Yahoo News, March 15th, 2010
A simple
genetic
test can help pinpoint the precise dose of a potentially
life-saving medication taken by millions to ward off blood clotting
after heart surgery, a study published Tuesday found.
The clinical study led by two leading medical researchers -- Medco Research
Institute specializing in pharmacy care, and the Mayo Clinic
in Rochester, Minnesota -- found that hospital stays can be reduced by
one-third by undertaking genetic testing to determine the sensitivity
of patients to the widely-used drug warfarin.
Warfarin, the world's most widely-prescribed blood thinner and which has been in use for
half a century, is used to reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke after a patient has
had a heart attack.
It also is used to prevent blood clots, pulmonary embolism, and other complications
following atrial
fibrillation or heart
valve replacement surgery. About two million people begin
warfarin therapy every year in the United States.
But there are significant risks associated with the use of the drug if
the proper dose is not determined.
Warfarin therapy requires doctors to closely monitor patients because
the dose needed to obtain a therapeutic effect is very close to the dose
that can cause negative medical reactions.
Some 20 percent or more of patients are hospitalized for bleeding within
six months of the drug, and warfarin is the leading cause of
drug-related emergency room visits among the elderly.
Doctors say it can take weeks or even months of repeated blood tests and dose
adjustments to determine the right dose for each patient.
During that time, patients run an increased risk of thrombosis, a
potentially serious condition brought about by the formation of a blood clot in a vein if
too little warfarin is administered. But if given too much warfarin,
patients face a risk of hemorrhaging.
Researchers in the study presented at the 59th annual conference of the American College
of Cardiology in Atlanta, Georgia, said genetic testing offers a
better way to help clinicians determine the optimum dose of the drug for
each individual patient.
Read more of this article.
Yahoo News, March 15th, 2010
It took lawmakers a year to shape
President Barack Obama's health care bill.
If it finally passes Congress, it'll take the better part of a decade to
write the user manual for consumers and doctors, employers and
insurance companies.
Some health insurance consumer protections would go
into place immediately, significant but limited in scope. The big
expansion in coverage comes in four years. About 25 million people would
sign up, with most getting tax credits to help pay premiums. Ripple
effects continue well after Obama has to leave office in 2017, if he's
re-elected.
But even if the 2,700-plus-page bill passes, it's
only the end of the beginning. The Obama blueprint will be carried out
under less-than-ideal circumstances. Rising medical costs and an aging population will
keep squeezing the federal budget. Lawmakers will have to revisit hard
choices they sidestepped.
"This is going to play out over a generation," said
Andrew Hyman, who oversees health insurance research for the nonpartisan
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. "It will address how people get coverage, how health
care is delivered, and how health care is paid for."
The House is expected to vote on the final
legislation this week, with the Senate to follow later. Here's a primer
on some of the major effects for consumers and other key players:
IMMEDIATE CHANGES
Uninsured people with medical problems will have a
workable alternative. The bill pumps $5 billion into high-risk insurance
pools run by the states to provide coverage to those in frail health.
Taxpayer-backed insurance won't be free, but premiums should be much
lower than what's charged by private insurers willing to take those in
poor health.
For people with private health insurance — about two-thirds
of Americans — there would be some new safeguards. For example, insurers
would be barred from placing lifetime dollar limits on coverage and
from canceling policies except in cases of fraud. Children could stay on
their parents' coverage until age 26.
Read more of this article.
Health Day News, March 2nd, 2010
People who say their lives
have a purpose are less likely to develop
Alzheimer's disease or its
precursor,
mild cognitive impairment,
a new study suggests.
As the population
ages and dementia becomes a more frequent diagnosis,
there's increasing impetus to determine the causes of the disease,
associated risk factors and how to
prevent it, explained study co-author
Dr. Aron S. Buchman, an associate
professor in the department of
neurological sciences at Rush
University Medical Center in Chicago.
"There has been a lot of interest in psychosocial
factors and their
association with cognitive decline and dementia in later life," he
said.
The study looked at the positive aspects of life and
their possible
effect on keeping dementia at bay, "looking at happiness, purposefulness
in life, well-being and whether those kind of concepts are associated
with
a decreased risk of dementia," Buchman explained.
For the study, published in the March issue of the Archives
of
General Psychiatry, Buchman and his colleagues collected data on 951
older people without dementia who participated in the Rush Memory and
Aging Project. The participants were asked to respond to statements such
as: "I feel good when I think of what I have done in the past and what I
hope to do in the future," and "I have a sense of direction and purpose
in
life."
After an average four years of follow-up, 16.3
percent of the people in
the study developed Alzheimer's disease. Taking into account other
factors
that could account for Alzheimer's, the researchers found that people
who
responded most positively to statements about their lives were the least
likely to develop the condition. Also, people who said they had more
purposeful lives were less likely to develop mild cognitive impairment and
had a slower rate of cognitive decline.
Read more of this article.Long Term Care Insurance: The chance of developing Alzheimer's, and similar diseases, can be reduced through simple lifestyle choices, but the risk remains present. Consider Long Term Care Insurance as a means of mitigating this risk.
Yahoo News, March 3rd, 2010
Spring is coming, and a young man's thoughts turn to...you know.
Apparently, old men's thoughts turn to the same subject. According to an
article to be published Wednesday in the
journal BMJ (British Medical Journal), 67% of men ages 65
to 74 said they had been sexually active in the past year, compared
with just 40% of women in that age group. Everyone knows young men think
constantly about sex, but many guys remain interested in sex until they
are almost dead: more than one-third of men ages 75 to 85 said they had
sex in the past 12 months, compared with just 17% of women in that age
group.
Some of this surely has to do with Viagra, which
makes it easier for older men to be interested in sex. But the disparity
in sexual activity between older men and older women isn't entirely
explained by the 1998 release of the little blue pill. One set of data
presented in the new paper - taken from the National Survey of Midlife
Development, involving about 3,000 adults aged 25 to 74 - was collected
in 1995 and 1996. That data set shows that 62% of men ages 65 to 74
reported sexual activity in the previous six months; only 36% of women
in the same age group did so. (See how
to prevent illness at any age.)
These differences matter because having a healthy sex
life is strongly associated with having a healthy life, period - and
also a longer life. Scientists aren't sure about the causal relationship here.
Sexually active people tend to be healthier, and healthier people tend
to be sexually active. It could be that the fulfillment of sex gives you
a health boost, or that being more fit makes sex better - or, more
likely, it's a little of both.
What we do know, from this new paper, is that if you
are a 30-year-old male, you can be expected to have sex for 35 more
years. The authors - Dr. Stacy Tessler Lindau and researcher Natalia
Gavrilova of the University
of Chicago - call this measure your "sexually active life expectancy,"
or SALE. A 30-year-old woman has a SALE of just 31 more years. (The
study also finds that men and women who stay healthy and in good shape
gain extra years of sexually active life in older age, compared with
their peers in poorer health.) But women live about five years longer
than men, so when you do the math, all this means that women go
approximately twice as long without sex as men before they die. (Read about elder porn in Japan.)
Older women also enjoy the sex they do have far less
than older men. Married women ages 57 to 64 who haven't been divorced or
widowed report having about as much sex as married men in the same age
group. But while 77% of partnered men in that age group say they are
interested in sex, only 36% of partnered women report the same interest.
These figures suggest that a lot of older women may be having sex when
they don't really want to.
Lindau, the lead author on the paper, is cautious
about drawing strong conclusions from this variance. "It may be that
women are more likely to have sex for reasons other than fulfilling
pleasure - or that they are more interested in giving a partner
satisfaction," she says. "Maybe they lack the agency, or maybe they feel
marital duty, but our paper doesn't provide an explanation."
Read more of this article.
Financial-Planning.com, March 16th, 2010
More retirement think tanks are getting on board with the idea of
including annuities in 401(k) plans, but so far, only a handful of large
employers have this as an option.
“They are complicated,” Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for
Retirement Research at Boston College explains. “And [if] you hand over
a bunch of your hard-earned cash and go out on the street and get hit
by a bus, it’s gone.”
Further, investors are afraid an insurance
carrier could go out of business, and plan sponsors don’t like the
administrative headache of switching annuity investments when workers
change jobs, added Robyn Credico, a consultant with Towers Watson.
In addition, the Retirement Security Project at Brookings Institution
recently spelled out a number of perceived problems with annuities
among investors: “Annuities may not inspire confidence because they are
not sufficiently transparent or simple to understand. Consumers find
themselves mystified by annuities' complex provisions and worry that
insurance companies are pricing their products unfairly. Comparison
shopping between annuities, let alone between annuities and lump-sum
options, can be a lot more complicated than contrasting a Toyota to a
Ford in an automobile showroom.”
Nonetheless, the Obama
administration recently came out in favor of annuities, and the
Department of Labor and Treasury Department are gathering information on
the feasibility of including annuities in 401(k)s.
Meanwhile, The
Retirement Security Project recommends either automatic annuitization
once workers reach age 45, with the right to opt out, or moving 50% of a
worker’s savings into an annuity upon retirement.
And the
401(k)helpcenter.com, which serves plan sponsors, advocates the creation
of a federal insurance fund similar to the FDIC to guarantee annuities.
Read more of this article.Annuity Advice for Retirement: As annuities become more popular, more seniors are investigating whether or not they make sense for them in retirement. You can do this yourself by researching the subject on NewRetirement.com
San Francisco Examiner, March 15th, 2010
While healthcare reform is going to be a major issue in elections this
year, there is another issue that may be just as powerful if not more
so-particularly at the local level. The healthcare debate will impact
U.S. Congressional races across the country, and there may be some
trickle down the ballot to state and local elections.
Much more potentially damaging to incumbents is the issue of pension
reform. I attended a town hall meeting last night in Towson sponsored by
Americans
for Prosperity. The subject was pension reform. This is an issue
that could prove disastrous to incumbents, if they choose to ignore it.
Most of the town hall focused on Baltimore County, but the speakers
noted that this is not a situation isolated to the County. The issue of
elected officials' pension hit widespread consciousness with two recent
incidents.
First, convicted and disgraced former Mayor Sheila Dixon, as part of her
plea deal was allowed to keep her
$83,000
a year pension, despite being found guilty by a jury of her peers
of stealing while in office. Second, Baltimore County Councilman Vincent
Gardina announced that he would not seek re-election in 2010. At that
time, it was published that he would begin receiving a pension at age
55,
$54,000 a year for the rest of his life.
Some points about the Baltimore County Council and Executive pensions:
1. County Council is a part-time position, requiring an average of 1,000
hours per year, some members will work more and some will work less. By
contrast, someone who works forty (40) hours per week with two weeks
vacation will have worked 2,000 hours per year.
2. County Council salary was $38,500 in 1998, and now it is $54,000, a
forty percent (40%) increase twelve (12) years later. Then, if you are
elected by the rest of the Council to serve as Council President for a
year, you receive an extra $6,000 for that year ($60,000 total for the
year). Gardina has been quoted as saying that
$54,000 is not enough for this part-time job.
Read more of this article.NewRetirement Retirement Calculator: Assess the state of your pension in regards to your retirement plans at NewRetirement.com
The New York Times, March 15th, 2010
The gold-plated credit rating of the United States — an article of
faith across America and, indeed, around the world — may be at risk in
coming years as the nation copes with its growing debts.
That sobering assessment, issued Monday by Moody’s
Investors Service, provided a reminder that even Aaa-rated United States Treasury bonds, supposedly the safest
of safe investments, could be downgraded one day if Washington failed
to manage the federal debt.
Moody’s
said the United States and other major Western nations, particularly
Britain, have moved “substantially” closer to losing their gilt-edged
ratings. The ratings are “stable,” but “their ‘distance-to-downgrade’
has in all cases substantially diminished,” the credit ratings agency
said.
A downgrade would affect more than American pride. The bigger risk would
be to the country’s ability to keep borrowing money on extremely
favorable terms, and therefore to keep spending more money than it takes
in from tax revenue.
A credit rating lets lenders and investors know how likely it is that a
borrower can pay back a loan. A sterling rating means there is little
for lenders to worry about. A lower one typically results in bond
investors demanding higher interest rates on debt.
Those higher rates, in turn, add to the country’s overall debt burden
and can force the government to reduce spending, increase taxes or
both. That difficulty has been well-illustrated recently in Greece and
Portugal, with strikes and protests as citizens march in the streets to
oppose tough austerity measures that directly reduce entitlements and
state benefits.
“Growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt
equation,” Moody’s said. “Preserving debt affordability” — the ratio of
interest payments to government revenue — “at levels consistent with Aaa
ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that,
in some cases, will test social cohesion.” The United States, Britain,
France and Germany have always been rated triple-A by Moody’s, with the
United States first rated in 1949.
Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s,
stressed that none of their ratings were “threatened so far.”
But he did differentiate among the top countries, saying that Britain
and the United States are in the toughest position.
Read more of this article.
The Wall Street Journal, March 12th, 2010
Is it too late to save your retirement?
For many, the answer is surely yes. News out this week shows that 29%
of those who have already retired have saved nothing at all to support
themselves, while only a third have saved at least $50,000.
To put this in context: A retirement account of $50,000 will provide a
65-year-old man with an annuity of just $4,000 a year.
Yet according to the latest annual retirement survey from the
Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit think tank in
Washington, two-thirds of those in retirement don't even have that much
set aside.
It's true that many will still be okay. That's because they will have
a good benefit pension, or a lot of equity in their home, or both.
Neither is counted in the survey, and both can be very important.
But neither pensions nor home values are what they once were. And
many won't even have them.
Overall, this is a pitiful state of affairs at the tail end of the
biggest financial boom in history. Today's retirees lived through the
incredible bull market that began in 1982. Bonds as well as shares
skyrocketed. Most of them should be rolling in money.
Instead they were relying on ... what? Santa Claus?
Read more of this article.
NewRetirement Retirement Calculator: For those who would rather not rely on Santa Claus, it is
vital to have a plan in mind for retirement. The NewRetirement Retirement calculator can help you ensure that you have just that.
Reverse Mortgage Daily, March 11th, 2010
During his testimony
in front of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, David H. Stevens, Assistant Secretary of Housing
for the Federal Housing Administration voiced his strong support of the
administration’s reverse mortgage program on Thursday.
“The need for this type of program is greater now than it’s ever
been, due to increasing medical costs, declining employment/incomes, and
less “savings” in various types of pension funds/retirement accounts,”
said Stevens.
This comes as the OMB requested an appropriation of $250 million to
support the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) in its FY 2011
budget.
Referencing a survey conducted by AARP in 2006, Stevens told the
committee the product has provided seniors with much-needed financial
relief and was primarily used to pay for long term health care, enable
home repairs, and provide piece of mind that housing expenses could be
met.
In addition, Stevens said the program plays an important role in
allowing seniors to age in place. “Keeping seniors in their homes and
communities, close to familiar support networks, puts less pressure on
our nation’s overextended nursing home infrastructure and the public
resources that support it.”
According to his testimony, FHA’s analysis showed that to maintain
the viability of the program for FY 2011, an increase in the annual
mortgage insurance premium from 0.50% to 1.25% and a further reduction
in the principal limit factors (PLFs) of approximately one to five
percent depending on the age of the borrower is necessary, on top of the
10% reduction in PLFs that was implemented at the beginning of FY2010.
If the $250 million appropriation is not provided, the PLFs will be
cut even more. ”Without the budget request, we would be forced to
reduce the PLFs by an additional 21% in FY2011. This would significantly
reduce the amount of funds that would be available to seniors (more
than 30%), which is on average a $23,000 to $27,000 impact,” said
Stevens.
Read more about this article.About Reverse Mortgages: If the above change does go into effect, it will drastically reduce the amounts available to seniors through reverse mortgages. Given this, it may be beneficial to consider getting a reverse mortgage now rather than later, or at least considering one's options in that regard at NewRetirement.com
Employee Benefit Research Institute, March 10th, 2010
20TH ANNUAL RCS: The 2010 Retirement Confidence
Survey—the 20th annual wave of this survey—finds that the record-low
confidence levels measured during the past two years of economic decline
appear to have bottomed out. The percentage of workers very confident
about having enough money for a comfortable retirement has stabilized at
16 percent, which is statistically equivalent to the 20-year low of 13
percent measured in 2009 (Fig. 1, pg. 7). Retiree confidence about
having a financially secure retirement has also stabilized, with 19
percent saying now they are very confident (statistically equivalent to
the 20 percent measured in 2009) (Fig. 2, pg. 8).
Worker confidence about paying for basic expenses in retirement has
rebounded slightly, with 29 percent now saying they are very confident
about having enough money to pay for basic expenses during retirement
(up from 25 percent in 2009, but still down from 34 percent in 2008)
(Fig. 3, pg. 9).
PREPARATIONS STILL ERODING: Fewer workers report
that they and/or their spouse have saved for retirement (69 percent,
down from 75 percent in 2009 but statistically equivalent to 72 percent
in 2008) (Fig. 11, page 14). Moreover, fewer workers say that they
and/or their spouse are currently saving for retirement (60 percent,
down from 65 percent in 2009 but statistically equivalent to percentages
measured in other years) (Fig. 13, pg. 15).
MORE PEOPLE HAVE NO SAVINGS AT ALL: An increased
percentage of workers report they have virtually no savings and
investments. Among RCS workers providing this type of information, 27
percent say they have less than $1,000 in savings (up from 20 percent in
2009). In total, more than half of workers (54 percent) report that the
total value of their household’s savings and investments, excluding the
value of their primary home and any defined benefit plans, is less than
$25,000 (Fig. 14, pg. 16).
CLUELESS ABOUT SAVINGS GOALS: Many workers continue
to be unaware of how much they need to save for retirement. Less than
half of workers (46 percent) report they and/or their spouse have tried
to calculate how much money they will need to have saved for a
comfortable retirement by the time they retire (Fig. 23, pg. 22).
Read more of this article.NewRetirement Retirement Calculator: It is never too late to start preparing for your retirement, even if you are already in it. If you're one of those whose preparations are eroding, consider the NewRetirement Retirement Calculator as a means of helping you achieve your goals.
Kaiser Health News, March 7th, 2010
Here’s the problem: By the time we need long-term care services we often
don’t have readily available resources to pay for them. Only about
seven million Americans have private long-term care insurance. And, on
average, retirees have financial assets of less than $100,000—usually in
the form of a 401(k) or other retirement plan. If a 65-year old turned
that into steady monthly income, he’d get less than $600. That would pay
for a home health aide for barely seven hours a week.
But
Americans do have a way to fund this care: their home. Last year, we had
more than $7 trillion in real estate equity, even after the crash. In
2007, nearly two-thirds of American families headed by people 62 or
older owned a home free and clear But 20 percent were “cash-poor,”
according to the MetLife Mature Market Institute, and could have used
that equity to improve the quality of their lives.
Trouble is,
two-thirds of retirees have no intention of using their homes to fund
their old age. Some want to leave houses to their kids. Others don’t
understand how they can tap their home equity, and others misunderstand
the rules about home ownership and Medicaid.
So here’s a
possible solution. What if your state, in effect, helped you turn unused
home equity into cash to pay for the care you need when you become old
and frail? To sweeten the deal, what if the state let you have easier
access to Medicaid to supplement your own long-term care contributions?
You
could use the money to make your home wheelchair accessible, or pay for
a special van, or even for adult day care or that home health aide.
You’d have far more flexibility than with regular Medicaid. In return
for this upfront cash, your heirs would repay the state with modest
interest after you die, usually by selling your house. The state wins by
saving the cost of caring for you in a nursing home. You win by easily
accessing the equity that could allow you to stay at home.
This
program would look a lot like a reverse mortgage. With those, if you are
at least 62, you can take out a loan against the equity in your home.
You get either a lump sum in cash, access to a line of credit, or a
regular check each month. When you move or die, you or your heirs sell
the house and repay the loan plus interest.
But reverse
mortgages have been a bust. In 2007, fewer than 1 percent of eligible
homeowners had one. People have trouble understanding them. And they are
weighed down by high fees (there is a servicing fee, an origination
fee, mortgage insurance premiums, closing costs, and, of course, the
interest). At the same time, a troubling number of users are relatively
young borrowers who are tapping reverse mortgages to pay off credit
cards or fund vacations. The perverse result: They will have even less
home equity available when they really need it to pay for long-term
care.
Read more of this article.About Reverse Mortgages: We at NewRetirement do not necessarily endorse the notion of getting a Reverse Mortgage specifically to purchase some other kind of financial program. The above article is correct though in describing the valuable role they can play in pursuing whatever goals you may have in retirement.
Long Term Care Insurance: A massive risk looming over most seniors heads is the threat of long term care costs. Long term care insurance can be an excellent means of mitigating this risk. Learn more about it at NewRetirement.com.
The New York Times, March 1st, 2010
“I’m 86 and have walked every day of my life. The public needs to wake
up and move.”
“I’m 83 going on 84 years! I find that daily aerobics and walking
are fine. But these regimens neglect the rest of the body, and I find
the older you get the more attention they need.”
These are two of
many comments from readers of my Jan. 12 column on the
secrets of successful aging. At the risk of sounding like a broken
record, a new series of studies prompts me to again review the myriad
benefits to body, mind and longevity of regular physical
activity for people of all ages.
Regular exercise is the only
well-established fountain of youth, and it’s free. What, I’d like to
know, will persuade the majority of Americans who remain sedentary to
get off their duffs and give their bodies the workout they deserve? My
hope is that every new testimonial to the value of exercise will win
a few more converts until everyone is doing it.
In a commentary on the new studies, published
Jan. 25 in The Archives of Internal Medicine, two geriatricians, Dr.
Marco Pahor of the University of Florida
and Dr. Jeff Williamson of Winston-Salem, N.C., pointed to “the power
of higher levels of physical activity to aid in the prevention of
late-life disability owing to either cognitive impairment or physical
impairment, separately or together.”
“Physical inactivity,” they
wrote, “is one of the strongest predictors of unsuccessful aging for
older adults and is perhaps the root cause of many unnecessary and
premature admissions to long-term care.”
They noted that it had
long been “well established that higher quantities of physical activity
have beneficial effects on numerous age-related conditions such as osteoarthritis,
falls and hip fracture,
cardiovascular disease, respiratory
diseases, cancer, diabetes
mellitus, osteoporosis,
low fitness and obesity,
and decreased functional capacity.”
One of the new studies adds
mental deterioration, with exercise producing “a significantly reduced
risk of cognitive impairment after two years for participants with
moderate or high physical activity” who were older than 55 when the
study began.
Most early studies demonstrating the benefits of
exercise were done with men. Now a raft of recent studies has shown that
active women reap comparable rewards.
Read more of this article.
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, March, 2010
The National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) measures the share of American
households ‘at risk’ of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement
standard of living in retirement. The Index is calculated by comparing
households’ projected replacement rates – retirement income as a percent
of pre-retirement income – with target rates that would allow them to
maintain their living standard. To make the estimates as conservative
as possible, the calculation assumes that households derive the maximum
possible income from the assets they hold at retirement. A crucial
component of that exercise is the highly unrealistic assumption that
they access their home equity through a reverse mortgage and invest the
proceeds in an inflation-indexed annuity – very few households actually
take reverse mortgages or buy annuities. This fact sheet looks at how
not taking full advantage of housing equity affects the share of U.S.
households ‘at risk.’...
Read this article.About Reverse Mortgages: One of the options discussed at length in this article is that of tapping the equity in one's home using a reverse mortgage. Consider the possibilities of this at NewRetirement.com
Annuity Advice for Retirement: Inflation-indexed annuities are a popular choice for seniors who are looking how best to invest their retirement savings so as to maximize the security of their retirement. You can learn more about these programs at NewRetirement.com
NewRetirement Retirement Calculator: Many other factors go into determining what is and is not a valid plan for your retirement. You can consider where you might need to look by running the NewRetirement Retirement Calculator.
CNN Money, March 6th, 2010
When you think of low-paying jobs, doctor doesn't usually come to
mind.
But with a 21% cut in Medicare payments slated to take
effect later this month, physicians who say they are making an OK living
may be reduced to income levels that no longer make their profession
viable. That's especially true for those still paying medical school
costs and other training.
"The cuts will hit me," said Dr. William Schreiber, a primary care
physician based in North Syracuse, N.Y.
Schreiber sees 120
patients a week. About 30% of them are enrolled directly in Medicare,
while another 65% have private insurance plans that peg their payments
on Medicare's rates. Only 5% pay on their own.
As a result,
Schreiber expects the cuts to take away $3 out of every $5 he currently
earns. And, as a primary care physician, he already wasn't earning
anything near the salary of a specialist.
"After the costs of my
own benefits are deducted, that will leave me with the equivalent of a
minimum wage job," he said.
Unless Congress acts to adjust
Medicare payments without considering the impact of rising health care
costs, Schreiber said he could be forced into bankruptcy or shut his
practice.
Cost of care
Schreiber,
who employs two nurse practitioners, agreed to break down the costs
associated with running his practice.
He spends about $60,000 a
month on "fixed costs" to run his practice. "That's more or less my
breakeven point," he said. "If I spend more, I'm in the red for the
month."
Read more of this article.
Supplemental Medicare Insurance: With or without the cuts being discussed, it's unlikely that Medicare will be able to cover all of your medical needs as you move through retirement. Consider whether purchasing supplemental insurance is the right move at NewRetirement.com
The New York Times, March 5th, 2010
AFTER 24 years as a marketing manager for Coors, Cinde Dolphin knew what
was coming — Miller and Coors had just merged their United States beer
operations, and hundreds of jobs were sure to be eliminated.
Worried that these youth-oriented companies might lay off an old-timer
like her, Ms. Dolphin decided to take a buyout and relax. She sunned on
the beaches of New Zealand, went whitewater rafting on the Yampa River
in Colorado and saw friends and Broadway shows in New York.
But after a few months, she realized that she missed working. So at age
55, she began applying for marketing jobs, confident she would be
quickly hired because of her Coors pedigree. “About four months into my
job search, I realized I wasn’t getting many callbacks,” she said.
A Sacramento resident who has survived three bouts with cancer, Ms.
Dolphin is not one to give up easily. She decided on an alternate tack —
she would start her own business and thus join the nation’s
fastest-growing group of entrepreneurs, those age 55 and above.
Mining her decades of experience, she created a marketing and public
relations firm that helps California winemakers get their message out
through Facebook, Twitter and other social
media.
“I’m having a ball,” she said. “I can set up my own hours and work
schedule, and do other things I enjoy.”
More than five million Americans age 55 or older run their own
businesses or are otherwise self-employed, according to the Small
Business Administration. And the number of self-employed people ages
55 to 64 is soaring, the agency says, climbing 52 percent from 2000 to
2007.
Like Ms. Dolphin, some use money from a buyout to finance a new company.
Some of these entrepreneurs were already retired, but after seeing
their 401(k)
retirement plans plunge in value, created a business in a quest for
extra income. Some had lost their jobs and, after months of searching
for work, started a business to make ends meet, perhaps catering,
cabinet making or doing photography.
Read more of this article.
Working in Retirement: As the above article indicates, many programs exist to help seniors who are looking to make career changes or even resume working after their retirement. You can investigate the possibilities at NewRetirement.com