
Why So Many Seniors Can't Afford Long-Term Care
She quickly found that round-the-clock at-home care was extremely costly, and that her mother didn't qualify for government assistance. Stuck in the middle, Aisha, who was 29 at the time, ended up quitting her job to take of her mother care of her herself.
At first, Rosetta just needed help preparing meals and reminders to take her medication. But as her care needs deepened, Aisha had to learn how to bathe and dress and feed her mother. She and her father hired a home health aide for a few hours a week when they could, but most of the care fell to the two of them until her mother finally qualified for Medicaid through a complicated process called spousal impoverishment protection, which allowed her father to keep some assets.
'We faced so many challenges; it was really a struggle,' says Adkins. She ended up caring for her mother for ten years on both a full-time and part-time basis, until her mother passed away in 2023.
Many middle-income seniors are unable to afford care
As the U.S. population ages, many families are facing the same challenges. Long-term care, which is assistance with the activities of daily living either in a person's home or in a facility, is expensive. Most people pay for it either out of their savings, or by spending down those savings until they qualify for Medicaid, which covers long-term care for indigent seniors. (Medicare does not cover senior housing or long-term care.)
But there's a large group of people who are stuck in-between: they are 'too rich' to qualify for the Medicaid benefits that enable them to hire at-home help or put loved ones in a nursing home, but they do not have enough money to pay for the in-home, all-hours care their loved one needs. It then falls to family members to make up the difference. Around two-thirds of caregiving hours for older adults in the U.S. are provided by informal and unpaid caregivers.
On one end of the spectrum, there are many expensive communities for seniors with deep pockets who want to start out in apartments and continue on to assisted living or more extensive care. On the other end, there are nursing home spots available for people who qualify for Medicaid, the government payor of last resort, which is strictly for low-income seniors or people who have spent down their savings.
Read More: How Health Insurance Monopolies Affect Your Care
But 'there aren't a lot of middle-income options on the market, so inevitably people rely on family care and out-of-pocket home care until they end up qualifying for Medicaid,' says David Grabowski, a health care policy professor at Harvard Medical School and one of the authors of a 2019 study about middle-income seniors. His research predicts that as the U.S. ages, many seniors will have insufficient resources for housing and health care needs.
People like Rosetta Adkins are often referred to as the 'missing middle' or 'forgotten middle'—the seniors who aren't wealthy but who also aren't poor. There just aren't a lot of options for these seniors in the middle who need care. One 2021 study estimated that a nursing home in the U.S., on average, costs $100,740 per year for a semi-private room, and that home care for six hours a day, five days a week costs $42,120 a year. The costs have only gone up since then.
By 2033, researchers at the University of Chicago estimate, there will be 16 million middle-income seniors who can't afford to pay for the health, personal care, and housing services they need. They will have to rely on family members—or on themselves—until they can qualify for Medicaid.
There may be even more people in this situation going forward, after the giant cuts to Medicaid in the Trump economic plan recently approved by Congress go into effect. Home and community-based care for low-income seniors is considered an optional program in Medicaid, so states can cut it when their budgets are thin. That may mean that in some states, it will take even longer for people like Rosetta Adkins to qualify for care through Medicaid, putting even more pressure on family members to help out.
'When a state's Medicaid budget is constrained, which is absolutely going to happen because of this bill, there will be limits on some of these home-based services,' says Allison Orris, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a national research and policy institute.
A lack of options puts stress on family members
Family members already face intense pressure to provide care for their ailing loved one while still maintaining their careers and taking care of children. One recent report by researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that nearly half of U.S. states are on the brink of an unpaid family caregiving emergency.
That means that in many states, unpaid family caregivers are contributing hundreds of billions of dollars of unpaid labor. The report found that dementia care—like the kind sought by the Adkins family—is driving a lot of the labor.
'It is repeatedly the family caregiver who shoulders the immense pressures generated by health care shortages and rising dementia cases,' says John McHugh, lead researcher of the study and an adjunct assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
Read More: The Surprising Reason Rural Hospitals Are Closing
Aisha Adkins, for instance, set aside her career so she could care for her mother. Her life choices for the next decade were determined by what her mother needed: picking a graduate school nearby and then finding a job that would allow her to work remotely. Aisha, who is only 40, is already worried about how she will pay for her own long-term care when she ages because she was out of the workforce so long caring for her mother.
This, too, is not uncommon.
'Many times, family members are reducing their own incomes because they're taking time out of the workforce, or they're working less,' says Amber Christ, managing director of health advocacy at Justice in Aging, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of low-income seniors. 'They're risking their future retirement, which increases the likelihood they'll age into poverty. So it's really a multigenerational impact.'
There's a reason there aren't many options for middle-income seniors: companies can't make money providing it. Over the past few decades, many expensive aging facilities have opened as investors put money into options for Baby Boomers who have extensive savings. But those places are out of reach for many seniors.
'The million-dollar model seems to work,' says Grabowski. 'But middle-income models don't seem to thrive.' Though there are options for nursing homes and facilities for seniors on Medicaid, they often provide a relatively low quality of care, with sparse staffing and dilapidated facilities.
Options for middle-income seniors are also limited because many people want to age at home, but at-home care is expensive and there are vast staff shortages, especially in rural areas. The industry is plagued by low compensation, unpredictable scheduling, and high turnover. Analysts predict this shortage will only worsen, with an estimated 4.6 million unfilled jobs by 2032.
Aisha Adkins says that even when her mother qualified for Medicaid, it was extremely difficult to get aides to consistently come to the house and provide care. Inexperienced caregivers didn't know how to handle her mother's dementia, so Aisha or her father still had to stay in the home even when a caregiver was around.
'It really fell to my father and myself to ensure that she was safe at all times, even sometimes when the caregiver was in the home,' she says.
Solutions for middle-income seniors are expensive
Adkins says she now advises friends to look into long-term care insurance or think more carefully about putting aside more money for when they age. But even long-term care insurance, which requires people to pay monthly premiums as they age so they can have care when they need it, has proven so inadequate that only about 4% of Americans 50 and older pay for a policy.
Though most people spend down their savings to qualify for Medicaid, elder law attorneys can sometimes help people protect their savings from long-term care costs. "It's worth meeting with and listening to an elder law attorney to find out how to protect your resources," says Eric Einhart, president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.
A few states have tried to help people pay for long-term care by establishing state programs. The WA Cares Fund, in Washington State, is a mandatory program that takes a small percentage of the paychecks of working Washingtonians and then allows them to access benefits of up to $36,500 to pay for long-term care services. But that amount of money won't last them very long if they need more than a few months of care.
The lack of long-term care planning in the U.S. is a contrast to many other countries. The Netherlands, for instance, has long included long-term care in its universal health care system, and requires that taxpayers contribute a chunk of their income towards insurance premiums. In 2019, Singapore introduced a mandatory long-term care insurance program. Japan has had a mandatory long-term care insurance system since 2000; it requires people 40 and over to contribute.
Read More: America's Dental Health Is in Trouble
Most experts agree that the U.S. needs some sort of plan to help more seniors pay for long-term care, especially as Baby Boomers age. Otherwise, many people will spend down their savings until they qualify for Medicaid, which is going to get very expensive for the U.S. government.
'We're going to be swamped by just the pure number of individuals in the system who need long-term care going forward,' says Grabowski. 'We're not at a place politically today to talk about this,' he says—because recently so much discussion has been focused on cutting services, rather than adding them—'but in the longer run, it's a discussion we really need to have.'
It's something Aisha Adkins knows at her core. Although her mother passed away in 2023, Adkins is gearing up for another struggle. Her father was recently diagnosed with a type of dementia, too. He spent almost all of his savings paying for Rosetta's care. Now, Aisha is starting to look into options for him. She knows, from experience, that they will be limited.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Drug Prices for Some Big Medicines Will Remain High for a Longer Time
Thousands of Medicare recipients will have to wait longer to get some price relief on the expensive cancer drugs they depend on for treatment, while others might not get any reprieve at all. Two little-known provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump in July will delay Medicare price negotiations for some of the biggest-selling drugs in the world, including Merck's Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer and had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. Other drugs, such as Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex, will be excluded entirely.


Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Care about babies and moms? This Big Beautiful Bill cut should scare you
An unseen provision in the recent congressional overhaul of Medicaid will bankrupt poor families with sick newborns — and raise costs for us all. Hidden within the 940 pages of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a reduction in Medicaid's ability to pay for care retroactively (care that has already been delivered) from 90 to 60 days. Shortening this window of payment targets parents of newborns, and will burden families with thousands of dollars of medical debt. Neonatologists and pediatricians care for critically-ill babies, including those with prematurity or congenital heart or intestinal defects. Many of the premature infants we care for have missed an entire trimester of development. Weighing 1 to 2 pounds at birth, they must overcome underdeveloped lungs, brains and immune systems. Their complex and expensive care begins in the first seconds of life. There is no time to apply for Medicaid. The previous 90-day retroactive period accounted for the practical aspects of applying for health insurance while being a new mother. Parents face obstacles negotiating the Medicaid system, especially in the context of a traumatic birth. A new mom recovering from a complicated delivery or cesarean section, and dealing with postpartum complications while trying to learn how to care for a newborn is not well positioned to immediately submit a Medicaid application. Additionally, it takes states — which control Medicaid enrollment — time to confirm parental income, residency and other requirements to qualify for Medicaid. The process can be cumbersome and is prone to backlogs. Nationally, roughly 15% of Medicaid applications are excessively delayed, meaning even if superhuman mothers applied the day their infant was born, many would be forced to pay for the first two weeks of neonatal intensive care, which costs $10,000 to $20,000 a day — too expensive for all of us. Ironically, this measure comes at a time when the White House is actively trying to increase the U.S. birth rate through baby-friendly policies such as one-time cash incentives of $5,000 per baby and federally subsidized fertility education. The problem is significant. Medicaid remains the largest single insurer of children, and pays for 40% of all newborns. Critically ill babies are overrepresented in Medicaid, as almost half rely on the program for coverage. Now, parents will receive astronomical medical bills when in the past Medicaid covered babies from their birthday. Parents of healthy newborns will be affected too. A healthy newborn spends 2 to 4 days in the hospital and typically has three or more outpatient visits in the first month of life. All these medical services risk being unpaid under the shorter retroactive period. Our fellow pediatricians are already worried the newborn care they provide will be unpaid, and they will have to limit the number of babies they see. The consequences will impact us all. Children's hospitals are tied to Medicaid payments, as the overwhelming majority of hospital care is paid for by Medicaid. This means children's hospitals run on incredibly small margins and will not be able to absorb the expected millions in uncompensated care that will result from this policy. The inevitable consequence will be reduced newborn services, especially in rural and underserved regions. The policy's defenders argue that shortening this period of coverage would reduce state costs and improve efficiency. But this ignores other reforms placed on state Medicaid offices. Not only have states been unable to verify all Medicaid recipients within 60 days, but they now will deal with tens of thousands of re-applications filed by patients every six months as part of new regulations. The increased bureaucracy requires agencies to verify more information about applicants, such as work requirements and immigration status. Our medical colleagues and even state Medicaid officials are concerned about the ability of these offices to handle the increased workload. Cost savings are similarly illusory. Uncompensated care does not disappear — it shifts. Hospitals forced to bear unpaid bills will inevitably raise costs elsewhere, usually from those of us with private insurance. That forces insurance carriers to raise premiums, copays and costs for things such as lab work or CT scans on all of us. Further, private insurance will likely follow Medicaid's lead in shortening retroactive coverage, which would pass along even more expense. This new Medicaid restriction has not received much attention compared to the massive spending cuts and deficit increases created by the new law. Unnoticed by the public, shortening retroactive coverage will impact neonatal intensive care, newborn health and force all of us to pay more over time. For babies, families and those who care for them, this legislative measure proves the devil really is in the details. Neonatologist Shetal Shah and pediatrician Marsha Spitzer are both past presidents of local chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics.


American Military News
a day ago
- American Military News
Video/Pic: Trump demands drug companies lower prices
President Donald Trump sent 17 pharmaceutical companies letters on Thursday and demanded that the companies lower prices for Americans. The president warned that the 'unacceptable burden' of prescription drug prices will 'end' with his administration. During a press briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'The president signed an executive order earlier this year to solve the problem of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing.' 'According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay,' Leavitt added. 'The president is determined to solve this problem and took further action today. He has signed 17 letters to pharmaceutical companies' CEOs.' .@PressSec reads one of the letters sent by @POTUS today to the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies: "Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices…" — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025 Leavitt also shared the letter Trump wrote to the CEO of Eli Lilly and Company. In the letter, Trump warned Eli Lilly and 16 other pharmaceutical companies that the 'unacceptable burden' of brand-name drugs costing 'up to three times higher on average' for Americans than for citizens of other countries 'ends with my administration.' Trump told the pharmaceutical companies, 'Most proposals the Trump administration has received to resolve this critical issue promised more of the same shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry.' The president added, 'Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.' READ MORE: Video: Trump order against 'Big Pharma' aims to reduce drug prices While Trump explained that a collaborative effort to reach 'global pricing parity' would be most effective for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. government, and U.S. patients, he warned that his administration will 'deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families' if pharmaceutical companies refuse to take action. In addition to the letter sent to Eli Lilly and Company, Trump sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. In the letters, Trump gave the companies 60 days to extend 'Most-Favored-Nation' pricing to Medicaid and provide 'full portfolios' of drugs for Medicaid patients, guarantee Most-Favored-Nation pricing for new drugs, negotiate with 'foreign freeloading nations' and return 'increased revenues abroad' to patients in the United States, and allow Americans to directly purchase drugs at Most-Favored-Nation prices. Today, @POTUS sent letters to 17 drug manufacturers outlining steps they must take to bring down prescription drug prices. If they refuse to step up, the Administration will use every tool to protect Americans from continued abusive drug pricing practices. Letter to Eli Lilly: — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025