I’ve written before about my frustration with the focus of many demographic reports on the 65+ population as a whole rather than dividing the cohort between those ages 65-84 and 85+. This distinction is for two main reasons: the differing rates of care needs and the opposite demographic trends of the two groups.
Disability (for Many) Begins at 85
The younger cohort, despite some aches and pains of aging, is by and large able to take care of themselves. It’s after age 85 that the likelihood of needing assistance due to cognitive or physical disability really soars.
The Administration for Community Living of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (recently slated for elimination in a restructuring by the Trump Administration) reports that people ages 85+ require nursing home care at much higher rates than those ages 65-84. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that about 20 percent of the older seniors need assistance with activities of daily living compared to only about five percent of the younger seniors.
Opposite Demographic Trends
The population trends of these two groups are also quite different. The 65-84 age group currently is growing dramatically due to the large number of baby boomers turning 65 every day. This pattern will continue for just a few more years with the youngest baby boomers, who were born in 1964, turning 65 in 2029.
That’s about the same time that the growth of the 85+ population will accelerate as the oldest baby boomers, those born in 1946, will be nearing their mid-80s.
The Elder Care Crunch in Southern California
More people are beginning to notice this demographic reality. Writing in The Orange County Register, Andre Mouchard observes that “[o]ver the next decade, the number of people 85 years old and older living in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties will jump by more than 72%.” Other media outlets of all shapes and sizes are also picking up on this story, from Oswego County Business to MarketWatch to The New York Times.
The Orange County Register’s Mouchard points out that given the high cost of elder care, many of these “super seniors won’t have enough income, or private insurance, to pay for much or any of their long-term care. This could result in greater elder homelessness and more stress on family members who must fill in either providing or paying for care themselves, making “it harder for them to save for their own retirements.”
And with the Medicaid cuts in the “big beautiful bill,” there may be less money to pay for care, especially home care. Mouchard tells us about a 58-year-old local resident who is paid by Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program) to take care of her 90-year-old mother-in-law.
Many commentators fear that such programs will be cut as states react to the reduction in federal Medicaid funding of $1 trillion over 10 years. As Howard Gleckman of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center explained to me, while Medicaid coverage of nursing home care is mandatory, coverage of home care is voluntary and may be on the chopping block as the states seek to cut their costs.
“Super” Seniors?
The entire nation is going to face the coming elder crunch beginning in just a few years, not just Southern California. Perhaps Mouchard’s use of the term “super” seniors to distinguish those 85+ from younger seniors is the type of approach needed to convince more policymakers to focus on the coming demographic storm.
For more from Harry Margolis, check out his Risking Old Age in America blog and podcast. He also answers consumer estate planning questions at AskHarry.info. To stay current on the Squared Away blog, join our free email list.
