Retiree Health Care Costs Continue Rising, Milliman Finds

Health status, location and age at retirement all affect how much a retiree can expect to spend on health care costs.

The average healthy 65-year-old retiring in 2024 is projected to spend a significant amount on health care over the course of their remaining lifetime, according to the 2024 Milliman Retiree Health Cost Index.

The two most common health care coverage options chosen by Medicare-eligible retirees are Medicare Advantage Part D and Original Medicare with Medigap plus Part D. A healthy 65-year-old man retiring in 2024 with a MAPD plan is projected to spend $128,000 on health care in his remaining lifetime, and a woman with the same coverage is projected to spend $147,000 in her remaining lifetime, according to Milliman.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Health Care Costs on the Rise

In order to afford these costs, Milliman projected that a man with a MAPD plan needs to have at least $86,000 in savings and a woman with the same coverage needs at least $96,000 in savings. The Milliman Index projected that this is the amount of savings (net of taxes) needed at age 65 to pay a retiree’s remaining lifetime health care “total spend,” assuming an investment return of 3% per year.

For a 65-year-old man retiring in 2024 with Medicare plus Medigap plus Part D, the costs are even higher, as they are projected spend approximately $281,000 on health care expenses throughout retirement and a woman with the same coverage is projected to spend $320,000.

The difference in cost is largely because women on average live longer than men, according to Milliman. The retired man was projected to live until 88, and the woman until 90, in Milliman’s calculation.

The cost of health care in retirement will also depend on several other factors, Milliman explained, such as when someone retires, where they live during retirement and what Medicare benefit plan they choose. The cost of Medicare Advantage, Medigap and Part D plans can vary greatly by state. For example, in Florida, a 65-year-old retiring in 2024 with a lifespan of 88 can be expected to spend upwards of $340,000 on health care, as opposed to around $260,000 to $280,000 in Texas.

Retirees have less control over factors such as health status or how long they will live—both of which are primary drivers of how much their health care will cost.

Milliman also measured the savings needed for a healthy 65-year-old couple in 2024 compared with 2023. A hypothetical couple retiring in 2024 will need to save approximately $7,000 more than they would have in 2023 if they have Original Medicare plus Medigap and Part D coverage, and $8,000 less if they have Medicare Advantage plus Part D coverage, all else being equal.

How Health Care Costs Have Changed

As a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, there were significant changes to Medicare Part D in 2024. Out-of-pocket expenses were significantly reduced because of the law’s elimination of cost sharing in the catastrophic phase of insurance coverage, but as a result, this increased the plan liability, driving an increase in premiums.

In addition, there has been continued growth in spending on major brand name drugs like GLP-1s—which includes medications like Ozempic and Wegovy—even when only covered for diabetes and not obesity, as well as SGLT2s, that slow heart failure, and certain autoimmune drugs. These costs also contributed to increasing premium and out-of-pocket costs, and the trend is expected to continue over the next couple of years, according to Milliman. Higher prescription drug costs have also increased short-term health care cost expectations over the next couple years.

Impact of Retiring Earlier vs. Later

Most people cannot apply for Medicare until age 65, so retiring early means health care costs can be much higher for the individual. For example, if someone retires five years before they are eligible, at age 60, they can expect to pay 56% more for health care expenses if enrolled in Original Medicare plus Medigap (Plan G) plus Part D, and 86% more for health care expenses if they enroll in a MAPD plan than they would if they waited until age 65 to enroll.

Conversely, delaying retirement allows retirees to boost savings and continue earning income and employer-sponsored benefits like health care. Retiring at age 70, for example, would allow a retiree to pay 29% less on health care expenses than if they retired at 65 and are enrolled in Original Medicare plus Medigap plus Part D. They would pay 30% less for health care with a MAPD plan.

“Healthcare expenses are an important and sometimes overlooked component of retirement planning,” said Robert Schmidt, a Milliman principal and co-author of the Retiree Health Cost Index, in a statement. “By taking a realistic look at their health status and healthcare expenses, and then budgeting accordingly, people can take steps to enjoy a less stressful, financially healthier retirement.”

The complete Milliman Retiree Health Cost Index can be found here.

Budget Scoring Methods Could Lead to More Complicated Roth Policies

More tricky Roth provisions could be inserted into retirement plan legislation, as long as budget incentives continue to drive policy decisions.

The congressional budget scoring process incentivizes policymakers to add Roth, or savings of after-tax earnings, provisions to retirement related legislation, experts say. While this may positively affect the federal budget in the short term, it can make retirement policies more complicated and difficult to administer.

The ten-year budget window that is used to “score” the effect a bill will have on federal revenues and expenditures considers traditional contributions to a defined contribution plan as a revenue loss, because of the upfront tax-deferral that is captured in the ten-year window. Roth contributions on the other hand, are considered a revenue raiser in the ten-year window, because Roth contributions are made by individuals on a post-tax basis, even though those contributions (along with any earnings on them) will result in a tax break upon withdrawal in retirement.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Roth contributions are named for the late Senator William Roth, R-Delaware, who first proposed the idea of after-tax retirement plan contributions, and tax-free withdrawals, in 1989.

Kendra Isaacson, a principal at Mindset and a former staffer with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, explains it this way: “the way Roth is scored is almost a budget gimmick.” She notes that a provision that is technically a tax break is counted as a revenue raiser and, as a result “we end up with things like the Roth catch-up contribution because it raises [federal funding] in the short-term.”

The Roth catch-up provision, found in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, requires catch-up contributions made by participants earning $145,000 or more to do so on a Roth basis. It is perhaps the most infamously complicated provision in the law from an administrative perspective and by all accounts only exists to offset revenue losses found elsewhere in the bill.

According to a Joint Committee on Taxation report from March 2022, the Roth catch-up provision is actually the largest revenue raiser in the law, and would raise an estimated $22.36 billion from fiscal year 2022 through fiscal 2031. The second largest revenue provision is the optional treatment of matching contributions as Roth, which would raise an estimated $12.34 billion over the same time period.

Isaacson warns that Roth treatment can potentially be “a bigger loser [in federal revenues] in the long-term,” and cites young people saving in Roth accounts and withdrawing decades later when the majority of the balance, resulting from asset appreciation, is likely to have never been taxed at all. “We are not accounting for that,” she says.

Mark Iwry, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former senior adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury, agrees that the budget scoring process creates perverse incentives to insert Roth provisions into legislation. He says that traditional retirement plan contributions “should be scored as a deferral and not a pure loss of revenue.” However, that is not how the scoring process works currently, he notes.

The ten-year window for budget scoring is used because it can become very difficult to estimate the effect a tax policy change will have on the budget farther off into the future, so a relatively shorter time frame is used, Iwry explains.

In the absence of a method that accounts for DC plan contributions in a more nuanced way, legislators will often be tempted with Rothification provisions to “pay for” retirement bills.

In 2025, many key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire, meaning that tax provisions are likely to receive more attention from Congress going forward. Further changes to retirement law from a technical corrections bill on SECURE 2.0 or even a SECURE 3.0 would also attract further attention to retirement and tax law.

In all these debates, there will be pressure to find easy “revenue raisers” to “offset” other provisions, and this could include more Rothification.

«