Editor’s note: Richard L. Kaplan is the Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Kaplan spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the effects the COVID-19 pandemic will have on older adults in the U.S.
Almost every aspect of elder law is implicated in the COVID-19 pandemic. What are some of the important issues that people should consider?
All demographics of people – even those who normally wouldn’t think of such things, or doubt they’re at risk – need to start thinking seriously about end-of-life issues. Either for their own sake, or for the sake of a family member.
Parents of young children, for example, may want to write a will so they can name who should be appointed guardian for their children. The parents in this age group may not have huge exposure to the health and mortality risks associated with COVID-19, but their risk is not zero.
Another end-of-life issue related to COVID-19 pertains to advance health care directives. Like wills, such directives aren’t exclusively for older people. What happens to people who are put on a ventilator and can’t speak for themselves – or if they’re in an isolation ward, where family isn’t allowed to visit? This is not just about COVID-19 hospitalization, but also about what their end-of-life wishes might be in the event of other catastrophic illnesses.
The tricky thing about a medical directive is that you must prepare it before you need to use it, and nobody wants to think about their own incapacitation in advance.
Funeral arrangements are another issue that deserves some thought, and people typically avoid having that conversation until they absolutely have to. It might be worth broaching the subject with family members, if only to spare the survivors from having to deal with this question at a time of great grief. Funerals can represent a significant financial decision that is usually made under incredible time pressure and emotional strain.
For older adults, what are some of the unintended consequences of shelter-in-place orders?
There’s a real potential to see an increase in elder abuse cases, especially with other family members having to move in with older relatives or having elders move in with them. Elder abuse can manifest itself in different ways, such as physical abuse or financial exploitation, which might include family members scamming older adults out of their CARES Act stimulus payments.
Another possibility is psychological abuse – “Do what I say or else I’ll put you in a nursing home.” This sort of threat is not really new, but it’s even more poignant now when it appears that an older adult’s health might be endangered in a nursing home setting.
Are we likely to see an increase in laid-off older workers filing early for Social Security?
Invariably. Lots of people are getting laid off or furloughed involuntarily across the age spectrum. Those who are younger must try to survive on unemployment insurance and savings until the economy reopens, but people age 62 and above have an alternative option – namely, begin receiving Social Security retirement benefits. This option has a serious financial drawback, however, in the form of lower benefits for the rest of their life, but it remains an option nonetheless.
People who are younger than age 65 have another problem: health insurance. They’re too young for Medicare, so they must try to find a suitable plan on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace exchanges. Those plans typically have a higher deductible and a narrower network of health care providers than what they experienced in an employer-provided health insurance plan – but they wouldn’t be without health insurance.
From a broader perspective, if more workers begin taking Social Security earlier, that’s not good news for the Social Security program. More people drawing from the trust fund with fewer workers paying into that fund makes the program’s finances more precarious. We have seen this phenomenon during previous recessions, and this one looks like it will be especially prolonged.
To be sure, Congress could shore up Social Security’s trust fund by simply appropriating money from the general income tax and transferring it into the trust fund. That is what Congress did 10 years ago, when President Obama insisted on a payroll tax cut that reduced revenue going into the Social Security trust fund. That maneuver obviously exacerbates the general federal deficit, but it maintained the Social Security trust fund in the face of declining revenues.
Editor’s note: To contact Richard L. Kaplan, call 217-300-7973; email rkaplan@illinois.edu.
