The theory that marriage has protective effects for survival has itself lived for more than 100 years since Durkheim's groundbreaking study of suicide (Durkheim 1951 [1897]). Investigations of differences in this protective effect by gender, by age, and in contrast to different unmarried statuses, however, have yielded inconsistent conclusions. These investigations typically either use data in which marital status and other covariates are observed in cross-sectional surveys up to 10 years before mortality exposure, or use data from panel surveys with much smaller sample sizes. Their conclusions are usually not based on formal statistical tests of contrasts between men and women or between never-married, divorced/separated, and widowed statuses. Using large-scale pooled panel survey data linked to death registrations and earnings histories for U.S. men and women aged 25 and older, and with appropriate contrast tests, we find a consistent survival advantage for married over unmarried men and women, and an additional survival "premium" for married men. We find little evidence of mortality differences between never-married, divorced/separated, and widowed statuses.

No abstract

About half of older Americans will need a high level of assistance with routine activities for a prolonged period of time. This help is commonly referred to as long-term services and supports (LTSS). Under current policies, these individuals will fund roughly half of their paid care out of pocket. Partly as a result of high costs and uncertainty, relatively few people purchase private long-term care insurance or save sufficiently to fully finance LTSS; many will eventually turn to Medicaid for help. To show how policy changes could expand insurance's role in financing these needs, we modeled several new insurance options. Specifically, we looked at a front-end-only benefit that provides coverage relatively early in the period of disability but caps benefits, a back-end benefit with no lifetime limit, and a combined comprehensive benefit. We modeled mandatory and voluntary versions of each option, and subsidized and unsubsidized versions of each voluntary option. We identified important differences among the alternatives, highlighting relevant trade-offs that policy makers can consider in evaluating proposals. If the primary goal is to significantly increase insurance coverage, the mandatory options would be more successful than the voluntary versions. If the major aim is to reduce Medicaid costs, the comprehensive and back-end mandatory options would be most beneficial.

No abstract

Social security faces a major long-term funding crisis. A 38 or greater percentage increase in the system's tax rate is needed to meet benefit payments on an ongoing basis. Tax increases of this magnitude or comparable benefit cuts would significantly worsen social security's treatment of We thank Steven McKay for very helpful comments and Steven McKay and Tim Zayatz of Social Security's Office of the Actuary for critically important and extensive assistance in clarifying OASI benefit determination rules. We also thank Don Fullerton, James Poterba, and participants at the Spring 1998 NBER Public Economics conference for their reactions and advice. Laurence Kotlikoff and Steven Caidwell are grateful to Merrill Lynch & Co. for research support. The authors also thank Economic Security Planning, Inc. for permitting their use for this study of socslMa detailed OASI benefit calculator. All opinions expressed here are strictly those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Federal

Objective. To forecast out-of-pocket health care spending among older adults. Longterm forecasts allow policy makers to explore potential impacts of policy scenarios, but existing microsimulations do not incorporate details of supplemental insurance coverage and income effects on health care spending. Data Sources. Dynamic microsimulation calibrated to survey and administrative data. Study Design. We augment Urban Institute's Dynamic Simulation of Income Model (DYNASIM) with modules that incorporate demand responses and economic equilibria, with dynamics driven by exogenous technological change. A lengthy technical appendix provides details of the microsimulation model and economic assumptions for readers interested in applying these techniques. Principal Findings. The model projects total out-of-pocket spending (point of care plus premiums) as a share of income for adults aged 65 and older. People with lower incomes and poor health fare worse, despite protections of Medicaid. Spending rises 40 percent from 2012 to 2035 (from 10 to 14 percent of income) for the median beneficiary, but it increases from 5 to 25 percent of income for low-income beneficiaries and from 23 to 29 percent for the near poor who are in fair/poor health. Conclusions. Despite Medicare coverage, near-poor seniors will face out-of-pocket spending that would render them, in practical terms, underinsured. Key Words. Health care costs, health insurance, Medicare beneficiaries, simulationsIn spite of the recent spending slowdown, many analysts predict health care spending growth will rebound (Keehan et al. 2015). This presents a particular problem for those aged 65 and older, many of whom live on fixed incomes ( Jacobson et al. 2015). Nearly all (95 percent) of these individuals are Medicare beneficiaries, but absent other subsidized insurance, they share costs through significant premiums, deductibles, and copayments. Medicare covers about 80 percent of spending, which is slightly less than a typical large

The financial difficulties confronting single mothers raising children persist into later life. Social Security reforms, especially those that are not tied to the current system of spousal and survivor benefits, could improve retirement security for these vulnerable women, whose numbers will begin to soar when the many women who raised children outside of marriage in the 1970s retire in coming years.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, part of a consortium that includes parallel centers at the University of Michigan and the National Bureau of Economic Research, was established in 1998 through a grant from the Social Security Administration. The Center's mission is to produce first-class research and forge a strong link between the academic community and decision makers in the public and private sectors around an issue of critical importance to the nation's future. To achieve this mission, the Center sponsors a wide variety of research projects, transmits new findings to a broad audience, trains new scholars, and broadens access to valuable data sources.