Health-care costs per retired couple: $240,000

Health-care bills were expected to rise more slowly after the passage of Obama's health-care program, according to Fidelity's projection last year. Now, costs are rising again.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP/File
In this January file photo, health-care advocates marched through Sacramento, Calif., on their way to the Capitol for a rally. Cities, counties, and school districts throughout California are grappling with the same issue: the soaring costs for retiree health care.

Couples retiring this year can expect their medical bills throughout retirement to cost 4 percent more than those who retired a year ago, according to an annual projection released Wednesday by Fidelity Investments.

The estimated $240,000 that a newly retired couple will need to cover health care expenses reflects the typical pattern of projected annual increases. The Boston-based company cut the estimate for the first time last year, citing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Medicare changes resulting from that plan are expected to gradually reduce many seniors' out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs.

But Fidelity says overall health care cost trends are on the rise again, so it's raising its cost estimate from last year's $230,000 figure.

"As long as health care cost trends exceed personal income growth and economic growth, health care will still be a growing burden for the country as a whole and for individuals," says Sunit Patel, a senior vice president for benefits consulting at Fidelity, and an actuary who helped calculate the estimate.

However, this year's 4 percent rise is relatively modest. Annual increases have averaged 6 percent since Fidelity made its initial $160,000 calculation in 2002.

The projections are part of Fidelity's benefits consulting business. The study is based on projections for a 65-year-old couple retiring this year with Medicare coverage. The estimate factors in the federal program's premiums, co-payments and deductibles, as well as out-of-pocket prescription costs. The study assumes the couple does not have insurance from their former employers, and a life expectancy of 85 for women and 82 for men. The estimate doesn't factor in most dental services, or long-term care, such as the cost of living in a nursing home.

This year's estimate could change significantly. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to strike down part or all of the 2010 health care law, including its centerpiece requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty.

If the ruling requires significant changes, Fidelity may update its estimate, Patel said.

Although its focus is expanding health care access to people under age 65, the law also is intended to benefitmany retirees by gradually closing what's known as the 'doughnut hole' coverage gap in the Medicare drugbenefit.

But longer-term, retirees' cost savings aren't expected to offset other factors driving expenses up, such as new medical technologies, greater use of health care services, and more diagnostic tests.

Fidelity's findings illustrate the importance of factoring in health care alongside housing, food and other expenses in retirement planning. If medical costs continue to rise faster than personal incomes, many retirees will have to adjust their household budgets so they can cover medical costs, Patel says.

"It's a fixed liability for the majority of folks, and it doesn't vary up or down like food or clothing costs can," he says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.