Financial advisors urged to rethink solo aging support gaps

A new report urges financial advisors to rethink retirement planning for clients aging without traditional support networks. The study, based on a survey of 507 solo agers, shows that most lack confidence in their plans. It also reveals that systemic barriers—not just individual preparation—lie at the root of the problem.

The Handling Solo survey, led by Ailene Gerhardt, founder of Symbol Patient Solutions LLC, shows solo aging concerns rarely fit into standard categories. Respondents identified an average of nearly five out of 11 planning areas, including health, housing, finances, and emergency preparedness, as overlapping issues. These findings suggest that solo aging requires a more integrated approach than typical checklists provide.

Only 28.2% of respondents described themselves as somewhat or very confident in their solo aging plan. The remaining 71.8% were either neutral, unsure, overwhelmed, or had no plan at all. This gap exposes a flaw in current advisory practices: clients may have legally sound estate documents or long-term care plans, but these often fail when the human and logistical support needed to execute them is absent.

“People can prepare thoughtfully and still encounter systems, services, and professional practices that assume someone else will be available to help,” said Gerhardt. “We need to ask not only whether people are prepared, but whether the environments they must handle are prepared to function when reliable support cannot be assumed.”

Redefining Support Beyond Family Labels

The report introduces a key distinction: the difference between a support network and an Architecture of Support. The latter refers to a structured system, trusted individuals, skilled professionals, defined roles, backup options, and clear communication pathways, that can be activated as needed. Simply naming a healthcare proxy or power of attorney does not guarantee those people will be available or capable of fulfilling their roles.

This structural gap carries financial consequences as well. The paper defines a Solo Aging Support Premium, the additional costs solo agers incur when they must pay for services that partnered individuals often receive for free, such as transportation, care coordination, or emergency backup. While no specific dollar figure is assigned, the findings align with broader research showing that solo agers face a distinct cost profile in retirement, one that traditional financial plans often ignore.

Advisors already recognize this challenge. A May 2026 study by Ameriprise Financial found that 85% of solo adults feel confident managing their money day-to-day, yet the same proportion worry about aging alone. The Handling Solo survey expands on this by revealing a systemic issue: the concern extends beyond financial confidence to whether the right people and services will be available, appropriate, capable, and affordable when needed.

Systemic Design Fails Solo Agers

The survey highlights systemic barriers that solo agers face. More than two-thirds (65.3%) of respondents said systems are not designed for those without immediate family, while 43.4% noted that systems assume caregivers are present. Another 38.5% pointed to a lack of trusted professionals, financial planners who do not understand solo aging costs, healthcare systems that default to spouse or next-of-kin fields, or aging-services providers that address communications to “my family” rather than the individual.

Gerhardt describes this as a design flaw. When systems require a companion for medical procedures or assume a caregiver will coordinate discharge, they embed assumptions that do not align with a solo ager’s reality. The solution, she argues, lies in developing Solo-Aware practices, evaluating the actual support available for a client rather than relying on relationship labels.

Hidden Costs of Solo Aging Premium

The Solo Aging Support Premium also appears in unexpected areas, such as the cost of accompaniment for medical appointments. While partnered individuals often rely on a spouse or adult child to attend doctor visits, solo agers may need to hire paid companions or arrange rideshares, adding hundreds or thousands of dollars annually to healthcare budgets. The paper does not provide a national average for these costs but references broader research indicating that solo agers’ out-of-pocket expenses for long-term care and daily support can exceed those of partnered retirees.

Gerhardt’s findings emphasize that the solution requires redesigning systems to treat solo aging as a distinct planning category rather than an exception. For advisors, this means moving beyond relationship labels, such as “married” or “single”, and instead assessing the actual support available for each client. The paper directs professionals to NavigatingSolo.com/2026whitepaper, where tools and case studies demonstrate how to integrate these findings into practice. Among the resources is a Solo Aging Readiness Assessment, designed to help clients and advisors identify gaps in their Architecture of Support before they become crises.