Usually one family member is the primary caregiver. Women make up 75% and are either a spouse or an adult daughter. Nearly two-thirds of caregivers are working full or part-time.
Spouses, on average, provide 40-60 hours of care per week and adult children provide 15-30 hours of care per week.
The Economic Value of the care provided by families is $196 billion nationwide (1997) - $13.5 billion in New York.
Caregiving costs U.S. businesses an estimated $11.4 billion per year in lost productivity by contributing to the following: replacing employees, absenteeism, partial absenteeism, workday interruption, eldercare crisis, supervisor’s time.
Caregivers adjust their work schedules due to caregiving responsibilities by incorporating the following: making phone calls at work (84%), arriving late/leaving early (69%), taking time off during the day (67%), making up work on weekends/evenings (29%), using sick days (64%), decreased hours (33%), taking a leave of absence (22%).
In 2000, New York had 3.2 million people over the age of 60. By 2010, New York will have 5.5 million people over the age of 60. Also in need of caregiver assistance are families with a disabled child or an older person with disabilities under the age of 60.
The fastest growing segment of the aging population in New York are those 75+ and those 85+. These individuals will need more supportive services, including caregiver supports if they are to remain independent.
The average monthly out-of-pocket expense for a family caregiver is $171 (food, transportation and medication expenses account for top 3 expenses). Total un-reimbursed monthly expenses for family caregivers is $1.5 billion.
Most caregivers start out providing a small amount of care, gradually taking on more responsibility. Caregivers also underestimate the number of hours that would be required and the duration of caregiving responsibilities. The average length of care provided is about 8 years.
Caregiving responsibilities take a toll on the health of the caregivers, and on employee productivity due to increases in absenteeism, early retirement and turnover. Half of surveyed caregivers made additional visits to their health care practitioners. Half reported more than 8 additional visits per year.
Source: Caregiver Fact Sheet
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Experts Disagree on Retiree Health-Cost Estimate
Fidelity Investments says that a 65-year-old couple retiring now without employer-provided health benefits will need $200,000 for out-of-pocket healthcare expenses during retirement, according to data it released this past week. Yet many financial planners and other observers think that is way too little.
“People don’t have a clue as to what they’ll need in the future,” says Ron Roge, a wealth manager in Bohemia, N.Y. “The numbers are frightening.” He has increased the life-span expectancy of his clients to 100, for retirement-planning purposes.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a research organization in Washington, estimates that people could need twice as much as Fidelity predicted because it based its numbers on life expectancies of 82 years for men and 85 for women.
Financial experts are concerned not only because longer life expectancies could make healthcare costs even more burdensome for many Americans, but also because Medicare premiums are expected to rise and more workers will probably lose their company benefits.
The EBRI estimates that a couple without employer-provided retirement healthcare coverage would need $216,000 if they live to 80. That number climbs to $444,000 if they live to 90 and $778,000 if they survive to 100. Most people underestimate how long they will live, said EBRI President.
A 65-year-old man today has a 50% chance of being alive at age 85 and a 25% chance of making it to 92, according to data from the American Society of Actuaries. A 65-year-old woman has a 50% chance of being alive at 88 and a 25% chance of living to 94.
The numbers are even higher for couples. If both are 65, they have a 50% chance of one living to 92 and a 25% chance of one surviving to 97.
The Fidelity prediction, which is updated annually by the financial-services firm, includes expenses associated with Medicare premiums and co-pays for exams and prescription drugs. It doesn’t include the cost of over-the-counter medicines, most dental care or long-term care.
It also doesn’t take into account that the premiums for Medicare are expected to rise, especially for high earners. Medicare beneficiaries with an annual income under $80,000 and $100,000 will pay 35%, and those with at least $200,000 income will be responsible for 80% of premiums.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, Jilian Mincer, April 2006.
“People don’t have a clue as to what they’ll need in the future,” says Ron Roge, a wealth manager in Bohemia, N.Y. “The numbers are frightening.” He has increased the life-span expectancy of his clients to 100, for retirement-planning purposes.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a research organization in Washington, estimates that people could need twice as much as Fidelity predicted because it based its numbers on life expectancies of 82 years for men and 85 for women.
Financial experts are concerned not only because longer life expectancies could make healthcare costs even more burdensome for many Americans, but also because Medicare premiums are expected to rise and more workers will probably lose their company benefits.
The EBRI estimates that a couple without employer-provided retirement healthcare coverage would need $216,000 if they live to 80. That number climbs to $444,000 if they live to 90 and $778,000 if they survive to 100. Most people underestimate how long they will live, said EBRI President.
A 65-year-old man today has a 50% chance of being alive at age 85 and a 25% chance of making it to 92, according to data from the American Society of Actuaries. A 65-year-old woman has a 50% chance of being alive at 88 and a 25% chance of living to 94.
The numbers are even higher for couples. If both are 65, they have a 50% chance of one living to 92 and a 25% chance of one surviving to 97.
The Fidelity prediction, which is updated annually by the financial-services firm, includes expenses associated with Medicare premiums and co-pays for exams and prescription drugs. It doesn’t include the cost of over-the-counter medicines, most dental care or long-term care.
It also doesn’t take into account that the premiums for Medicare are expected to rise, especially for high earners. Medicare beneficiaries with an annual income under $80,000 and $100,000 will pay 35%, and those with at least $200,000 income will be responsible for 80% of premiums.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, Jilian Mincer, April 2006.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Consumer Group Sues Over 'Law' Changing Medicaid Rules
The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen has filed suit in federal court charging that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) signed by President Bush on February 8th is invalid because the president signed a version of the bill that was passed by the U.S. Senate but not the U.S. House of Representatives. Meanwhile, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Henry Waxman, senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, have sent a letter to President Bush requesting clarification on his knowledge of what he was signing.
Among various cuts in social programs, the DRA would place severe new restrictions on the ability of the elderly to transfer assets before qualifying for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care. The measure barely passed both houses of Congress. But the Constitution requires that before a bill can be enacted into law by the president, it must pass both the House and Senate in identical form. Due to a clerk’s substantive change as the legislation passed between houses, the president signed legislation that was passed by the Senate but not the House.
Public Citizen’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, “simply requests the court to uphold the Constitution,” said Adina Rosenbaum, a Public Citizen attorney. “The entire law is invalid because the law the House passed is different from the law the Senate passed and the president signed.”
The Congress and the president have to be brought to account for their rogue actions in moving to enact this very controversial legislation without complying with the Constitution,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “This time, they will have to answer for their actions.”
Public Citizen attorneys said the suit has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in December 2001. The consumer group said it does not expect a full hearing until late spring.
Alabama attorney Jim Zeigler earlier filed suit challenging the DRA’s constitutionality.
“I expect dozens of lawsuits against the DRA, because its constitutional flaw is clear and obvious,” Zeigler said in response to the Public Citizen suit. “Millions of citizens and thousands of businesses are adversely affected by the DRA.”
Zeigler said he expects to soon see senior citizens dependent on oxygen joining the suits as plaintiffs. “They are clearly affected,” he said. “Under the old law, they could receive Medicare oxygen for life. Under the new law, they are literally cut off after 13 months.”
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
Among various cuts in social programs, the DRA would place severe new restrictions on the ability of the elderly to transfer assets before qualifying for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care. The measure barely passed both houses of Congress. But the Constitution requires that before a bill can be enacted into law by the president, it must pass both the House and Senate in identical form. Due to a clerk’s substantive change as the legislation passed between houses, the president signed legislation that was passed by the Senate but not the House.
Public Citizen’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, “simply requests the court to uphold the Constitution,” said Adina Rosenbaum, a Public Citizen attorney. “The entire law is invalid because the law the House passed is different from the law the Senate passed and the president signed.”
The Congress and the president have to be brought to account for their rogue actions in moving to enact this very controversial legislation without complying with the Constitution,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “This time, they will have to answer for their actions.”
Public Citizen attorneys said the suit has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in December 2001. The consumer group said it does not expect a full hearing until late spring.
Alabama attorney Jim Zeigler earlier filed suit challenging the DRA’s constitutionality.
“I expect dozens of lawsuits against the DRA, because its constitutional flaw is clear and obvious,” Zeigler said in response to the Public Citizen suit. “Millions of citizens and thousands of businesses are adversely affected by the DRA.”
Zeigler said he expects to soon see senior citizens dependent on oxygen joining the suits as plaintiffs. “They are clearly affected,” he said. “Under the old law, they could receive Medicare oxygen for life. Under the new law, they are literally cut off after 13 months.”
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Deficit Reduction Act Update: Democrats Demand Hearing, Zeigler Fights On
Continuing efforts to achieve a legislative solution to the controversy surrounding enactment of the Deficit Reduction Ace of 2005 (DRA), three Democrats on the House Administration Committee have sent a letter to Committee Vernon Ehlers requesting an oversight hearing on the constitutional and procedural problems with the measure. The letter questions the legitimacy of the bill because on February 8, the President signed a version that was passed by the Senate but was different from one passed by the House. (See past newsletters for details.)
“This incident strikes at the very core of Congress’ law-making powers and the legitimacy of our constitutional system,” according to the March 8 letter.
Democrats in the House of Representatives say the Act is invalid and are calling for a re-vote because, according to the U.S. Constitution, a law must be approved in identical form by both houses of Congress. Republicans are resisting, not wishing to open a fresh debate on the budget measure’s cutbacks on programs for the poor and middle class.
A spokesman for House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), reported that the Republican majority is not likely to heed the request for a hearing, “but we want to at least put them on the record and then we may ratchet it up after that – get GAO [the Government Accountability Office] or somebody else to do it as well. There are different strategies.” It was also insinuated that there are other lawsuits being filed in addition to the one lodged by Alabama elder law attorney Jim Zeigler, but no specifics were given.
Meanwhile, Zeigler has announced that he is looking for “a few good plaintiffs” to join him in his suit. Zeigler says the addition of persons affected by specific changes in DRA would help his case in two ways: eliminating the possibility that his own legal standing may be challenged and opening the possibility of injunctive relief.
“An ideal plaintiff would be someone soon to be personally affected by the Feb. 8 changes, “ Zeigler said. “We could then apply for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to enjoin the effective date of the Act pending the outcome of the case.”
“We have just obtained service of process on the local U.S. Attorney and are still awaiting return of service from the U.S. Attorney General,” Zeigler added. “We expect them to take the maximum time to file responsive pleadings.”
Zeigler is not raising funds for the suit on his website www.JimZeigler.com. The Alabama attorney, who was once a member of President Bush’s legal team, now estimates the cost will be $750,000; his earlier estimate of $300,000 did not reflect bond and appeals.
The controversy over the DRA’s constitutionality has caught the notice of Wall Street. The publication TheStreet.com published an article on the dispute’s possible impact on home health care providers.
“This incident strikes at the very core of Congress’ law-making powers and the legitimacy of our constitutional system,” according to the March 8 letter.
Democrats in the House of Representatives say the Act is invalid and are calling for a re-vote because, according to the U.S. Constitution, a law must be approved in identical form by both houses of Congress. Republicans are resisting, not wishing to open a fresh debate on the budget measure’s cutbacks on programs for the poor and middle class.
A spokesman for House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), reported that the Republican majority is not likely to heed the request for a hearing, “but we want to at least put them on the record and then we may ratchet it up after that – get GAO [the Government Accountability Office] or somebody else to do it as well. There are different strategies.” It was also insinuated that there are other lawsuits being filed in addition to the one lodged by Alabama elder law attorney Jim Zeigler, but no specifics were given.
Meanwhile, Zeigler has announced that he is looking for “a few good plaintiffs” to join him in his suit. Zeigler says the addition of persons affected by specific changes in DRA would help his case in two ways: eliminating the possibility that his own legal standing may be challenged and opening the possibility of injunctive relief.
“An ideal plaintiff would be someone soon to be personally affected by the Feb. 8 changes, “ Zeigler said. “We could then apply for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to enjoin the effective date of the Act pending the outcome of the case.”
“We have just obtained service of process on the local U.S. Attorney and are still awaiting return of service from the U.S. Attorney General,” Zeigler added. “We expect them to take the maximum time to file responsive pleadings.”
Zeigler is not raising funds for the suit on his website www.JimZeigler.com. The Alabama attorney, who was once a member of President Bush’s legal team, now estimates the cost will be $750,000; his earlier estimate of $300,000 did not reflect bond and appeals.
The controversy over the DRA’s constitutionality has caught the notice of Wall Street. The publication TheStreet.com published an article on the dispute’s possible impact on home health care providers.
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Lawsuit to Invalidate Deficit Reduction Act Pending
An Alabama lawyer has filed a lawsuit seeking to void the $39 billion budget savings act signed into law February 8 by President Bush because of a clerical error that resulted in the House and Senate passing different versions of the bill.
It is said that it is not a valid law because it was not passed in identical form by both chambers. The problem is that at this time it is difficult to represent older folks who are intending to get Medicaid nursing home eligibility because it is unclear on whether to advise them to follow the post-Feb. 8 law that is unconstitutional or the pre-Feb. 8 law that is constitutional.
No hearing date has been set and it is unclear if the case will even be awarded a hearing. Several consitutional law scholars have predicted that if given the chance, the courts could rule that the act violates the bicameral clause of the Constitution, which requires both chambers to pass identical legislation before the president signs it into law.
It is anticipated that elderly people directly affected by the new law will join the suit shortly to enhance the chances that the court will grant standing in the case. The issue arose as a result of an error by a Senate clerk that changed a portion of the bill limiting rentals of durable medical equipment other than oxygen equipment to 36 months instead of the 13 months that was in the measure passed by the Senate. The clerk then changed the number back to 13 after the House voted on the bill.
The Congressional Budget Office, in response to a request by House Democrats, has estimated the difference between a 13-month limit and a 36-month limit on the medical equipment to be $2 billion over five years.
This provisoin in the law will penalize seniors who give money to their church, to their relatives or to charity by totaling those gifts over a five-year period and penalizing them, making them ineligible for Medicaid coverage.
Source: Steven T. Dennis, CQ staff
It is said that it is not a valid law because it was not passed in identical form by both chambers. The problem is that at this time it is difficult to represent older folks who are intending to get Medicaid nursing home eligibility because it is unclear on whether to advise them to follow the post-Feb. 8 law that is unconstitutional or the pre-Feb. 8 law that is constitutional.
No hearing date has been set and it is unclear if the case will even be awarded a hearing. Several consitutional law scholars have predicted that if given the chance, the courts could rule that the act violates the bicameral clause of the Constitution, which requires both chambers to pass identical legislation before the president signs it into law.
It is anticipated that elderly people directly affected by the new law will join the suit shortly to enhance the chances that the court will grant standing in the case. The issue arose as a result of an error by a Senate clerk that changed a portion of the bill limiting rentals of durable medical equipment other than oxygen equipment to 36 months instead of the 13 months that was in the measure passed by the Senate. The clerk then changed the number back to 13 after the House voted on the bill.
The Congressional Budget Office, in response to a request by House Democrats, has estimated the difference between a 13-month limit and a 36-month limit on the medical equipment to be $2 billion over five years.
This provisoin in the law will penalize seniors who give money to their church, to their relatives or to charity by totaling those gifts over a five-year period and penalizing them, making them ineligible for Medicaid coverage.
Source: Steven T. Dennis, CQ staff
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Update on the New Medicaid Law
A mistake on “The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" which was purportedly signed into law by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006, could mean that it is not technically a law. But, congressional Republicans said that they have no plans to try to fix the problem, even though a fellow NAELA (National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys) member, Jim Zeigler, has filed a lawsuit charging the $39 billion deficit-cutting legislation Bush signed is unconstitutional because the House and Senate failed to pass identical versions. House GOP leaders insist there’s no problem.
The bill, which Bush signed February 8, tightens rules for Medicaid nursing home eligibility to make it more difficult for those who have transferred their assets to their families or to charities to qualify for Medicaid.
Zeigler, who advises the elderly on eligibility for nursing home care under the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, filed suit Monday in federal court in Mobile, Ala., naming Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a defendant. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined comment on the case.
House Democrats, accusing GOP leaders of abusing the legislative process, have asked for another vote. On the last vote February 1, the bill passed by the narrowest of margins, 216-214.
The White House and House and Senate GOP leaders say the matter is settled because the mistake was technical and that top House and Senate leaders certified the bill before transmitting it to the White House.
We urge you to seek the counsel of Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern immediately as we alert you to this new law and its consequences. There is also a possibility that a window of opportunity may exist to plan under the old law before New York implements the new law. We will continue to remain dedicated to preserving the rights and the dignity of senior citizens and those with special needs. We urge you to plan now.
The bill, which Bush signed February 8, tightens rules for Medicaid nursing home eligibility to make it more difficult for those who have transferred their assets to their families or to charities to qualify for Medicaid.
Zeigler, who advises the elderly on eligibility for nursing home care under the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, filed suit Monday in federal court in Mobile, Ala., naming Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a defendant. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined comment on the case.
House Democrats, accusing GOP leaders of abusing the legislative process, have asked for another vote. On the last vote February 1, the bill passed by the narrowest of margins, 216-214.
The White House and House and Senate GOP leaders say the matter is settled because the mistake was technical and that top House and Senate leaders certified the bill before transmitting it to the White House.
We urge you to seek the counsel of Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern immediately as we alert you to this new law and its consequences. There is also a possibility that a window of opportunity may exist to plan under the old law before New York implements the new law. We will continue to remain dedicated to preserving the rights and the dignity of senior citizens and those with special needs. We urge you to plan now.
Monday, February 6, 2006
New Law Passed!
On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (S. 1932) by a vote of 216 to 214. The Senate has already passed the bill by a vote of 51 to 50, with the Vice President breaking the tie. The bill will now be sent to the President for signature.
This is a sad day for older Americans and individuals with disabilities facing long-term care crises. It is a sad day for many of our clients who will face confusing and unfair Medicaid eligibility rules. Transfers made after the date of the President’s signature (or New York State implementation) will be subject to the new law. Importantly, transfers made prior to this new law will not be effected and any advice we gave you on those transfers still holds true.
The new law extends the “look back period” to five (5) years for all transfers (to trusts or otherwise) and starts the Medicaid penalty period from the first day of the month after which you enter a nursing home and apply for Medicaid rather than the first day of the month after which you actually made a transfer. The biggest criticism of this new law is that when you apply for Medicaid, you will have no assets and no ability to pay for your care.
We urge you to seek our counsel immediately as we alert you to this new law and its consequences. There is also a possibility that a window of opportunity may exist to plan under the old law before New York implements the new law. We will continue to remain dedicated to preserving the rights and the dignity of senior citizens and those with special needs. We urge you to plan now.
This is a sad day for older Americans and individuals with disabilities facing long-term care crises. It is a sad day for many of our clients who will face confusing and unfair Medicaid eligibility rules. Transfers made after the date of the President’s signature (or New York State implementation) will be subject to the new law. Importantly, transfers made prior to this new law will not be effected and any advice we gave you on those transfers still holds true.
The new law extends the “look back period” to five (5) years for all transfers (to trusts or otherwise) and starts the Medicaid penalty period from the first day of the month after which you enter a nursing home and apply for Medicaid rather than the first day of the month after which you actually made a transfer. The biggest criticism of this new law is that when you apply for Medicaid, you will have no assets and no ability to pay for your care.
We urge you to seek our counsel immediately as we alert you to this new law and its consequences. There is also a possibility that a window of opportunity may exist to plan under the old law before New York implements the new law. We will continue to remain dedicated to preserving the rights and the dignity of senior citizens and those with special needs. We urge you to plan now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)