Financial elder abuse—broadly defined as the illegal or improper use of the funds, property, or assets of people 60 and older by family, friends, neighbors, and strangers—costs older people and their families billions of dollars. But how many billions? That's subject to debate.
When Consumer Reports recently reported on elder financial fraud, Lies, Secrets, and Scams: How to Prevent Elder Abuse, we used the number $3 billion. It comes from a study published in 2011 by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, in collaboration with the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and the Center for Geronotology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
We rounded up from that study's estimate of $2.9 billion annually (see page 2 of the download).
The MetLife study's methodology involved reviewing news articles mentioning elder financial abuse committed by strangers; family, friends, and neighbors; and the business sector, as well as Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
We chose that figure because a number of experts we interviewed thought it was a credible figure.
But they—and an author of the study—admitted to us when we first reported it a couple of years ago that the figure probably represents the tip of the iceberg. The figure is probably far larger than that.
Other, Much Higher Estimates
At the other end of the scale, TrueLink,
a company that provides account-monitoring software for elders and
their families, has projected that financial elder abuse costs families
more than $36 billion a year,
12 times the MetLife estimate. TrueLink arrived at its estimate by
surveying family caregivers of older people. TrueLink CEO Kai
Stinchcombe says that abuse committed by strangers—the main topic of our article—is more than $29 billion.
The TrueLink study used a broad definition of financial elder abuse. It included exploitation (about $17 billion), in which fraudsters operate openly, claiming victims' consent; examples are quack weight loss or dietary products, work-from-home schemes, hidden shipping and handling or subscriptions, and misleading financial advice. It also included a loss of $12.76 billion from criminal fraud (anonymous con artists and identity thieves), and $6.67 billion from abuse by caregivers: family members, and others exploiting a trusting relationship.
These figures were compelling, especially given that TrueLink consulted experts from the respected Financial Fraud Research Center at the Stanford Center on Longevity. When I spoke with Martha Deevy, director of the center's financial security division, however, she noted that she and her colleagues didn't write the survey. "We gave them input regarding how to frame the questions," she said. "We believe the challenge with the TrueLink numbers was the way they extrapolated and generalized across the population and think that should have been questioned in a peer-reviewed journal."
On the other hand, Deevy noted, the MetLife results may have been too conservative. "I think they leaned on the pieces of evidence they could authentically count," she said. "But people misrepresent how much they lost. A large percentage of victims are not reporting at all."
A problem with both estimates, Deevy says, is that there's no standardized way to define fraud types. She and her colleagues are working on a taxonomy that she hopes will be used by all professionals who deal in the field, including researchers; law enforcement; consumer protection advocates; and adult protective services workers. (Continue Reading)
The TrueLink study used a broad definition of financial elder abuse. It included exploitation (about $17 billion), in which fraudsters operate openly, claiming victims' consent; examples are quack weight loss or dietary products, work-from-home schemes, hidden shipping and handling or subscriptions, and misleading financial advice. It also included a loss of $12.76 billion from criminal fraud (anonymous con artists and identity thieves), and $6.67 billion from abuse by caregivers: family members, and others exploiting a trusting relationship.
These figures were compelling, especially given that TrueLink consulted experts from the respected Financial Fraud Research Center at the Stanford Center on Longevity. When I spoke with Martha Deevy, director of the center's financial security division, however, she noted that she and her colleagues didn't write the survey. "We gave them input regarding how to frame the questions," she said. "We believe the challenge with the TrueLink numbers was the way they extrapolated and generalized across the population and think that should have been questioned in a peer-reviewed journal."
On the other hand, Deevy noted, the MetLife results may have been too conservative. "I think they leaned on the pieces of evidence they could authentically count," she said. "But people misrepresent how much they lost. A large percentage of victims are not reporting at all."
A problem with both estimates, Deevy says, is that there's no standardized way to define fraud types. She and her colleagues are working on a taxonomy that she hopes will be used by all professionals who deal in the field, including researchers; law enforcement; consumer protection advocates; and adult protective services workers. (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Financial Elder Abuse Costs $3 Billion a Year. Or Is It $36 Billion?
2 comments:
I bet $36 billion is still short.
No one really knows. We're all guessing.
Post a Comment