Putting Boomers to Pasture: Does the 2010 MIPPA Legislation Reinforce the Nursing Home Bias?ExpressO (2012)
AbstractUnfunded health care expenses pose one of the greatest threats to the postretirement income security of seniors in America today. It is estimated that the average couple retiring in 2012 will require savings of approximately a quarter million dollars dedicated solely to their unfunded postretirement health care expenses, but this estimate does not factor in the expensive long-term care that most retirees will require toward the end of their lives. That the quarter-million dollar figure does not include the rapidly increasing cost of long-term care should alarm both retirees and those baby boomers approaching retirement age today. Controversial healthcare reform provisions add a greater degree of uncertainty to the government assistance available to these seniors. While cost-saving home and community based health services have been encouraged by the Supreme Court’s integrated care mandate, as outlined in the Olmstead decision, implementation of these programs among the states has often been reluctant, so that the availability of home-based care fluctuates substantially from state to state. While this tiered implementation approach has limited availability of in-home care for retirees in many states, it allows for the empirical study of the cost-savings that can be realized from increased access to home-based care at various developmental levels. Today, substantial cost-savings may be realized where home and community based care is available, yet funding this care must be achieved privately because recent federal legislation has caused the defunding of government programs that provided coverage for at-home care. The 2010 MIPPA legislation defunded the at-home recovery benefit that the vast majority of non-Medicaid-eligible seniors relied upon to access these in-home services, leaving private funding as the sole option for these seniors. Unfortunately, financial advisors and attorneys have largely failed to initiate the necessary planning dialogue that would help their clients privately fund in-home care. Similarly, clients have resisted conversations on their end-of-life choices because of the traditionally negative connotations associated with such discussions. This article proposes that selective enforcement of current filial support statutes, coupled with increased emphasis on the potential imposition of professional liability for failure to discuss end-of-life planning, can provide the motivation that advisors and clients require to develop comprehensive plans for outlining care preferences and financing end-of-life care.
Publication DateAugust 15, 2012
Citation InformationRobert S Bloink. "Putting Boomers to Pasture: Does the 2010 MIPPA Legislation Reinforce the Nursing Home Bias?" ExpressO (2012)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/robert_bloink/2/