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