I have a secret to confess. Ever since my husband and I got married, we have been big fans of outsourcing jobs that we both dislike or that someone else can do better. As a result, we have paid for house cleaning, lawn mowing, snow removal and ordered our share of pizzas and other take-out meals. This strategy has minimized domestic friction and freed up time to spend with our growing family.

It now appears that according to recent research published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAC) that we were on to something. Using large, diverse samples from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and The Netherlands (over 6,200 people), the study reveals that that individuals who spend money on time-saving services report greater life satisfaction.  Furthermore, working adults say they are happier after spending money on a time-saving purchase than on buying material goods. Together, these results suggest that using money to buy time can protect people from the detrimental effects of time pressure on life satisfaction.

In one component of the study, 60 working adults from Vancouver were recruited to spend two payments of $40 on two consecutive weekends. On one weekend, participants were randomly assigned to spend $40 on a purchase that would save them time. On the other weekend, to control for the experience of receiving and spending a windfall, participants were assigned to spend $40 on a material purchase.

After making each purchase, participants received a phone call at 5:00 PM and reported their feelings of positive effect, negative effect, and time stress on that day. People who made a time-saving purchase reported greater end of day positive effect. Study findings also suggest that using money to buy time may not only reduce feelings of time pressure on a given day, but outsourcing can provide a cumulative benefit by serving as a buffer against the deleterious effects of time pressure on overall life satisfaction.

The authors found no consistent evidence that the benefits of buying time are limited to relatively wealthy people. If anything, within the U.S. sample they observed a stronger relationship between buying time and life satisfaction among less affluent individuals. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that their sample included relatively few people at the lowest rungs of the income spectrum who are struggling to meet their basic needs.

Interestingly, despite the potential benefits of outsourcing many respondents allocated no discretionary income to buying time, even when they could afford it: i.e., just under half of the 818 millionaires surveyed spent no money outsourcing disliked tasks. We can only guess whether the inherent frugality of the very affluent is a critical factor contributing to their financial success!

Furthermore, the study suggests that low rates of “buying time to increase satisfaction” among some study participants may be a function of gender and culture with women in some cultures feeling obligated to complete household tasks themselves and working “a second shift” at home even when they can afford someone to help.

All of us are faced with multiple time vs. money decisions every day. For example:

Take the toll road and get home faster or not?
Buy a Halloween costume for your child or make one?
Purchase a dryer or hang the laundry outside to dry?
Pay a babysitter or watch a movie on Netflix?
Buy a car or take the bus?

So the next time you update your budget, when you budget for family essentials, debt repayment and retirement savings, think about whether spending some money to save time is an affordable priority. The PNAC study definitely validates our family’s experience that buying time is one way to reduce stress and promote family harmony!

Written by Sheryl Smolkin
	Sheryl Smolkin LLB., LLM is a retired pension lawyer and President of Sheryl Smolkin & Associates Ltd. For over a decade, she has enjoyed a successful encore career as a freelance writer specializing in retirement, employee benefits and workplace issues. Sheryl and her husband Joel are empty-nesters, residing in Toronto with their cockapoo Rufus.

By Sheryl Smolkin

If you haven’t seriously thought about the possible impact of health care costs on your retirement budget and lifestyle, you may find recent research from the University of British Columbia as disturbing as I did.

The study reveals that one in 12 Canadians age 55 and older skipped prescriptions due to cost in 2014, the second-highest rate among comparable countries. The ten years before provincial drug plans kick in for most seniors at age 65 is the period of time when the highest percentage of older people can’t afford the drugs they need to stay healthy.

In order to “stretch” their drugs some people skip doses, while others may split pills or try to manage their conditions without drugs. “When patients stop filling their prescriptions, their conditions get worse and they often end up in hospital requiring more care which in the long run costs us more money,” says Steve Morgan, senior author of the study and professor in UBC’s school of population and public health.

The research draws on the 2014 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults (persons aged 55 years or older) in 11 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Among countries with publicly-funded health-care systems, Canada is the only one without coverage for prescription medications.

In an analysis of survey responses from all 11 countries, the researchers found that Canada had the second-highest prevalence of skipped prescriptions due to cost, at
8.3%.  Access was worse only in the United States, where 16.8% of respondents reported such financial barriers to filling prescriptions. In contrast, fewer than 4% of the populations in most other comparable countries reported skipping prescriptions due to cost.

In a separate analysis of the Canadian survey responses, researchers found that Canadians aged 55 to 64 face the greatest barriers to filling their prescriptions. One in eight Canadians aged 55 to 64 reported that they did not fill prescriptions because of cost in 2014, in comparison to one in 20 Canadians aged 65 and older – who, by way of age, qualify for comprehensive public drug coverage in many provinces.

Morgan points to gaps in drug coverage available to Canadians as a problem. Unlike other countries with universal public health care, public drug plans in Canada generally only cover select groups, such as social assistance recipients and people over age 65. Other Canadians may receive drug coverage from private insurance through their workplaces or none at all.

The survey found that Canadians who did not have insurance were twice as likely to report not filling prescriptions because of cost. It also showed that low-income Canadians were three times more likely to report financial barriers to filling prescription medicines than high-income respondents.

Morgan said the 2014 findings were consistent with studies that date back a decade, indicating affordability of prescription drugs is still a public health issue in Canada.

“Our problem hasn’t gone away. Financial barriers to prescription drugs are still high, both in absolute terms and relative to our peer countries.”

The research was described in two studies published in BMJ Open and CMAJ Open.