Source:Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (2026 Update)
Author:Matthew S. Rutledge
Dataset: Health and Retirement Study (2018–2022 waves)
This is not anecdotal commentary. It is nationally representative longitudinal data across multiple years — including the COVID shock period — making it one of the most credible analyses available on retiree medical burden.
At the median:
That means nearly 1 in 3 dollars of Social Security is effectively pre-committed to healthcare.
And for the most vulnerable retirees?
That’s not inconvenience. That’s structural erosion.
The median retiree spent $5,444 in 2022 on medical OOP costs.
That includes:
And importantly:
Premiums — not catastrophic illness — are the largest component for most retirees
This is key. The burden isn’t just rare events. It’s built into the system.
From 2018 to 2022 — including pandemic years — OOP costs remained stable in real terms.
That sounds comforting.
But stability at a high baseline means:
And this stability occurred before:
In other words: the equilibrium may not hold.
This study introduces what may be the most important metric:
Income remaining after medical spending.
At the median:
But distribution matters:
The political debate focuses on gross benefit levels.
The lived experience is net-of-medical reality.
You might assume poor health radically lowers the post-OOP ratio.
It does — but not dramatically.
The more powerful determinant?
Medicaid is the swing factor.
Remove it, and vulnerability spikes.
Median share of Social Security remaining after OOP:
Why does RHI look worse on Social Security basis?
Because those retirees have higher total income — and pay higher premiums.
When measured against total income, differences narrow.
This reinforces a key point:
Premium structure, not just coverage generosity, determines net retirement security.
Future modifications include:
These may reduce pressure — but political uncertainty remains.
Policy tail risk is real.
Now let’s zoom out — because this matters in ways retirees rarely articulate.
If 29% of benefits go to medical costs, then:
A 40% replacement rate is effectively:
→ 28% real consumption replacement
That’s a silent compression of retirement lifestyle.
Medical premiums function like a non-discretionary tax.
Except:
This makes retirement income planning incomplete without health cost modeling.
The poorest are protected by Medicaid. The wealthy absorb costs.
The squeeze sits in the near-poor and middle quintiles.
And that cohort:
Even though annual OOP spending looks “stable,”:
Longer lifespans mean:
This paper excludes long-term care — which can be catastrophic.
So the 71% figure is conservative.
When evaluating retirement resilience — especially within legacy frameworks — one must:
Healthcare erosion is a silent destroyer of multi-generational planning if not embedded into modeling.
The uncomfortable truth:
Gross income is not purchasing power.
Net-of-medical income is.
And for many retirees:
That explains why affordability anxiety remains high — even when benefits technically “rose.”
The paper concludes that retirees’ finances are more precarious than headline income levels suggest.
That is the understated line.
The deeper takeaway:
Healthcare costs quietly redefine retirement adequacy.
Not through dramatic shocks — But through steady structural erosion.
And that makes this issue more dangerous than volatility.