Don’t get caught in a Medicare Pickle, let Pickle Man help you.

Last week, the House narrowly passed a health care bill that would repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act. On Thursday, House lawmakers passed a rewritten version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), moving President Trump and Republican leadership a step closer to delivering on their promise to reshape American health care.

“Yes, premiums will be coming down; yes, deductibles will be coming down, but very importantly, it’s a great plan,” Trump stated after the bill was passed last week.

The House measure came to its most recent vote without an updated accounting of how much the bill will cost or its impact. The last assessment, which was done before alterations were made, indicated that “24 million people would lose insurance; it would save $300 million; and premiums would go down ten percent after ten years.”


Early indications are that older Americans won’t fare well under the revised AHCA. According to The Washington Post, seniors will pay more for healthcare in most states and people with preexisting conditions such diabetes, arthritis, or heart disease could see significantly higher premiums.

“AARP is deeply disappointed in today’s vote by the House to pass this deeply flawed health bill,” AARP’s Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said in a release last Thursday. “The bill will put an Age Tax on us as we age, harming millions of American families with health insurance, forcing many to lose coverage or pay thousands of dollars more for health care. In addition, the bill now puts at risk the 25 million older adults with preexisting conditions, such as cancer and diabetes, who would likely find health care unaffordable or unavailable to them.”

On NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price defended the legislation against charges that people who have preexisting conditions could see their insurance premiums rise under some circumstances. “Those who are sicker, who are older, who are poorer — they will get larger subsidies so that they will able to get the kind of coverage they need and for their family,” Price claimed.

Although Price, President Trump, and other GOP leaders are touting the bill’s passage as a win, the AHCA still faces a steep uphill battle in the Senate, where is expected to undergo major changes before it even is put to a vote. Although no Democratic support is needed for the bill to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate, many GOP leaders, including Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), have already spoken out in opposition to their party’s rewritten legislation.

“Congress must take responsible action that lowers healthcare costs, but these changes must be made in a way that does not leave people behind,” Portman said.

This still isn’t a done deal. Hopefully, the bill undergoes significant reworking in the Senate to fix many of the concerns raised regarding healthcare coverage for older Americans. While the problems with Obamacare need to be fixed, it’s important that lawmakers are diligent in rewriting the American Health Care Act so that the problems with Obamacare are not exacerbated with the newest healthcare overhaul.


Each fall, more than 60 million Americans anxiously wait for the Social Security Administration to decide whether (and by how much) benefits will increase each year.  Although this yearly decision on the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) affects millions of older Americans—especially Medicare beneficiaries who collect Social Security—the calculation surrounding the adjustment is a mystery to many and an inaccurate measure of inflation for seniors.

Last October, the Social Security Administration announced that the COLA for Social Security benefits would be 0.3 percent for 2017. But how did they arrive at this seemingly arbitrary number? It’s puzzling, especially after the Administration decided that there would be no COLA in 2016.

In order to determine whether there is a COLA, each year, the Social Security relies on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). This index tracks monthly price changes in more than 80,000 consumer items—everything from gas prices and grocery costs to airline fares and medical care.
Every fall, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics determines the CPI-W for the third quarter.

Officials then compare it with the CPI-W for the third calendar quarter of the last year in which a COLA was awarded. If the comparison shows prices have gone up between those third-quarter periods, Social Security will grant a cost-of-living hike. These increases are rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent and paid starting in January.

Based on this calculation, the government determined that Americans on Social Security would receive a 0.3 percent COLA in 2017; this adjustment essentially added a mere $5 to the average monthly payment for all retired workers, which was $1,355 before the raise.
Fair enough; but what does COLA mean for older Americans? For Medicare beneficiaries who collect Social Security, this minor COLA in 2017 will be used to pay for the higher charges for their Medicare Part B coverage.

Most Medicare beneficiaries who collect Social Security get their Medicare Part B premium deducted from their monthly Social Security checks. And, according to federal law, Social Security payments generally must not decline from one year to the next. However, with the 0.3 percent COLA, 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries “held harmless” saw their average 2017 premium increase to about $109.00. (In 2016, when there was no Social Security COLA, the Medicare Part B premium remained flat at $104.90 per month for beneficiaries “held harmless.”)

This illustrates the predicament faced by many older Americans: the inflation measure used to calculate the Social Security COLA doesn’t accurately reflect this population’s expenses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this year’s cost-of-living raise will not keep pace with the 5.1 percent increase in the cost of health care from August 2015 to August 2016. Clearly, the CPI-W does not accurately measure the inflation in medical costs experienced by millions of older consumers.

And it’s even worse for the 3 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries not “held harmless.” Because of this provision covering the other 70 percent of beneficiaries, premiums for the remaining percentage must cover most of the increase in Medicare costs for 2017 for all beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries who are not covered by the “held harmless” rule, such as new enrollees, those on Medicare who have not yet claimed Social Security, and higher-income seniors, saw their standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B jump to $134.00, a 10 percent increase.

While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that they will continue to monitor and review the Social Security COLA, measures must be taken to protect seniors from this clear discrepancy. It’s clear that changes must be made to moreaccurately account for the medical spending patterns of older Americans.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Programs for 2018. According to a press release, CMS confirmed a 0.45 percent rate increase for the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs in 2018. This announcement brought some welcome news for MA organizations and Part D sponsors, and could signal improved transparency by the CMS in its regulation of sponsors.

With its most recent updates, CMS announced its aims to maintain benefit flexibility that allows enrollees to choose the care plan that best fits their individual needs.

“Medicare is committed to strengthening Medicare Advantage and the Prescription Drug Program by supporting flexibility and efficiency,” said Seema Verma, CMS administrator. “These programs have been successful in allowing innovative approaches that give Medicare enrollees options that best fit their individual health needs.”

The finalized policies for MA and Part D are similar to those proposed in February (when the proposed increase was 0.25 percent), but underwent some notable changes. The CMS report states that the plans should now see a revenue change of 0.45 percent on average for 2018; however the organization cautions that individual experiences may be different. Additionally, plans should expect a slight change in revenue when calculating expected growth in coding acuity, with the finalized rate up to 2.95 percent (a 0.20 increase from the Advance Notice).

CMS also announced its plans to reward organizations that develop new plans with “innovative” provider network arrangements; they want to incentivize plans that avoid insurers having to jump through hoops. Those plans found to substantially improve patient care will earn higher updates and can improve the benefits offered to enrollees.

Lastly, CMS finalized policies that push back against “the growing national opioid epidemic” by developing safeguards for opioid dispensation at pharmacies. Under the new opioid policy, the release states, Part D sponsors are expected to focus on improving coordinated care among enrollees prescribed opioids, while Medicare Advantage plans that include drug coverage should consider expanding care management services.

CMS is releasing a request for information for Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D, with comments due by Monday, April 24. The organization is encouraging policyholders and other stakeholders to comment on such options as benefit design or operational flexibility.

“With the new administration, there is an interest in collecting ideas from the public about how we can foster additional innovation,” senior officials said.

We’re less than a week away from Tax Day, which is April 18 this year. For many seniors doing their taxes on their own, when it comes to deductions for Medicare and other medical expenses, they’re often left in the dark. So, for those seniors doing some last-minute filing and wondering whether their Medicare and other healthcare costs can be deducted, the answer is yes!

Medicare Parts B and D, which cover preventative services and prescription drugs, respectively, come at a cost for seniors. But it’s more than just premiums; in addition, seniors must allocate for the costs of copays and deductibles. So what amount of this cost can be deducted? The short answer is that most of it can be deducted (with a few exceptions)

The premiums for Medicare Part B and Part D are indeed tax deductible, as well as other out-of-pocket Medicare costs such as copays, prescription drug payments, and other expenses. However, it’s important to note that beneficiaries may only deduct expenses that exceed a certain portion of their income, so these deductions may not be an option to seniors who earned too much in 2016 or didn’t spend enough.

Here’s how it works: taxpayers may deduct medical expenses that surpass 10 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI); however, for those aged 65 or older, it’s 7.5 percent of their AGI. Again, for seniors, medical costs may include (but are not limited to) Medicare expenses, copays, prescription drugs. So, a beneficiary making $40,000 in 2016 may deduct any Medicare premiums and expenses that exceed $3,000.

What exactly can seniors claim as medical expenses? Besides Medicare premiums and other health care costs discussed above, seniors may deduct the cost of medical services not covered by Medicare, such as dental and vision treatment and nursing home care. There are also several other expenses eligible for deduction that are often overlooked, like the transportation costs to and from medical treatments or money spent to alter a home for those seniors “aging in-place.”

As much as it’s important to include these other medical expenses when calculating deductions, David Levi, a tax and financial services firm senior advis r, believes it’s most important to remember to add premiums. “For instance,” Levi notes, “if you have your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums taken out of your Social Security benefit, remember to include them as part of your medical expenses.”

While Uncle Sam is fairly accommodating to seniors when it comes to medical deductions, there is one Medicare and health care-related expense beneficiaries can’t deduct–the late enrollment penalty for Part B or Part D. Those Medicare beneficiaries who failed to sign up during their initial enrollment period will not be able to deduct the additional costs incurred from the late enrollment penalty.
When filing taxes for you or your loved one, remember to keep these deductions in mind. Healthcare costs are the biggest expense Medicare beneficiaries face, so it’s important to deduct all eligible medical costs to help seniors soften the blow.

Telemedicine is one of the newest trends in American health care. While the specific services offered may vary, essentially telehealth uses a variety of technologies to deliver virtual medical advice and diagnosis, as well as other health and education services.

The use of telehealth has varied among payers in recent years primarily because reimbursement for telemedicine is unequal across health plans and state lines, especially for those under government programs. However, last week, U.S. Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced telehealth legislation that could establish a federal model for Medicare beneficiaries.

Currently, Medicare covers limited telemedicine services, which Peters, Gardner, and other lawmakers argue sets “a poor industry standard, discouraging innovation, and restricting access to specialized services.”

Under the proposed bipartisan bill, titled the Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act, lawmakers hope to test the effect of including telehealth services in Medicare health care delivery reform models. They hope that this helps to reduce Medicare costs and expand access to healthcare for rural patients.

If the bill passes, select hospitals would be allowed to offer telehealth services to Medicare beneficiaries in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI would independently evaluate the tested telehealth for cost, effectiveness, and improvement of health outcomes without increasing the cost of delivery. If the test models succeed, then a system-wide program would be established and covered through Medicare.

“This bipartisan, commonsense legislation has the potential to help expand access to care for seniors, lower healthcare costs, and reduce costly emergency room visits, hospitalizations and readmissions,” Senator Peters said in a statement.

Currently, Medicaid programs are using telehealth, and every state program offers some kind of reimbursement. Yet, Medicare, as it currently stands, has very specific qualifications for telehealth reimbursement, including rules that limit the service to rural areas and only in certain circumstances.

“Most insurers have the fear that allowing reimbursement for telehealth would somehow open up the floodgates for care,” says Natasa Sokolovich, executive director of The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center telehealth program.

With last week’s proposed legislation, hospitals would be able to test the actual outcomes of offering telehealth reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries. And, hopefully, telemedicine proves to be cheaper than in-person medical visits, thus reducing Medicare costs and providing a model for more affordable healthcare for all Americans.

It’s been more than a month since President Trump and other Republican leaders saw their healthcare bill— known as the American Health Care Act —fall short on the House floor. While lawmakers return to the drawing board, a comprehensive healthcare idea is gaining traction amongst many Americans: a single-payer system, otherwise known as “Medicare for All.”

This “cradle to grave” thought on healthcare is not a new or novel idea. In fact, the legislation (H.R. 676) was proposed in 2003, but recently has been revisited, revised, and touted as a possible healthcare solution.

“Don’t just be satisfied with defeating Trumpcare,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) told supporters shortly after the House vote, “Set your sights on creating real Medicare for all!” Ellison is a co-sponsor of the “Medicare for All” bill in the House, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reintroducing the same universal health care legislation in the Senate.

Although “Medicare for All” seems to deviate from America’s traditional privatization of healthcare, the U.S. has already successfully developed and embraced several government-provided insurance systems in addition to Medicare, such as care for veterans or citizens with disabilities.

Also, the Medicare for All legislation highlights that “nearly every free-market country in the world” already provides some sort of universal health care system for their citizens, citing countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan.

While support for a single-payer system in America may seem scarce, given the recent cries for smaller government; in fact, Americans are surprisingly open to the idea. According to a recent Morning Consult/POLITICO poll, 44 percent of voters said they would support “a single-payer health care system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan”; only 36 percent of respondents said they would oppose the idea.

In addition, an April survey from the Economist/YouGov revealed even more support for expanding Medicare to all Americans. The survey reported that 60 percent of Americans either “favor strongly” or “favor somewhat” the idea of expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.

More support for single-payer insurance is logical given the health insurance trends in the last 20 years. “Since 1987, the share of Americans who receive some sort of public insurance has roughly doubled, to about 4 in 10 as of 2015,” The Washington Post recently reported.

Despite the recent discussion and overall support surrounding “Medicare for All,” it’s unlikely that a single-payer system becomes the short-term solution to America’s healthcare overhaul. Regardless, in the wake of the failed American Health Care Act, it’s positive to see Americans and lawmakers open to proposing and exploring innovative healthcare options.

Last week, while many seniors were busy monitoring how the American Health Care Act would affect Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) delivered some positive news for Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. On Friday, CMS released its criteria for coverage of therapeutic continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems; Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes patients covered by Medicare who are on intensive insulin therapy may now get reimbursed for their Dexcom G5 Mobile.

Although the organization determined in January that CGMs qualify as durable medical equipment under Medicare Part B, CMS did not spell out the criteria of how therapeutic CGMs would be covered by Medicare until last week. While there are several CGMs are on the market, Dexcom’s G5 Mobile system is the only CGM classified as “therapeutic” by the US Food and Drug Administration; therefore, it’s the only one covered by Medicare.

According to CMS, therapeutic CGMs may be covered by Medicare when all of the following criteria are met:

  • The beneficiary has diabetes mellitus; and,
  • The beneficiary has been using a home blood glucose monitor (BGM) and performing frequent (four or more times a day) BGM testing; and,
  • The beneficiary is insulin-treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump; and,
  • The patient’s insulin treatment regimen requires frequent adjustment by the beneficiary on the basis of therapeutic CGM testing results.

Outlining the criteria for coverage is important news for people on Medicare who have either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and intensively manage their insulin. They now know how they will be able to obtain reimbursement if they use Dexcom G5 Mobile (or another CGM that eventually may be approved by the FDA).

“For many years, the Endocrine Society has advocated to expand coverage for CGMs to the Medicare population,” The Endocrine Society, a global leader in the field of hormone research, said in a statement. “The Society is pleased with the new coverage criteria and looks forward to continuing work with CMS to ensure patients have access to these lifesaving tools.”

With this CMS outlining its coverage for CGMs, diabetics on Medicare can use Dexcom G5 Mobile to carefully monitor dangerous surges or drops in blood glucose levels. Unlike with periodic blood sticks, with measurements constantly being taken using CGMs, users can get much more information to plan their insulin dosing regimen and make adjustments as needed.

With Dexcom G5, diabetics are provided with readings every 5 minutes. These readings can be transmitted by Bluetooth to a smartphone or device, and even be monitored remotely by up to 5 people by using an app. By using CGMs, users are better managing their diabetes and leading healthier lives. In fact, a 2016 study concluded that after one year, patients with Type 1 diabetes “showed significant glycemic benefits in using” real-time CGMs.

According to CMS, coverage is effective for CGMs Medicare claims with dates of service on or after January 12, 2017.


The legislation, known as the American Health Care Act, has been scrutinized by all sides since it debuted earlier this month. This week,lawmakers are reworking the bill to give states more flexibility under Medicaid and to help older Americans afford coverage on the individual market before the full House votes on the bill on Thursday.

While these provisions deal with changes for individuals buying their own coverage and those on Medicaid, Americans over the age of 65 are wondering how the pending law affects the price of their medications.

Medicare doesn’t cover all healthcare costs, which is why seniors are concerned what will happen to Medicare’s prescription drug coverage (Part D) under the American Health Care Act. For many boomers, their health needs require a significant amount of spending on prescription drugs, pushing them into the “doughnut-hole,” the coverage gap that occurs when the cost of medications exceeds one’s limit for the year. When seniors reach this coverage gap they are forced to pay far more for prescriptions until the year ends and their budget resets.

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) was instituted, one of the initiatives of the legislation was to close the “doughnut hole” incrementally for seniors. Since 2013, the ACA has addressed this issue, creating a graduated program with tax provisions and discounted drug pricing to eventually lower the amount seniors pay for prescriptions in the coverage gap to 25 percent by 2020. (In 2017, Part D beneficiaries pay 51 percent of the cost of generic prescriptions and 40 percent for brand-name medications.)

Seniors don’t want to see the doughnut hole become wider, especially since it’s just three short years until 2020. Since the enactment of the law, more than 11.8 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved over $26.8 billion on prescription drugs. Additionally, Medicare has saved on Part D drug costs, according to a recent report.

So what impact would the repeal and replacement of ACA with the American Health Care Act have on the cost of prescription drugs for seniors?

While the bill doesn’t specifically state what would happen to Medicare’s prescription drug coverage, the proposed bill does not repeal the Medicare Part D coverage gap protections created under ACA. This year, the coverage gap begins after a Medicare beneficiary spends $3,700 on covered prescription drugs; if the ACA protections were repealed, seniors would pay an average of $1,950 more in drug costs. However, while the doughnut hole protections remain in place, the proposed GOP legislation would remove the fee on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs, taxes that were used to fund the closing of the Part D coverage gap.

Although President Trump is adamant that healthcare needs to be overhauled, under ACA, Medicare has been working efficiently for many seniors. While more could be done to reduce the burden of prescription drug costs, ACA has made strides in reducing the out-of-pocket costs for Medicare seniors who fall into the coverage gap (which is statistically one in every five beneficiaries).

If the American Health Care Act is going to work, it can’t ignore the positive impact ACA has had on reducing prescription drug costs and allow millions of Americans to fall back into the doughnut hole. While lawmakers in Washington rework and reshape the bill beforeThursday’s House vote, it’s seniors who will be following closely.

It’s been more than a week since Republican lawmakers revealed their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While President Trump offered immediate praise for the legislation, which has been dubbed the American Health Care Act, the bill has been aggressively dissected and compared to the ACAover the last several days.

While there has been criticism to the GOP proposal from all sides (especially since the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report on Tuesday), the bill’s biggest opposition comes from its impact on older Americans.

Although the CBO reported that 14 million fewer Americans would have health insurance next year if the plan were enacted, over the past week, much of the criticism has focused on the bill’s effect on older people, especially those over the age of 50. In fact, shortly after the bill was made public, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond released a statement in opposition.

“AARP opposes this legislation, as introduced, that would weaken Medicare, leaving the door open to a voucher program that shifts costs and risks to seniors” her statement reads. “Older Americans need affordable health care services and prescriptions. This plan goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower drug costs.”

“Although no one believes the current health care system is perfect, this harmful legislation would make healthcare less secure and less affordable,” LeaMond continued.

The House GOP bill’s impact on seniors stems from several changes it would make to the 2010 healthcare law. While the proposed bill eliminates the individual mandate, those having a lapse in their insurance coverage of more than 63 days are subject to a 30 percent late-enrollment surcharge. Under the new legislation, issuers can assess this surcharge on top of individual’s base premium based on their decision to forgo coverage.

This surcharge could be potentially more devastating than the individual mandate to older Americans, many of whom already spend 10 percent of their disposable income on healthcare,according to the AARP. Before reaching retirement age, adults aged 50 to 64 are more likely to face longer periods where they are out of work and without coverage. Or, they’re faced with the alternative: forced into early retirement where their premiums are too high to afford.

Another area of concern for many boomers is the GOP bill’s relaxation of how much insurers can charge for older individuals. The ACA prohibits insurers from charging older individuals premiums that are more than three times greater than premiums for younger individuals, but with the proposed legislation, insurers are able to charge older Americans as much as five times greater.

“Older Americans are specifically targeted for harm in this piece of legislation,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.). “There are going to be millions of older Americans, people on the precipice of Medicare, who are not going to be able to afford insurance.”

Prescription drugs are also a huge issue to many older Americans. And, it should be noted that the GOP bill does not repeal the Medicare Part D coverage gap (“donut hole”) protections created under the ACA. However, the legislation willremove the fee on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs. The AARP projected that this fee would have added “$25 billion to the Part B trust fund between 2017 and 2026.”

While it’s encouraging that the “donut hole” and other ACA protections (such as guaranteed issue and prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions) will remain intact, the GOP bill seems to fall short of reducing the burden of healthcare and prescription drug costs for older Americans.

Fortunately, the American Health Care Act will continue to face plenty of opposition before anything is enacted into law. And, hopefully this resistance and pushback will help lawmakers create an improved healthcare system that cuts costs and improves coverage for all Americans.

There’s been a paradigm shift in the workforce. Instead of baby boomers cleaning out their desks and retiring to the beaches and golf courses of Florida the moment they turn 65, they’re choosing to continue to work. While many point to the recent recession as the reason boomers are postponing retirement, it’s not a lack of savings that is keeping individuals working past 65. Actually, many boomers are continuing to work for non-financial reasons.

It’s been said that 70 is the new 50, and it seems many boomers are using this phrase as their life mantra. In fact, a 2013 study found that 41 percent of boomers still in the workforce expect to work past age 69; and of the respondents who already retired, nearly 70 percent said they would have liked to have been able to work longer.

And, according to research, the desire to work longer isn’t always a money thing. For example, 68 percent of older workers surveyed in a 2003 AARP poll said they intended to work in retirement; and most respondents reported that they wanted to work, not that they had to. The most common reasons cited for continuing to work were to remain active, stay mentally sharp, and maintain a sense of purpose. Another AARP poll found that 38 percent of older workers want to gradually retire instead of leaving the labor force altogether.

While Millennials and Gen Xers account for overtwo-thirds of the workforce, it seems fitting that it’s the Baby Boomer generation that refuses to trade the desk in the corner office for a beach chair and a Mai Tai. Boomers are anything but passive, so it’s no coincidence that a generation defined by its commitment and work ethic is the one redefining retirement.

Boomers are reshaping the workforce. As they near the typical retirement age, many still have several more productive and capable working years ahead when compared to previous generations. “[Boomers] have the resources, knowledge, and collective desire to cause dramatic shifts in the way retirement is both defined and lived,” Robert Laura recently wrote inForbes.

This new-found freedom for many boomers is allowing them to find fulfillment later in life. They’re not looking forward to retirement, but instead craving a second act to their life where they can accomplish goals such as starting their own business or pursuing a personal passion (and accumulating a nest egg is only a secondary goal).

With this in mind, it’s no surprise that research suggests that baby boomers are more likely to start a business than any other generation right now. According to career counselor and consultant Larry Stybel, who is a boomer himself, the biggest regret for retired boomers is that they didn’t work longer.

Essentially, Stybel advises most boomers not to retire unless they really want to or have to for health reasons. “Once you publicly use the R word you are saying, ‘I am out of the game,’” Stybel said. “Saying it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that means you have to live with it, ready or not.”

Sign up for our newsletter!
The latest in Medicare news, weekly.
My Medicare Planner