A groundbreaking study from the TIAA Institute has confirmed what financial experts have long warned: 70% of Americans aged 65 and older will need some form of long-term care at some point in their retirement years. This statistic, based on decades of health data from the Health and Retirement Study (1995-2014) and validated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), represents a stark reality that most people fail to prepare for adequately. Consider a typical scenario: a 65-year-old couple where one spouse needs assistance with daily activities after a stroke—they join the vast majority of retirees who discover that long-term care is not an abstract possibility, but a near-certainty they should have anticipated.
The problem is compounded by a massive awareness gap. While the actual odds of needing long-term care are 70%, only 23% of Americans correctly understand these odds according to the 2025 TIAA Institute-GFLEC P-Fin Index study released in May 2026. This disconnect between reality and perception creates a dangerous planning gap, leaving millions of retirees vulnerable to financial devastation when care needs actually arise. The implications are profound: if you haven’t factored long-term care into your retirement planning, you’re likely operating under a dangerously false assumption about your financial security.
Table of Contents
- What Does the 70% Long-Term Care Statistic Really Mean?
- The Financial Reality of Long-Term Care Costs
- Understanding Different Types of Long-Term Care
- Planning Ahead: Strategies for Long-Term Care Preparation
- Why Most Americans Are Unprepared for Long-Term Care
- Long-Term Care Insurance and Alternative Options
- The Future of Long-Term Care in America
- Conclusion
What Does the 70% Long-Term Care Statistic Really Mean?
The 70% figure represents one of the most important—and least understood—statistics in retirement planning. According to ASPE data, this means that seven out of every ten people who reach age 65 will require some level of long-term care services at some point, whether that’s temporary assistance with mobility after surgery or years of ongoing support due to dementia or other chronic conditions. This isn’t an estimate or a guess; it’s based on rigorous analysis of actual health trajectories from the Health and Retirement Study, which has tracked thousands of Americans over decades. The statistic includes all forms of paid care—everything from part-time home health aides to full-time nursing facility placement—not just catastrophic scenarios.
However, the statistic masks important variations in the duration and intensity of care needed. ASPE data reveals that while 70% will need care at some point, only 48% of older adults actually receive some form of paid care during their lifetime. This seeming contradiction occurs because many people receive unpaid care from family members first, and others manage with informal support arrangements. More importantly, the distribution is heavily skewed toward shorter-term needs: only 24% of older adults receive more than two years of paid long-term care, and just 15% spend more than two years in a nursing home. This means that most people who need long-term care require it for relatively brief periods—but a significant minority face the financial burden of extended, expensive care.
The Financial Reality of Long-Term Care Costs
Long-term care represents one of the largest unplanned expenses in retirement, yet Americans continue to underestimate both its likelihood and its cost. With U.S. personal consumption on healthcare reaching $3,741.3 billion in March 2026—up 8.7% from the prior year—the cost trajectory for long-term care services is accelerating faster than most retirees’ savings can accommodate. A single year in a nursing facility can easily exceed $100,000, while in-home care services can cost $60,000 to $100,000 annually depending on the level of assistance needed.
For someone who needs three to five years of care, the total financial impact can exceed $250,000 to $500,000, amounts that would deplete the savings of most middle-class Americans. The financial burden often falls directly on individuals and their families because traditional medicare does not cover long-term custodial care. Medicaid can eventually cover nursing home care, but only after individuals have “spent down” their assets to impoverishment levels, a process that both destroys financial legacies for heirs and creates agonizing choices about care quality and facility location. Many families find themselves in the position of a typical case: a 72-year-old man diagnosed with Alzheimer’s whose wife faces a choice between hiring in-home care at $85,000 per year (draining their retirement savings within a decade) or placing him in a Medicaid-approved facility after liquidating their home equity. These aren’t theoretical dilemmas; they’re the lived reality for hundreds of thousands of American families annually.
Understanding Different Types of Long-Term Care
long-term care encompasses a broader spectrum of services than most people realize, ranging from assistance with activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, eating) to 24/7 skilled nursing care for complex medical needs. The most common type is actually informal care provided by family members, but when paid services are needed, options include adult day care centers ($60-$90 per day), in-home health aides ($20-$30 per hour), assisted living facilities ($4,500-$8,000 monthly), and skilled nursing facilities ($8,000-$15,000 monthly or more in urban areas). Memory care units, which specialize in dementia and Alzheimer’s care, typically cost 20-30% more than standard assisted living.
One critical limitation that catches families off-guard: not all care is created equal in terms of coverage and cost. A person receiving physical therapy at home for a few months after hip surgery faces a different financial picture than someone with progressive cognitive decline requiring 24/7 supervision for a decade. The type of care needed directly determines both duration and expense, yet most people cannot predict which scenario they’ll face. A 60-year-old who observes a parent’s brief recovery stay in assisted living after pneumonia may completely underestimate their own risk if they develop Parkinson’s disease or other neurodegenerative conditions that require years of care.
Planning Ahead: Strategies for Long-Term Care Preparation
Effective long-term care planning typically involves three complementary strategies: long-term care insurance, personal savings specifically designated for care costs, and family coordination about potential caregiving roles. Long-term care insurance is the most specialized approach, but comes with significant limitations: policies are expensive (often $2,000-$5,000+ annually for someone in their 50s or 60s), some insurers have exited the market or raised premiums dramatically, and the benefits only apply if you’ve purchased a policy before developing health conditions that would make you ineligible. A 55-year-old in excellent health might pay $3,000 annually for a policy covering $300,000 in lifetime benefits, while a 65-year-old with high blood pressure might be declined outright or offered a policy with much higher premiums.
An alternative or complementary strategy involves designated savings in health savings accounts (HSAs) or a separate long-term care reserve within your investment portfolio. The comparison is stark: someone who sets aside $500 per month for 15 years accumulates $90,000 before investment returns—a meaningful cushion that covers several years of in-home care, though not extended nursing facility stays. This approach provides flexibility (you can use the money for any health expense if care doesn’t materialize) but requires discipline and may not accumulate sufficient funds for truly extended care needs. Many financial advisors recommend a combined approach: modest long-term care insurance obtained while relatively young and healthy, supplemented by specific savings goals and family conversations about potential caregiving arrangements.
Why Most Americans Are Unprepared for Long-Term Care
The failure to prepare for long-term care stems from multiple causes, starting with the awareness problem highlighted by the TIAA study. Americans answered only 49% of financial literacy questions correctly in 2025, unchanged from 2017, suggesting that financial education and planning aren’t improving across the population. Only 23% of Americans correctly know the odds that a 65-year-old will need long-term care, meaning nearly 80% are operating with false assumptions—either underestimating their own risk or overestimating their family’s ability to provide unpaid care. A major warning: optimism bias leads many people to believe they’ll be among the healthier minority who avoid significant long-term care needs, or that “Medicare will cover it” or “our family will just help out.” The reality is more complex.
Medicare covers skilled nursing care only for short periods following hospitalization and specific conditions. Family caregiving, while emotionally important, often proves unsustainable due to work obligations, geographic distance, or emotional strain—a daughter working full-time cannot realistically provide 40 hours per week of personal care for an aging parent indefinitely. Additionally, the people most likely to need extended long-term care are those with progressive diseases like dementia, where family members’ well-being deteriorates along with the patient’s, making them less reliable as sole caregivers. This gap between assumption and reality leaves families scrambling to arrange paid care with no budget or plan in place.
Long-Term Care Insurance and Alternative Options
Long-term care insurance has evolved significantly, but purchasing decisions require careful analysis of your age, health, financial assets, and risk tolerance. Traditional policies that pay a daily benefit for care expenses (ranging from $150-$300+ per day for 3-5 years) provide defined coverage but come with concerns: premium increases have plagued the industry, some insurers have exited the market, and you may pay premiums for decades without using benefits. Hybrid policies that combine long-term care coverage with life insurance or annuities offer an alternative—if you don’t need care, your beneficiaries receive a death benefit, ensuring the premiums weren’t “wasted,” though these policies are significantly more expensive upfront.
Self-insurance—funding long-term care through personal assets—works for affluent individuals with $1 million or more in liquid assets, but leaves middle-income Americans vulnerable. An example illustrates the practical tradeoff: a couple with $400,000 in retirement savings can either purchase long-term care insurance for approximately $4,000 annually (reducing their investment portfolio’s growth potential but capping exposure to care costs), or self-insure by holding assets in reserve—which means investing less aggressively and potentially running short if both spouses need extended care. Medicaid planning, which involves strategic asset management to qualify for coverage while preserving some inheritance for heirs, requires specialized legal guidance and works best when implemented years before care is needed rather than in crisis mode.
The Future of Long-Term Care in America
The long-term care landscape is shifting as the population ages dramatically and the traditional model of family caregiving becomes increasingly unsustainable. By 2030, all Baby Boomers will be older than 65, expanding the population most likely to need care by millions while simultaneously reducing the number of younger family members available to provide unpaid care. Several trends are emerging: increased use of in-home technology and remote monitoring, growing interest in aging-in-place communities and co-housing models, expansion of hybrid insurance products, and persistent insurance industry challenges with sustainability. Looking forward, the 70% statistic may become even more relevant as life expectancy increases and chronic disease prevalence grows.
The conversation about long-term care is shifting from a personal, family matter to a public policy issue, with discussions about Medicare expansion, paid family leave for caregivers, and government funding for long-term services growing more prominent. For individuals, the lesson is clear: the future will not wait for you to decide whether long-term care is worth planning for. At 65, the odds are seven in ten that you’ll need it. The only question is whether you’ll address it proactively today or reactively when a health crisis forces your hand.
Conclusion
The 70% statistic isn’t meant to inspire fear, but clarity. Seven out of every ten Americans will face a long-term care situation, yet only 23% correctly understand those odds. This gap between reality and awareness represents one of the most consequential planning failures in American retirement security. Whether you’re in your 50s thinking about insurance options, in your 60s evaluating your readiness, or already retired and concerned about your exposure, the time to address this reality is now.
The cost of procrastination is high—both financially and emotionally. Start by accepting the probability as a given, not a possibility. Move beyond “what if” thinking into “when” thinking. Evaluate your specific situation through the lens of three questions: Can you afford to self-insure for several years of care? Does long-term care insurance make sense for your age and health profile? What conversations do you need to have with your family about caregiving expectations? The details will differ for every person, but the principle remains constant: comprehensive retirement planning that ignores long-term care is incomplete planning that leaves you financially and emotionally vulnerable in your most vulnerable years.
You Might Also Like
- New Study Found That Gen X Workers Are Facing a $700 Billion Collective Retirement Savings Shortfall
- New Study Found That Women Retire With 30% Less in Savings Than Men Due to Wage and Career Gaps
- New Study Found That Workers Who Switch to Part-Time Before 65 Reduce Their Social Security Benefits by an Average of 12%