And The Best State To Grow Old In Is...

Elder-care company Caring.com recently conducted a study to determine the best US states to grow old in. And the winner is…

Utah.

That"s right: In addition to being one of the top 5 fiscally responsible states in the Union, the home of Mormonism is also the most friendly state for elderly Americans to grow old and retire in. Earlier this year, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University compiled a comprehensive study, based on a number of objective financial metrics, ranking the 50 US states according to their overall fiscal condition. Utah came in third behind Alaska and Florida.

But Utah handily bested both those states on a ranking based on 13 categories including quality, cost, and availability of health care for seniors, as well as factors that speak to the state’s overall quality of life.

Here’s a breakdown of the data, courtesy of Bloomberg:

Best states:
Utah/$2,950
Iowa/$3,518
South Carolina/$3,000
Washington/$4,500
Nebraska/$3,510

Worst states:
Wyoming/$3,995
North Dakota/$3,340
New York/$4,136
Indiana/$3,528
West Virginia/$3,263

New York, one of the worst states for retirees, was singled out because of the extreme disparity between health-care cost and quality, as Bloomberg explains…

“New York, No. 33 in the well-being ranking, was singled out by Caring.com for its extremes. The very high cost of the state’s health care doesn’t produce results close to commensurate with that spending, according to the report. While New York ranked 46th in cost (the lower the rank, the higher the cost), its life/health care quality rank was 34 (the lower the rank, the worse the quality). Massachusetts had a similar pattern; it ranked 49th in cost and 18th in quality. That’s reflective of a larger trend in the U.S.—high spending on health care isn’t translating into longer lives, as this interactive graphic demonstrates.”

Washington State and California do a better job of translating higher costs to better-quality care…

“Higher costs show more of a payoff in Washington state and California. Washington is 38th for cost and is the top state for quality of life and health care. California has a cost ranking of 36 and quality ranking of 3 (it’s tied with Oregon for quality).”

According to Bloomberg, the lighter the color, the higher the overall ranking of the state as a place to grow old.

The study was conducted by Caring.com, which ranked states on 13 categories, including quality, cost, and availability of health care for seniors. The study’s authors used a range of data sets, including Census data and proprietary data sets from AARP.

“The ranking, which drew on data from the U.S. Census, the insurer Genworth, AARP, the Commonwealth Fund, and Gallup-Healthways, among others, also factored in 150,000 consumer reviews from Caring.com’s database of facilities and care providers for seniors. The availability, quality, and cost of care for the elderly got greater attention in the report than some of the common measures used in retirement destination rankings.”

As Tim Sullivan, vice president at Caring.com, explains, the author’s decision to name the study “The Best States To Grow Old In” instead of “The Best States To Retire In” was meant to highlight an important distinction...

“One reason we call this report the best states to grow old, versus best states to retire, is because it’s really important for people to plan out their 60s, 70s, and 80s with as much care as they plan their retirement in their 30s, 40s, and 50s,” said Tim Sullivan, vice president at Caring.com. “Your needs change as you age, and they are not always going to be driven by the sort of leisure or amenities or weather considerations that are what a lot of people think about retirement.”

The report’s greatest utility, according to Bloomberg, is helping to spark a discussion about where millennials should plan on settling down for the long haul. Unfortunately, Utah is largely devoid of the amenities – like comprehensive public transportation and quality night life – that millennials covet. But affordable health care, low taxes and the state’s overall low cost of living make a compelling case for going without.

Visualizing The Global Demographic Timebomb

With record-high amounts of student debt, questionable job prospects, and too much avocado toast in their bellies, many millennials already feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.

But, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins notes, there’s another economic headwind they face as they are coming of age: the percentage of the global population that is 65 or older will double from 10% to 20% by 2050.

As millennials enter their peak earning years, there will be 1.6 billion elderly people on the planet.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL

Today’s infographic comes to us from Aperion Care, and it highlights how demographics are shifting as well as the economic challenges of a rapidly aging global population.

With an older population that works less, support and dependency ratios get out of whack.

After all, countries already spend trillions of dollars each year on healthcare and social security. These systems were designed a long time ago, and were not setup to work with so few people paying into the programs.

WHICH COUNTRIES FACE HEADWINDS?

While most countries face similar obstacles with aging populations, for some the problem is more severe.

The Potential Support Ratio (PSR), a measure of amount of working people (15-64) for each person over 65+ in age, is anticipated to fall below 5.0 in countries like Japan, Italy, Germany, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries will all have significant portions of their populations (>30%) made up of elderly people by 2050.

The United States sits in a slightly better situation with 27.9% of its population expected to hit 65 or higher by the same year – however, this is still analogous to modern-day Germany (which sits at 27.6%), a country that is already dealing with big demographic issues.

Here’s one other look, from our previous Chart of the Week on dropping fertility rates and global aging:

Will millennials be able to diffuse the demographic timebomb, or will an aging population be the final straw?