With the economic news getting seemingly worse by the day, even people who are in the work force are having a hard time making ends meet. The difficulties mount even more for the elderly and retired, many of whom rely on Social Security as their sole source of income, and others who have seen their retirement savings nearly disappear as the stock market tumbles and financial institutions fail.

Housing, food, transportation, health care and other goods such as clothing and household needs stretch everyone’s budget. What about seniors with severely limited incomes? Housing and health expenses can account for more than 50% of expenses and those without additional financial support, such as from family, are at risk.

A potential resource for housing assistance is the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD supports housing for very low-income elderly people by providing loans to develop housing and rent subsidies to help make these places affordable.

Administered under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, the Section 202 program is the only federally funded housing program designed specifically for older persons. The program provides capital advances to eligible private, nonprofit sponsors to finance development of housing units. The advance is interest-free and does not have to be repaid so long as the housing remains available for very low-income elderly persons for at least 40 years.

Qualified housing occupants must be at least 62 years old at the time of occupancy. The housing units are typically one bedroom units with safety features that help a person remain independent and in their home for as long as possible.

Residents typically pay about 30 percent of their income for rent, with federal subsidies covering the balance of the unit’s fair market price. Sometimes, these facilities have access to services such as housekeeping, transportation meals, and social services.

Find out more about housing for low income seniors by contacting your local HUD office.

Perhaps the latest trend in senior living is the building of “greener” communities. La Posada, a large not-for-profit provider based in the Green Valley area of Southern Arizona, is expanding their campus to include an independent living community, and they are committed to “green” building for this and future projects. An extensive list of the “green” amenities to be enjoyed in the Park Centre homes include: EnergyStar® appliances, dual-flush toilets, and compact fluorescent lighting.

According to an article on La Posada’s latest project, the award-winning company not only desires to build earth-friendly homes, they also seek to “promote the use the ‘green-friendly’ products and practices that promote health, safety and social consciousness.” This is a standard to which all facilities, whether new or existing, should aspire. Recycling should become second nature and energy conservation would benefit all by keeping costs down – living “green” could save a lot of green, and in today’s economy, that is one thing that boomers and seniors can agree upon.

Is there a “green” senior living community in your neck of the woods? Tell us about it!

Does your facility have a recycling program? Have any ideas for getting one started or making your assisted living or retirement community more earth-friendly? Share it here.

- Michelle Seitzer

An analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation quantifies, for the first time, the number of Medicare Part D plan enrollees in 2007 who reached a gap in their prescription drug coverage known as the “doughnut hole,” as well as the changes in beneficiaries’ use of medications and out-of-pocket spending after they reached that gap.

The study excludes beneficiaries who receive low-income subsidies (because they do not face a gap in coverage under their Medicare drug plan).

Approximately 3.4 million Part D enrollees, including many with serious medical conditions, reached the coverage gap in 2007, leading some to stop treatment, according to the analysis.

Beneficiaries taking drugs for serious chronic conditions had a substantially higher risk of a gap in coverage under their Medicare drug plan. For example, 64 percent of enrollees taking medications for Alzheimer’s disease reached the coverage gap in 2007, as did 51 percent of those taking oral anti-diabetic medications and 45 percent of patients on antidepressants.

Conducted by researchers at Georgetown University, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and Kaiser, the study found evidence of patients changing their use of prescription drugs when they are required to pay the full cost of medications in the coverage gap. Across eight classes of drugs examined—used to treat a variety of relatively common chronic conditions—15 percent of Part D enrollees who reached the gap stopped their drug therapy for that condition, 5 percent switched to another medication in the class, and 1 percent reduced the number of drugs they were taking in the class.

”The Medicare drug benefit has produced tangible relief for millions of people, despite the unusual coverage gap that was created to make the benefit fit within budget constraints,” Kaiser CEO and President Drew Altman said. “But if a new president and Congress consider changes to the drug benefit, it will be important to keep in mind that the coverage gap has consequences for some patients with serious health conditions.”

Beneficiaries who reached the coverage gap faced substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending. For example, among Part D enrollees who reached the coverage gap, but did not receive catastrophic coverage, average monthly out-of-pocket costs nearly doubled from $104 prior to the coverage gap, to $196 in the “doughnut hole.” The vast majority (84 percent) of the Part D enrollees who reached the coverage gap did not have sufficient additional drug spending during the year to receive catastrophic coverage, at which point their Part D plan would pay 95 percent of drug costs.

The study analyzes retail pharmacy claims data, based on 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries in Part D plans in 2007, the first year that most people would be enrolled in a Part D plan for a full calendar year. The analysis is based on 2007 data from IMS Health’s Longitudinal Prescription Drug Database, which includes prescription drug information that represents half of all retail prescriptions filled in the U.S.

In 2008 the gap starts when a recipient has used $2,510 worth of medications; coverage does not resume until they have used a total of $5,726 in covered prescriptions, creating a coverage “gap” of $3,216.

The research team includes: Jack Hoadley of Georgetown University, Elizabeth Hargrave of NORC at the University of Chicago, and Juliette Cubanski and Tricia Neuman at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

— Lori Woehrle

The implosion of financial titans of Wall Street over the past week lays bare the ugly truth about privatizing Social Security: It’s a fundamentally bad idea.

I don’t know about you, but I’m neither a financial planner nor an investment strategist. And yet, since the mid-1980s when I began saving for retirement, I’ve been forced to play one at home with my 401K investments. Yes, I’m incredibly fortunate to have been saving that long. No question. But from the beginning, it’s been me, myself, and I directing where those precious retirement dollars are invested. (Talk about risk!)

Next month will be a scary one, and I’m not talking about Halloween. Around the first week of October, I should start receiving my 3rd quarter statements for my 401Ks. Given the market’s roller coaster response to the bailouts, closures and consolidation, I’m expecting the pages to jump from the envelopes with a resounding BOO.

Can you imagine all of the folks depending on Social Security suddenly coming up short because their Social Security investments went sour?

Social Security is the bedrock of retirement and must be protected.

Where from here?

Because I live in Washington, I want you to know where the presidential candidates stand on Social Security.

John McCain

[Note: I was unable to find statements on John McCain's official Web site regarding Social Security. Here's what CNN said about his positions.]

McCain advocates supplementing Social Security benefits with individual investment accounts. He prefers slowing the growth benefits to raising taxes. When asked about Social Security during a GOP debate, he stated: “Every man, woman and child in America needs to know it’s going broke, and we’ve got to do the hard things. We’ve got to fix it for the future generations of Americans… It’s got to be bipartisan. And you have to go to the American people and say we won’t raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we [have] to fix this system.”

Barack Obama [From his official Web site.]

“Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. He will work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have 10+ houses or family wealth worth millions to fall back on when I retire. I’m depending on me and the few dollars I’ve been able to scrape together over the years to get me through. I need that bedrock of Social Security to be there and be square when the time comes.

—Lori Woehrle

The deadline is approaching for seniors and others to file a 2007 tax return to receive their federal stimulus payment this year.

Some recipients of Social Security, certain veterans’ benefits and certain Railroad Retirement benefits may qualify for economic stimulus payments, even though they usually do not have to file a tax return.

To receive the payment—which for individuals typically ranges from $300-$600—people who might not otherwise be required to file a 2007 tax return will need to file. The return must show at least $3,000 in qualifying income.

Normally, certain Social Security, Railroad Retirement benefits and certain veterans’ payments are not subject to income tax. However, the economic stimulus law passed in February contains a special provision allowing Social Security recipients and recipients of certain veterans’ benefits and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to count those benefits toward the qualifying income requirement of $3,000 and thereby qualify for the stimulus payment.

Free tax help available

The Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program provides free tax help to people age 60 and older. As part of the IRS-sponsored TCE Program, AARP offers the Tax-Aide counseling program at more than 7,000 sites nationwide during the filing season. To find an AARP Tax Aide site call 1-888-227-7669 or visit the AARP Web site.

The Internal Revenue Service estimated in late July that some 5.2 million Americans eligible for an economic stimulus check authorized by Congress have yet to file. Some estimates show nearly 70 percent of those who are eligible but have not filed are seniors.

— Lori Woehrle

Across the country, more and more nursing homes fighting to survive on diminishing reimbursements, evict or “involuntarily discharge” residents, often those who are long term patients, on Medicaid or other costly patients. This often results in frail, elderly patients being moved from their long term residences, often endangering their health.

Patients on Medicaid are especially at risk according to the Wall Street Journal article To Be Old, Frail And Evicted: Patients at Risk:

Those on Medicaid bring facilities as little as half what they can get from residents who pay out of pocket, with private health insurance or through Medicare, the federal-state health program for the elderly.

What are families to do if their loved one is faced with an involuntary eviction from a nursing home?

The Nursing Home Reform Law of 1987 requires a home give a resident at least 30 days notice before evicting him or her, and allows for only six possible reasons for eviction: they are healthy enough to return home; they require care not offered at the nursing home; they risk the health of other residents or staff; they endanger the safety of other residents or staff; they do not pay their bills; or the nursing home closes.

The Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments of 1999 requires that nursing homes continue to provide care for Medicaid residents already living in the facility even if the nursing home chooses to cease participation in Medicaid.

If your loved one is facing an eviction from a nursing home or assisted living, each state has a Long Term Care Ombudsman. An Ombudsman advocates for residents of nursing homes, board and care homes, and assisted living. They can provide information about how to find a facility and what to do to get quality care and they are trained to resolve problems (A list of Ombudsmen by state).

When you have aging parents or family members, sometimes you find yourself thrust rather suddenly into a world of taxes, insurance and benefits involved with their care.

In my case, I had a rather general notion of how some of these things worked, but it wasn’t until I had to face it head long when my mother became ill that I really understood how some of these things worked. Since I still have my father and my mother-in-law to care for and I guess I’ll need it someday, too, I thought I’d try to find out what the current candidates for President are proposing for Social Security.

But, what I’ve found is that even as Democrats and Republicans prepare to gather in this election year, there hasn’t been much said about Social Security and its reform has been a political issue for over 30 years.

It’s curious because the Social Security program is set to pay out more than it receives in just a few years and something needs to be done, since for many older Americans, Social Security is their only income.

Earlier this summer, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, the tax is only on the first $102,000 of a worker’s income, which includes the salary of most Americans.

Though the plan has been criticized for a lack of detail, he cited that it was unfair for middle class citizens to pay tax on their entire income while the very wealthy only pay tax on a small percentage of their income.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, doesn’t support raising payroll taxes as a fix for Social Security. He agrees that the current system is unsustainable, and he supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts that would either permit employees to make contributions above the current payroll tax rate or a mandatory diversion of some of the current contributions to private accounts (”carve out” accounts).

But he has also been quoted that “everything is on the table” to be discussed as a solution, and this could include a tax increase.

Perhaps as the race heats up, we’ll hear more about it, people need to know in order to make an informed decision as Social Security issues are paramount to so many people’s lives.

Doctors across the country are breathing a sign of relief this morning, and if you or your loved ones are among the 44 million Americans who rely on Medicare for access to health care, you should be too.

The U.S. Senate late yesterday (July 9) agreed to recind a 10 percent cut in fees that Medicare pays doctors. The cut went into effect on July 1, but the government has agreed to pay doctors the their full fees retroactively to that date.  The U.S. House overwhelmingly voted against the cut on June 24, meaning that legislatively, the fight over reducing doctors’ fees is over.

The Senate decision is considered a victory for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who returned to Capitol Hill just for this vote from his home in Massachusetts — where he is recovering from June 2 brain surgery to remove a life-threatening tumor. Senate leaders tried to push the bill through without out the Medicare champion in June, but that effort failed.

“I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens – and that’s to protect Medicare,” Kennedy said.  “Win, lose or draw, I wanted to be here.  I wasn’t going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference.”

Senate Republicans blocked a measure last week that would have prevented a Medicare pay cut for doctors, saying the bill would have been vetoed by the White House and that a new approach should be crafted for Senate consideration.

Lawmakers appear to agree that the 10.6 percent payment cut for Medicare doctors — slated to take affect July 1 — should not go through. But they disagree on how to make that happen.

On a procedural vote of 54-39, senators rejected a $20 billion Medicare refinancing plan, primarily supported by Democrats, that would have not only blocked the pay cut, but would have increased physician payments by 1.1 percent.  The refinancing plan would have been paid for through reductions in Medicare’s reimbursements to private health plans.

Republicans support a competing measure that also would block the pay cut, but would provide for lower reductions in private health plan reimbursements.

“We all know what this vote was about, and it wasn’t about what’s best for American seniors,” said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who introduced the rejected measure. “The White House doesn’t want overpaid private health plans in Medicare to lose a single dime.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urged senators to defeat the Baucus bill. He called it an “incomplete” measure that “delays bipartisan consideration of a Medicare bill.”

But as the arguments rage on Capitol Hill, the clock is ticking. And it’s Medicare doctors — providing healthcare services to you and your loved ones — who will be left holding the check.

-Lori Woehrle

UPDATE: Since this post went live in June 2008, the state of Social Security benefits has been dramatically altered. Please refer to the information below for the most up-to-date news regarding the changes made to this important program. For further details on the COLA, visit www.ncoa.org.

On Oct. 16, the Social Security Administration announced a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of 5.8 percent for 2009, the largest increase since 1982. Social Security COLAs are based on increases in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) over the past year.

In January, the COLA will be applied to the Social Security benefits of over 50 million Americans. The increase for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which goes to more than seven million beneficiaries, will begin on Dec. 31. The average Social Security benefit will increase $63 per month, compared with an average $24 per month increase in 2008.

—

Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office published a little-noticed estimate that forecasts seniors will receive just a 2.8 percent increase in their Social Security checks beginning in January 2009.

Despite the increase, at least five million people aged 65 and over will remain in poverty because senior costs are rising significantly faster than the annual Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).

Between 2001 and 2008, Medicare Part B premiums have soared by more than 93 percent while the COLA has crept up just 19 percent, leaving many seniors on their own to cover all other rising costs. Part B premiums cover doctors’ visits, tests, and outpatient hospital care.

Although the COLA is intended to help seniors keep up with inflation, a recent study by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) that analyzed eight key expenditures found that people 65 and over have lost 40 percent of their buying power since 2000. Expenses such as home heating oil and gasoline have more than doubled since the beginning of the decade, while food staples such as potatoes and butter have increased by 47 and 39 percent, respectively.

A majority of the 48 million Americans aged 65 and over who receive a Social Security check depend on it for at least 50 percent of their total income, and one in three beneficiaries relies on it for 90 percent or more of their total income.

“Social Security is supposed to protect seniors in need – but with five million seniors below the poverty line, it’s clear the system is failing them,” said Shannon Benton, executive director of The Senior Citizens League. “If it’s true that a nation’s greatness is defined by how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens, then we must do a better job of protecting impoverished seniors.”

To help offset the cost of Medicare Part B, TSCL is lobbying for a change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) used to determine the COLA. The government currently calculates the COLA based on the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), a slow-rising index that tracks the spending habits of younger workers who don’t spend as much of their income on health expenditures.

However, the government also tracks the spending patterns of older Americans with the CPI for Elderly Consumers, or CPI-E. By tying the annual increase in the COLA to the CPI-E, seniors would see much needed relief in their monthly checks.

If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

-Lori Woehrle