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 108CHAPTER 4 number of children, home ownership status, proximity, and level of education affect par- ents’ decisions about whether to give money to their children and how much to give. The value of informal care provided to people with dementia and chronic illnesses amounts to billions of dollars annually. The yearly costs of informal care by family and friends for dementia is estimated to be $18 billion. Added to the costs of informal care for diabetes, incontinence, stroke, and depression, the figure rises to nearly $60 billion. These costs need to be added to the other costs of disease, including the medical costs, personal care provided outside of the family, and loss of income for wage earners who are ill. Living Situations In 2002, a large majority of HRS participants (79 percent) lived in a dwelling that they owned. Although the rate of home ownership declined with age (Figure 4-1), more than half of people age 85 and older resided in homes they owned. One in eight HRS participants lived in rental housing. The proportion of people living in nursing homes or assisted living facilities was very low among those ages 55 to 74, rising to 7 percent among the 75 to 84 age group and then more steeply to nearly 20 percent among those age 85 and older. Living Arrangements and Health HRS data have been used to probe the links between living arrangements and measures of physical, cognitive, and emotional well-being in late midlife. Married couples living alone or with children have been shown to have the highest levels of functioning, whereas single adults living in “complex” households (e.g., unmarried people living with others) have the lowest levels of functioning. Relative functional deficits for those living in complex households were reduced, but not eliminated, when demographic characteris- tics and household resources and demands were taken into account (Waite and Hughes 1999; Hughes and Waite 2002). Figure 4-2 shows proportions of HRS participants with different combinations of living close rela- tives. In 2002, about 45 percent of participants ages 55 to 64 had a partner, parent or parent- in-law, and at least one child who was living. This percentage dropped sharply in the older age groups. Nearly 70 percent of the youngest participants had both a partner and child(ren) who were living. Among participants age 85 and older, less than one-fifth had both a partner and child(ren). The percentage of people with at least one living child was high and fairly consistent across age groups. Figure 4-2 appears to indicate declining numbers of close living family members as age increases, but it should be noted that the loss of parents and spouses is often numerically compensated by children and grandchildren. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of single men are childless; as they age, these men may have only their own resources and public programs to rely on for financial and other support. FIG. 4-1 LIving situation, by age: 2002 Note: “Other” includes living rent-free with a relative, and a small number of respondents in miscellaneous living arrangements. Own Rent Nursing Home/ Retirement Community Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 75