Connect with us

Retirement Planning

Readers And Tweeters: Doctors Chime In On Telemedicine Costs



Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Next Time Take Time To Consult Doctors On Telehealth

As a cardiologist and pediatrician at the University of Mississippi, I take issue with your article about telemedicine (“Telehealth Will Be Free, No Copays, They Said. But Angry Patients Are Getting Billed,” April 27). Describing the care sessions as “phone chats,” as the headline on the companion NPR article did, substantially misrepresents what we do. Why did the article get published without the point of view of a single physician? The nature of this complaint boils down to this — I would never try to ask you to write journal articles for me, for free. We, in medicine, ask the same of you. If all phone consultations with physicians were free, we would never have time to see patients in the office. I urge you to write follow-up articles with a more balanced set of sources and realize how your article can now be used as ammunition to further constrain the way doctors practice. It is appropriate to remind readers to check their insurance coverage before they agree to a telephone consultation. It is not appropriate to then also call for free telephone or telehealth consultations.

― Dr. Frank Han, Jackson, Mississippi

— Dr. Yasmin Brahmbhatt, Philadelphia (responding to Dr. Mukta Baweja, New York City)

The article on telehealth was misleading and does the public a disservice by suggesting that physicians are approaching telehealth simply to increase their incomes.

Telehealth allows us physicians to see our patients and help them during a time of physical distancing. We are doing this not because it is “lucrative,” but to serve our communities, to do our jobs, and to take care of our patients while keeping them and our staff safe and healthy.

My practice revenue is down 85%. We have had a drastic reduction in patient visits, and I have already furloughed four of my 10 employees. These calls are far from lucrative, but, yes, they do help us keep the doors open.

Many other professionals charge for their time. After seeing patients throughout the day, we spend hours returning phone calls in the evening. These calls are not reimbursed; and frankly, they should be.

Phone calls and telehealth visits are not “chats.” They are medical consultations. You call your doctor for professional advice and guidance. You call your mother or your friends for a chat.

Dr. Rachel Schreiber, Rockville, Maryland

— Peter Borden, Boston

Jay Hancock’s story on telephone visits did not speak to physicians. Physicians should have been charging for telephone visits in the past (if the sessions met the criteria: initiated by the patient, not related to office visits or results from an office visit, or did not lead to an office visit), but reimbursement was only $14 per call. And many times the telephone calls did not meet billing criteria. However, with shelter-in-place laws and the pandemic, medical care has drastically changed. Patients don’t want to come to the office. They are thrilled to have telephone visits instead. Physicians are doing exponentially more of these telephone visits that meet billing criteria. Office visits have drastically decreased. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has changed reimbursement for telephone visits to be the same as for video visits, retroactive to March. Charging for telephone visits will help keep doctors’ offices financially afloat so medical care is available for patients in the future. This story is missing the perspective of physicians and also patients who are very happy with the telephone visits.

— Dr. Catherine Nelson, San Mateo, California

I am writing on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology, which represents more than 20,000 dermatologists and their patients. All physicians, including dermatologists, are committed to providing the highest-quality patient care and have worked to safely offer care throughout the pandemic.

Your recent article correctly outlines how patients are utilizing telehealth to continue receiving care during the pandemic and describes discrepancies in how they’re being billed. While your article addresses these discrepancies in telehealth billing, it does not fully represent the significant challenges faced by patients, physicians and insurers as the health care system shifted abruptly in response to the pandemic.

Physicians are facing significant challenges including:

  • Lack of consistency. Many of the current telemedicine insurance policies are inconsistent and include differing reporting and delivery requirements, which creates a significant burden on practices and may delay the delivery of care.
  • Confusion surrounding reimbursement. Reimbursement levels and patient cost sharing for telemedicine visits vary across insurers. Many are following CMS and reimbursing in parity and eliminating patient responsibility while others are maintaining that patients must meet their standard obligations. This disparity has many practices collecting a deductible and refunding the patient’s deductible or copayment once the claim is processed appropriately.
  • Opportunity to work together. During this time of uncertainty, insurers and physicians are coming together to maintain continuity of care for patients. With any new process, challenges remain. Finding ways to harmonize the disparate requirements physicians are facing is paramount.

Our hope is that you will find this information helpful in providing a full picture of the medical profession’s intense obligation to keep Americans safe during the pandemic while administering quality care.

— Dr. Bruce H. Thiers, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, Rosemont, Illinois

— Liz Boehm, Cambridge, Massachusetts

— Rachel Kauser Nalebuff, Brooklyn, New York

Privy To Details About Community Spread

Regarding your series “Lost on the Frontline,” one critical topic was overlooked: fecal transmission and “contact tracing” of toilets. Though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says nothing about a fecal vector on its website, Chinese and U.S. researchers have been publishing their data on the coronavirus and feces for months. Toilet facilities for exclusive use by staff could be an overlooked vector that is tragically spreading this pathogen among health care workers.

An asymptomatic patient passes contaminated bowel movements for up to a week prior to feeling ill. Decades of research on uncovered flush toilets have shown their aerosol plume spreads bacterial and viral pathogens in a wide arc. Any location with a communal-use restroom has an inadvertent COVID-19 warehouse/distribution center (if it has been used by an infected person). The CDC can’t say, with any certainty, how long the coronavirus survives on various surfaces and whether it is infectious.

“Contact tracing” must consider which toilets were used by people who tested positive for COVID-19 during the preceding seven days. And then who used those facilities after the contaminated individuals. This flushed-toilet hypothesis, if valid, could explain cluster outbreaks in “contained” settings with designated staff toilets, e.g., ICUs, hospital admitting/triage departments, police precinct stations, corporate conference gatherings, restaurants, etc.

It might help to reflect on the CDC’s befuddlement at the Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in Philadelphia July 1976. Though the pathogen was a simple bacterium and the cohort of ill persons relatively contained and traceable, the agency’s epidemiologists and public health investigators were scratching their perplexed heads until a second outbreak in April 1977 enlightened them.

Getting beyond “respiratory droplets” may take even longer. This pandemic started as a gastrointestinal virus in the Wuhan market. The Coral Princess outbreak has recently been traced to an infected food worker. Until some bright epidemiologist redirects serious attention to fecal transmission and toilets, health care workers will continue to be at high risk of exposure to this deadly virus.

— Tom Heusel, retired registered nurse, Eugene, Oregon

— Dr. Christopher Chen, Miami

The Nuts And Bolts Of COVID Care

Your recent piece (“As Ventilators Become Crucial In Saving Lives, Repair Roadblocks Remain,” April 17) highlights an important and pressing issue.

As the COVID-19 pandemic puts unprecedented strain on our health care system, it is essential that we ensure medical devices are working safely and effectively. While third-party servicers play a crucial role in the post-market maintenance ecosystem, the fact is many operate in a regulatory “wild West.” In most cases, federal regulators do not even know about specific maintenance companies much less what their qualifications may or may not be. A 2018 Food and Drug Administration report estimated that the “total number of firms performing medical device servicing in the U.S. is between 16,520 and 20,830.” In other words, we do not even have a clear sense of the number of third-party servicers who work closely with medical equipment — a troubling reality, to say the least.

Non-manufacturer third-party servicers do not have to register with the FDA and are not held to the same quality, safety and regulatory requirements as original equipment manufacturer (OEM) servicers.

It is also important to remember that not all “right-to-repair” products are the same. If a repair goes awry with a mobile phone, at worst it may need to be replaced entirely. But the consequences of an improperly repaired medical device such as an MRI machine or ventilator can bring life-altering risks. That is why the FDA holds OEMs to specific quality and safety requirements and why we have advocated that, at a minimum, the agency should:

  • Know which third-party services are performing maintenance work
  • Assure all technicians are properly trained
  • Assure qualified parts are always used
  • Require detailed service records are maintained
  • Require applicable safety issues or events to be reported to the manufacturer in a timely manner.

It is unfortunate that some third-party servicers have chosen to use the COVID-19 pandemic to alarm the public and advance their business agenda. Instead of pushing for more unregulated servicing, they should register with the FDA, adopt quality management systems, and develop a mechanism for reporting adverse events.

Patrick Hope, executive director of the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance

— Pat Kelly-Fischer, Denver

An Insurer Far From Interested In Bailout Money

Julie Appleby and Steven Findlay’s April 28 story, “Health Insurers Prosper As COVID-19 Deflates Demand For Elective Treatments,” implies that all health insurers are looking for a government bailout asking, “So why is the industry looking to Congress for help?” Not true. UnitedHealth Group, which includes UnitedHealthcare and Optum, will not request or accept any government relief money. Instead, we are focused on leveraging the full strength of our resources to support the health and safety of the people and communities we serve.

We are flexing our financial resources, clinical expertise and national reach in dozens of ways to help address society’s most critical needs. We’ve broadened health care access for patients by waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 testing and treatment, reduced prior authorizations, enabled and encouraged the use of free telehealth, offered early prescriptions refills, donated an initial $70 million to COVID-related causes, and delivered nearly $2 billion in accelerated payments to help care providers during a challenging financial time.

The 325,000 people of UnitedHealth Group are committed to doing as much as we can for the people and communities we are honored to serve during this difficult time.

― Kirsten Gorsuch, chief communications officer for UnitedHealthcare, Minnetonka, Minnesota

— Dr. Ed Mariano, Palo Alto, California

A Need To Expose Negligence?

Thank you for your exposé on assisted living facilities in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic (“COVID-19 Crisis Threatens Beleaguered Assisted Living Industry,” April 9). My comments are regarding what is missing from the article. Welltower Inc. is the largest player in the industry and it is not mentioned. Ventas, the second-largest player, is not mentioned either. The fact that neither the states nor the federal government took steps when they found how inferior the care was received no analysis.

And, finally, the federal law ― the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act — that empowers these Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to be so careless with their residents is at the core of the maltreatment of the elderly. No one is addressing the RIDEA Act of 2007.

I have a lawsuit based on the alleged negligence of my mother in Sunrise of Stamford in Connecticut, and my legal team argued that although Welltower was “just a holding company,” under RIDEA it too had liability since it shared in the profits of the operating company. My point is that so much of this industry is ignored. I am fighting for someone to go deeper than the obvious.

― Ted Schachter, founder of Alzheimer’s Defense Fund, New York City

— Dr. C. Michael Gibson, Boston


Title: Readers And Tweeters: Doctors Chime In On Telemedicine Costs
Sourced From:
Published Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 09:00:04 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…

Continue Reading
Advertisement Attention Stock Investors

Retirement Planning

At Least 1.7M Americans Use Health Sharing Arrangements, Despite Lack of Protections




A new report has provided the first national count of Americans who rely on health care sharing plans — arrangements through which people agree to pay one another’s medical bills — and the number is higher than previously realized.

The report from the Colorado Division of Insurance found that more than 1.7 million Americans rely on sharing plans and that many of the plans require members to ask for charity care before submitting their bills.

The total membership numbers are likely even higher. The state agency collected data from 16 sharing plans across the U.S. but identified five other plans that did not report their data.

“These plans cover more people than we had previously known,” said JoAnn Volk, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Under the arrangements, members, who usually share some religious beliefs, agree to send money each month to cover other members’ health care bills. At least 11 of the sharing plans that reported data operated in or advertised plans in all 50 states in 2021.

Sharing plans do not guarantee payment for health services and are not held to the same standards and consumer protections as health insurance plans. Sharing plans are not required to cover preexisting conditions or provide the minimum health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. And unlike health insurance, sharing plans can place annual or lifetime caps on payments. A single catastrophic health event can easily exceed a sharing plan’s limits.

In Colorado, at least 67,000 people were members of sharing plans in 2021, representing about 1 in 4 Coloradans purchasing health care coverage on their own. That rate concerns Kate Harris, a chief deputy commissioner of the Colorado Division of Insurance, which she said regularly receives complaints from sharing plan enrollees.

“What we hear from consumers is that when they purchase one of these, they do think there is some guarantee of coverage, for the most part, despite the disclaimers on many of the organizations’ websites,” Harris said.

The Colorado report found that health sharing arrangements often require their members to seek charity care or assistance from providers, governments, or consumer support organizations before submitting sharing requests. Those costs are then shifted to other public or private health plans.

Katy Talento, executive director of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, which represents five of the largest and longest-operating sharing plans in the country, said sharing ministries encourage members to act like the uninsured people they are. Such requirements to seek charity care reflect a desire to be good stewards of their members’ money, Talento said.

“Think about it like a soup kitchen,” she said.

Fourteen sharing plans reported that Colorado members submitted a cumulative $362 million in health bills in 2021, and nearly $132 million of those requests were approved. The remainder, sharing plan executives told the division, reflected duplicative bills, ineligible charges, negotiated discounts, and the members’ agreed-upon portion of medical bills.

“It’s not like every claim line on a health care sharing request is going to be eligible for sharing,” Talento said. “They have to submit the whole bill. They can’t just pull out a piece of it.”

But consumer complaints to the Division of Insurance and to consumer assistance programs, such as the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, show that members do not always realize what sharing plans will cover.

“We have seen firsthand the risks that people face when they sign up for these arrangements without recognizing the magnitude of the risk that they’re assuming for their health care costs,” said Isabel Cruz, the initiative’s policy director.

Talento disputed the notion that members don’t know the parameters of their sharing plans.

“That’s just suggesting that our members are dumb,” she said. “Is it likely that somehow our people are going to be willy-nilly jumping blindly into something?”

Theresa Brilli, a small-business owner in Longmont, Colorado, said she and her partner signed up for a direct primary care plan in 2017 that covered primary care visits for $179 a month. Direct primary care plans are payment arrangements between patients and providers for receiving health services without billing insurance. The plan had an arrangement with Liberty HealthShare, a Canton, Ohio-based sharing plan with more than 131,000 members nationwide, to cover additional services like preventive screenings, emergency room care, and hospitalizations for $349 a month with a $1,000 deductible. The rates increased to $499 a month, with a $1,750 deductible, in 2020, Brilli said.

But Brilli said getting payments was a major hassle.

“It took about four to eight months to get reimbursed,” she said. “It was a fight, every bill.”

When she heard about enhanced subsidies for ACA marketplace plans in 2022, she decided the hassle was no longer worth it and switched to a Kaiser Permanente plan for $397 a month.

“I will never go back to Liberty Health or a health care sharing plan,” she said. “I didn’t agree with the whole ministry thing. They made you sign off saying you believed in God, which was like, ‘Whoa, I guess that’s what I have to do to get my health insurance.’”

Laura Murray, 49, of Aurora, Colorado, said she signed up for a Liberty HealthShare plan in 2017 as a more affordable alternative to her husband’s employer-based plan.

“We kind of felt we were cutting out the middleman in a way, and it was a helping-out-your-neighbor sort of deal,” she said.

But when she became pregnant unexpectedly, she had trouble getting her health bills paid. Initially, Liberty paid only a portion of the tab, and her bills got sent to a collection agency. It was only through multiple calls that she learned she needed to send the bills to a third party that would negotiate with the providers.

“It took years to get it cleared up,” she said.

Timothy Bryan, Liberty’s vice president of marketing and communication, disputed many of the details of Brilli’s account and attributed some of the delay in payment to her “failure to submit the required supporting documentation.” Murray’s payments, he said, were delayed more than 10 months because she had failed to provide the required pre-notification.

Mike Quinlan, 42, of Denver, turned to a health sharing ministry in 2014 after the birth of his first child cost him more than $17,000 out-of-pocket, on top of nearly $24,000 in premiums that year, under an employer-sponsored health plan. He said the births of his three youngest children were covered in full by Samaritan Ministries International, a Peoria, Illinois-based sharing plan with 359,000 members, to which he contributes $600 a month. When he incurs large health expenses, he receives a slew of $600 checks from other members, he said.

Every year, Quinlan attests that he is a Christian and identifies the church he attends.

“This is a group of like-minded people who have said voluntarily we’re going to trust each other to cover each other’s health costs,” he said.

The rules differ from plan to plan. Some sharing plans require members to pledge to abide by Christian principles, and some exclude payment for out-of-wedlock births or health issues that arise from drug use. Many sharing plans exclude coverage of contraception, mental health services, and abortion, often with no exceptions for rape or safety of the mother.

Regulators in Colorado and other states have also expressed concerns that health sharing arrangements are paying brokers much higher commissions for signing up members than health plans do. That could create financial incentives to push sharing plans over health insurance without adequately educating consumers about the differences.

In 2019, Covered California, the Golden State’s ACA marketplace, instituted a requirement that its certified agents who sell both sharing plans and health insurance provide consumers with a list of disclosures about sharing plans and show them the subsidies they could receive for buying traditional health insurance coverage.

“It’s really important that consumers understand what these arrangements are, and what they are not,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California.

Harris said the Colorado Division of Insurance is investigating multiple health sharing arrangements based on consumer complaints but declined to name them.

Colorado officials are also concerned that health sharing arrangements might appeal primarily to people who don’t expect to use many health services. That could increase the proportion of sicker and more expensive patients among enrollees in traditional health insurance plans, driving up premiums.

Harris said many consumers can get a health plan for less than the cost of a sharing plan, particularly with increased federal and state subsidies put in place in recent years. State officials are also working to inform consumers of the financial risks associated with health sharing arrangements, some of which have gone bankrupt in recent years.

“It might look cheaper on its face, month to month,” Harris said. “But if they do really actually need their costs covered, there’s a real risk that they may not be.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.


This story can be republished for free (details).


By: Markian Hawryluk
Title: At Least 1.7M Americans Use Health Sharing Arrangements, Despite Lack of Protections
Sourced From:
Published Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:00:00 +0000




Always check our latest articles at…

Continue Reading

Retirement Planning

Give Yourself the Perfect Retirement Gift



Give Yourself the Perfect Retirement Gift

From day one, everyone looks forward to retirement, that day where they can finally let go of the stresses of the daily grind and spend their leisurely days traveling, reading and basically having fun. As compared to previous generations, we have longer life spans so we all expect our golden years to be fulfilling and rewarding.

Instead of waiting for people to help you plan your retirement, you should do it yourself. Although retirement planning is probably one of the most draining activities where one spends loads of time perusing over financial and brokerage statements, benefits brochures and insurance policies. One does this in terms of the benefits of long term planning: if one retires earlier, he/she will think and anticipate less on government-funded plans which only gives a pittance of a pension and focus more on the beauty of life.

Why Retirement Planning is Necessary

Obviously, retirement planning isn’t all about numerous hours of stress by chugging down numbers and analyzing mutual funds: it’s about fixing and deciding how you will live the final years of your life. If one can balance financially and plan fully on a retirement plan, rest assured that your future is secure.

But remember that retirement planning isn’t a singular activity. It is something that stretches forth to decades, spanning your 30s, 40s and 50s. In every decade, one must rethink their strategies since you are inching closer and closer to retirement, thus one must forgo risky investments and go to bonds and reliable mutual funds as the years pass by.

Build the Right Retirement Plan

A retirement plan must be suited to your risk tolerance and apparent need for cash when retirement comes. If you prefer a general 401(k) that has a good balance of everything, you may go for equal amounts of low-risk bonds and riskier stocks or you may also opt for an assortment of mutual funds that both have high-risk and low-risk funds.

Generally, risk tolerance is congruent to one’s age. If you are on your 20s or early 30s, you may opt for a more stock-saturated mutual fund in the hope of getting a good return because of the added risk stocks give. If ever the worst comes and you face some declines in the stock market, you still have a good 20 to 30 years to compensate for the losses.

On the other hand, if one is teetering on the 40s or 50s, it is necessary that one must go low-risk in his/her investments. One’s mutual funds must now be concentrated more on low-risk government bonds, which virtually assure no losses and minimum gain, if there will be no huge political crisis, of course.

If one follows this general age/risk rule, then one has better chance that one has an ample amount of cash to spend on the pleasures of life when retirement age finally comes.


One has always dreamt of traveling the world, playing golf all day and enjoying the best life can give. But one cannot do all that while working away in the office. Therefore one must give importance to the rising necessity of building a retirement plan.

It is probably as stressful as work itself, but if you can carry all that heap of information and mix it into the delicacy that is a finely tailored retirement plan, then rest assured that your dream of tasting and relishing the best of life is definitely reachable by 65.

Continue Reading

Retirement Planning

Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970



There always has been and always will be a reason not to invest or not to stay invested. This is all the mainstream media reports to us. Below you will find a list of some of the worst global events each year since 1970. I have some commentary to follow.

1970: War: US troops invade Cambodia.
1971: Civil Unrest: Anti-war militants march on Washington.
1972: Political: Start of Watergate Scandal.
1973: Economic: OPEC raises oil prices in response to US involvement abroad.
1974: Political: Nixon resigns as President of the United States.
1975: Political: Multiple assassination attempts on President Ford.
1976: World: Ebola virus.
1977: Political: Government shutdowns.
1978: Market: U.S. Dollar plunges to record low against many European currencies.
1979: World: Iranian militants seize the U.S. embassy in Teheran and hold hostages.
1980: Economic: Inflation spiked to a high of 14.76%.
1981: Political: President Reagan assassination attempt.
1982: Economic: Recession continues in the U.S. with nationwide unemployment of 10.8%.
1983: Economic: Unemployment in the U.S. reaches 12 million.
1984: Economic: 70 U.S. banks fail during the year.
1985: World: Multiple airplane hijackings around the world.
1986: World: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station explodes.
1987: Market: DOW drops by 22.6% on October 22.
1988: Environment: Awareness of global warming and the greenhouse effect grows.
1989: Environment: Exxon Valdez dumps 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.
1990: World: Persian Gulf War starts.
1991: World: Mass shooting in Killeen, TX.
1992: Human Rights: Los Angeles riots following the death of Rodney King.
1993: Terrorism: World Trade Center bombing.
1994: World: Mass genocide in Rwanda.
1995: Terrorism: Oklahoma City bombing.
1996: Terrorism: Olympic Park bombing.
1997: World: Bird flu.
1998: World: Multiple U.S. embassy bombings.
1999: World: Columbine shooting.
2000: Economic: Start of the Dotcom Market Crash.
2001: Terrorism: Terrorist Attacks in NYC, DC & PA.
2002: Economic: Nasdaq bottomed after a 76.81% drop.
2003: World: The U.S. invades Iraq.
2004: World: The U.S. launches an attack on Falluja.
2005: World: Hurricane Katrina
2006: World: Bird flu.
2007: Economic: Start of the Great Recession.
2008: Economic: Great Recession continues.
2009: Economic: S&P bottomed after a 56.8% drop.
2010: Market: Flash crash.
2011: Market: Occupy Wall Street and S&P downgrades U.S. Debt.
2012: Political: Fiscal cliff.
2013: Political: Taper tantrum.
2014: World: Ebola virus.
2015: World: Multiple mass shootings.
2016: Political: Divided U.S. Presidential election.
2017: World: North Korea testing nuclear weapons.
2018: Economic: U.S. & China trade war.
2019: Economic: Student loan debt reaches an all-time high of $1.4 trillion.
2020: World: COVID-19.

While many of these events were undoubtedly terrible (and there are certainly others not named here that were worse), most of these were broadcast as end-of-the-world events for the stock market. Despite that attention, it is worth noting that these were, for the most part, one-time events. In other words, most faded into the newspapers of history. We moved on.

Obviously, some caused monumental shifts in the way the world works. Just think about how much air travel continues to be impacted by the events of 9/11. But, outside of the resulting inconveniences (if we want to call safety protocols inconveniences) associated with air travel, flying is safer than ever before.

Take a look at just about any of the events and you will find there are many that people will hardly remember. My point here isn’t that these events are to be ignored or that they were easy to stomach at the time, but that they have become a distant memory.

I want to also make the point that we should expect these types of negative events. As investors, we know these types of crises, economic catastrophes, and global phenomena are going to happen.

But in almost all cases, here is what we can say in the next breath – this too shall pass.

Will there be legal, humanitarian, economic, or some other aid required as a result of these events? Almost certainly the answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean it they won’t eventually fade into history.

Lastly, what’s worth noting is how the market has performed over these last 50 years despite the continual advertisements of the world crashing down around us. On January 2, 1970, the Dow Jones stood at 809 and the S&P at 90 -> those are not typos. These same indexes have grown (not including dividends) to 26,387 and 3,232 respectively. Amazing, no?

Perhaps what gets overlooked more than anything else is what separates the above one-time negative events from the positive stories that go largely ignored over our lifetimes. And that is a story worth telling. See the companion post below:

Unheralded Positive Events Every Year Since 1970

Stay the Course,

Retirement Field Guide Mission:

“To help 10 million people make better retirement decisions.”

If you would like to join us in achieving our mission, I hope you will consider sharing our site if you have found it helpful in your own retirement planning.

This post is not advice. Please see additional disclaimers.

The post Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970 appeared first on Retirement Field Guide.


By: Ashby Daniels, CFP®
Title: Ends-of-the-World Every Year Since 1970
Sourced From:
Published Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:26:19 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…

Continue Reading