The Case for ‘Health Plus Wealth’ Is in the Numbers

The projected cost of health care for the average couple retiring today is up 30% from 10 years ago, according to new data shared by Fidelity, underscoring the need to muster more holistic financial planning resources for workers and retirees.


Dramatic headlines about the rising cost of health care are nothing new in the financial services industry, yet, every year, Fidelity Investments’ updated retirement health care cost projections raise new and pressing questions for retirement industry practitioners.

This week, Fidelity published its 20th annual health care cost estimate, finding a couple retiring today will need approximately $300,000 to cover medical expenses. This is up 30% from 10 years ago and 88% since 2002, when the yearly tracking project began.

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

New in this year’s analysis is consideration of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on people’s finances and health care planning. Fidelity’s data suggest that affording health care is a top stressor when the typical worker thinks about retirement, yet 58% of employees say they’ve spent little or no time planning to meet these costs. Well over a year into the pandemic, one in five employees who report being within a decade of retirement say they are accelerating plans to leave the workforce.

Hope Manion, senior vice president, Fidelity Workplace Consulting, says the fresh data paint a complex and evolving picture of Americans’ working lives, finances and health.

“Covering health care costs is one of the most significant, yet unpredictable, aspects of retirement planning,” Manion says. “By providing this estimate for retirees, we want to increase awareness among people of all ages to help them proactively get more engaged in saving and investing, so they can be better prepared in years to come.”

In terms of hard dollars, according to Fidelity, a 65-year-old, opposite-gender couple retiring this year can expect to spend $300,000 in health care and medical expenses throughout retirement. For single retirees, the 2021 estimate is $157,000 for women and $143,000 for men.

“While this past year has certainly made protecting our health today a priority, we need to do the same when planning for future health care needs,” Manion says.

The data show that people often underestimate the potential cost of health care in retirement. Even among those who say they have researched and analyzed this issue, 50% believe they’ll need just $50,000 or less to meet health care expenses. Notably, Fidelity’s sizable estimate already assumes both members of the couple are enrolled in traditional Medicare, which, between Medicare parts A and B covers expenses such as hospital stays, doctor visits and services, physical therapy, lab tests and more, as well as in Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs.

One clearly positive point from the data is that Fidelity has seen a significant increase in new health savings account (HSA) openings (19%), with total assets surpassing $10 billion this past year.

“While higher savings rates and growing balances are good news, the goal of saving toward a significant amount such as $300,000 can be daunting,” Manion says. “It’s achievable with some planning. The ability to invest contributions for potential growth, tax-free, is one of the most valuable aspects of an HSA, but it is also one of the most underutilized.”

At the start of the year, just 16.5% of Fidelity HSAs were invested. The firm says this represents a significant missed opportunity for those with cash balances intended to be used for future health expenses.

ERISA Suit Against CalSavers Dismissed Again

This comes after the case was dismissed by a district court last year and after the DOL backed out in its support of the suit.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court for the Eastern District of California’s dismissal of claims by a group that sought to block California’s state-run automatic individual retirement account (IRA) program.

The lawsuit, filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, sought to block the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program on the grounds that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pre-empts CalSavers, therefore invalidating the program.

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

In its dismissal, the court found that ERISA does not pre-empt CalSavers. “We hold that the pre-emption challenge fails,” it said in its ruling. “CalSavers is not an ERISA plan because it is established and maintained by the state, not employers; it does not require employers to operate their own ERISA plans; and it does not have an impermissible reference to or connection with ERISA. Nor does CalSavers interfere with ERISA’s core purposes. Accordingly, ERISA does not pre-empt the California law.”

“We are very pleased with the court’s ruling,” says California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, who chairs the CalSavers Retirement Savings Board. “CalSavers is a simple solution to level the playing field for workers who for too long haven’t had access to workplace-based retirement plans. There is no reason to deny millions of hardworking Californians access to this savings program when the alternative is to see them work until they are physically unable to, or suffer the hardships that come with little to no savings.”  

The case was previously dismissed last March, after a lower court found no impermissible reference to or connection with ERISA plans in the statute. In his dismissal, U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. had noted that, per ERISA, it would, “supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” He stated that an “employee pension plan” is “any plan, fund or program … established or maintained by an employer” that provides retirement income to employees.”

England had also found that actual employers have no discretion in the administration of CalSavers. Instead, these employers only remit payroll-deducted payments to the program and otherwise have no discretion regarding the funds.

“The role of actual employers in CalSavers is limited to providing a roster of eligible employees, providing contact information of eligible employees, making payroll deductions and remitting such deductions,” he said. “Such ministerial duties do not rise to the level of an employee benefit plan established or maintained by actual employers.”

After the dismissal, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed an appeal of the case, and, in June, the Department of Labor (DOL) under the Trump administration filed a brief of amicus curiae in support of the association and requested a reversal of the District Court’s findings. However, the DOL has since distanced itself from the case after President Joe Biden took office, stating that it “does not support either side.”

 More details on the dismissal can be found here.

«