I WANT MY FATHER TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

In Daddy Issues: Why caring for my aging father has me wishing he would die (Atlantic Magazine, March 2012), Sandra Tsing Loh presents a personal account of the stress and sense of futility and eventual desperation she feels in her struggle to care for her aging father. 

Ms. Loh begins with Gail Sheehy’s description of the freedom 50-year olds experience after the kids are grown and their parents are enjoying their “golden years” by cashing in on frequent flyer miles to travel the globe – which differ from Ms. Loh’s experience as much as heaven differs from hell.

In fact, over 70% of all Americans over 65 will need some form of long-term care, and although Ms. Loh’s experience is extremely difficult, it is not uncommon.  Her account begins with her father’s plan that his much younger wife would care for him. This failed miserably when her signs of dementia began to occur at the same time he declined dramatically.

She continues with her futile attempts to hire caregivers (at her own expense), most of whom quit the first day because her father is such a difficult case.  Once she finally finds someone who can handle her father, she and the caregiver form a team, and the need for her substantial role wreaks havoc with her own life.  

This article is quite long and very difficult to read.  Her sad story and her honesty about her struggle are very provocative.  Many readers commented that the author is a self centered bitch, while just as many laud her for her candor and humor. Still others commented in spectacular detail about their resentment & anger towards their own needy parent. 

Since I see or hear about variations of this dilemma every day, I admire Ms. Loh’s candor and courage in telling her sad story, which she expressed with great honesty and a sense of humor. 

Anyone who takes the time to read it will want to own long-term care insurance.

 

The Cost of Entitlements Just Goes Up and Up

“Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It” (NY Times, Feb. 12, 2012, pp. A1, 24) presents frightening trends that threaten the well being of every American.  A myriad of benefits programs provided over $6,500 for every man, woman and child in the US in 2009, a 69% increase from 2000.  And although the primary objective of these programs was to keep Americans out of poverty, the poorest Americans no longer receive the majority of government benefits. 

Trends in the need and cost of these programs are sobering.  Nearly 50% of Americans lived in households receiving government benefits in 2010, up from 38% in 1998 and 44% just before the recession in 2007.  And spending on medical benefits is projected to rise 60% over the next 10 years.  As the baby boomers age, the number of Americans covered by Medicare will increase by one-third.  These increases will make spending on medical benefits higher than every other expenditure in the federal budget expect interest on the national debt – higher even than the money invested in education or defense!

And where will the money come from to cover all these national expenses?  Not from the taxes we pay.  For example, “a 45-year old woman who earns $43,500 in 2010 will pay taxes worth $87,000 to the federal government by the time she retires, BUT the government will spend $275,000 for her medical care before she dies.  As the economists say, “There is no free lunch.”

As the boomers age, increasing numbers of them will also need long-term care, which is covered by Medicaid or personal funds, NOT Medicare.  And, of course, the demand for long-term care will continue to increase – even as Medicaid funds shrink.  How sad…

One way to maintain your dignity in your final years AND to minimize physical, emotional and financial stress on your family is to own long-term care insurance to cover these expenses that can average over $70,000 per year.  You owe it to yourself and your family to give this option careful thought.

Perfect Storm Brewing in Texas Assisted Living Facilities

In “Budget cuts elicit fears for elderly” (Houston Chronicle, January 30, 2012, B1, B5), Renee C. Lee documented some frightening trends in Assisted living (AL) facilities throughout Texas.

As in virtually every state, the eldest Baby Boomers are turning 66 this year and the number of Texans needing long-term care will continue rising for the next two decades.  On a positive note, the number of AL facilities has increased from 1,355 in 2000, to 1,440 in 2007, to 1,621 in 2011.  Unfortunately, this growth is a mixed blessing because there are nearly 20% more facilities that must be periodically inspected to ensure that state regulations for the industry are being met.  And Texas has been slow to revise current regulations to adjust to the growing demand for long-term care. 

Second, the TX Department of Aging and Disability Services recently eliminated 60 inspectors who enforce state regulations!  Consequently, the typical AL facility will be visited every 18 to 24 months.  Even before the cuts in staff, horror stories of bedbugs, physical and sexual abuse by staff, and failure to report missing residents abound.  The only rational conclusion is that less inspection will result in failure to detect more mistreatment of the elderly.

Third, “Texas requires as little as 16 hours of on-the-job training for attendants, allows medication to be administered without a license and doesn’t require specific staff-resident ratios,” Lee reports.  Carmen Castro, an advocate for the elderly, referred to this situation as “the Wild West.”

So there you have it – a sobering combination of increasing need, less frequent inspection, and inadequate training and requirements for attendants is brewing in Texas (and very likely in many other states).  These conditions can only lead to more misery for our parents and grandparents – and ourselves – in their final years.

One solution, so course, is for seniors to be very careful to choose only the most reputable, well staffed AL facilities with the best endorsements from current residents.  Sadly, however, the high cost of quality AL can severely drain the life savings of many Americans needing long-term care.  So many must settle for the cheapest facilities they can find.

On the other hand, Americans who own long-term care insurance (LTCi) are armed with financial resources that enable them to be much more selective about the type of facility they choose.

Word of the Long-Term Care Crisis is Spreading

 ”The long term care system in Hawaii is broken, “according to the December 13, 2011 Draft Final Report of the Hawaii Long term Care Commission (http://www.publicpolicycenter.hawaii.edu/documents/LTCC_FINALREPORT_draft14dec.pdf. 2424 Maile Way, Saunders 723,Honolulu,HI96822).  And as noted in several previous blogs, the crisis will get worse because of the aging of the Baby Boomers.  Furthermore, the population from which care givers are drawn is beginning to decline. 

 Members of this Commission clearly “get it.”  They note that 75% of people over 65 will eventually need some form of long-term care (LTC) and that people need to begin planning for this prospect well before they reach their 60s.  The report also cites an average cost of $80,000 per year in a nursing home and the lack of public funds to cover these enormous costs.

A recent survey (2011 Long-term Care Consumer Survey and Quiz Results John Hancock Life Insurance Company U.S.A., Boston, MA02117. https://www.jhltc.com/uploadedFiles/PDFs_for_Newslinks_and_Banners/January_2012/ltc_6284_0112.pdfo) includes encouraging evidence that public also “gets it.”  In a sample of 1,000 Americans aged 21 – 75, 82% agreed that it is irresponsible not to plan for the cost of long-term care.  On the negative side, however, only 11% actually own long-term care insurance (LTCi).  And while 62% agreed that LTCi was the best way to do such planning, only one-third were inclined to purchase a policy in today’s economy.

So news about the growing need for LTC and the lack of resources to fund care is getting to the public.  But Americans are still reluctant to invest their own money to purchase insurance for their own LTC.

The solution to this perplexing & frustrating problem is nicely summed up in the Hawaiian Commission’s first two recommendations:

“Conduct a long-term care education and awareness campaign

Treat the risk of needing long-term care as a normal life risk” (p. 10)

This has been my mission for over 20 years.

Is group Long-Term Care Insurance cheaper or better? Quite doubtful.

There are quite a few reasons why, more often than not, employer-offered long-term care insurance (LTCi) is not a better deal than a comparable individual policy.

According to a January 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal article by Leslie Scism, “When Should You Buy Insurance from your Boss?”, “Many people assume insurance offered by their employer is a better deal than they can get on their own. But while the premiums can be lower, such policies have drawbacks.”

LTCi Specialist Andrea Graham of Upstate Special Risk Services, Inc. inRochester,NY (thanks for allowing me to publish this, Andrea!) adds, “My background is employee benefits, and I will tell any producer who asks, individual LTCi is always better than group, even if the price is the same or higher.”

“Group insurers know they are dealing with working people, a generally healthy population. These carriers are also dealing with ‘young’ ages on average; in 20 years I had one death claim on an employee. Some types of insurance, dental for example, might only be available to a group – likewise for some health insurance benefits or riders. For this reason, employee benefits at the larger companies that offer group LTCi are usually very good (think GM, IBM), and employees rightly feel that their group benefits are better and cheaper than anything they could buy on the individual side. So they are dumbfounded to find that they can get a nicer LTCi policy, usually for the same or less premium, by shopping the individual market!”

“This is because all employee group benefits disappear or reduce significantly when the employee turns 65 and/or retires, and the carriers offering these coverages know full well that their risk is based on actively-at-work full-time young(er) employees. Hospitalization turns into Medicare. Any group life that might remain is reduced to a small death claim. Group disability stops when the employee stops working, and most employees do not offer dental or vision coverage to retirees.”

“Group LTCi is the only benefit a retired employee carries out the door with them, the only benefit that continues to grow in value just when the risk increases for the carrier. Carriers who specialize in guaranteed-issue group (John Hancock, Met Life, Prudential, CNA) are well aware of this, well aware of the adverse selection they will be accepting, well aware that they’re lucky to get 10 percent of employees to enroll”

“Therefore, these policies are more restrictive, offer fewer choices, and are usually more expensive than individual coverage, especially if the employee wants to include inflation protection.”

“You will never see 100% home care benefits in group coverage; you will have a 90-day elimination, no more no less, and no other riders are available. The community-care benefits in a LTCi policy are what matter, tell me what you’ll do to keep me out of a nursing home! Group contracts offer very little in the way of bells & whistles, they may say they’ll provide “informal” care but read the fine print, highly restrictive and informal might mean ‘not a home care agency,’ very little in the way of assistance or on-site care coordination which can be so valuable to a family. Most group coverage does not qualify for state partnership asset protection programs; they don’t try as most employees wouldn’t pay for compound inflation anyway.”

“There are employer-sponsored small groups, where better policies are available although maximum benefits might be restricted, but these would not be guaranteed issue although you might get some underwriting concessions for employees; most carriers offer some version of this type of group and I’m not including these small groups in the discussion above.”

Let me throw in my two-cents-worth!  In addition to agreeing with everything Andrea states, I want to emphasize that group LTCi typically has only one rate band and does not offer spousal discounts. Married people, and/or those in Preferred health, are penalized, in terms of rates, and “subsidize” the premiums of those in poor health. Therefore, if you’re not very healthy, especially if you’re also single and/or older, group plans may be a good deal for you.

In my opinion, choosing the right LTCi plan is very difficult for a typical employee and as a result, many group LTCi offerings have a low “take up” rate. My experience is that many just put off acting on their group LTCi offer because the choices are so complex and potentially confusing.

The very worst thing I see on a regular basis is someone’s insistence that their group LTCi is cheaper than any individual policy I can show them. Indeed, many have boasted that their LTCi is a bargain at only $25 or $50/month. But these premiums are that low primarily because they’ve chosen a policy with no built-in inflation protection. When I do an “apples-to-apples” comparison with an individual policy, the group policy’s cost is always higher. I emphasize again: group LTCi is not cheaper for the reasons Andrea and I have given!

LTCi purchased without automatic, built-in inflation protection, is often dangerous for policy holders. Such coverage can cause clients stress and insecurity in later years when they realize that their group LTCi’s benefits have not kept pace with the current care costs.

 

Did lack of $$ to pay for care have a role in these murders?

A tragic story in the January 16, 2012, issue of USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-15/ohio-woman-dies-murder-suicide/52584916/1) illustrates the extreme level of stress that family members can experience while caring for a loved one at home. 

“LOGAN, Ohio (AP) – A terminally ill woman has died days after her husband fatally shot their adult son and her two sisters in front of her at a southeastern Ohio home and then killed himself.

Authorities said the shootings last Monday in ruralLoganapparently stemmed from family tensions over the care of the cancer-stricken woman, 59-year-old Darlene Gilkey. She was not hurt in the shootings and was taken to a medical facility afterward. 

Her daughter-in-law, Heather Sowers, said Gilkey died Saturday, hours before the funeral for her 38-year-old son, Leroy Gilkey ofColumbus.”

The stress on unpaid family care givers has been documented in many studies. Stories like this cause me to wonder how much this family’s lack of finances and lack of access to respite care contributed to these murders. Don’t you think that if Ms. Gilkey owned long-term care insurance (LTCi), the care her policy would have paid for might have made a big qualitative difference for this family, and possibly averted this tragedy?

Bargaining with your child for long-term care

In a January 15 Sunday Review article in the New York Times, “Bargaining for a Child’s Love,” Hendrik Hartog stated that the image from the early 20th Century of adult children lovingly taking care of their parents during their decline has been somewhat romanticized.  Yes, the custom was for family members to provide long-term care for their parents, but since over half the US population died before age 65, the burden was often relatively brief.  But there were also either implicit or explicit bargains discussed – parents would pass on their homes and other assets to their family caregivers after their death.  These often informal promises could lead to family strife, however, after the parent’s death.  Hartog adds that “…of course what was at stake was never just an economic bargain between rational actors. Older people negotiated with the young to receive love, to be cared for with affection, not just self-interest.” 

He goes on, “Dependency and disability still confront us as facts of life. There is little happiness in the inevitable but unpredictable decline that awaits all of us. And many younger people still experience themselves as trapped by a sense of duty to care for older relatives.” 

Hartog argues that policy and bureaucratic supports such as social security, Medicare and Medicaid have softened the burden on today’s family members, but in a letter to the Editor on p. A20 in the January 19, 2012 New York Times (Caring for Elderly Parents) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/caring-for-elderly-parents.html?ref=todayspaper, Carole Levine cites dramatic statistics that many children provide long-term care for their parents with little or no assistance from government entities.  Citing Hartog’s claim “…that today middle-class family members don’t do the work of cleaning bedsheets, helping a parent into a bathtub, changing a diaper,” Levine counters that “in fact, according to the 2009 National Alliance for Caregiving national survey, this is exactly what at least 21 percent of the country’s 48 million caregivers do, as well as managing complex medications, arranging transportation, financial and legal affairs, and countless other tasks.” 

Levine correctly notes that “Most insurance, including Medicare, does not pay for this ‘custodial’ care,” and as I have pointed out many times in this blog, Medicaid provides funds only after families have depleted their own financial resources. 

Sadly, neither contributor mentioned LTCi as a wise and reasonable option that will provide funds to pay for long-term care and alleviate the family conflict and stress so accurately described.

So What If the Government Pays for Most LTC?

Thanks to my good friend and colleague Steve Moses, of the Center for Long-Term Care Reform for the following guest column. I am re-publishing his blog because it gives unusual insight and makes complicated information easy to understand.

“So What If the Government Pays for Most LTC?, 2010 Data Update”
by
Stephen A. Moses

Ever wonder why LTC insurance sales and market penetration are so discouraging?  Or why reverse mortgages are rarely used to pay for long-term care?  Or why LTC service providers are always struggling to survive financially and still provide quality care?  Read on.

America spent $143.1 billion on nursing facilities and Continuing Care Retirement Communities in 2010.  The percentage of these costs paid by Medicaid and Medicare has gone up over the past 40 years (from 26.8% in 1970 to 53.8% in 2010, up 27.0 % of the total) while out-of-pocket costs have declined (from 49.5% in 1970 to 28.3% in 2010, down 21.2% of the total).  Source:  http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf, Table 12.

SO WHAT?  Consumers’ liability for nursing home and CCRC costs has declined by 43% in the past four decades, while the share paid by Medicaid and Medicare has more than doubled. 

No wonder people are not as eager to buy LTC insurance as insurers would like them to be!  No wonder they don’t use home equity for LTC when Medicaid exempts most home equity.  No wonder nursing homes are struggling financially–their dependency on parsimonious government reimbursements is increasing while their more profitable private payers are disappearing. 

Unfortunately, these problems are even worse than the preceding data suggest.  Over half of the so-called “out-of-pocket” costs reported by CMS are really just contributions toward their cost of care by people already covered by Medicaid!  These are not out-of-pocket costs in terms of ASSET spend down, but rather only INCOME, most of which comes from Social Security benefits, another government program.  Thus, although Medicaid pays less than one-third the cost of nursing home care (31.5% of the dollars in 2010), it covers two-thirds of all nursing home residents.  Because people in nursing homes on Medicaid tend to be long-stayers, Medicaid pays something toward nearly 80 percent of all patient days. 

SO WHAT?  Medicaid pays in full or subsidizes almost four-fifths of all nursing home patient days.  If it pays even one dollar per month (with the rest contributed from the recipient’s income), the nursing home receives Medicaid’s dismally low reimbursement rate. 

No wonder the public is not as worried about nursing home costs as LTC insurers think they should be.  No wonder nursing homes are facing insolvency all around the United States when so much of their revenue comes from Medicaid, often at reimbursement rates less than the cost of providing the care.

Don’t be fooled by the 8.9% of nursing home costs that CMS reports as having been paid by “private health insurance” in 2010.  That category does not include private long-term care insurance.  (See category definitions here.)  No one knows how much LTC insurance pays toward nursing home care, because most LTCI policies pay beneficiaries, not nursing homes.  Thus, a large proportion of insurance payments for nursing home care gets reported as if it were “out-of-pocket” payments because private payers write the checks to the nursing home but are reimbursed by their LTC insurance policies.  This fact further inflates the out-of-pocket figure artificially.

How does all this affect assisted living facilities?  ALFs are 90% private pay and they cost an average of $41,724 per year (Source:  2011 MetLife survey at http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-market-survey-nursing-home-assisted-living-adult-day-services-costs.pdf).  Many people who could afford assisted living by spending down their illiquid wealth, especially home equity, choose instead to take advantage of Medicaid nursing home benefits.  Medicaid exempts one home and all contiguous property (up to $525,000 or $786,000 depending on the state), plus one business, and one automobile of unlimited value, plus many other non-countable assets, not to mention sophisticated asset sheltering and divestment techniques marketed by Medicaid planning attorneys.  Income rarely interferes with Medicaid nursing home eligibility unless such income exceeds the cost of private nursing home care. 

SO WHAT?  For most people, Medicaid nursing home benefits are easy to obtain without spending down assets significantly and Medicaid’s income contribution requirement is usually much less expensive than paying the full cost of assisted living. 

No wonder ALFs are struggling to attract enough private payers to be profitable.  No wonder people are not as eager to buy LTC insurance as insurers would like them to be.

The situation with home health care financing is very similar to nursing home financing.  According to CMS, America spent $70.2 billion on home health care in 2010.  Medicare (44.9%) and Medicaid (37.3%) paid 82.2% of this total and private insurance paid 6.4%.  Only 7.1% of home health care costs were paid out of pocket.  The remainder came from several small public and private financing sources.  Data source:  http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf, Table 4.

SO WHAT?  Only one out of every 14 dollars spent on home health care comes out of the pockets of patients and a large portion of that comes from the income (not assets) of people already on Medicaid.

No wonder the public does not feel the sense of urgency about this risk that long-term care insurers think they should

Bottom line, people only buy insurance against real financial risk.  As long as they can ignore the risk, avoid the premiums, and get government to pay for their long-term care when and if such care is needed, they will remain in “denial” about the need for LTC insurance.  As long as Medicaid and Medicare are paying for a huge proportion of all nursing home and home health care costs while out-of-pocket expenditures remain only nominal, nursing homes and home health agencies will remain starved for financial oxygen. 

The solution is simple.  Target Medicaid financing of long-term care to the needy and use the savings to fund education and tax incentives to encourage the public to plan early to be able to pay privately for long-term care.  For ideas and recommendations on how to implement this solution, see www.centerltc.com.

Note especially:

“Medi-Cal Long-Term Care:  Safety Net or Hammock?” at http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20110104_LongTermCare_final(2).pdf;

“Doing LTC RIght” at http://www.centerltc.com/pubs/Doing_LTC_RIght.pdf;

“The LTC Graduate Seminar Transcript” at http://www.centerltc.com/members/LTCGradSemTranscription.pdf (requires password, contact smoses@centerltc.com);

“Aging America’s Achilles’ Heel:  Medicaid Long-Term Care” at http://www.centerltc.com/AgingAmericasAchillesHeel.pdf; and

“The Realist’s Guide to Medicaid and Long-Term Care” at http://www.centerltc.org/realistsguide.pdf.

In the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress took some small steps toward addressing these problems.  A cap was placed on Medicaid’s home equity exemption and several of the more egregious Medicaid planning abuses were ended.  But much more remains to be done.  With the Age Wave starting to crest and threatening to crash over the next two decades, we can only hope it isn’t too late already.

Stephen A. Moses is president of the Center for Long-Term Care Reform in Seattle, Washington.  The Center’s mission is to ensure quality long-term care for all Americans.  Steve Moses writes, speaks and consults throughout the United States on long-term care policy.  He is the author of the study “Aging America’s Achilles’ Heel: Medicaid Long-Term Care,” published by the Cato Institute (www.cato.org).  Learn more at www.centerltc.com or email smoses@centerltc.com.

“I don’t want to be a burden on my children.”

A recent article (“Aging and Broke, More Lean on Family,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 31, 2011) by E.S. Browning documents a disturbing trend among boomers and their parents.  And if Americans continue to avoid responsible planning for their long-term care, boomers and their CHILDREN will be confronted with an even more pervasive problem. Increasing numbers of aging boomers will live with their children or receive financial aid from them.

Browning reported that “Thirty-nine percent of adults with parents 65 and older reported giving parents financial aid in the past year, according to a September Pew Research Center survey. Some parents may have trouble acknowledging it: 10% of parents 65 and older reported receiving aid. …In 1900, 57% of adults 65 and older lived with relatives, according to Pew Research. Because of Social Security, Medicare and improving health and wealth, that rate declined to 17% by 1990, Pew says. Now it is up to 20%.”

As the boomers continue to age, this percentage is extremely likely to increase, and the result will be growing levels of emotional, physical and financial stress among family members.  Long-term Care Insurance provides dignity and choice and helps families avoid this kind of crisis.

Medicaid outlook bleak for providers in 2012

A new report by Eljay LLC (A Report on Shortfalls in Medicaid Funding for Nursing Home Care, © 2011 Eljay, LLC. All rights reserved), on behalf of the American Health Care Association, states that the unprecedented state of budget deficits will result in historically low Medicaid nursing home reimbursements. Because of this, the report projects nursing homes will average a $19.55 shortfall, per patient, per day in 2011, up from $16.54/day in 2009.

Many nursing facilities have counted on profitability from Medicare patients to offset the profit they lose on Medicaid patients. In 2012, Medicare payments to nursing homes will be scaled back, effectively eliminating this “profitability patch.”

Recent LTCQueen blogs have predicted that the quality of government financed long-term care would diminish; here’s evidence that it will, sooner than many are willing to admit. These tragic circumstances make long-term care insurance ownership more compelling than ever.