The detailed fact sheet is available here.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Pennsylvania's Legislature Stalls Guardianship Reform But Moves Forward on Controversial "Protection" Bill
As recent readers of the Elder Law Prof Blog will know, the Pennsylvania legislature is in the waning days of the 2018 legislative year. Despite strong support for basic reforms of adult guardianship laws, the legislature has once again stalled action on Senator Greenleaf's guardianship reform package, Senate Bill 884. Apparently the latest delay arose when one senator objected to a provision requiring criminal background checks for proposed new guardians, because of his own experiences as a guardian for an adult child.
Guardianship reform has been on the legislative docket since at least 2014 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Elder Law Task Force issued its comprehensive report recommending much needed changes, including higher standards for appointed guardians. But this one senator's late-breaking concerns triggered another delay. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate in the previous legislative term, only to be stalled that time in the House.
Thus, the contrast with another bill affecting seniors, one that is rushing through the Pennsylvania Legislature in 6 months, is particularly dramatic. House Bill 2291, as most recently amended in Printer's Version No. 3917, was introduced for the first time in April 2018 and cleared the Pennsylvania House with a unanimous vote on October 9, 2018.
The bill has been cast as "protection" of seniors against unwanted intrusions on their privacy by government investigators. Sounds like a commendable purpose. But the much larger purpose seems to be about protecting "providers" of certain types of housing for seniors, including "independent living units" in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs, also called Life Plan Communities) and publically-funded "senior multifamily housing units," from investigation by Pennsylvania authorities where there are potential concerns about suitability of that type of unit for the needs of particular seniors, especially those at risk of self-neglect or third-party exploitation because of dementia. One member of the House, a legislator from Westmoreland County where a CCRC has been investigated (apparently the only such investigation in the state), has been quite successful in attracting support for his bill to prevent such investigations from happening in the future.
Now the Pennsylvania Senate will have all of three days -- its last three working days in 2018 -- to consider HB 2291 for the first time.
Has HB 2291 been carefully considered by all the stakeholders, including seniors and their families? It may not matter when the train is running at full steam.
October 10, 2018 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 28, 2018
The Aging, Law and Society Collaborative Research Network (CRN) invites scholars to participate in a multi-event workshop as part of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting scheduled for Washington D.C. from May 30 through June 2, 2019.
For this workshop, proposals for presentations should be submitted by October 22, 2018.
This year’s workshop will feature themed panels, roundtable discussions, and rapid fire presentations in which participants can share new ideas and research projects.
The CRN encourages paper proposals on a broad range of issues related to law and aging. For this event, organizers especially encourage proposals on the following topics:
- The concept of dignity as it relates to aging
- Interdisciplinary research on aging
- Old age policy, and historical perspectives on old age policy
- Sexual Intimacy in old age and the challenge of “consent” requirements
- Compulsion in care provision
- Disability perspectives on aging, and aging perspectives on disability
- Feminist perspectives on aging
- Approaches to elder law education
In addition to paper proposals, CRN also welcomes:
- Volunteers to serve as panel discussants and as commentators on works-in-progress.
- Ideas and proposals for themed panels, round-tables, or a session around a new book.
If you would like to present a paper as part of a the CRN’s programming, send a 100-250 word abstract, with your name, full contact information, and a paper title to Professor Nina Kohn at Syracuse Law, who, appropriately enough also now holds the title of "Associate Dean of Online Education!"
September 28, 2018 in Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, International, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, Retirement, Science, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics, Web/Tech, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Last week, students in my Elder Law class at Dickinson Law had the benefit of a fascinating, detailed presentation by Pennsylvania's Deputy Commissioner of Insurance Joseph DiMemo about the history of insolvency for Penn Treaty American Network and American Independent Insurance Company as sellers of long-term care insurance policies. In 2009, the State took the reins as the receiver for the two companies' administration of more than 126,000 policies sold nationwide.
From the history, I would summarize reasons for failure of long term care insurance in its "traditional" form as including the following:
- Selling products with a promise or at least a strong expectation of level premiums, especially in the early years of the industry. While contract language permitted companies to seek rate increases, the companies often delayed asking for increases or were frustrated by states that refused to grant requested increases;
- Assumptions made about "lapse" rates for policyholders that proved to be inaccurate;
- Assumptions made about "interest" rates for invested premiums that proved to be inaccurate, even before the 2008-10 financial crisis;
- Assumptions made about lower morbidity and higher mortality that proved not to be accurate for policyholders overall;
- The continued use of invalid assumptions about future premium rate increases.
In light of this tour through history, I was interested to read about New York LIfe Insurance Company's description of its "new and innovative long-term care insurance product" in its press release dated September 5, 2018:
A new long-term care solution announced today by New York Life, NYL My Care, promises to make the purchase of long-term care insurance simpler and more affordable. The innovative product features design concepts familiar to purchasers of other types of insurance, including a deductible and co-insurance, and offers the benefit of a dividend, which can help offset future premiums. NYL My Care clients will also benefit from the peace of mind that comes from working with a mutual life insurance company with the highest available financial strength ratings.
“New York Life is committed to helping people plan for the future, which includes protecting themselves and their loved ones from the financial burden of an extended health care event,” said Aaron Ball, vice president, New York Life Long-Term Care. “NYL My Care’s simpler, first-of-its-kind product design will help more people understand, access and afford the protection they need against the potential cost of long-term care.”
NYL My Care covers a wide range of long-term care needs, including home care, community-based care and facility care, and offers four pre-designed plan levels ... bronze, silver, gold and platinum.
For more on so-called "hybrid" or "asset" based products that couple long-term care benefits to annuities or life insurance polices, read New Life Insurance Brings New Innovations to Long-Term Care Insurance Market from Forbes.
September 12, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
I'm preparing for an upcoming program in North Carolina and residents of senior living communities have sent me questions in advance. The questions I've received are a reminder that "transparency" is a big issue. As one resident candidly explained, "No population is more vulnerable than seniors living in managed care.... I consider myself among the vulnerable." I've come to believe that lack of transparency impacts virtually all of the options for financing of senior living, including long-term care insurance and continuing care communities. The problem is that many prospective clients do not know who they can trust, and many end up trusting no one. They end up not making any advance plan.
For example, this week there is industry-sourced news that 33 facilities operated under the umbrella of Atrium Health and Senior Living, a New Jersey-based company, are going into receivership. These include 9 "senior living communities" and 23 "skilled nursing facilities" in Wisconsin, plus a skilled nursing facility in Michigan. Atrium is also reported as operating 3 senior living communities and 9 skilled nursing facilities in New Jersey that "are not part of the receivership." If you look at the company's website today, however, it won't be easy to find news that insolvency is already impacting this company's sites. At least as of the time of my writing this blog post, there's only "good news" on the company's website.
The public tends not to distinguish between different types of senior living options, at least not until individuals get fairly close to needing to make choices about moving out of their own homes. I can easily imagine anyone who has done enough advance research to know about troubled companies to simply make a decision to steer clear of all facilities operated under a particular company name. But, I suspect there is also a much larger population of prospective residents who view reports of troubled senior living companies or facilities as a reason to reject all of the options.
Some providers will say that the problem is that "bad news" is over-reported. I don't think that is actually true. Rather, I think that there in most states is it hard to distinguish between financially sound or unsound options. Certainly, I've known state regulators who decline to talk about troubled properties on a theory that bad news may make it harder for struggling operations to work out their problems as they cannot attract new customers. Lack of transparency is argued as an explanation for giving operators a fair chance to recover, and recovery helps everyone.
States, however, have unique opportunities to learn from their roles as receivers for troubled operations. Wouldn't it be helpful for states to publish accurate information about what factors they have discovered that contribute to success or lack of financial success? And if not the regulators, why not have the industry itself publish standards of financial health.
September 11, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Property Management, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 6, 2018
A recent post on The Motley Fool provided several key statistics regarding Long-Term Care Insurance, including the fact that the number of companies still writing traditional LTCI policies in the U.S. has fallen dramatically:
According to a report by the NAIC, the number of insurers offering stand-alone long-term care policies (as opposed to ones bundled with some other product(s) such as annuities) dropped from 125 to 15 between 2000 and 2014. That will only surprise those who haven't been keeping up with the industry, which has been struggling.
What's the problem? Well, as noted in the previous statistic, long-term care is simply very costly, and healthcare costs in general are quite steep -- they have been increasing at rapid rates, too. Some insurers have had to hike the premiums they charge their policy holders, while others have just stopped offering long-term care policies. Genworth Financial, for example, recently announced a 58% rate hike, while Mass Mutual requested a 77% rate hike.
This information shouldn't necessarily stop you from seeking coverage, but do know that the industry has been in some turmoil, and approach it with your eyes open.
For additional statistics (and resources) read Five Long-Term Care Stats that Will Blow You Away,
Monday, August 13, 2018
A recent article, ‘Too little too late’: bankruptcy booms among older Americans published in The Business Times opens with a sobering thought: "[f]or a rapidly growing share of older Americans, traditional ideas about life in retirement are being upended by a dismal reality: bankruptcy." A new study featured in the article paints a foreboding picture for many elder Americans "'[t]he rate of people 65 and older filing for bankruptcy is three times what it was in 1991, the study found, and the same group accounts for a far greater share of all filers." What is causing this increase? According to the article, many factors, including changes in pension plans, health care out of pocket costs, declining incomes, to name a few. It notes as well that elder Americans may have more challenges in recovering from financial setbacks than others. The study is done by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, which "is a long-running effort now led by Thorne; Lawless; Pamela Foohey, a law professor at Indiana University; and Katherine Porter, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. The project — which is financed by their universities — collects and analyzes court records on a continuing basis and follows up with written questionnaires. ... Their latest study —which was posted online Sunday and has been submitted to an academic journal for peer review — is based on a sample of personal bankruptcy cases and questionnaires completed by 895 filers ages 19 to 92."
The paper by the study authors, Graying of U.S. Bankruptcy: Fallout from Life in a Risk Society has been placed on SSRN.
The abstract offers this
The social safety net for older Americans has been shrinking for the past couple decades. The risks associated with aging, reduced income, and increased healthcare costs, have been off-loaded onto older individuals. At the same time, older Americans are increasingly likely to file consumer bankruptcy, and their representation among those in bankruptcy has never been higher. Using data from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, we find more than a two-fold increase in the rate at which older Americans (age 65 and over) file for bankruptcy and an almost five-fold increase in the percentage of older persons in the U.S. bankruptcy system. The magnitude of growth in older Americans in bankruptcy is so large that the broader trend of an aging U.S. population can explain only a small portion of the effect. In our data, older Americans report they are struggling with increased financial risks, namely inadequate income and unmanageable costs of healthcare, as they try to deal with reductions to their social safety net. As a result of these increased financial burdens, the median senior bankruptcy filer enters bankruptcy with negative wealth of $17,390 as compared to more than $250,000 for their non-bankrupt peers. For an increasing number of older Americans, their golden years are fraught with economic risks, the result of which is often bankruptcy.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
A recent reader asked about what happened in the Sears Methodist Retirement System bankruptcy case in Texas for residents who had paid a "refundable" entry fee before the company filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition to sharing some legal documents in a recent update, I promised readers to reach out to contacts to get more of the story. I heard from a long-time correspondent, Jennifer Young. Here is her important story:
I am Jennifer Young. Prior to retirement I worked in Human Resources. I am currently a resident of a CCRC in North Carolina. I moved to North Carolina in 2015 after an unsatisfactory experience in a CCRC in Texas.
Here is what happened to me in Texas. I was a resident of a CCRC, one of the Sears Methodist Retirement Service (SMRS) communities, operated under nonprofit tax rules. There were 5 CCRC operations in the SMRS system, along with 2 subsidized senior housing complexes, an Assisted Living facility, and the management of 3 state veterans’ homes. Eleven communities in all. I managed to move into my CCRC just two years before SMRS filed for protection in bankruptcy court under Chapter 11.
My community was a Type C, 90% refund contract. Our CCRC was brand new, with the entrance fees of those moving in pledged to debt service for the construction loan. SMRS’ decision to break ground on the newest of their CCRCs in 2009 (in the middle of a recession) should have been my first red flag, but I was too wrapped up in the process of choosing a desirable lot and influencing the construction of our future cottage in my own community to think about the long-term implications of that management decision.
As I learned the hard way, the unsecured status of entrance fees meant that residents were “unsecured creditors” in the bankruptcy process; hence, I was advised to apply for a seat on the court’s Unsecured Creditor Committee. I did and served on this committee from the summer of 2014 until it was dissolved in the spring of 2015. Per Bankruptcy Court procedures, these Committees routinely hire a law firm (with fees paid by the bankrupt estate). Residents were lumped in with all of the other unsecured creditors. Meetings were conducted telephonically because committee members were quite scattered geographically. For example, one vendor of therapy services wasn’t headquartered in Texas.
I don’t remember whether the judge issued a formal order about the pre-petition refundable entrance fees, but I know all parties did not want residents to be financially harmed. They were worried about the very negative impact of residents losing their entrance fees, as happened during the 2009 bankruptcy of a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania CCRC, Covenant of South Hills. A second such outcome, especially for a large, multi-facility community, would have been devastating to the continuing care industry as a whole.
In the Texas bankruptcy process, the court set up an interim manager (not from SMRS) who worked closely with attorneys from all parties in reviewing the offers from potential new owners. As a member of the above-mentioned Committee, I would hear that new owners MUST be willing to accept the current Residency Agreements (contracts). So “applications” to buy were screened in that regard; however, the Committee and the open court procedures did not reveal details regarding all the letters of intent that were submitted. They may have been buried in tons of documents, but I don’t know for sure.
There was an announcement in the fall of 2014 that another Texas non-profit wanted the CCRCs, and all parties seemed content with this prospect. However, that fell through, as this potential new owner’s Board put the kabosh on the deal. To simplify the complexities of the process, let’s just say that for the communities that were not “picked off” during the fall months, there was an auction in January 2015. In contrast, SMRS’ Assisted Living facility was purchased without an auction and its Subsidized Housing facilities went back to HUD.
Monday, July 16, 2018
The National Academies Press has released Future Directions for the Demography of Aging.This volume contains the proceedings of a workshop and the overview explains
Almost 25 years have passed since the Demography of Aging (1994) was published by the National Research Council. Future Directions for the Demography of Aging is, in many ways, the successor to that original volume. The Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to produce an authoritative guide to new directions in demography of aging. The papers published in this report were originally presented and discussed at a public workshop held in Washington, D.C., August 17-18, 2017.
The workshop discussion made evident that major new advances had been made in the last two decades, but also that new trends and research directions have emerged that call for innovative conceptual, design, and measurement approaches. The report reviews these recent trends and also discusses future directions for research on a range of topics that are central to current research in the demography of aging. Looking back over the past two decades of demography of aging research shows remarkable advances in our understanding of the health and well-being of the older population. Equally exciting is that this report sets the stage for the next two decades of innovative research–a period of rapid growth in the older American population.
Part 1 looks at trends in health and health disparities, Part 2 examines the implications of social and environmental factors, Part 3 covers families and intergenerational issues, Part 4 covers employment and retirement, Part 5 discusses cognitive issues and disability, Part 6 reviews global aging and Part 7 offers new approaches. You can purchase the softcover book here, download a free pdf of the book by clicking here or read the book online.
PA Elder Law Institute Session on CCRCs and LPCs Will Discuss Pending Legislation and Indicators on Financial Performance
As I mentioned earlier, Pennsylvania's annual Elder Law Institute is July 19 and 20 in Harrisburg. On the morning of the first day, I'm on a panel examining new issues in Continuing Care Retirement Communities (and Life Plan Communities), along with Linda Anderson, an elder law attorney, Kimber Latsha, who frequently represents health care and senior living providers including CCRCs, and Dr. David Sarcone, a Dickinson College business professor with background in accounting and health care management.
I'm especially looking forward to the discussion of Pennsylvania 2018 House Bill 2291, introduced in April of this year, but already moving from one committee, to its first of three considerations on the floor, to the Rules Committee, with amendments. In other words, this bill seems to have "legs." The sponsors of the bill are calling it an "Independent Senior Living Facility Privacy Act." As with most catchy titles for pending legislation, the details are a bit more complicated. In this instance the bill's lead sponsor is from a county where a single CCRC was investigated by the State Department of Human Services following a complaint that "staffing levels" were inadequate, leaving certain residents allegedly at risk. The Department of Human Services issued an adverse order in May 2017 related to certain aspects at the facility and apparently that order is the subject of administrative appeals.
The provider contests the order, and in written testimony submitted to the Pennsylvania House Committee on Aging and Older Adults Services, the CEO explained his company's position that the investigators were abusing their authority by entering independent living (IL) units, questioning IL residents, and thus failed to respect the individual autonomy of residents not actually living in "personal care" facilities, facilities that would be subject to HS authority:
"We feel that DHS is inappropriately applying the term 'premises' [from the personal care regulations] as the grounds and building on the same grounds, used for providing personal care services. Each senior apartment is a 'separate individual leasehold,' where an inhabitant, the lessee of the apartment leases an apartment and is afforded the enjoyment and freedom to engage family and third party services."
At the core of this issue is a question about expectations of the public and the residents about care in "independent living" units of a licensed "continuing care community." (Pennsylvania has at least one pending wrongful death suit involving an entirely different CCRC, where one issue is whether the CCRC's alleged awareness of an IL resident's worsening dementia was ignored. She allegedly died of complications of exposure after wandering and being locked out of her IL apartment complex on a cold night.)
The proposed legislation would exclude "independent senior living facilities" (including public housing outside of the CCRC context) from future state Human Services investigations, including investigations by the Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
I expect we will also be talking about financial performance numbers of both for-profit and nonprofit CCRCs -- especially as some of the numbers suggest that some operations both sides of the industry "profit" line may be struggling to "live within their means."
In other words, there will be some especially "hot" topics for discussion.
July 16, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, June 22, 2018
CityLab recently ran a story about populations and particularly, where elders are residing. Mapping America’s Aging Population explains that "Demographers and geographers have watched as this aging cohort transformed the U.S., from young children in the 1950s and 1960s to senior citizens today. This graying of America has left a distinctive geographical fingerprint."
Want to guess where elders are living? If you started with the sunbelt you would be somewhat correct. "Unsurprisingly, popular retirement states like Florida and Arizona have high concentrations of older Americans... What may be more of a surprise is the broad swaths of elderly running through the Midwest and the Appalachians. These regions have aged significantly, as many younger residents headed toward the coasts." The demographic maps provide good pictorial representations of the locations where elders are living.
The article looks at births and deaths and relocation. Interestingly, "[p]eople are less likely to move as they age. In 1968, parents of the baby boomers were in their highly mobile, young adult years, but today boomers are older and more apt to stay where they are."
The Boomers seem to be clustering in certain geographic areas:
Baby boomers have contributed to this trend. Fifty years ago, this group was spread out evenly among the rest of the general population. By 1990, they had became more bicoastal and were concentrated in a small number of dynamic, growing metropolitan areas.
Between 1990 and 2000, a substantial number of boomers flocked from these metro areas to amenity-laden retirement and pre-retirement regions, like the Pacific Northwest, Florida, northern Wisconsin and Michigan, as well as some areas of the South, like the Ozark region and the Western Carolinas.
These areas have continued to grow, while baby boomers moved away in their greatest numbers from the southern Great Plains and the area along the Mississippi River Valley.
Thanks to my colleague and dear friend, Mark Bauer, for sending me the article.