help with medical bills

NJ lawmakers seeking to control insurance costs

J Roberts

Looking for greater transparency on how insurers calculate and charge for premiums? The state of NJ is intending to provide just that. A recent measure adopted by the state legislature would require all insurers to gain approval by the state’s regulatory agency before they can raise premiums.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TRENTON  — Health insurance carriers who serve individuals and small businesses in New Jersey may soon have to gain state approval before implementing rate increases.

These firms currently can set and increase rates just by filing the information with the state. But a measure planned by three state lawmakers would require that the firms gain approval for such actions from the state Department of Banking and Insurance.

It also would expand the jurisdiction of the state’s Division of Rate Counsel, which now has no say over health insurance rates, to create a watchdog for residents and small businesses.

“Residents deserve a watchdog, someone with the knowledge to advocate on their behalf when it comes to the complicated issue of rising health care premiums,” said Assemblyman Dan Benson, D-Hamilton Township (Mercer County), who said he will sponsor the measure with fellow Democrat Valerie Vainieri Huttle of Englewood.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono plans to sponsor identical legislation, with both measures likely to be introduced by year’s end.

“This legislation will provide far greater transparency,” Benson said.

Ed Rogan, spokesman for the banking and insurance department, declined to comment on the proposal. As a matter of policy, the department does not discuss proposed or pending legislation.

Besides requiring the banking and insurance department commissioner to approve any rate increase, the proposed bill also would give the commissioner authority to reject proposed rate changes deemed discriminatory or excessive.

The commissioner and rate counsel would also have to jointly hold public hearings on any proposed premium increases for insurance contracts or policies in the Individual Health Coverage Program or New Jersey Small Employers Health Benefits Program market.

Information about premium increases, including an explanation of how carriers report and calculate health insurance premiums, also would have to be posted on the department’s website.

Currently, insurers in these plans are required to spend no more than 20 percent of the premiums paid on administrative expenses.

Read More

Cut Costs by Reducing Redundant or Inefficient Activity

J Roberts

What’s the parallel between the world’s largest car manufacturer -Toyota – and the American Healthcare System?  Read on to learn how total quality management and improved operational efficiencies can reduce waste and decrease spending in our healthcare system.

By Mark Graban and Rob Harding August 09, 2011

Enlist your employees to help find and eliminate waste in your organization’s processes.

Many hospital CEOs, including John Toussaint, M.D., the former CEO of ThedaCare, and thought leaders, including Donald Berwick, M.D., M.P.P., administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, estimate that 30 to 50 percent of all health care spending can be described as waste — activity that provides no benefit to patients. This adds up to more than $1 trillion a year in the United States. Instead of merely slashing reimbursements or providing less care, there is a clear opportunity to do more — and provide the right care — with less waste and less spending.

The word “waste,” or muda in Japanese, is one of the most commonly used terms in Lean management, which is based on the Toyota Production System. According to Toyota, there are eight types of waste, each of which can be translated directly into health care:

Lean’s Eight Types of Waste

Examples of Waste Found in Hospitals

Defects

Lost or mislabeled laboratory specimens

 

Overproduction

Medications sent to inpatient units in 24-hour batches, leading to wasted medications if orders

Change

Transportation

Moving patients a long distance from the operating room to recovery

Waiting

Patients waiting weeks for an appointment, or waiting hours to be seen in the emergency department, resulting in exacerbated conditions

Inventory

Expired supplies due to overstocking and poor rotation of inventory

Motion

Staff walking in excess because high-use surgical instruments and packs are not grouped together in perioperative services

Processing

Staff writing or entering the same patient information into multiple forms or software screens

Human potential

Nurses dragging bags of dirty linen down the hallway; staff members unengaged in improvement activities

In health care, Lean teaches us to engage all staff members in a never-ending search for waste, making quality and process improvements that benefit patients, leading to lower costs. Reducing waste is very different, in mindset and practice, from traditional cost cutting, as Lean waste reduction looks at how the actual work is performed rather than focusing on spreadsheets, budgets and financial benchmarks. Reducing errors, improving throughput, reducing staff frustration — all of these tactics reduce costs.

A Lean Perspective on Waste

Traditional organizations might see that 60 percent or 70 percent of their expense is direct labor cost. This realization often leads to the idea that the clearest path to cost reduction is to eliminate people (again, often based on benchmarks). Lean methodology takes a different view: Waste reduction cannot be used to drive layoffs, as that would put an end to staff engagement in the improvement process — a core Lean principle.

Leading health care organizations that actively employ Lean tactics, including ThedaCare, Denver Health and Avera McKennan, all have “no layoffs due to Lean” commitments with employees. Engaging people to reduce waste through process improvement has led to significant savings at these organizations — more than $54 million at Denver Health, for example — along with quality and access improvement, thanks to a culture of collaboration. (more…)

Read More

Insurance mandates again hike costs

J Roberts

Recent government mandates in the state of Connecticut raise the cost of insurance for all. While the act aims to offer more comprehensive services, it may, in actuality prove as a disservice by raising the overall cost of insurance to the states residents.  Read on to learn more.

By Greg Bordonaro

While tax increases, paid sick leave and union concessions took up most of the attention during the recent legislative session, lawmakers passed a flurry of new health insurance mandates that will raise the cost health insurance for employers.

In all, seven new mandates — some of which business lobbyists have fought for years — passed the legislature and have been signed into law by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

A health insurance “mandate” is something for which an insurance company or health plan must offer coverage, and whose costs typically get passed onto employers.

Health mandates have been a hot political issue in Connecticut for years. The business community has long voiced opposition, citing costs. But supporters say cost concerns are overblown and that the benefits outweigh the price.

The divide illustrates a central issue in the broader health care debate. The question of how to control health care costs, while also mandating adequate coverage that prevents and treats illnesses effectively, has been difficult to answer.

New mandates passed this year:

• Expand coverage requirements for certain patient clinical trials, breast MRIs, colonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings;

• Increase the maximum annual coverage for ostomy-related supplies from $1,000 to $2,500;

• Require coverage for bone marrow testing;

• And place new restrictions on insurance companies that require the initial use of over-the-counter drugs for pain treatment.

“It is a fundamental truth that as you add benefits you increase costs,” said Keith Stover, a lobbyist for the state’s health insurance industry. “The math isn’t that complicated.”

According to a report by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), which is funded by the insurance industry, Connecticut had 59 mandates at the end of 2010, making it the fifth most demanding state.

While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive, requiring insurers to pay for care patients previously funded out of their own pocket. Those expenses often get passed onto employers through higher premiums.

(more…)

Read More

Be Prepared!

J Roberts

Be Prepared…Your House or Your Health? Today health care is everywhere — in the CEOs office and around the kitchen table. Five years ago it was in neither place. Does this mean that consumers are prepared for the tsunami of health care change coming? This article by our friends at Allexian Consulting describes some very real issues and some innovative models emerging to help consumers.

James D. Calver

Allexian LLC

Be Prepared!

The average consumer, Joe or Jane, age 25 or older, makes $32,000 per year, does not have a college degree, drives a car, lives in his or her own home, and holds a white-collar office job. They can tell you their grocery bill, the price and quality of food, their car price and monthly payment, their mortgage payment and house value. Ask Joe or Jane how much their health care costs —  the cost of treatments, the cost and quality of their plan, are they getting a fair price and you’ll get a blank stare.

In 2014 Joe and Jane are going to be hit by a health care tsunami. The average mortgage payment today is $700/month with $1000 of annual home maintenance on top of that. The price of health care for many families will exceed the cost of owning a home and become the biggest single expense a family has each year.

Consumers are unprepared.

For 50 years consumers have outsourced their health care. Employers chose employee health care plans and (mostly) paid for them. Physicians treated disease conditions paternalistically. Payers administered plans and guided consumer choice of their physicians.

Consumers need to in-source their care and take control.

The numbers are big. Between now and 2014, 30 million new consumers will be coming to terms with new health care programs. Surveys show that many employers will scrap their own health care plans and “dump” their employees into exchanges. The total number of consumers dealing with health care change will be far bigger than the 30 million from last year’s reform. We estimate that this will be north of 40 million consumers.

What does in-sourcing health care mean? It means taking control of all the key decisions of your own heal care. Choosing a plan, checking prices of treatments, being sure you’re getting a fair price, etc. Consumers need tools and information to manage their health care decisions.

What tools? What information? To answer these questions it is useful to compare other more familiar buying decisions — groceries and homes. When we buy groceries, we want to know the price in advance of getting to check out. We want to know the quality too. When we buy a house, we want to know the quality and price of the house, the cost of the mortgage, how much the utilities and taxes are and the general condition of the neighborhood. We also want to know how much ‘house’ we can afford and if we are getting a fair price. We get help from brokers in negotiating a fair price and get comparable house prices from Zillow and other rersources.

Buying health care isn’t exactly like buying groceries, nor is it exactly like buying a house. But it is has much in common with the two together. When you buy a health care plan, you want to know the cost and quality of the plan. You have to find a physician, you’d like to know the quality of the physician, patient experiences and quality of care. Some patients like to research their disease conditions. You want to know how much treatment is going to cost and if you’re getting a fair price (before you get to check out). You may want help negotiating a price for a big clinical treatment or procedure.

Some of these tools and information are available already. New growth business models are emerging.

Buying a Health Plan — Exchanges

Individual states will either run the exchanges themselves or outsource to a third party. Exchange businesses can charge a modest fee for operating the service that matches a consumer with a health care plan.  eHealthInsurance is a broker of health care plans. They advertise low plan rates and based on input from the consumer recommend a plan and estimate of monthly payment. From personal experience, this payment and what the health insurers eventually charge can be much higher — this is explained in the small print.

While coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions, the insurers have latitude to charge more in monthly premiums for these conditions. The unwary consumer is in for some nasty surprises.

We recommend that exchanges use crowd-sourcing technology, in the style of Angie’s List, Amazon and eBay to provide reviews and feedback on plans. This information will help consumers make better and more informed decisions.

Researching a Disease

The availability of clinical information has undergone a tectonic shift. For the first time since the medicine men of old began treating ailments, all medical knowledge is available today via the web to a consumer. That shift contributes to the drive away from paternalistic clinical practice. Enlightened consumers of care use WebMD, Mayo, Cleveland Clinic and many others to research diseases and treatments.

Today 30% of consumers visit a medical web site before visiting a physician. That number is trending upwards annually. We think that creating a consumer pay model here will be difficult. For over a decade consumers have not paid directly for access to this information and we don’t think that will change.

Researching Physician Quality of Care and Patient Experience

The best physician web information services focus on aggregating publicly available information on a physician — where they went to school, published papers, malpractice law suits, etc. Some companies, like Angie’s List, have attempted to capture patient experience. At their best these sites provide information of marginal value. Comments on care are unstructured and not attributed to a particular treatment or regimen.

Outcomes information as a measure of quality of care and meaningful patient experience remain elusive for the consumer today. We believe that there is promise in Vestar’s acquisition of Colorado based HealthGrades, the health care ratings company. Vestar also owns Press-Ganey, the hospital patient rating group. Also, new companies like DocInsight that deliver information on the patient experience show promise.

Estimating Treatment Costs?

Shopping for routine health care should be like buying groceries. NexTag, the web aggregator of prices for many technology and popular consumer items has been successful over the last decade. Castlight.com is a growing service provider that can help consumers understand the status of their health plan, i.e. how much they have to spend before meeting their deductible and provides local pricing information across providers for many routine treatments.

This step toward price transparency has far reaching ramifications and inserts supply and demand pricing pressure into local markets. Physicans pay for referrals and pay to be listed.

Naysayers will rant that it’ll never work and physicians will never sign up. Those same naysayers said the same thing about airlines and hotel groups 10 years ago. Today Travelocity, Orbitz and Expedia have a valuation in excess of the major airlines and hotel groups combined!

Getting a Fair Price

This is another area of great promise. MedicalCostAdvocate.com helps consumers negotiate better prices for treatments with payers and takes a percentage of the savings. Society wins with lower cost care which in turn will force efficiencies in providers. Patients win with lower health care expenses.

Summary

Health care is about to undergo turmoil and change like never seen before. Surfers wait for “The Wave” and the Wave is coming.  Businesses need to incubate new growth and revenue models that help the consumer be prepared.

Read More

Cancer costs put treatments out of reach for many

J Roberts

Medical costs are on the rise again. Read about the high costs of cancer treatments that are unfortunately becoming more and more out of reach, not only for the uninsured, but for the insured as well.

By Debra Sherman

(Reuters) – The skyrocketing cost of new cancer treatments is putting advances in fighting the deadly disease out of reach for a growing number of Americans.

Cancer patients are abandoning medical care because the costs are simply too high and medical bills — even among the insured — are unmanageable and put patients at a greater risk of bankruptcy, studies show.

“There’s a growing awareness that the cost of cancer treatment is unsustainable,” said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, an oncologist who did a study examining the factors that contributed to patients quitting their oral cancer drugs.

Cancer is one of the most costly diseases to treat, largely because many patients are treated over a long term, often with expensive new drugs that are complicated to produce and not available in generic form. As insurance companies cut all benefits, reimbursements on cancer treatments have also declined.

“When it’s an expensive drug, we have to have the hard discussion about a very substantial out-of-pocket payment. I ask: ‘Do you want to spend this money for an average improvement of just a few months of life?’ I’m very uncomfortable having those discussions because I want to focus on the patient getting better,” Schwartzberg, medical director of the West Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, said in an interview.

Schwartzberg’s and other cost studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting come as U.S. lawmakers battle over ways to reduce the national debt, including cuts in healthcare funding. (For full ASCO coverage, see [ID:nN05141382] )

ASCO president Dr. Michael Link, a pediatric oncologist, said access to healthcare should be a national priority.

INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIERS

“We’re thrilled with what we consider to be breakthroughs and wonderful new therapies … yet the barriers for some patients to get them is insurmountable. It is an indictment of how we take care of patients in the United States,” Link said.

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease. The incidence is expected to increase with an aging population.

The costs for cancer care topped $124 billion in 2010 in the United States, led by breast cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That number is expected to rise as more advanced treatments — targeted therapies that attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects — are adopted as the standards of care. The NCI projects those costs to reach at least $158 billion by 2020.

Until recently, almost all cancer drugs were administered intravenously. Today, about a quarter of them can be given orally, which means fewer visits to the doctor. But pills are often more expensive, have higher co-payments, and are reimbursed by insurers at lower rates than IV drugs, he noted.

Using a database of pharmacy claims paid by private insurers and Medicare, he found, not surprisingly, that those with higher co-payments quit their drugs more often.

Patients with co-payments of more than $500 were four times more likely to abandon treatment than those with co-payments of $100 or less, Schwartzberg said. Claims with the highest co-payments had a 25 percent abandonment rate, compared with 6 percent for co-payments of less than $100.

“Prices of drugs can’t be set so outrageously high,” he said. “We have a problem with cancer care … All stakeholders have to get together and compromise to translate this great science into great patient care without breaking the bank.”

Dr. Yousuf Zafar, an internist at Duke University Health System, did a separate study on the impact high medical bills have on patients’ cancer treatment. (more…)

Read More

Why Health Care Costs Keep Rising: What You Need to Know

J Roberts

ABC News

By HUMA KHAN

The below article provides some insights as to why healthcare costs continue to rise. Check it out!

Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what a health care bill should include, but both parties agree that dramatically rising health care costs need to be contained.

The U.S. government spent more than $2.3 trillion on health care in 2008, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2008, U.S. health care spending averaged $7,681 per person in 2008.

To put that into perspective, the United States spends twice as much on health care as it does on food, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, even though the prevalence of disease is relatively less than in comparable countries.

At the same time, for consumers, premiums continue to rise sharply. Since 1999, they have increased 131 percent for employer-sponsored health coverage, according to Kaiser. Stories of families facing unaffordable premium hikes can be found across the country.

“Health care costs are partly so high because they have been increasing rapidly,” said Stuart Guterman, assistant vice president for the Commonwealth Fund’s Program on Payment System Reform. “There’s a long list of factors like technology and the organization of health care that doesn’t promote efficient and effective care.”

Despite President Obama’s bipartisan health care summit last month, both parties continue to bicker about what should be included in a health care bill, with each side presenting its own argument on what specific health care costs should be contained.

Some experts argue that while the health care bill, as proposed by Obama and congressional Democrats, expands benefits and seeks to implement insurance reforms that would open up coverage to a wider scope of people, it does not address the core issues behind rising health care costs. Proponents of the legislation argue that it is a start and creates the foundation for sustainable changes in the long term.

Here are some of the drivers of cost increases: (more…)

Read More

Healthcare Costs Rise, According to S&P Indices

J Roberts

Healthcare Financial Management Association

Healthcare costs continue to rise. Even though the rate of increase may have slowed, costs nonetheless continue to rise.

The average per capita cost of healthcare services covered by commercial insurance and Medicare programs increased by 6.19 percent over the 12-month period ending in February, as measured by the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) Healthcare Economic Composite Index.

Healthcare costs covered by commercial insurance rose by 7.97 percent and Medicare claim costs rose at an annual rate of 3.22 percent, according to the S&P indices. Overall healthcare costs continue to increase at a slower rate, according to the index. In the six-year history of the Composite Index, the highest annual growth rate was 8.74 percent in May 2010. With a 6.19 percent increase in February, claims costs growth rates have declined 2.5 percent in nine months.

The indices estimate the per capita change in revenues accrued each month by hospital and professional services facilities for services provided to Medicare patients and patients covered under commercial health insurance programs. The annual growth rates are determined by calculating a percentage change of the 12-month moving averages of the index levels compared with the same month of the prior year.

Read More

Rising Cost Tops Employees’ Health Care Worries

J Roberts


Employers are still concerned about the rising cost of healthcare. Will there be any end in sight?

By Stephen Miller

U.S. employees’ greatest concerns about health care are rising costs, canceled coverage and new taxes on medical benefits. Their employers are most concerned about the lack of federal guidance on what requirements must be communicated to employees, according to a December 2010 survey by HighRoads, a benefits administration service provider.

“There appears to be a healthy skepticism on the employer’s part about the content and timing of guidance from the federal government on how to administer and communicate future plan changes,” said Kim Buckey, practice lead at HighRoads. “While most employers increased their communications efforts during the fall 2010 open enrollment period to communicate changes required by health care reform, there are still doubts about how effective those communications were.”

Buckey advised, “There is clearly an opportunity to do some follow-up communications—based on the actual employee elections during open enrollment—or employee sensing (surveys or focus groups) midyear to determine whether employees truly understood the impact of the year’s plan changes.”

Employees’ Concerns

The biggest concerns HR professionals and benefits managers are hearing from employees about how health care reform affects them, HighRoads found, include:

• Increased cost of coverage (noted by 50 percent of respondents).

• Cancellation of benefits (13 percent).

• Government taxation of medical benefits (13 percent).

• Ability to add adult dependents (12 percent).

• No real concerns (12 percent).

Increased Communications

While 88 percent of employers reported that they had increased their employee communications to address health care reform, many still worried that the communications might not have been enough. The biggest communications concerns employers had around health care reform for the year ahead include:

• Lack of federal guidance on what the requirements are or how any changes in guidance during the year might change what has been communicated to employees (25 percent).

• The disconnect on cost and existing plans, because the law is predicated on being cost neutral to taxpayers and allowing employees to not lose the coverage they have (13 percent).

• Making sure that employees are told everything that is changing under their plans (13 percent).

• Employee understanding of changes and how the changes affect them (12 percent).

Read More

Health care’s hidden costs: $363 billion

J Roberts

Consumers beware of the hidden or extra costs associated with healthcare not covered by insurance or traditional Medicare. A recent article states that consumers are paying even more than was expected for out-of-pocket costs. The most alarming fact is that the average household income fell 1.9% in 2010 while health care costs rose 6%.

CNN Money

By Parija Kavilanz

A year after the passing of health reform, a new industry report revealed that consumers may be paying billions of dollars more in out-of-pocket health care expenses than was previously thought.

These “hidden” costs of health care — like taking time off to care for elderly parents — add up to $363 billion, according to a report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a research group.

That amounts to $1,355 per consumer, on top of the $8,000 the government says people spend on doctor fees and hospital care.

“We’re surprised that this number came in so high. It’s significant,” said Paul Keckley, executive director with the group.

The out-of-pocket costs that the government tallies usually include only insurance-related costs like premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.

Keckley said the study is the first to estimate how much consumers dish out on health care related goods and services not covered by private or government insurance.

These include: ambulance services, alternative medicines, nutritional products and vitamins, weight-loss centers and supervisory care of elderly family members.

“These costs can add up to billions of dollars, even eclipsing housing as a household expense,” said Keckley.

The Deloitte study found that half the hidden costs are for supervisory care, or the unpaid care given by family and friends.

“We compared on an hourly basis the average number of hours per month taken off work to look after a family member or friend, and lost wages in doing this,” said Keckley.

The report estimates the value of unpaid care is $12.60 per hour, or $199 billion a year.

“It has been one year since the passage of health care reform,” said Keckley. “We wanted to understand the financial context behind decisions that consumers are making about how they spend their money on health care.”

0:00 /2:22Humana deals with health care reform

As health reform rolls out over the next few years, Keckley expects that out-of-pocket health care costs to consumers will increase quickly. Health care costs continue to rise faster than household incomes and insurers are passing along more costs to their customers.

The average household income fell 1.9% last year while health care costs rose 6%, he said.

“This is a perfect storm in which consumers’ hidden costs will only increase exponentially in the near future.”

The Deloitte study looked at the most recently available health care expenditure data from the government. The firm, with Harris Interactive, also polled 1,008 U.S. adults,18 and older, between Sept. 29 to Oct. 4, 2010.

Read More

Retirement confidence falls to all-time low

J Roberts

A recent survey reveals that most Americans still don’t save enough for retirement. If the facts are correct, it appears that the majority of Americans will be working well past the age of 65.

By Larry Barrett

March 16, 2011

Most Americans still aren’t saving anywhere near enough money to afford the dignified retirement they all claim is so important to them. Even worse, most don’t even have any idea exactly how much they’ll need if they were to begin saving today for their golden years.

That’s the sobering truth derived from the 21st installment of the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) released Tuesday.

The only good news, according to Jack VanDerhei, research director of the Washington, D.C.-based EBRI, is that the majority of Americans are rightfully ignoring short-term economic improvements in the stock market and unemployment rates following several years of dismal performance. They now recognize that they are woefully behind the eight-ball in terms of properly planning and saving for their eventual retirement.

“There are many big, systemic factors redefining retirement in America today,” VanDerhei said during a conference call with reporters. “People are starting to wake up to this reality and changing their expectation of retirement. Unfortunately, the survey doesn’t find any evidence that people are changing their behavior — at least not yet.”

The RCS survey, conducted by market research firm Mathew Greenwald & Associates, found that more than half of the 1,260 respondents surveyed in January 2011 are “not all confident” or “not too confident” that they’ll be able to afford the retirement they want, the lowest level of confidence among workers in the survey’s 21-year history.

One of the main reasons so many people are so pessimistic about their retirement prospects is the simple fact that far too few workers are actually saving for retirement.

Currently, most Americans can expect an average retirement of about 20 years, and that number continues to expand as people live longer, while at the same time incur higher medical and cost-of-living expenses.

The survey found that the folks with savings of less than $25,000 are the most petrified about retirement and essentially resigned to the fact that they’ll either work throughout most of their retirement or never really experience one at all.

Forty-three percent of respondents with savings of less than $25,000 said they are not confident they’ll have enough money to afford a decent retirement, up from 19% in 2007.

Meanwhile, 22% of those with between $25,000 and $100,000 in savings remained less-than-confident about their retirements, more than triple the 7% who felt the same way in 2007.

This changing perception reflects not only most Americans’ disinterest in saving for tomorrow, but also the stark reality that most people aren’t expecting things to magically improve between now and the time they hit retirement age.

“Sixty-two percent of workers said they can save more than they’re saving now,” said Greenwald. “Most said they could dine out less, cut back on entertainment and, in some cases, wouldn’t really need to cut back at all to increase their savings. And while the sacrifices wouldn’t be that great, many still haven’t formed the habit of doing it.”

That so few have taken the time to reasonably figure out how much they’ll need to take that cruise to Alaska or keep them in prescription medications for 25 years or more speaks to just how invaluable retirement planning advice will be to this growing population of skeptical, unprepared workers.

Perhaps most depressing, the survey found that the percentage of workers who expect to retire after age 65 continues to increase, growing from 11% in 1991 and 20% in 2001 to a stunning 36% in 2011. Also, 74% of workers said they expect to have work for pay in retirement, more than triple the number (23%) of current retirees who are now working because they need the income.

“Even those who have achieved the highest levels of accumulation already, with more than $100,000 in savings, won’t be able to maintain the lifestyle they’re currently enjoying in retirement,” Greenwald said. “High accumulators still haven’t come to that reality. And 70% of all workers say they’re behind schedule when it comes to saving for retirement.”

“The bigger problem is that most haven’t changed their behavior and turned this pessimism into action to catch up,” he said.

Read More