7 Tips to Support Aging Family Members When You Live Far Away — Without Going Broke
Discover More:
Find Out:
It's also worth noting that for 67.59% of Americans, the next most significant concern is financial strain, as the idea of financially supporting parents can be stressful.
How can you help your parents financially as they age without putting too much strain on your own bank account? Here are seven tips from the experts to ensure that you don't go broke and burn out in the process of caring for your elderly parents who live far away.
'The first step is to have a conversation on the topic with your parents,' said Chad Gammon, a CFP and the owner of Custom Fit Financial. 'That way, you're on the same page with your parents on any expectations or responsibilities.'
You want to have crucial discussions with your parents early on in the process so that you're not on different pages when it comes to expectations.
The Choice Mutual piece also mentioned that even though discussing finances can be challenging, it's encouraged that you do so before your parents have their ability to make decisions hindered by cognitive or physical factors.
Stoy Hall, a CFP and founder of Black Mammoth, recommends starting with transparency instead of making assumptions. He stressed that you don't want to wait until a health crisis forces you to have this discussion.
Here are some of the subjects you'll want to discuss with your parents:
How much savings do they have?
If they have any debt.
Policies and pensions that you should know about.
Their bills and how they're being managed.
Hopefully, your parents are willing to share financial information so that you can stay informed. If you're overwhelmed, you can also work with a financial professional who will help you make sense of everything.
Gammon advises setting boundaries and ensuring that you don't entangle your finances. You want to set clear boundaries early on so that your parents don't try to ask you to co-sign a loan or to open up a joint bank account.
Hall added, 'You've got your own bills, your own kids maybe, and your own retirement goals. So set the boundaries now.'
Agreeing to help financially with everything can be overwhelming and may lead to future resentment. If you live far away, you may also want to set boundaries on visitations and how often you can make it down.
The Choice Mutual report found that approximately half of Americans are concerned about how providing elderly care duties could affect their careers and work-life balance. Kelsey Simasko, an attorney at Simasko Law, urges that you become as tech-savvy as possible if you're caring for parents who live far away. If you're managing someone's finances from miles away, you'll want to be comfortable emailing, scanning documents and using online banking tools.
Here are a few key ways you can use technology to help with the care:
Set up auto-pay for recurring bills if they're forgetful.
Use refill services for prescriptions.
Explore remote monitoring tools for health or home safety.
While technology won't replace the human touch, it will buy you some time and sanity if you live far away. You don't want to be stuck driving back and forth every single weekend to pay bills and manage accounts. You also don't want to have your parents fall behind on bills because they forgot to pay, which could add to the financial strain.
You want to remember that you're not alone when it comes to caring for elderly parents. Hall recommends checking out options such as local senior aid programs, Medicaid eligibility, low-income utility assistance or Meals on Wheels. These services can help you save some money and provide assistance when you're not able to make it.
You'll want to try to get your other siblings and relatives involved to divide the load when caring for parents who live far away. You can decide who will manage appointments, who is responsible for check-ins, and who will help cover the bills. The worst-case scenario is when one person carries the entire load because this can be financially and emotionally draining.
Simasko shared that you want to enlist some assistants who live close by. Asking for help is hard, but if a trusted neighbor can send you pictures of bills to be paid or investments about to come due, it will make life a lot easier in the long run. If you don't have any siblings, you can build a community through trusted neighbors, church groups and other associations.
According to an annual report from the FBI, older Americans lost almost $4.9 billion to fraud in 2024, with an average loss of $83,000. You want to ensure that your parents have the right financial tools and resources on their side, so they don't fall victim to scams and their bills are covered.
Hall suggested that if your parents have equity in a home, a HELOC or downsizing could be the logical next step. If they have retirement assets, consider consulting a professional to analyze their withdrawal strategy. You want to ensure that all financial tools are utilized so that you don't spend your savings on trying to help your parents because you have to start thinking about your own retirement.
More From GOBankingRates
Warren Buffett: 10 Things Poor People Waste Money On
4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: 7 Tips to Support Aging Family Members When You Live Far Away — Without Going Broke
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
20% of US workers are secretly using AI at work — if you're one of them, here's how you might be doing your boss a favor
If it seems like more and more people you know are adopting Artificial Intelligence tools these days, there's a reason for that. In the past few years, there's been an explosion of AI in part because advancements have made its use not only possible but practical. And while some Americans are happy about that, others remain skeptical. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now A YouGov survey published this past March found that 56% of Americans use AI tools and 28% use them at least weekly. Only 31% of Americans have never used AI. And not so shockingly, Americans under 30 are more likely to use AI than their older counterparts. Despite a high level of adoption, Americans aren't necessarily feeling all that secure about AI. A good 54% say they feel cautious, while 47% feel outright concerned. And 17% of Americans feel overwhelmed by AI — up from 11% four months prior. These findings are consistent with Pew Research data published in April based on 2024 surveys. While 56% of AI experts think AI will have a positive impact on the U.S. in the next 20 years, only 17% of members of the general public echo this positivity. And while 47% of AI experts are more excited than concerned about an uptick in AI usage, only 11% of the general public feel similarly. Meanwhile, a new report by StudyFinds reveals that 20% of Americans are using AI at work — in secret. Whether that's a bad thing, though, may be worth reconsidering. AI at work These days, AI is being used across a range of industries and workplace tasks. StudyFinds says it's being utilized in everything from marketing tasks to customer support to operations. U.S. employees are also using AI to handle personnel management and product development. Interestingly, 90% of people in a Talker Research survey cited by StudyFinds say they've used AI for both personal tasks as well as work-related ones. A good two-thirds started off using AI for personal reasons before adopting it at work. Many AI users, however, are keeping this a secret. For some, that may be because their workplaces simply haven't formally adopted an AI policy yet. But there may be an underlying fear that using AI is a means of gaming the system when, in reality, everyone can benefit from it. The benefits of using AI for work-related tasks Though some employers may not outwardly encourage AI usage at work, the data above points to a host of benefits. A good 77% of Talker Research survey respondents say AI helps them feel more confident in the quality of their work, while 75% say AI helps their business compete with larger players in their respective industries. AI was found to be especially useful in certain workplace areas, including marketing, data analysis, design and other creative work. Notably, research finds that 'quiet AI users' are saving themselves an average of 13 hours per week. And they're also saving an average of $4,739 a month in operational costs. For daily users, that figure increases to $5,038 per month, on average. Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. Will AI adoption in the workplace grow? Clearly, there can be benefits to incorporating AI into the workplace. Yet many of those who use AI on the sly feel iffy about it. A good 19% of survey respondents said they felt customers would lose trust if they knew AI was being utilized, while a full 18% received direct customer complaints about AI. So will more U.S. employers adopt AI? That's questionable. An early 2025 report by McKinsey found that while workers seem ready to embrace AI, leaders are slowing them down. While 92% of companies plan to invest more in AI over the next three years, only 1% believe they've already fully developed AI tools for their business. That's in spite of the fact that per McKinsey research, AI presents an opportunity to capture $4.4 trillion in productivity growth. Still, some of the data on AI's upside seems to be mixed. Last year, the Bipartisan Policy Center found that while AI commonly improves worker productivity, those gains were the most obvious among the least skilled and productive workers. It also found that AI sometimes has no significant impact on productivity and it may even reduce it. Still, in a May 2025 survey by PwC, 88% of senior executives say they plan to increase their AI budgets in the next 12 months. So there's positive indication that in the coming years, a growing number of companies will not only allow workers to use AI, but invest in it to improve productivity and stay competitive. What to read next Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
H-1Bs are wreaking havoc on American workers
When it comes to immigration, there's a refrain that periodically arises with respect to new immigrants: 'They're even more American than us,' or something to that effect. And if immigration causes any ill effects on Americans already here — such as disruptions in the economy or employment environment — they are reminded that they should just grit their teeth and 'learn to code.' Unfortunately, that advice may no longer be helpful. Layoffs in the tech industry for 2025 had already exceeded 80,000 as of July, according to estimates. Although the public may know the tech climate has been bleak, they haven't heard much about the causes. Corporate executives have been eager to insinuate that AI is driving the employment environment. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in June that there would 'be fewer people doing some of the jobs that the technology actually starts to automate.' However, Jassy did not mention another factor — the employment data indicate that Amazon has led corporate America in spurning U.S. workers in favor of foreign-born alternatives. The company's main operating arm submitted 31,817 Labor Condition Applications for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas in the second quarter of fiscal 2025, according to data published by the Labor Department's Office of Foreign Labor Certification. The number grows higher — to 40,757 — if one accounts for Amazon Web Services, the company's cloud-management division. NVIDIA placed a distant second with 27,244 applications. Other top offenders included Goldman Sachs, which used three entities to file more than 26,000 applications. There's also Microsoft (14,181 applications) and Apple (8,393 applications). Labor Condition Applications allow companies to fill roles based in the U.S. with foreign laborers. They recently came under fire from Vice President JD Vance. Alluding to Microsoft's announcement of layoffs weeks earlier, Vance said at an event, 'You see some Big Tech companies where they'll lay off 9,000 workers, and then they'll apply for a bunch of overseas visas.' He added that he 'just found out' and had 'not yet had that conversation with Microsoft.' In a statement, Microsoft denied that Americans had been laid off as a result of their foreign alternatives, pointing to the fact that it had also reduced its H-1B workforce. 'Our H-1B applications are in no way related to the recent job eliminations in part because employees on H-1Bs also lost their roles,' a spokesman told me. He added that 78 percent of Microsoft's applications over the last 12 months were for 'existing employees.' Although these foreign workers are, in theory, intended to fill 'high-skill' roles, the data tell a different story. According to the Labor Department, 82 percent of Microsoft's H-1B applications for 2025 have been for positions the department classifies as Level I or II — entry or mid-level roles paid at or below the 34th wage percentile. To put that in simpler terms: Microsoft is paying 82 percent of its foreign workers less than the prevailing market rate for their positions. Even if Microsoft were able to find Americans willing to work for less than they're worth, Microsoft wouldn't be required to make any attempt to hire them — despite a widely held belief that H-1B employers are required to certify that they haven't been able to find Americans to employ. 'It is remarkable how many policy wonks, news organizations, and academics get this critical fact wrong,' Howard University Professor Ron Hira, an H-1B expert who has testified on the issue before Congress, told me in an interview. 'My experience suggests that more elites believe the falsehood than the truth. The program would look radically different and function much better if such a requirement existed.' It is little wonder that younger Americans suspect all of this labor importation may have something to do with the challenges they're facing. That applies not just in terms of employment, but also of problems ranging from the national housing shortage to the rising cost of car insurance to traffic congestion — which, as anecdotal evidence would have it, spontaneously fell amid immigration raids in Los Angeles last month. Naysayers will disagree, nitpick, or read legalese about how their foreign workers were onboarded years ago to rationalize the idea that Americans haven't been affected. And that's fine, but it isn't going to change the fact that voters aged 18-21 sided with Republicans by a double-digit margin in Yale's recent youth poll, largely due to these very concerns. Of course, those numbers could shift, particularly if Republicans fail to take action — likely pushing those young voters even further to the right. Aside from Vance, mainstream politicos have been largely silent on this issue — perhaps because they don't want to offend their corporate patrons. The best they can do is stay silent and hope that voters forget. The media appear to be fully on board with that plan. As of July, a search for stories involving the Office of Foreign Labor Certification published within the last year returned zero results from outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News, among many others. Contrast that with The Times' obsessive concern with the State Department terminating a little more than 1,300 employees. 'Cuts at State Department Demote Longtime U.S. Values,' the paper declared in the headline of a news (not opinion) article. It sounds like firing a federal worker is akin to an attack on the very fabric of America's values. By that measure, they must be the most American of us all. That must be nice, but it may not elicit much sympathy from those who have somehow been deemed less essential to the country than their foreign replacements.
Atlantic
14 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How Trump Threw Out the Pandemic Playbook
As of last month, there is no one left in the White House whose sole job is to keep the nation safe from biological threats. The leader of the National Security Council's biosecurity directorate recently resigned. His staff had been pushed out, and his unit is now defunct. The Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, established by Congress in 2022, has dwindled from a staff of about 20 under President Joe Biden to a staff of zero. The Trump administration has said that it's just reorganizing the bureaucracy and is prepared to handle biothreats. But our experience suggests otherwise. Without a leader from the NSC embedded in the White House and ready to coordinate other agencies, more people—including Americans—will get sick and die. We have spent years helping lead the U.S. government's efforts to contain the deadliest biological threats. One of us, Beth Cameron, helped found the NSC's biosecurity office, in 2016—created as a response to a deadly Ebola outbreak in West Africa that had begun a couple of years earlier. Ebola is a gruesome, highly contagious disease that causes its victims' organs, blood vessels, and immune cells to fail. The average lethality rate is about 50 percent. That outbreak killed more than 11,000 people across West Africa and cost the U.S. government billions of dollars to help contain. Despite our government's best efforts, 11 cases ultimately reached the U.S., and two were fatal. President Donald Trump terminated the NSC's biosecurity office during his first term, but Biden reestablished it—and just in time. In early February 2021, an ominous email came to the White House from federal health officials: reports of Ebola outbreaks in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The cases were close to the borders of Uganda and Rwanda, major travel hubs for the region. The White House was already managing the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis. But leaving Guinea and Congo to handle the Ebola outbreaks on their own was risky. So we activated a system developed through hard-learned lessons from past deadly outbreaks, designed to help contain them at their sources and to prepare for the worst at home. We sent public-health professionals to advise the affected countries. We took inventory of vaccines and other supplies so we would be ready to deploy them. We relied on a painstaking system of testing, vaccinations, and predeparture screenings in Congo and Guinea. We ensured that anyone who had been to an affected country and was seeking to come to the U.S. was funneled to one of a handful of American airports. The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security activated a program for tracing and contacting passengers after their arrival. One of us, Jon Finer—the principal deputy national security adviser at the time—led a team of senior health and national-security officials from across the government; it met every day to coordinate all of the moving parts, and to keep the president and other senior officials informed. It worked. The disease was entirely contained within the two source countries—no cases reached the U.S.—and 18 people died, a number that could have been exponentially higher. To strengthen our responses to future pandemics, lawmakers soon established the position of a U.S. coordinator for global health security; one of us, Stephanie Psaki, was the first person to hold that job. They also created the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy in the White House. The Trump administration, tasked with upholding the law, is supposed to be staffing these offices. Not only has it failed to do that, but in just six months, it also has dismantled many of the early-warning-and-response systems that were built over decades. In Trump's second term, his team has fired thousands of public-health experts at the CDC, the FDA, and other agencies. It has canceled investments in safeguards against pandemic influenza, undermined confidence in vaccines, and cut funding for potential future outbreaks. It killed USAID and is scaling down the CDC's global role, canceling many of the programs that maintained ties to countries where disease outbreaks occur. It has withdrawn the U.S. from the World Health Organization. And it has created confusion about who in the U.S. government is in charge of the system for tracking deadly biothreats, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. Put another way: The second Trump administration inherited a playbook, and then pushed out the people who knew how to run the plays. The United States is dealing with many biological threats at home and abroad, such as the bird flu and measles—with the latter, America is already facing the worst outbreak in decades. Scientists estimate about a 50–50 chance of another pandemic as severe as the coronavirus occurring in the next 25 years. The probability is even higher for smaller-scale threats, such as periodic Ebola outbreaks. Deadly biothreats are more and more likely to emerge for a range of reasons, including increased interaction between humans and animals, labs without sufficient biosecurity systems, easier public access to the information and technology needed to create or manipulate a bioagent, and continued concerns about the development of biological weapons by nefarious actors. The risk of death and economic disruption is only growing. America rebuilt the system of disease detection and response after the first Trump administration damaged it. That will be harder to do this time around. Far more officials have left the government. Will they be willing to come back, given the degree to which their work has been disparaged and their job security eviscerated? Stopping deadly diseases from reaching the United States is challenging at the best of times. Absent trusting relationships and, truth be told, a fair amount of pressure, affected countries aren't always forthcoming with information. (We dealt with one case that required resorting to threats to withhold U.S. support if the other government didn't share more data about an emerging outbreak.) Health imperatives can collide with political ones, such as when a country has to consider restricting travel. Questions can arise about how much of a vaccine or treatment should be shared with other countries, and how much should be kept at home (if a vaccine or treatment exists at all). But these are all reasonable policy debates that assume the system is basically functioning. In a worst-case scenario, we might not even know about a disease until it has started spreading in a major city with an international airport. With no warning, we will have less ability to stop the disease at its source, and less power, if it reaches our shores, to save American lives. The odds of us facing that scenario have now gone way up. This would be a terrible tragedy, and all the more so because it would be self-inflicted.
