Overall, four of the top five metros scored high on health care. Los Angeles was the only one that didn’t.
It was also the only one of the site’s top five cities for retirement that boasts year-round sunny weather.
3. Los Angeles
5. Providence, Rhode Island
“Cities that performed well on the health-care metric did really well on the overall ranking,” Tepper said. “When you think about retirement, you think about going to the beach, and that’s definitely an important thing to people. But one thing that’s less sexy is that you’re going to have a lot of health-care costs. You’re going to see your doctor a lot.”
An August analysis from Fidelity Investments estimates that a healthy, 65-year-old couple retiring this year will need $275,000 to cover their health-care costs in retirement. That’s up 6 percent from the $260,000 estimate last year.
“Think about where you’ll get the best health care, where your dollars will go the furthest, [and] really be rational,” Tepper said. “Don’t think, ‘I’ve been working for 35 years and I’m ready for the beach.'”
WalletHub conducted a similar study this year into the top 150 U.S. cities for retirement. The personal finance site had many of the same findings as Bankrate.com, ranking Pittsburgh and Denver among the top 15 cities and San Bernardino, California, among the worst.
But there was some dissonance when it came to Providence. Although the Rhode Island capital ranked fifth in the Bankrate.com study and had the second-highest health-care score, Wallethub ranked it second-to-last, rating its health care 143 of the 150 cities.
–CNBC’s Jessica Dickler contributed to this report.
More from Retire Well:
How to keep your kids from blowing their inheritance
Don’t let surprise medical bills drain your retirement
When the unexpected strikes, here are 5 ways to avoid financial disaster during a disability