Provide, provide: the economics of aging.

{"title":"Provide, provide: the economics of aging.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most older persons face two potentially serious economic problems: (a) declining earning power and (b) declining health that can be partly offset by increased utilization of health care. The decline in earning power is largely attributable to physiological changes and to obsolescence of skills and knowledge. These adverse effects are exacerbated by public and private policies that reduce the incentives of older persons to continue work and increase the cost to employers of employing older workers. The problems of earnings replacement and health care payment are usually discussed separately, but there are several reasons why they should be considered together. First, there are often tradeoffs between the two. Money is money, and for most people there is never enough to go around. This is self-evident where private funds are concerned. Low-income elderly, for instance, frequently must choose between expensive prescription drugs and an adequate diet. For middle-income elderly, the choice may be between saving on medigap insurance or forgoing an airplane trip to a grandchild's graduation. Difficult choices are also inherent in the allocation of public funds. The same tax receipts that could be used to maintain or increase retirement benefits could be used to fund additional care, and vice versa. In discussing these tradeoffs, some analysts assert that people will gladly give up other goods and services for medical care that cures illness, relieves pain, or restores function. Others believe that some people would forgo some health insurance in order to maintain access to other goods and services. A second reason for looking at the two problems together is that they pose similar questions for public policy. How much should each generation provide for its own needs in old age, and how much should be provided by the generations that follow? How much provision should be voluntary, how much compulsory? How much intra-generational redistribution is appropriate after age 65? How well can private markets serve the elderly's desire for annuities and health insurance, and when are public programs more efficient? Finally, the problem of health care payment is approaching that of earning replacement in economic importance and, by 2020, will far exceed it. Declining health after age 65 results in substantial increase in use of prescription drugs, hospital admissions, repair or replacement of parts of the body, rehabilitation and physical therapy, and assistance with activities of daily living. New technologies offer great promise for offsetting the health problems of aging, but often at considerable expense. Overall, per capita expenditures for health care after age 65 are between three and four times as great as for those under 65. This presentation will focus primarily on the (thus far) inexorable increase in consumption of health care by older Americans. If this increase continues and if the government's share of the total remains unchanged, the tax burden on younger cohorts could become intolerable. Concomitantly, if the private share remains unchanged, the ability of the elderly to obtain other goods and services would be sharply diminished. Although the emphasis of the session will be on aggregate and average results, levels and trends in income inequality among the elderly will also be examined and compared with inequality at younger ages. The session will conclude with a discussion of changes that might avert the economic and social crises foreshadowed in the data.</p>","PeriodicalId":80013,"journal":{"name":"Issue brief (George Washington University. National Health Policy Forum)","volume":" 721","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issue brief (George Washington University. National Health Policy Forum)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most older persons face two potentially serious economic problems: (a) declining earning power and (b) declining health that can be partly offset by increased utilization of health care. The decline in earning power is largely attributable to physiological changes and to obsolescence of skills and knowledge. These adverse effects are exacerbated by public and private policies that reduce the incentives of older persons to continue work and increase the cost to employers of employing older workers. The problems of earnings replacement and health care payment are usually discussed separately, but there are several reasons why they should be considered together. First, there are often tradeoffs between the two. Money is money, and for most people there is never enough to go around. This is self-evident where private funds are concerned. Low-income elderly, for instance, frequently must choose between expensive prescription drugs and an adequate diet. For middle-income elderly, the choice may be between saving on medigap insurance or forgoing an airplane trip to a grandchild's graduation. Difficult choices are also inherent in the allocation of public funds. The same tax receipts that could be used to maintain or increase retirement benefits could be used to fund additional care, and vice versa. In discussing these tradeoffs, some analysts assert that people will gladly give up other goods and services for medical care that cures illness, relieves pain, or restores function. Others believe that some people would forgo some health insurance in order to maintain access to other goods and services. A second reason for looking at the two problems together is that they pose similar questions for public policy. How much should each generation provide for its own needs in old age, and how much should be provided by the generations that follow? How much provision should be voluntary, how much compulsory? How much intra-generational redistribution is appropriate after age 65? How well can private markets serve the elderly's desire for annuities and health insurance, and when are public programs more efficient? Finally, the problem of health care payment is approaching that of earning replacement in economic importance and, by 2020, will far exceed it. Declining health after age 65 results in substantial increase in use of prescription drugs, hospital admissions, repair or replacement of parts of the body, rehabilitation and physical therapy, and assistance with activities of daily living. New technologies offer great promise for offsetting the health problems of aging, but often at considerable expense. Overall, per capita expenditures for health care after age 65 are between three and four times as great as for those under 65. This presentation will focus primarily on the (thus far) inexorable increase in consumption of health care by older Americans. If this increase continues and if the government's share of the total remains unchanged, the tax burden on younger cohorts could become intolerable. Concomitantly, if the private share remains unchanged, the ability of the elderly to obtain other goods and services would be sharply diminished. Although the emphasis of the session will be on aggregate and average results, levels and trends in income inequality among the elderly will also be examined and compared with inequality at younger ages. The session will conclude with a discussion of changes that might avert the economic and social crises foreshadowed in the data.

提供,提供:老龄化经济学。
大多数老年人面临两个潜在的严重经济问题:(a)收入能力下降和(b)健康状况下降,这可以通过增加对保健服务的利用来部分抵消。赚钱能力的下降主要是由于生理变化和技能和知识的过时。这些不利影响因公共和私人政策而加剧,这些政策降低了老年人继续工作的积极性,增加了雇主雇用老年工人的成本。收入替代和医疗保健支付的问题通常是分开讨论的,但有几个原因可以解释为什么它们应该被放在一起考虑。首先,两者之间经常存在权衡。钱就是钱,对大多数人来说,钱永远不够花。就私人基金而言,这是不言而喻的。例如,低收入的老年人经常必须在昂贵的处方药和适当的饮食之间做出选择。对于中等收入的老年人来说,选择可能是为医疗保险存钱,还是放弃乘坐飞机去参加孙子的毕业典礼。在公共资金的分配中也存在困难的选择。同样的税收收入可以用来维持或增加退休福利,也可以用来资助额外的护理,反之亦然。在讨论这些权衡时,一些分析人士断言,人们会很乐意放弃其他商品和服务,以获得治疗疾病、缓解疼痛或恢复功能的医疗保健。另一些人认为,有些人会放弃一些医疗保险,以保持获得其他商品和服务的机会。把这两个问题放在一起看的第二个原因是,它们对公共政策提出了类似的问题。每一代人应该为自己年老时的需要提供多少,而后代人又应该提供多少?多少是自愿的,多少是强制性的?65岁以后,多少代际再分配是合适的?私人市场能在多大程度上满足老年人对年金和医疗保险的需求?什么时候公共项目更有效?最后,医疗保健支付问题在经济上的重要性正在接近收入替代问题,到2020年将远远超过收入替代问题。65岁以后健康状况下降,导致使用处方药、住院、修复或更换身体部位、康复和物理治疗以及协助日常生活活动的人数大幅增加。新技术为抵消老龄化带来的健康问题提供了巨大的希望,但往往要付出相当大的代价。总体而言,65岁以后的人均医疗保健支出是65岁以下人群的三到四倍。本演讲将主要关注(到目前为止)美国老年人医疗保健消费的不可阻挡的增长。如果这种增长继续下去,如果政府在总税收中所占的份额保持不变,那么年轻人的税收负担可能会变得无法忍受。与此同时,如果私人份额保持不变,老年人获得其他商品和服务的能力将大大减弱。虽然会议的重点是总体和平均结果,但也将审查老年人收入不平等的水平和趋势,并将其与年轻人的不平等进行比较。会议结束时将讨论可能避免数据所预示的经济和社会危机的变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信