California addressing long term care. Where is Illinois?
We are in California for a week. Starting out in San Diego visiting a friend and then driving to L.A. where a group of my high school chums, all who are turning 75 this year, are getting together.
Chicago is home now and has been for over 50 years.
For the past decade Illinois has become a progressive island in the midwest.
With the Republican Party reduced to a bothersome pest, Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and the Governor’s mansion.
Chicago is solidly Democratic which has elected two African American progressive mayors in a row.
But one thing that Illinois has not addressed is the pressing need of long-term care for the elderly.
And we can’t expect Washington to deal with it anytime soon.
Not so California.
Four out of five 65-year-olds will need some amount of long-term care during their remaining years, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
NY Times retirement writer, Mark Miller, reports that paying for such long-term care presents retirees with difficult choices.
Medicare coverage is very limited. Private long-term care insurance policies are complicated and expensive. Medicaid, which insures low-income people, pays for long-term care only when a patient’s assets have been almost completely spent. And many will rely on family members for help.
But, Washington aside, the most significant plan being developed is California’s. The state is studying the financial feasibility of several options for a public insurance program, with possible legislative action expected in 2024.
“If California moves ahead, it will be exciting because it’s a huge state,” Mr. Veghte said. “That could really break the dam for the rest of the country.”
Like Washington, California would fund its program through a payroll tax, but the state is considering a “progressive” tax system that would feature a contribution cap and a waiver for low-income residents. Another difference is that the tax might be split between employees and employers.
California is weighing a range of benefit designs, some of which would be considerably larger than Washington’s. For example, one option would provide a maximum benefit of $110,400 per year, for up to two years, covering home-based services and residential facilities.
“The reality for us is that by the start of the next decade, 25 percent of our population is going to be 65 or older, and that’s about 8.4 million people in California,” said Michael Soller, deputy insurance commissioner for communications and press relations at the California Department of Insurance. “Leaving California seniors to fend for themselves is just not an option for us.”
Time for Illinois to keep its progressive cred and address this.