Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108H EALT H 34 have now documented a decline in disability rates among the population age 65 and older. Much research has focused on this age group, but relatively little research has focused on people in the late midlife, pre-retirement age group. It is interesting not only to observe the disability status and transitions among pre-retirement individu- als, but also to investigate predisposing factors and behaviors that might influence the disability profile of tomorrow’s elders. Figures 1-11 and 1-12 present the percentages of male and female 2002 HRS participants with functional limitations or disabilities. Six indica- tors of functional disability are considered. The first and second indicators reflect instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs)—doing house- work, doing laundry, preparing meals, grocery shopping and being mobile outside the home, managing money, and using a telephone—and the third indicator of functional disability is whether or not a person has stopped driving. The fourth and fifth indicators reflect limitation in conventionally defined activities of daily living (ADLs)—eating, dressing, bathing, toileting, getting in and out of bed, and being mobile in one’s residence. The sixth indicator of functional disability is the use of an assistive device, such as a walker or cane. Figure 1-11 depicts age and gender differences for IADL limitations, showing that limitations increased with age and were higher for women than men in 2002. The percentages of respon- dents with IADL limitations initially are lower than for ADL limitations, but increase more rapidly with age, such that by age 85 they are nearly the same. Although the age-specific IADL limitation percentages are lower than those for ADLs, HRS participants were more likely to receive help with IADLs than with ADLs. The most dramatic gender difference in functional limitations was seen in the data for driving. At age FIG. 1-12 limitation in activities of daily living, by age: 2002 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% One or More ADL Limitations Receive Help with ADL(s) Use Assistive Device(s) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% WOMEN MEN 65 and older, men were twice as likely as women to still be driving. By age 85, 32 percent and 66 percent of non-institutionalized men and women, respectively, were no longer driving. In the sample as a whole, three-fourths of people ages 75 to 84 continued to drive, as did 45 percent of people age 85 and older. The HRS data further show that for men ages 55 to 64, 13.2 percent report either an ADL or