Introduction
Even the best-laid plans can go awry. People face many hurdles to ample planning for retirement and, even when precautions are taken, they might be overwhelmed by a large enough shock. Particularly, massive medical and long-term care (LTC) spending shocks can devastate retirees’ hard-won funds. What, then, do people and households do when first-line plans to take care of healthcare prices fail? This paper research the results of huge out-of-pocket (OOP) medical and LTC shocks on retired households to discover this query, specializing in the Medicare-eligible inhabitants of over 65-year-olds. A big shock represents a failure of insurance coverage to insulate the family from the healthcare expenditure, both due to lack of protection (typical for LTC) or due to cost-sharing in present insurance coverage (typical in medical insurance).
The evaluation has two elements. First, it presents outcomes from a current survey coping with healthcare shocks in retirement. This paper focuses on a small collection of questions from the survey, demonstrating what people imagine their fallback choices are after a healthcare shock. The evaluation then turns to the Well being and Retirement Examine (HRS), a big longitudinal survey, to estimate how households really fare following a big healthcare expenditure. We look at the years 2002-2016. All through, we use “healthcare” to consult with any health-related prices, whether or not they contain periodic medical care or long-term care.
A medical shock is outlined as an expenditure within the prime ten % of medical OOP bills in a given yr. These prices are comprised of funds to docs, hospitals, dentists, and for outpatient surgical procedure and pharmaceuticals. As a result of OOP LTC spending is comparatively uncommon, an LTC shock is outlined as having any optimistic spending on nursing residence or residence care. To investigate the results of such shocks, the evaluation should deal with the truth that households bearing such massive OOP prices usually are not much like households spared these shocks. In response, we comply with the methodology described in Fadlon and Nielsen (2021), evaluating households that have a shock in a given yr to households that will expertise the identical shock 4 years sooner or later. The belief right here is that the precise timing of the shock is random, even when the kind of households that have such shocks just isn’t. The method yields a difference-in-differences estimate of the causal results of such shocks.
Briefly, we discover that LTC shocks result in drawdown of residence fairness; discount in bequest expectations; and, above all, elevated reliance on Medicaid. In distinction, massive medical shocks appear to be borne by people with out severely impacting their retirement trajectories; the impact of such shocks is proscribed to reductions in anticipated bequests. These patterns match particular person perceptions of counting on Medicaid in case of huge shocks; nonetheless, people appear to not anticipate the necessity for drawing down residence fairness. Total, outcomes level to medical shocks being comparatively well-insured whereas people are nonetheless uncovered to significant LTC threat. The outcomes are additionally in keeping with prior work displaying that bequests might serve a double function as fascinating transfers to the following technology if potential, but additionally as a cushion to self-insure LTC shocks if mandatory (Poterba, Venti, and Smart 2011 and Lockwood 2018).