Amy Arnott of Morningstar

Deciding where to live later in life isn’t an easy task. Many seniors prefer to stay in their own homes but may need help managing medical issues or day-to-day tasks. Others might move in with their adult children or family members.

Related Articles

How Promote Giving, a new investment model, will raise millions for charities

Colleges are fighting to prove their return on investment

I asked real buyers: How hard is it to find a house right now?

Medicare costs are rising in 2026. Here’s how to save during open enrollment

Forget stock options. Some employers are handing out down payments

One potential solution is a continuing care retirement community, or life plan community.

A CCRC is a community living facility where retirees can access a spectrum of care as they age—care levels typically include independent living, assisted living, nursing care, and memory care. Most CCRCs also offer a range of amenities and activities, such as on-site fitness centers and groups for different hobbies.

There’s evidence that people living in CCRCs enjoy better health outcomes, and higher levels of social and emotional well-being. It can also be an attractive option for couples as they can continue living near each other even if one person eventually needs a higher level of care.

Moving to a CCRC requires a substantial financial commitment, and it carries the sobering possibility that it might be the last time you get to choose where you live. Here are some key things to consider:

Fees and living arrangements

People entering a CCRC generally start in independent living, with their own living quarters.

In many cases, the cost of admission could be on par with buying a house in the same area. Based on data from US News & World Report, entrance fees average about $400,000 but can range from $100,000 to more than $1 million. The hefty price tag doesn’t mean you’re buying the property you live in; instead, the money helps cover part of the costs you may incur while living there and may be partially refundable to your estate after death.

Residents also pay monthly fees, which averaged about $4,200 for independent living as of the end of 2024. Monthly fees, which often increase about 4% per year to cover inflation, generally cover housing, meals, housekeeping, maintenance, transportation, and recreational activities. Depending on your contract, monthly fees may also cover certain healthcare costs.

Three types of CCRC contracts

Type A contracts are the costliest option. They have the steepest entrance fees and the highest starting monthly fees, which generally cover comprehensive long-term-care services and remain the same (except for annual inflation increases) even if you need a higher level of care.

Type B contracts have lower upfront costs than Type A contracts, and lower monthly fees when you first move in. They provide the same access to housing and residential services as Type A contracts, but not the same level of access to healthcare services. If a resident needs a higher level of care, the monthly fee grows to cover the higher cost. In exchange for lower monthly fees at move-in, people in these contracts take the risk that their costs could significantly increase.

Type C contracts generally have the lowest upfront costs and may not include any entrance fee. Instead, the monthly fee changes to reflect the market rate for the type of healthcare needed. Monthly fees start lower when a resident first enters independent living but can grow dramatically if they need higher-level care. As with Type B contracts, people in these contracts pay lower monthly fees when they move in but may end up paying significantly more.

Other factors to consider with contracts

The upfront payments included in Type A and Type B contracts are often partially refundable after you leave the facility or pass away. Though, there fundable portion of the fee varies.

Taxes are another factor to consider.

For Type A and Type B contracts, part of the entrance fee may be eligible for a one-time tax deduction as a prepaid medical expense. A portion of the monthly fees may also be eligible for annual deductions if they’re considered a prepaid medical expense. (In both cases, deductions are only allowed if the costs are more than 7.5% of adjusted gross income.) Facilities typically provide residents with specifics on the portion of fees that may be deductible each year.

Finding the right fit

ACCRC can help seniors maintain a happy, healthy, and rewarding life. But it’s imperative to make sure the facility is not only a good fit for your needs, but financially strong before signing a contract.

The National Continuing Care Residents Association offers resources that include a Consumer Guide, a Handbook on CCRC Finance, and a Model Bill of Rights.

This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more personal finance content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance

Amy C. Arnott, CFA is a portfolio strategist for Morningstar.

Both directions of Minnesota State Highway 13 in Mendota Heights between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road will be closed beginning at 9:30 a.m. Monday and opening again at about 9:30 p.m. Friday, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Related Articles

Off-duty St. Cloud officer gravely injured in Apple Valley bus collision

South St. Paul native Mike Farrell — Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt on ‘M*A*S*H’ — honored for Marine Corps service

St. Paul: Downtown small-business owners share concerns with lawmakers

St. Paul Winter Carnival seeks your memories

Neighborhood House working on $25 million fundraising campaign

The highway closure is so crews can do planting and erosion control work, MnDOT said in a press release on Friday.

Signed detours will direct motorists using Wachtler Avenue, Wentworth Avenue West, Dodd Road/Highway 149 and Smith Avenue South.

For more info and for real-time travel information anywhere in Minnesota, visit 511mn.org.

For many college basketball experts, selecting the greatest players of the women’s poll era sounds easy — until they try it.

Of course, USC’s Cheryl Miller and Diana Taurasi of UConn are relatively easy choices. But narrowing the list from there gets tricky, inevitably leaving out talented players, including those who sharpened their skills during later professional careers.

FILE – Iowa guard Caitlin Clark makes a heart gesture after the team’s NCAA college basketball game against Michigan, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024, in Iowa City, Iowa. Clark broke the NCAA women’s career scoring record. (AP Photo/Matthew Putney, File)

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the women’s basketball poll, The Associated Press assembled a list of the greatest players since the first poll in 1976. And in the spirit of the Top 25 rankings, the choices are certain to spark a debate and prompt plenty of handwringing among those who were in a position to vote.

“Nearly impossible,” Rebecca Lobo, a former UConn standout and NCAA champion, said of the assignment. “As I’m looking down the list, I’m like no-brainer, no-brainer, no-brainer. But then I’m like wait, there’s too many no-brainers and not enough slots.”

Lobo was one of 13 members of a panel of former players and AP sportswriters who voted on the greatest players. They were instructed to consider only the athletes’ college careers. Other factors, however, were up to their discretion, including championship pedigree, record-breaking statistics or simply their ability to will their teams to victory.

“It was extraordinarily difficult, especially, to try to hone in on a players’ college career and eliminate their pro career from your brain,” Lobo added. “There are going to be players who are Hall of Fame-caliber players who aren’t on the list.”

Joining Miller in the frontcourt on the first team are Breanna Stewart and Candace Parker. Caitlin Clark joins Taurasi as the guards.

Taurasi helped UConn win three national championships, including carrying the Huskies to the last two basically on her own during her junior and senior season.

“What an accomplishment and what an honor,” Taurasi said. “To think about the history of the game and where it’s gone. You always have to look at the past to go into the future. There’s so many great women who paved the way.”

Clark led Iowa to back-to-back NCAA championship game appearances while setting the career scoring record for any Division I women’s or men’s basketball player. Her play on the court, including her logo 3-point shots, helped lift women’s basketball to unprecedented levels of attention and energy during her last two seasons.

“Being named an AP All-American is one of the most storied honors in college sports,” Clark said. “It means a lot to be named to this all-time list alongside players I looked up to. It’s fun to think about what it would have been like if we all played together.”

The frontcourt of Miller, Stewart and Parker dominated the game during their eras.

Stewart won four NCAA championships at UConn and earned Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four all four years. Parker led Tennessee to back-to-back titles in 2007-08. Miller, one of the original NCAA greats, starred for USC and led the Trojans to consecutive championships in 1983-84.

“I grew up watching Cheryl Miller play,” Parker said. “She’d be No. 1. My dad was like ‘This is who we wanted you to be.’ I’m honored to be on this list with her.”

The second team’s backcourt is UConn’s Sue Bird and Virginia’s Dawn Staley. The former Cavaliers guard and current South Carolina coach is the only women’s player to win the Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four on a losing team when her Cavaliers fell to Tennessee. Bird helped UConn win championships in 2000 and 2002.

The Lady Vols’ Chamique Holdsclaw, UConn’s Maya Moore and Lusia Harris of Delta State are on the second team frontcourt. Holdsclaw was a three-time NCAA champion and twice earned the tournament’s MOP honor. Moore was part of the Huskies’ dynasty that won a then-record 89 consecutive games. She helped the Huskies to consecutive titles in 2009-10.

Harris led Delta State to three AIAW titles in the mid-1970s and was the tournament’s MVP each year.

“I’d watch these two teams play and I’m not sure who would win,” UConn coach Geno Auriemma said of the first and second teams selected by the panel.

Auriemma has four former players on the first two teams, but would enjoy looking to the bench at a group of reserves that includes:

UCLA’s Ann Meyers Drysdale, Kansas’ Lynette Woodard and Texas Tech’s Sheryl Swoopes in the backcourt. For the frontcourt, there is USC’s Lisa Leslie, Baylor’s Brittney Griner and South Carolina’s A’ja Wilson.

“I am always asked if players today could play back in the ‘70s or ’80s or vice versa. When you’re great in one generation, you’re going to be great in any generation,” said Meyers Drysdale, who also was a member of the voting panel. “I don’t think there’s any name that is wrong or there’s any name that is right. There’s so many great players that are going to be left off.”

Related Articles

Sister Jean, longtime Loyola Chicago chaplain and March Madness icon, retires at 106

Gophers men’s basketball looks to add to strong recruiting class

Here’s a look at the University of St. Thomas’ Lee and Penny Anderson Arena as opening nears

Ex-Wisconsin players say in lawsuit that former coach Marisa Moseley psychologically abused them

The Timberwolves went 13-4 over their final 17 games of the regular season in the spring, with Rudy Gobert serving as a major reason why.

The French center averaged 15.4 points and 12.5 rebounds in that span. Zero in on the final 10 games, and those numbers balloon to 18.8 points and 14.9 rebounds in 36.4 minutes.

Minnesota’s success largely centered on its man in the middle.

Then came the playoffs, and everything changed. With one massive exception — Gobert’s 27 point, 24 rebound performance in Minnesota’s decisive Game 5 victory in Round 1 against the Lakers — the big man was largely an afterthought in the postseason.

He played 30-plus minutes in just two of Minnesota’s 15 playoff games. He scored in double figures just thrice and had double-digit rebounds only four times.

That’s not even to say Gobert was ineffective. In fact, he sported Minnesota’s best net rating in the West Finals, with the Wolves out-scoring the Thunder by five points per 100 possessions when the center was on the floor.

It didn’t matter. By that point, Minnesota was firmly leaning into more offense-first lineups that worked effectively in earlier playoff matchups in which the Wolves had a large talent advantage. Gobert didn’t fit that script. Come the postseason, teams chronically ignore the center, knowing Anthony Edwards and the Wolves won’t find him enough to make them pay for the tactical decision.

It was far easier for Minnesota to put in five scoring threats to simplify the reads for the likes of Edwards and Julius Randle.

While Gobert is a grand ceiling raiser for Minnesota, his role in the grand scheme of the 2024-25 season more closely resembled an innings eater than a high-leverage closer. The Gobert-heavy identity Minnesota formed late in the regular season was seemingly null and void, though Finch disputes as much.

“I think the identity of the team is a little more multi-faceted than that. Certainly, Rudy is a big part of what we do and when he’s playing at a high level like he did the last 20, 30 games, it makes all the difference,” Finch said. “We need him to do that for the whole 82, irrespective of what happens in the playoffs.”

Finch cited Oklahoma City as an example of a team that changed the roles of players throughout its rotation depending on matchups, noting the minutes for Thunder Isaiah Hartenstein fluctuated. Hartenstein was invaluable for the Thunder in the conference semifinal victory over Denver, and dispensable at other points in the postseason.

“They’re extremely flexible in their approach on what the series is dictating from them,” Finch.

Of course, when Hartenstein wasn’t on the floor, Oklahoma City was still thriving. That wasn’t the case for Minnesota in the West Finals, as the Wolves were wiped off the floor when Gobert wasn’t out there.

But it seemed the Wolves had already determined they couldn’t score on that stage if Gobert was on the court. And yet the version of the Wolves without him proved in that matchup that it was not a title-tier team and was better suited to beat up lesser foes.

The question facing Minnesota this season is do you attempt to better integrate Gobert into the offense so it can succeed regardless of the looks provided by the opposing defense? Gobert has mentioned the need to be more decisive, aggressive and poised with the ball in the middle of the floor so teammates trust him in those situations. Randle noted he understands Gobert’s offensive game better now. Time and chemistry could lead to incremental gains that may solve a few of the postseason problems.

But should the Wolves also put more of an emphasis on developing the non-Gobert lineups so those can be better prepared when they’re thrust into high-leverage playoff battles?

“I think you probably get to enough different things in the regular season, I don’t think you have to make a seismic shift through the regular season to prepare yourself,” Finch said. “Right now, winning every game is so important. Finishing between sixth and third (in the West) can be a two-game spread. … Right now, we’re comfortable enough to go whatever direction we need to.”

Related Articles

Six bold predictions for the 2025-26 Timberwolves season

Tom Crean joins Timberwolves’ pre- and postgame shows as analyst

Where do the Timberwolves rank in national top 100 player lists?

Frederick: Don’t read too much into Timberwolves’ preseason results

Timberwolves, Joan Beringer embracing the rookie’s development process