Getting old is expensive. This isn't news to anyone who's looked at the cost of nursing homes or assisted living facilities. But there's a less obvious question that's becoming increasingly important: is it cheaper to stay in your own home as you age?
This idea, known as "aging-in-place," sounds appealing. Most people would prefer to stay in familiar surroundings. But is it actually cost-effective? The answer, like many things in life, is: it depends.
At first glance, staying in your own home seems like it would obviously be cheaper. You're not paying for a fancy facility or round-the-clock staff. But the reality is more complicated.
The big variable is how much help you need. If you're still relatively independent, aging-in-place can be dramatically cheaper than moving to a facility. You're just paying for your normal living expenses, maybe with some added costs for things like home modifications or occasional help.
But as you need more help, the equation changes. Hiring in-home care is expensive. If you need someone there all the time, it can quickly become more costly than a nursing home. The crossover point varies, but it's typically somewhere around needing 40-50 hours of care per week.
What's interesting is that technology is changing this equation. Things like smart home devices, telemedicine, and meal delivery services are making it easier and cheaper to stay at home. They're not a complete solution, but they can significantly delay the point at which you need full-time care.
There's also a hidden cost to aging-in-place that often gets overlooked: opportunity cost. If you own your home, staying there means you're not freeing up that equity. For many people, their home is their biggest asset. Selling it and moving to a cheaper living situation could provide a significant financial cushion.
On the flip side, there are hidden savings to aging-in-place. People who stay in their homes often stay healthier longer. They're more active, more socially connected, and generally happier. This translates to lower healthcare costs and less need for care overall.
Another factor is location. In some parts of the country, in-home care is much cheaper than in others. The same is true for assisted living facilities. So whether aging-in-place is cost-effective can depend a lot on where you live.
There's also the question of what exactly we mean by "agin-in-place." It doesn't have to mean staying in the exact same house you've always lived in. It could mean downsizing to a smaller, more manageable home in the same community. This can give you the benefits of staying in a familiar environment while reducing costs.
One of the biggest financial advantages of aging-in-place is that it gives you more control over your expenses. In a facility, you're paying a fixed rate whether you need all the services or not. At home, you can adjust your level of care as needed.
But this flexibility is also a drawback. It means you have to manage everything yourself. You're the one coordinating care, dealing with home repairs, managing finances. For some people, this is empowering. For others, it's overwhelming.
There's also the risk factor to consider. Aging in place means you're taking on the risk of unexpected health issues or need for care. In a facility, that risk is largely transferred to the facility. Whether this is a pro or a con depends on your financial situation and risk tolerance.
So is aging-in-place cost-effective? The frustrating but accurate answer is: it can be. It depends on your health, your location, your home, your support network, and a host of other factors.
What's clear is that it's worth considering. The default assumption for many people is that they'll eventually move to some kind of care facility. But that's not always the best option, financially or otherwise.
The most important thing is to plan ahead. The worst financial outcomes usually come from being forced into decisions by sudden health crises. If you or your parents are approaching retirement age, it's worth thinking about these issues now.
This is an area where we need better solutions. There's a huge market opportunity here for startups that can make aging-in-place more feasible and cost-effective. Whether it's through technology, new service models, or innovative financial products, there's room for disruption.
The goal should be to give people more options. Right now, too many people end up in expensive facilities not because it's the best choice, but because it seems like the only choice. If we can make aging in place a viable option for more people, we'll be doing both them and their bank accounts a favor.
In the end, the most cost-effective solution is the one that provides the best quality of life. Because what's the point of saving money if you're miserable? The trick is finding the sweet spot where financial sense meets personal preference. It's not easy, but it's worth the effort.
After all, we're all hoping to get old someday.
As you consider making your home more accessible and comfortable for aging-in-place, remember that a Certified Aging-in-Place Specialist (CAPS) can provide invaluable expertise. These professionals are trained to understand the unique needs of older adults and can help create safe, functional living spaces that promote independence. If you're looking to hire a CAPS professional in your area, don't hesitate to contact us for recommendations. We can connect you with experienced specialists who can turn your aging-in-place vision into reality. On the other hand, if you're inspired to become a CAPS professional yourself and join this rewarding field, we encourage you to explore the opportunity. Click here to learn more about the CAPS certification process, including upcoming training dates and requirements. Whether you're seeking assistance or looking to start a new career path, the world of CAPS has much to offer.
Fritzi Gros-Daillon MS, CSA, CAPS, UDCP, SHSS
Household Guardians, Owner
2019 NAHB Instructor of the Year
Published author of "Grace and Grit: Insights to Real Life Challenges of Aging"
Comments