Long-Term Care Insurance Premium Tool
What care will cost, what policies charge by purchase age — and the alternatives, honestly
| Strategy | How it works | Best for |
|---|
What care will cost, what policies charge by purchase age — and the alternatives, honestly
| Strategy | How it works | Best for |
|---|
Long-term care is retirement's unpriced risk: ~70% of people over 65 will need some care, 20% will need it for 5+ years, and neither Medicare (skilled/short-term only) nor health insurance pays for the years of help-with-daily-living that assisted living and nursing homes sell at $70,000–130,000 a year. This tool projects the bill to your likely claim decade, prices the three honest strategies — traditional insurance, hybrid policies, self-insurance — and shows why the decision has a deadline: premiums climb ~8%/yr with purchase age, and health underwriting slams the door on 15–30% of applicants past 60.
| Care level | National median today | At 4%/yr, in 30 years |
|---|---|---|
| Home health aide (44 hrs/wk) | ~$65,000/yr | ~$210,000/yr |
| Assisted living | ~$72,000/yr | ~$233,000/yr |
| Nursing home (private room) | ~$115,000/yr | ~$373,000/yr |
Care inflation has outrun CPI for decades (labor-intensive services do). A 3-year assisted-living episode beginning at 85 is a $600k–700k event in tomorrow's dollars — the number that reframes the premium conversation.
Only up to 100 days of SKILLED care after a hospital stay — rehabilitation, not living assistance. The multi-year custodial care that constitutes most LTC is explicitly excluded. This misunderstanding is the foundation of America's care-funding crisis.
The consensus window is 55–65: late enough that premiums-paid-years are limited, early enough that health passes underwriting and rates are sane. Each year of waiting costs ~8% in premium and a real chance of becoming uninsurable.
Traditional policies: possibly — increases require regulator approval and apply to whole classes, but the history is sobering. Hybrids: no, guaranteed. That single difference explains the market's migration to hybrids despite their weaker leverage.
Traditional: premiums are gone (like your homeowners insurance — the fire didn't happen). Hybrid: heirs receive the death benefit. Self-insure: the earmarked fund is your estate's. This 'use it or lose it' asymmetry is emotional, not financial — but it sells hybrids.
Shared-care riders pool two benefit periods (3+3 becomes a joint 6) at a discount — statistically smart since couples' claims rarely overlap fully. Women pay ~40% more solo (longer claims); couple pricing softens it.
Qualifying requires exhausting countable assets (~$2,000 individual, with spousal protections), a 5-year lookback on gifts, and estate recovery after death. It's a real safety net with real costs: facility choice, home-care limits, and your legacy. Partnership policies exist precisely to buy asset protection from it.
Yes — every figure computes locally in your browser.
Run the three-strategy math once at 55 and once at 60 — the numbers, not the brochures, will tell you whether you're an insurer, a hybrid buyer, or a disciplined self-funder. The only losing strategy is the default one: deciding at 75, in a hospital discharge office.