On Dementia, Cost-of-Living Adjustments, and the Right Way to Reform Programs for the ElderlyPosted: April 16, 2013 Filed under: Aging, Columns, Economic Growth and Productivity, Health and Health Policy, Income and Wealth, Taxes and Budget 4 Comments »
While the increase in dementia among the elderly and the president’s proposal to change the index used to provide cost-of-living adjustments (or COLAs) to Social Security recipients have both received prominent headlines recently, the discussions have largely been independent of one another. Yet any principled attempt to reform our elderly programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid long-term care, should consider them together.
A well-designed reform of elderly programs could and should accommodate some of the cost problems associated with dementia by back-loading a larger share of benefits in Social Security to older ages when these and other needs of old age increase. COLA adjustments, whatever their other merits, front-load the system by cutting back on benefits for the oldest the most and those in late middle age or their 60s hardly at all. That the president and Congress have limited ability to engage in these types of discussions and tackle multiple goals at the same time is yet one more example of how our political processes increasingly block us from fixing what ails us.
In a well-cited RAND study, Michael Hurd and his coauthors estimate that dementia-related care purchased in the marketplace will cost somewhere close to $0.25 trillion in 2040 (in 2010 dollars). That sounds like and is a lot of money, but Social Security and Medicare are expected to rise to cost over $3.5 trillion in that same year. Although I am greatly simplifying by ignoring such factors as how much of the $0.25 trillion would be covered by individuals and not the government or the effect of entitlement reform on costs, the raw comparison speaks for itself.
Simply put, some of the private and public budget problems associated with dementia, Alzheimer’s, and other growing problems for the older among the elderly could be addressed by providing higher cash benefits in older ages. Whatever the aggregate size of Social Security in general, one could pay for this reform by cutting back on benefits in younger ages of Social Security “old age insurance” receipt. This would not solve all the associated problems of dementia, but it would be a simple, effective, easy-to-administer step in the right direction. And, by concentrating benefits more in older ages, it would encourage working longer at a time when employment rates for the population as a whole are scheduled to decline.
But this is not the discussion we’re having. Instead, the president and many budget reformers put forward a proposal to adapt what many believe is a better measure of cost-of-living or price changes and apply it to almost all government programs, including Social Security. As a technical matter, a COLA adjustment doesn’t affect the growth in initial Social Security benefits for those who retire, only the inflation adjustment they get after they retire. At that point, they get a small annual cut—e.g. 3/10 of 1% the first year, 6/10 of 1% the second year, and so forth—that compounds every year in retirement, so that by the time beneficiaries are in their late 80s or 90s, some 25 or 30 years of lower COLAs add up to a cut in benefits of as much as 10 percent.
Social Security has never adjusted upward the earliest retirement age for increases in life expectancy. Instead, it reduced the earliest age from 65 to 62 in 1959 and 1962. As a consequence, the share of benefits going to those with 15 or more remaining years of expected receipt has risen dramatically over time, and the share to those with, say, less than 10 years of remaining life expectancy has declined. The COLA proposal, even with some very old age adjustments suggested by the president, would add to this long-term trend of making the program ever less available in relative terms for those in truly old age.
This is not to say that the COLA proposal should not be adopted. Who can oppose trying to measure something better? But attempts to fix systems like Social Security and other elderly programs one parameter or adjustment at a time cannot easily meet multiple worthwhile objectives. Similarly, efforts to back-load the system to meet the needs of true old age, as suggested here, should be coordinated with further adjustments—say, in minimum benefits—to avoid discriminating against those with shorter life expectancies.
With or without a better COLA, therefore, reform of Social Security and other elderly programs requires a more comprehensive approach if we are to meet the needs of old age as they evolve over time. Shouldn’t dementia be a higher priority than early retirement? If we’re going to spend $3 trillion or more annually on Social Security and Medicare by 2040, do we really think that the allocation of those funds be determined by formulas set in years like 1935 or 1965 or 1977, when much of the current system was cobbled together?
[…] Posted at The Government We Deserve on […]
We should start by federalizing Medicaid for the elderly (and privatizing it for the poor through inclusion of poor families in the government or private firm providing them with training or benefits as if they were employees). We could then fund this with a VAT-like net business receipts tax, with offsets for employers who fund long term care for employees – including for dementia. That way we can at least get lower costs, as long as we make sure that quality does not suffer.
> I would honestly say, and I know I’m gonna sound like a dick, but I’m saying it If your going to rent a car outside of the US, learn how to drive one with gears That just sounds First of all, "with gears" isn’t what the different kind of transmission is about, but that’s I know I can’t drive manual I could, a long time ago, but spent so much time not practicing it when I eventually tried again, it was a total failure I was looking for places I could Martinique looked great, but only if I could get a car I could drive, so I checked and saw that yes, I could – so I decided to go Your comment implies I should’ve decided not to go here anyway, even though I had reserved a car I could That’s just pointlessly stupid And imagine all the people who travel to places where they can’t speak the language! Your logic would tell them don’t bother, don’t go to any of those places, learn the language I do speak French > Even if you book through the rental agencies themselves there’s usually a "*can not guarantee actual choice of car" clause No rental agencies I know of guarantee the actual choice of car! What’s that got to do with anything? Plenty of rental agencies *do* let you select specifically manual or automatic if you care about it, and that’s part of the reservation and is It’s still not a specific make and model, of course, but that’s not
[…] Posted at The Government We Deserve on […]