These Are the Best and Worst States for Aging in Place
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new report from Seniorly ranked the best and worst states for aging at home for seniors, and Florida surprisingly earned the lowest spot of all.
"These findings reinforce what we already know," one expert told Newsweek, "aging well isn't just about personal health; it's also about where you live and what resources that place can provide."
As millions of Americans turn 65 this year, more and more are hoping to continue living in their homes rather than move to assisted living facilities or retirement homes.
In 2025, a record 4.2 million Americans will reach senior age, and 75 percent of older Americans said they wanted to stay living in their own homes in a recent AARP survey.
Why It Matters
Many Americans hope to stay at home to maintain their independence and remain in the communities where they've already built support systems.
However, not all locations make this easiest for seniors, as cost of living, transportation, and access to high-quality health care all play a role in whether a senior is able to successfully live outside of a retirement home.
Shirley Gooding, a physical Therapy Aid, helps William Rexroat, a WWII Navy veteran exercise during a physical therapy session at the Quincy Veterans Home February 17, 2005, in Quincy, Illinois.
Shirley Gooding, a physical Therapy Aid, helps William Rexroat, a WWII Navy veteran exercise during a physical therapy session at the Quincy Veterans Home February 17, 2005, in Quincy, Illinois.What To Know
Best States
Utah took the best state spot for aging in place, as only 35 percent of seniors live alone. They also have relatively good weather, with just 10.1 inches of rain and snow each year on average. The state also had a significant level of smart home tech use at 37 percent.
The top 10 state list for seniors was as follows:
Utah North Dakota New Jersey Idaho Texas Nebraska California New Mexico Kansas Washington
Seniorly's list was compiled using data on home health care quality and availability, emergency care services, housing costs, road safety, walkability, weather hazards and more. They also took into account the risk of isolation, as roughly 43 percent of U.S. seniors live alone.
The top states generally had short ER wait times, with North Dakota coming in at second place, as well as a high level of meal deliveries for older Americans. Home care quality also mattered, with 31 percent of New Jersey's agencies earning a 4.5 or 5-star rating.
Worst States
Meanwhile, the worst states for aging in places were as follows:
Florida Kentucky North Carolina Georgia Alabama Tennessee Mississippi Vermont Oklahoma Hawaii
Many retirees may be surprised to find Florida ranked the lowest for aging in place. This is because of its limited access to home health aides, with 50 seniors per available aide.
Floridians also deal with high housing costs, with 30.7 percent of older homeowners spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The state also experiences high precipitation of 53 inches annually, which could heighten safety risks for seniors.
The other Southern states ranked low struggled for different reasons.
Kentucky had one of the highest rates of fatal car crashes involving seniors, at 28.2 deaths per 100,000 drivers. Meanwhile, seniors in North Carolina spent an average of 195 minutes in the emergency room, longer than nearly all other states.
"What is definitely eye-opening is how many Southern states ranked near the bottom," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "These are states with historically high poverty rates and heavy reliance on social insurance programs."
What People Are Saying
Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "Utah ranks first and Florida ranks last. Does that mean we should always retire in Utah and never in Florida? Not really. The bottom line is aging in place requires a network, and aging seniors need to be located where their network is located. Aside from being financially prepared for longevity, access to both skilled and non-skilled assistance is the key and is most likely to come from family and close friends."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There's a clear relationship between income and aging outcomes. The wealthier the state, the more likely it is to support aging in place through quality care, better roads, and stronger support systems. These findings reinforce what we already know: aging well isn't just about personal health, it's also about where you live and what resources that place can provide."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "What's most surprising about these rankings are how perceptions do not always equal reality with America's aging population. Florida has been for decades perceived as a haven for retirees; however, in the years following the pandemic, housing costs have risen dramatically and the state has been slow to adopt the home health measures other states have to better medically serve their communities."
What Happens Next
From 2025 to 2050, the number of people aged 65 and older is expected to skyrocket from 63.3 million to 82.1 million.
"States like Utah benefit from more seniors being less alone and having more access to smart home features that assist in the aging process," Beene said. "At the end of the day, aging isn't just about saving some tax dollars. It's about the overall quality of life."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Psychedelics as potential mental health treatment are explored by Trump administration
The Trump administration has expressed interest in exploring psychedelics for their potential in treating PTSD and other debilitating mental health issues, various officials have shared. "The Department shares the goal of ensuring that all Americans — especially our nation's veterans — have access to safe and effective treatments for conditions such as PTSD, addiction and depression," a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), run by Sec. Robert J. Kennedy Jr., said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. "Secretary Kennedy is committed to applying rigorous, evidence-based science to research efforts aimed at addressing these serious health challenges." Fda Approves First Ai Tool To Predict Breast Cancer Risk In recent years, researchers have been actively investigating the potential of psychedelics, such as MDMA and psilocybin ("magic mushrooms") to treat mental health disorders. MDMA is not approved for clinical use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but can be studied in clinical settings. Read On The Fox News App Psilocybin is listed as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, which means it has "a high potential for abuse, [is not] currently accepted for medical use in treatment in the United States, and [has] a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision." Psilocybin-assisted therapy, however, is legal in Oregon, Colorado and New Mexico. Psychedelic medicines are "showing real promise," according to Dr. Luke Twelves, general practitioner and vice president of medical for Lindus Health in London. Clinical trials have found such treatments safe and effective for patients battling serious mental health issues, according to Twelves. Common Supplements And Medications Could Cause Liver Damage, Studies Show "Take psilocybin, for example — it's demonstrating remarkable results for severe depression that hasn't responded to other medications," he told Fox News Digital. "MDMA is showing similar breakthroughs for PTSD treatment." Clinical trials are also investigating how psychedelics could help with end-of-life anxiety, addiction, eating disorders, chronic pain and OCD, he added. Researchers have faced challenges in terms of regulatory hurdles and proper placebo controls, Twelves said. "Given that these treatments could transform [the] lives of people suffering from conditions where nothing else has worked effectively, it's crucial that we complete this research properly," he said. "The goal is to bring safe, proven psychedelic therapies to the patients who need them most." At President Trump's May 1 cabinet meeting, Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins said that "we're opening up the possibility of psychedelic treatment." Retired Army Sergeant Jonathan Lubecki recently told Fox News' Alexandria Hoff that MDMA stopped his PTSD while he was participating in a clinical trial. "[I] took my first dose of MDMA. I've only taken it three times as part of the clinical trial, haven't taken it since, and haven't found the need to take it since, because I haven't had PTSD," he said. Peter Kasperowicz, Department of Veterans Affairs press secretary, told Fox News Digital the department is safely exploring all avenues that promote the health of veterans. Fallujah Vet Turns Medal Of Heroism Into A Healing Mission For Fellow Warriors With Service Dogs Program "Preliminary findings have produced positive results on psychedelic-assisted therapies for treating mental health conditions," he said. The VA is currently running 11 clinical trials in various phases, with a total of some 800 veterans expected to participate. "The goal of these trials is to determine whether compounds such as MDMA and psilocybin can treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment-resistant depressive disorder, major depressive disorder and potentially other mental health conditions," said Kasperowicz. An MDMA study published in the Jan. 2025 issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry found that the substance is "unlike classical psychedelics." The study noted, "MDMA allows the individual to maintain intact ego functioning and a greater degree of cognitive and perceptual lucidity while still experiencing a prosocial altered state of consciousness that facilitates deeply emotional therapeutic breakthroughs." Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter The researchers concluded that MDMA showed "enhanced levels of trust, empathy, self-compassion and a 'window of tolerance'" that traditional psychotherapy lacks. Doug Drysdale, CEO of the Canadian pharmaceutical company Cybin, told Fox News Digital that "the time is now to address the mental health crisis." He said it is "gratifying" that administration officials value the potential benefits of looking into alternative mental health treatments. Cybin is currently in phase 3 of a study of CYB003, a type of psilocybin that has been granted breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA as an additional treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). "In Cybin's completed Phase 2 MDD study, long-term efficacy results showed that 71% of participants were in remission from depression, and 100% of participants responded to treatment at 12 months after just two 16 mg doses of CYB003," said Drysdale. Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and Fox News' senior medical analyst, previously interviewed two of the country's top researchers on psychedelics — Dr. Rachel Yehuda, founder and director of the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research at Mt. Sinai in New York, and Dr. Charles Marmar, director of the PTSD research program at NYU Langone. "They agree there is therapeutic potential if very carefully studied under very strict medical guidance, but there is a huge downside in terms of unregulated recreational uses," Siegel told Fox News Digital at the time. "Both doctors see likely therapeutic value to psychedelics if carefully managed by medical experts," Siegel added. Ryan Moss, chief science officer at Filament Health, a clinical-stage natural psychedelic drug development company in Canada, emphasized it's important to administer psychedelics in a safe setting when treating mental health conditions. For more Health articles, visit "Psychedelic experiences can sometimes feature anxiety, hallucinations and paranoia," Moss previously told Fox News Digital. "Some patients using traditional psychedelics have reported experiencing adverse cardiovascular events during clinical trials." To mitigate these risks, Moss recommended clinical trial participants receive thorough preparation and monitoring by trained professionals during sessions. Melissa Rudy and Angelica Stabile, both of Fox News Digital, contributed article source: Psychedelics as potential mental health treatment are explored by Trump administration
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
