More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
HuffPost Social Reading
Ann Brenoff

GET UPDATES FROM Ann Brenoff
 

Long-Term Care Insurance Is Expensive

Posted: 12/27/2011 11:01 am

This may scare the bejesus out of you. And I hope so. Lately, I've been spending too much time in the company of boomers who act like we're invincible.

According to a Met Life survey of long-term care costs, it will take more than $87,000 to spend a year in a nursing home, $42,000 for an assisted living place (plus a myriad of extras if you actually need any assistance with your living) and a death-defying $184,000 a year for home health aides working around the clock in eight-hour shifts if you delusionally think you can keep Mom or Pop at home. Oh, and p.s.: Eight out of 10 people over 85 will need this kind of help.

Got that much cash? Didn't think so; few of us do.

What the Met Life study doesn't say -- this is the company whose spokesman is Snoopy, right? -- is that getting old is not only hard on the body, but staying alive when the parts start to fail can seriously suck. And a lot of us are now learning this the hard way as we care for elderly parents and relatives who didn't bother getting long-term care insurance.

What were they thinking? That we'd let them die peacefully in their sleep? Sorry, but modern medicine doesn't really allow for that. We bestow the civility of a compassionate death on our house pets, but insist on employing the full arsenal of the big medicinal guns for the humans we purport to love.

No, this isn't an ode to the memory of Jack Kevorkian, just a friendly reminder that long-term care is an insurance benefit you are more likely to find useful than life insurance since life insurance requires that we actually allow someone to die before a nickel is paid out.

So make your own choice here, or better still, as a gift to your children, get yourself a living will and just ponder these numbers, brought to you courtesy of the Long Term Care National Advisory Center. http://www.longtermcareinsurance.org/

By 2030, one in five Americans will be a senior citizen and estimates are that those needing long-term care insurance will skyrocket to more than 23 million Americans. And each one of them is looking at a projected long-term care costs of about $300,000 a year.

Those who merely need an assisted living arrangement -- where your mom rents an overpriced room in a place and is supposed to be able to make her own way down to the communal dining room -- can expect to spend an additional $352 a month on help getting dressed in the morning and another $307 a month for help getting in and out of the shower. Set aside another $530 a month on top of that if she needs help eating or suffers incontinence or needs a helpful arm to get up off the couch. Medication monitoring? Another $370 a month for when the little calendar pill boxes don't do the trick anymore.

Here's the real catch: While it may be too late for your 80-year-old mother who didn't take out a policy when she was younger, it likely isn't too late for you -- assuming you are still healthy and can accept the idea that even though you look and feel terrific today, you may not down the road.

The insurance isn't cheap though and as the boomer bulge ages, is getting even less so. The average new policy costs 25% to 30% more than it did five years ago, says the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. While no one likes writing a check with a lot of zeroes in it, without a policy, the alternative is that you'll pay out of pocket until you've nearly exhausted your assets and can qualify for Medicaid. That or become a burden to your kids, and too many of us already know what that feels like.

 

Follow Ann Brenoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AnnBrenoff

FOLLOW FIFTY
This may scare the bejesus out of you. And I hope so. Lately, I've been spending too much time in the company of boomers who act like we're invincible. According to a Met Life survey of long-term car...
This may scare the bejesus out of you. And I hope so. Lately, I've been spending too much time in the company of boomers who act like we're invincible. According to a Met Life survey of long-term car...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 131
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
06:30 PM on 01/12/2012
Not sure this has the best headline. Long Term Care Insurance is NOT expensive, it is, in fact, affordable. Long Term Care is expensive and without insurance it can wipe out many people's savings since health insurance and Medicare do not pay for most long term care.

I am 54 and in good health and I have a good policy with inflation and I pay just about $104 bucks a month. My wife pays a little more (124 bucks) but she didn;t get the preferred rate as I did). This is VERY affordable compared to the cost my mom had to pay for homecare, then assisted living and then a nursing home. She spend down almost all her savings in four years.
03:32 AM on 01/01/2012
Life is the biggest procrastination towards death.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
code2high
NOT the flavor of the week
02:54 AM on 01/01/2012
The first thing that people need is to understand what their rights are, and that they have a right to refuse any health care that would extend their lives. Honestly, we make it so hard for people to die now. I know that sounds awful, but it's true. Everyone has to die at some point. Some ways are easy, and some are a lot slower and uglier. Flu shots and pneumonia shots and pacemakers have cut off three of the easier ways to get out of that failing system. What remains is not pleasant and often takes a while.

Then you get the family and doctors and yes, nursing homes (shipping them to the hospital so they can get more money for the first three weeks when they come back), and the next thing you know they're on a feeding tube or, God Help Us All, on a ventilator.

People need to have advanced care directives, and medicare should require this to be on file for ALL enrollees. They can put whatever they want on them, but most wouldn't want that stuff if they actually sat down and wrote one. And serious discussions need to happen around what we're doing with health "care" and why we are making particular choices. Enrollees ought also to be educated on hospice, which is a way to get health care that focuses on the patient's comfort, not on "life" extension when that is no longer a viable option.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:54 AM on 01/01/2012
When you are getting older...just give EVERYTHING away to your kids. Put you home in the kids name. All stocks and bonds into the kids names...You only have to wait FIVE years....THEN you qualify for medi-cal and FREE nursing home care. Yep...that is what I plan on doing. I will be penniless on paper...but still have ALL my money safety with my children..my adult children that is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
loveO
A plague on both their houses
05:37 AM on 01/01/2012
You don't see anything wrong or selfish about that?

The fact that you take advantage of services meant for the poor because you don't want to pay is shameful.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:49 PM on 01/01/2012
OH bleeding heart lib...When this country stops giving free medical care, food stamps, welfare, and other services to ILLEGALS maybe I would become more honest. This country is going down the drain. Our politicians are the most corrupt and dishonest. When they clean up their house....I might do the right thing. Until then..NOPE...
06:33 PM on 01/12/2012
This is silly. The law requires a complete transfer so you can't benefit from the money during this time. Plus, who will pay for your care during this time? Then you end up in a public aide nursing home ... what,, send a few nundred bucks, get plenty of tax free money to pay for care with a long term care policy plus case management. In California they have the partnership which gives you dollar for dollar asset protection and your family doesn't have the burden of going trhough this. Very simple and smart.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
02:31 AM on 01/01/2012
Best health care money can buy.

Long as you got the money. Otherwise, just go lay down and die somewhere, but have the good grace to not do it where we can see you.
06:34 PM on 01/12/2012
Mediaid will pay for care if you are poor. If you have assets then you should plan. Simple.
01:02 AM on 01/01/2012
This is just another scare to get hard working people to invest their money into something. I'm in the military and we have about .$50 taken out of our paycheck every two weeks. That money goes towards the General's retirement home, NOT the enlisted who they are taking the money from. The government knows that half the Americans will not live to see 60 and here we are trying to do the responsible thing and save, invest our money....for what? Most of us will not live to see the benefit from it. We the little people made America and the greedy is milking it dry. My point is every one of us worked our butts off and now we have to face another problem (if it arises) LTC. It should not be that expensive to take care of the people who help keep this nation going.
06:35 PM on 01/12/2012
70% of us will need care if we reach 65 ... and most of us are now living to our 80's. That is fact. Live i yoru fiction world if you want, but my mother needed care, most pople I know have family memeberswho needed help at home or in a facility. Part of life, plan.
12:35 AM on 01/01/2012
Like it or not, costs will dictate that we make big changes in our healthcare delivery system in the future. Govenment will take on a bigger role, and we will have some type of one payer system down the road. But if we really want to do something to curb healthcare costs, we must address the obesity problem in this country.
clarissa49
Independent Traditionalist
11:56 PM on 12/31/2011
I spent a great deal of time with older adults while I was growing up. Most of them were taken care of by family members. The idea of their being in a nursing home was appalling. My mother took care of four older adults during her lifetime. At one point, she reluctantly had to put one of her brothers in a nursing home; fortunately, then nursing home care was reasonable.
I would be prefer death myself rather than existing in a facility!
12:23 AM on 01/01/2012
Doesn't mean you may get a choice.

Worse is my family most of whom believe in dying when they are no longer useful. No hospital or nursing for them, the gun or pills are their favorite method. I lost 2 uncles that way, as they always threatened to.

We all have the hemlock society on speed dial. Now one close relative is redoing her will and saying she's bored and doesn't want to use up her money, she wants to leave it to us. It's very frustrating, she is totally healthy, just in her 80's and tired of TV. I think we are going to DRAG her to a family counselor. As if a parent killing herself is better than visiting a nursing home!

We are coming up with reasons to keep her going another year or two..... weddings, births.
05:31 AM on 01/01/2012
She should.
11:48 PM on 12/31/2011
Just add it to Obamacare and the lot of old people will die early. Then...no problemo!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emmasdolly
11:18 PM on 12/31/2011
The medical industry in America is beyond sick. I volunteered in a nursing home, a very nice one in an upscale town in CT. I did art with the patients. These people were strapped to wheelchairs. Some of them were not even awake. Most of them appeared heavily drugged. I was told if they can't paint that I should hold the paintbrush in their hand and "help" them. The facility was neat and clean, no bad smells. The patients were dressed in clean clothes and had been bathed. But they were a bunch of vegetables. They weren't really living. Is that what people want? I don't have the ansswer.
10:12 PM on 12/31/2011
hide your money and let the government pay for it.
12:24 AM on 01/01/2012
The government is US.
09:46 PM on 12/31/2011
It's simple: 1) get more "healthy" people to join in. This entails convincing them that, even if they are healthy now, they *will* need this service later, so it is in their interest to start paying in NOW. This is hard to do, but the "health" of the fund, so to speak, absolutely relies and requires a "healthy" number of these folks. Remember, if EVERYBODY needing insurance actually collected, there would be no insurance. 2) lower costs. How to do this is the big question. Damned if I know. Looking factually, it means more less people need to be living and using LTC. That's a harsh way of saying it, but it's true. Less old, sick people means less stress on the system. If people will be using expensive resources for 20-30 years (there are posts here that talk about people in their 90s and beyond. That's a LOT of care and costs, way more than the fund is designed to handle) then they either have to accept lower coverage (less cost, presumably) or...pay more. In the end, MORE people need to pay MORE. It is senseless blaming the adminstrator of the fund--the insurance company. Without an adequate pool, which means...yes, MORE funds, the only thing the insurance company can do is work on limiting payouts. This means less paid in benefits. 2+2 only = 4. There's no calculator that comes up with a different result.
12:26 AM on 01/01/2012
Medicare really needs to stop extraordinary care for those who are terminal in 3 months. Palliative care would cut the costs drastically.
01:37 AM on 01/01/2012
Well, sentence them to death, WOW! My father was listed "terminal" ill with cancer, and others that he would last at most 1 yr, well that was in 2001 and he not just living, but is heathier, cancer has not return (living with one lung)and out of wheelchair now and doing very well, driving, ride bike, etc. So IF he did not have heath insurance and IF he needed Medicare, guess he would have died because it took a year to see improvement.
09:46 PM on 12/31/2011
And, if the costs associated with the purpose (again, LTC) go up, then either 1) more people must be recruited to ante up "fees"/premiums or 2) the existing members must pay more or 3) the outgo must be decreased enough to balance the budget. It's not that complicated.In the matter of LTC, the problem is not enough people are joining the pool, AND the costs for care are going up because people are both living much longer than previously and there are more and more expensive options that are now "expected" to be furnished as "necessary" compnents of care. Therefore, premiums must go up, which, of course, has the perverse impact of scaring some away from joining the group in the first place. Chicken or the egg?There ain't no free lunch. People want to be part of this "club," and want others to put their money in the kitty, all the while hoping that those others won't be using the resources they are putting in. People with "pre-existing" conditions, ones that will cost a lot to tend to, costs that they want to borne by those others not needing care, complain that they can't get "affordable" coverage (i.e.: low dues), all the while knowing that they will be the ones putting pressure on the viability of the fund. And so it goes.
09:45 PM on 12/31/2011
People, you DO know what "insurance" is, right? It is where a group pools its money to create a fund for a specific purpose, to be drawn by members who need it. By definition, then, some people will need it,some will not, but the "comfort" of knowing that the fund is there is a benefit and worth it to those who don't end up taking from the pool. To handle the $, and to be sure it is allocated to those who really need it for the specific purpose for which the pool exists, and ensure that the projected needs of the group are covered by the amounts put into the fund, the group hires someone to manage it on their behalf. This is The Insurance Co many loathe. Amounts group members are "asked" (required, of course, if they want to be in the group, but that's the cost of entry) to pay are the premiums. They have to be enough to cover present and future costs of the needed service (long term care). This where it gets tricky. If there aren't enough people paying their "dues," not enough critical mass is achieved to make the fund viable. If more people need to dip into the fund than expected, that's a problem. (That's the unwritten assumption, and the rub, when it comes to insurance: people who need to use the funds are banking on there being enough people who do *not* use them to pay for the users' costs.)
09:36 PM on 12/31/2011
Put them (me) on an iceberg when the time comes. Opps, forgot no more icebergs with global warming.