The ongoing growth of defined contribution and individual account plans: issues and implications

This Issue Brief discusses the implications of the growth of defined contribution (DC) retirement plans and individual account plans and the subsequent impact on employers, employees, and retirement planning. It also presents a look at data regarding contributions to retirement plans, employer trends regarding retirement plans, and the potential impact of changes to the federal Social Security retirement system. The findings and data in this article are drawn from material presented at a policy forum sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) Dec. 7, 2001, in Washington, DC. Today, prospective retirees need to be able to generate about 75 percent of their current income to maintain their standard of living in retirement, up from 63 percent of their income in 1997, according to the Replacement Ratio Study, by Aon Corporation and Georgia State University. However, the most recent data show a decline in the percentage of income that average employees are saving. While it is too early to quantify, it does not appear that the retirement provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) are strongly influencing the movement to DC plans. However, employers appear very interested in the provisions of the new law with regard to both defined benefit (DB) retirement plans and DC plans. The number of large employers offering DB plans continues to decline, from 85 percent in 1990 to 73 percent in 2000, according to the Hewitt study. Although employers may have little influence over some factors that affect participation rates in voluntary retirement plans, they have various options to increase participation rates, such as "matching" employee contributions, offering loan features, and providing education to employees about the plans.     

Defined contribution health benefits

This Issue Brief discusses the emerging issue of "defined contribution" (DC) health benefits. The term "defined contribution" is used to describe a wide variety of approaches to the provision of health benefits, all of which have in common a shift in the responsibility for payment and selection of health care services from employers to employees. DC health benefits often are mentioned in the context of enabling employers to control their outlay for health benefits by avoiding increases in health care costs. DC health benefits may also shift responsibility for choosing a health plan and the associated risks of choosing a plan from employers to employees. There are three primary reasons why some employers currently are considering some sort of DC approach. First, they are once again looking for ways to keep their health care cost increases in line with overall inflation. Second, some employers are concerned that the public "backlash" against managed care will result in new legislation, regulations, and litigation that will further increase their health care costs if they do not distance themselves from health care decisions. Third, employers have modified not only most employee benefit plans, but labor market practices in general, by giving workers more choice, control, and flexibility. DC-type health benefits have existed as cafeteria plans since the 1980s. A cafeteria plan gives each employee the opportunity to determine the allocation of his or her total compensation (within employer-defined limits) among various employee benefits (primarily retirement or health). Most types of DC health benefits currently being discussed could be provided within the existing employment-based health insurance system, with or without the use of cafeteria plans. They could also allow employees to purchase health insurance directly from insurers, or they could drive new technologies and new forms of risk pooling through which health care services are provided and financed. DC health benefits differ from DC retirement plans. Under a DC health plan, employees may face different premiums based on their personal health risk and perhaps other factors such as age and geographic location. Their ability to afford health insurance may depend on how premiums are regulated by the state and how much money their employer provides. In contrast, under a DC retirement plan, employers' contributions are based on the same percentage of income for all employees, but employees are not subject to paying different prices for the same investment.     

Supplemental Retirement Savings Plans in the Public Sector: Participation and Contribution Decisions by School Personnel

Virtually all full-time state and local government employees are covered by a retirement plan, typically a defined benefit plan, in which they are required to participate. In addition, most school employees have the option of choosing to contribute to a voluntary retirement savings plan offered by their school district. Relative to private sector workers, public employees face an expanded choice of retirement savings plans. Federal tax policies allow state and local governments the opportunity to offer both 401(k) plans and 457 plans to their employees. In addition to these plans, public schools and certain other organizations can offer 403(b) plans to their employees. This paper examines the decision to participate in a voluntary savings plan and the level of contributions for those that enroll in at least one of the plans. The analysis begins by describing the savings options available to public school employees and how these plans differ. The findings indicate that the same economic and demographic factors that influence saving decisions by private workers also drive the decisions of school employees. The three savings plans offered to public employees have many similar characteristics; however, several differences in the plans imply that certain workers may prefer one plan type over the others. Probit and Tobit models of participation in any plan and total annual contributions are estimated. Finally, we estimate the determinants of the decision to choose any one or a combination of savings plans.     

Retirement Confidence Survey 2000 including results from the RCS Minority Survey and the Small Employer Retirement Survey

The year 2000 represents the 10th anniversary of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), and the third year for the Minority RCS and Small Employer Retirement Survey (SERS). Key RCS findings over the past 10 years include: The fraction of workers saving for retirement has trended upward, and today 80 percent of households report that they have begun to save. The fraction of workers who have attempted to calculate how much they need to save for retirement has risen noticeably over the past several years. Today, 56 percent of households report that they have attempted the calculation. One-half of workers who have attempted such a calculation report that it has changed their behavior, such as saving more and/or changing where they invest their retirement savings. Workers who have done the calculation appear to be in better shape regarding their retirement finances. Worker confidence in the ability of Social Security to maintain benefit levels bottomed out in 1994 and 1995. Workers today are just as confident as they were in 1992, although the majority remain not confident in Social Security. Regarding overall retirement confidence, Hispanic-Americans tend to be the least confident among the surveyed minority groups that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement years. Key SERS findings include: While cost and administrative issues do matter to small employers, they are not the primary reasons for low plan sponsorship rates. Employee-related reasons are most often cited as the most important factor for not offering a retirement plan. Business-related reasons, such as profitability, are also a main decision-driver. It is important to note what small employers without plans do not know about plan sponsorship. Small employers that do sponsor a retirement plan report that offering a plan has a positive impact on both their ability to attract and retain quality employees and the attitude and performance of their employees. The survey results indicate that many small company nonsponsors may not be aware of such potential business benefits from plan sponsorship. In addition, many nonsponsors are unaware of the plan options available to them, in particular the ones created specifically for small employers, such as SIMPLE and SEP retirement plans. Therefore, some small employers may be making a premature decision not to sponsor a plan based on incomplete information.     

The 1999 Small Employer Retirement Survey: building a better mousetrap is not enough

As of 1995, there were 5.3 million small-employer firms (100 or fewer employees) in the United States. These small firms employed 38.0 million individuals, representing 38 percent of all employment. Therefore, low retirement plan coverage among small employers directly affects a sizeable fraction of the national work force. There are a number of reasons why more small employers do not offer retirement plans. Cost and administration-related issues do matter, but for many small employers these take a back seat to other issues. For some, the main driver is the financial reality of running a small business: Their revenue is too uncertain to commit to a plan. For others, the most important reasons for not sponsoring a plan are employee-related, e.g., the workers do not consider retirement savings to be a priority, or the employer's work force has such high turnover that it does not make sense to sponsor a plan. Many nonsponsors are unfamiliar with the different retirement plan types available to them as potential plan sponsors, especially the options created specifically for small employers. For example, most nonsponsors said they have never heard of (36 percent) or are not too familiar with (20 percent) SIMPLE plans for small businesses. Fifteen percent of small employers report that they are very likely to start a plan in the next two years, while 24 percent say this is somewhat likely. Nonsponsors report that the two items most likely to lead to serious consideration of sponsoring a plan are an increase in profits (69 percent) and business tax credits for starting a retirement plan (67 percent). Major drivers of low retirement plan sponsorship among small employers are who they employ and the uncertainty of revenue flows. While issues of administrative cost and burden matter, they are only part of the puzzle. Therefore, the solution is not simply "build it and they will come," by creating simpler and simpler retirement plans geared to small businesses. Rather, it is build it and they will come once the business reaches a certain level of profitability and stability, and once retirement planning and saving are more of a priority for the small employer's workers.     

The changing face of private retirement plans

A rapidly growing public policy concern facing the United States is whether future generations of retired Americans, particularly those in the "baby boom" generation, will have adequate retirement incomes. One reason is that Social Security's projected long-term financial shortfall could result in a reduction in the current-law benefit promises made to future generations of retirees. Another reason is that many baby boomers will be retiring with employment-based defined contribution (DC) plans, as opposed to the "traditional" defined benefit (DB) plans that historically have been the predominant source of employer-provided retirement income. These factors are likely to reduce the amount of life annuity benefits that future retirees will receive relative to current retirees, raising questions as to whether other sources of retirement income--such as individual account plans (DC plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs)--will make up the difference. This Issue Brief highlights the changes in private pension plan participation for DB and DC plans and provides some possible explanations for these changes. Results are presented from the Employee Benefit Research Institute's (EBRI) Retirement Income Projection Model that quantify how much the importance of individual account plans is expected to increase because of these changes. This Issue Brief also discusses the risk of outliving one's assets, since a greater fraction of pension wealth is projected to come from "nonguaranteed" sources. Results of the model are compared by gender for cohorts born between 1936 and 1964 in order to estimate the percentage of retirees' retirement wealth that will be derived from DB plans versus DC plans and IRAs over the next three decades. Under the model's baseline assumptions, both males and females are found to have an appreciable drop in the percentage of private retirement income that is attributable to defined benefit plans (other than cash balance plans). In addition, results show a clear increase in the income retirees will receive that will have to be managed by the retiree. This makes the risk of longevity more central to retirees' expenditure decisions. The implications of these model results for retirees are significant. First, individuals--rather than the pension plan sponsor--increasingly will have to manage their retirement assets and bear the risk of investment losses. Second, since most retirees' non-Social Security retirement income will be distributed as a lump sum or in periodic payements (from a defined contribution plan or IRA) rather than as a regular paycheck for life (from a defined benefit plan), retirees will need either to purchase an annuity from an insurance company or carefully manage their individual rate of spending in order to avoid outliving their assets.     

State and local retirement plans: innovation and renovation

This Special Report/Issue Brief examines the universe of state and local retirement plans. It describes how these plans have developed and continue to evolve in a number of areas, including plan features, regulatory framework, governance, and asset management. While these retirement programs differ in many respects from private-sector plans, the disparity in some areas has narrowed. This report also includes a discussion of trends and the underlying forces for change. Public-sector retirement programs provide an important source of pension coverage in the United States, and are a significant part of the total retirement market: Combined public-sector retirement assets (state, local, and federal governments) comprised 29 percent of the $11.2 trillion U.S. retirement market in 1998. State and local plans are dominant in the public-sector retirement market, holding $2.7 trillion in assets, compared with $696 billion held by federal plans (both military and civilian). More than 16 million individuals are employed by state and local jurisdictions in the United States. State and local retirement plans share certain common features because of the environment in which they operate. Legal statutes, governance, and tradition all play a role in defining what is sometimes referred to as a "public-sector culture." Despite common features, there is considerable diversity among public-sector retirement plans. To attract and retain a skilled work force, public-sector employers have increased their use of defined contribution (DC) plans to supplement defined benefit (DB) plans (or, to a lesser extent, replace or serve as an alternative to them) and improve cost-of-living adjustments. At the same time, a combined federal-state regulatory framework has encouraged certain plan design features, unavailable in the private sector, which include multiple tiers for successive generations of employees in a single plan and different strategies to increase portability. State and local retirement plans reflect an increasing role by the federal government in pension system design and operation, which has led to greater complexity in such areas as Social Security participation and deferred compensation arrangements. Complexity can be expected to increase with the recent passage of P.L. 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. The latest full-year data included in this report are for 1999 and in some cases 2000. After this report went to press, the Federal Reserve issued significantly revised quarterly data for state, local, and federal retirement plan assets, which were not incorporated in this Issue Brief.     

The retirement system in transition: the 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey

WORKERS SLOW TO SEE OR ADAPT TO A CHANGING U.S. RETIREMENT SYSTEM: The 17th annual wave of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) suggests that American workers may be slow to recognize how the U.S. retirement system is changing, and those who are aware of these changes may not be adapting to them in ways that are likely to secure them a comfortable retirement. HALF OF WORKERS LESS CONFIDENT ABOUT PENSION BENEFITS: The RCS finds pension-plan changes by employers have left nearly half of workers less confident about the benefits they will receive from a traditional pension plan, but that those experiencing a decline in retirement benefits often fail to react constructively. Moreover, although Americans will rely increasingly on 401(k) retirement savings plans and other personal savings and investments to fund their retirement security, data suggest that many may not follow professional investment advice when it is offered to them. MANY WORKERS COUNTING ON BENEFITS THAT WON'T BE THERE: Many workers are counting on employer-provided benefits in retirement that are increasingly unavailable. Only 41 percent of workers indicate they or their spouse currently have a defined benefit pension plan, yet 62 percent say they are expecting to receive income from such a plan in retirement. Likewise, workers are as likely to expect as retirees are to receive retiree health insurance through an employer, even though the number of employers offering this benefit to future retirees is declining. MANY WORKERS UNLIKELY TO HEED INVESTMENT ADVICE EVEN IF THEY GET IT: More than half of workers indicate they would be likely to take advantage of professional investment advice offered by companies that manage employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, two-thirds of these workers say they would probably implement only some of the recommendations they receive and 1 in 10 think they would implement none of them. AMERICANS OVERESTIMATE LONG-TERM CARE COVERAGE: One-quarter of workers and more than one-third of retirees report they have long-term care insurance (separate from health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) to help pay for care they might need in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or at home. But only 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older are estimated to have had private long-term care insurance in 2002, suggesting that many are counting on coverage they do not actually have. MOST SAVINGS LEVELS ARE MODEST: Almost half of workers saving for retirement report total savings and investments (not including the value of their primary residence or any defined benefit plans) of less than $25,000. The majority of workers who have not put money aside for retirement have little in savings at all: Seven in 10 of these workers say their assets total less than $10,000. CONTINUED IGNORANCE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE: Despite the longstanding increase in the eligibility age for Social Security, only a small minority of workers are aware of the age at which they can receive full retirement benefits from Social Security without a reduction for early retirement.     

Women and pensions: a decade of progress?

This Issue Brief compares changes from 1989 to 1998 in pension participation, accumulation, and allocation for employed women, versus employed men, ages 18-62. In addition, it provides an estimate of the gender "pension gap" in defined contribution accumulations, contrasts this with the gender "earnings gap," and provides explanations for these differences. Between 1989 and 1998, the percentage of employed women with a pension or retirement plan at their current job increased from 43 percent to 45 percent, compared with a decline from 53 percent to 52 percent for employed men. For both women and men, the percentage with defined contribution retirement plans increased dramatically, while the percentage with defined benefit pension plans dropped sharply. Between 1989 and 1998, the ratio of women's to men's defined contribution plan accumulations increased from 40 percent to 44 percent, indicating a narrowing of the gender pension gap. However, the narrowing was concentrated among the cohort ages 45-53 in 1998. The gender pension gap increased for women in other age groups. Gender differences in defined contribution plan accumulations can be attributed to differences in earnings and job characteristics. Between 1989 and 1998, for workers with defined contribution plans, the ratio of women's to men's earnings remained unchanged at 57 percent. Employed women with defined contribution plans are more than twice as likely to earn less than $25,000 per year than employed men with defined contribution plans, but almost five times less likely to earn more than $100,000 per year. From 1989 to 1998, the percentage of employed men with defined contribution balances invested mostly in low-risk, low-return assets declined much more than the percentage of employed women who followed that investment strategy. Whereas the percentages of men and women with retirement plans invested mostly in bonds were nearly equal at 31 percent and 32 percent in 1989, respectively, by 1998, 20 percent of women (compared with 14 percent of men) had their retirement plans invested mostly in bonds. The trend toward defined contribution plans and riskier retirement portfolios has resulted in significant wealth accumulation over the decade. In real terms, both men and women have greater retirement plan wealth, but increases have been larger for men than for women. Since there is no evidence that plan provisions vary by gender, improvements in the gender pension gap will come only with changes in women's labor force experience and investment decision-making.     

Retirement plan participation and features and standard of living of Americans 55 or older

This Issue Brief is the third in a series of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) publications based on data collected in 1998 and released in 2002 as the Retirement and Pension Plan Coverage Topical Module of the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). This report completes the series by examining the survey's more detailed questions concerning workers' employment-based retirement plans. Specifically, it examines the percentage of workers who are participating in a plan, and also workers' reasons for not participating in a plan when working in a job where a plan is sponsored; the features of, or decisions made concerning salary reduction plans; historical participation in employment-based retirement plans; and a comparison of the standard of living of individuals age 55 or older with their living standard in their early 50s. As of June 1998, 64.3 percent of wage and salary workers age 16 or older worked for an employer or union that sponsored any type of retirement plan (defined contribution or defined benefit) for any of its employees or members (the "sponsorship rate"). Almost 47 percent of these wage and salary workers participated in a plan (the "participation rate"), with 43.2 percent being entitled to a benefit or eligible to receive a lump-sum distribution from a plan if their job terminated at the time of survey (the "vested rate"). The predominant reason for choosing not to participate in a retirement plan was that doing so was unaffordable. The eligible participation rate for salary reduction plans was 81.4 percent. Fifty-six percent of all workers have participated in some type of retirement plan sometime during their work life through 1998. For those ages 51-60, almost 72 percent have ever participated in a plan. The median account balance in salary reduction plans in 1998 was $14,000. In 1998, 12.9 percent of salary reduction plan participants eligible to take a loan had done so, and the average outstanding loan balance was $5,196. Nearly 80 percent of those age 55 or older reported that their standard of living is about the same or better now than it was when they were in their early 50s. The incidence of both pension income and health insurance from a former employer had a significant impact on retirees' ability to maintain their standard of living. In addition, those who spent their entire most recent lump-sum distribution were more likely to have a much worse standard of living in retirement than those who rolled over their entire most recent distribution.     

Attitudes About Working Beyond Normal Retirement Age: The Role of Mandatory Retirement

The Dutch government abolished mandatory retirement for national-level civil servants in 2008, but not for employees in other sectors. This study analyzes whether national-level civil servants have different attitudes and plans about working beyond normal retirement age than employees in other sectors. Results show no clear differences between the groups. A national ban on mandatory retirement would presumably not lead to many more older workers continuing to work beyond normal retirement, but would need to be integrated in a much broader policy reform that also addresses employment protection legislation and seniority-based wages.     

Implications of ERISA for health benefits and the number of self-funded ERISA plans

This Issue Brief provides an overview of the issues relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and health benefit plans, the major case law relating to ERISA and health plans, and the implications of the preemption of state regulations for health plan sponsors and participants. It also presents the latest data on the number of health plan participants in self-funded ERISA plans. Finally, it presents a summary of current legislative proposals that would attempt to amend ERISA. Under the framework ERISA established for employee benefit plans, the regulation of employment-based health benefit plans has evolved into a two-tiered system in which both federal and state laws play important roles. The Supreme Court has interpreted ERISA's "savings" and "deemer" clauses to mean that insured plans are subject to regulations directly at the federal level and indirectly at the state level, while self-funded plans are regulated exclusively at the federal level. The ERISA statute and the courts' interpretations of the Act have created a sharp controversy over how employee health benefit plans are provided and administered, with state regulators and consumer advocates on one side of the debate and plan sponsors (e.g., employers and unions) on the other. State regulators and consumer advocates tend to favor more regulation, and in many instances greater regulation at the state level, which they argue would provide more protections for consumers. However, employers and unions (or any plan sponsors) think ERISA preemption is very important to their ability to provide innovative and cost-effective health benefits for their employees, and assert that ERISA's present structure should be preserved. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that 44 million individuals (39 percent of those in ERISA plans) were enrolled in self-funded ERISA plans in 1993, up from 39 million (33 percent of those in ERISA plans) in 1989. The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), using the same methodology as GAO with 1995 data, estimated that 48 million individuals (39 percent of those in ERISA plans) were enrolled in self-funded ERISA plans in 1995. When policymakers look to amend ERISA, they should consider whether the change to ERISA will produce a higher level of quality for consumers than is being provided under the present system and will continue to do so in the future. Policymakers must also decide whether quality of care is better enhanced by health plans' greater exposure to liability or by market forces. If policymakers decide that increased exposure to liability is the route to go, will consumers be able to enjoy any potential improvement in quality or will more individuals end up uninsured because of increased costs and not be able to get any care regardless of the quality?     

Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2000 Small Employer Health Benefits Survey

Many small employers (between two and 50 workers) are making decisions about whether to offer health benefits to their workers without being fully aware of the tax advantages that can make this benefit more affordable. Fifty-seven percent of small employers did not know that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Nearly one-half of small employers are not aware that workers who purchase health insurance on their own generally cannot deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Small employers are largely unaware of the laws that have been enacted by nearly all states and the federal government with the intent of making health insurance more accessible and more affordable for many small employers. More than 60 percent did not know that insurers may not deny health insurance coverage to small employers even when the health status of their workers is poor. Most employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many have found that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, increases productivity, and reduces absenteeism. Nearly 50 percent of the employers offering dependent (family) coverage report that the workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else. Twenty-seven percent report their employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Twelve percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 17 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits. A number of factors would increase the likelihood that a small business would seriously consider offering a health benefits plan. Two-thirds of small-business owners said they would seriously consider offering health benefits if the government provided assistance with premiums. Almost one-half would consider doing so if insurance costs fell 10 percent. In addition, one-half would be more likely to seriously consider offering a health benefits plan if employees demand it. Many small employers with health benefits have recently switched health plans, and 34 percent report that they did so within the past year. Affordability for the employer and the worker is clearly a critical factor affecting the likelihood of switching health plans. Nearly all employers who have switched health plans within the past five years cite cost as the main reason. One-third of companies offering health benefits think they will change coverage, and 5 percent think they would drop coverage if the cost of health insurance were to increase by 5 percent.     

Questions and answers on employee benefit issues

This Issue Brief addresses 19 topics in the areas of pensions, health insurance, and other benefits. In addition to the topics listed below, the report includes data on the prevalence of benefits, tax incentives associated with benefits, lump-sum distributions, number of private pension plans, pension coverage rates, 401(k) plans, employer spending on group health insurance, self-insured health plans, employer initiatives to reduce health care costs, and employers' response to the retiree health benefits accounting rule, and flexible benefits plans. In 1992, U.S. employers (public and private) spent $629 billion for noncash benefits, representing nearly 18 percent of total compensation, excluding paid time off. In 1992, 71 percent of the 50.1 million individuals aged 55 and over received retirement benefits, including distributions from private and public pensions, annuities, individual retirement accounts, Keoghs, 401(k)s, and Social Security. Among the 76 percent of all private pension plan participants who participated in a single plan, 30 percent named a defined benefit plan as their pension plan type, 58 percent named a defined contribution plan as their pension plan type, and 12 percent did not know their plan type. Private and public pension funds held more than $4.6 trillion in assets at the end of 1993. The 1993 year-end assets are more than triple the asset level of 1983 (nominal terms). According to the Congressional Budget Office, U.S. expenditures on health care were expected to have reached $898 billion in 1993, up from $751.8 billion in 1991, an increase of 19.4 percent in nominal terms.     

Lessons from the evolution of 401(k) retirement plans for increased consumerism in health care: an application of behavioral research

Employment-based health and retirement benefit programs have followed a similar path of evolution. The relative decision-making roles of the employer and the worker have shifted from the employer to the worker, and workers are more responsible than perhaps they ever have been for their well being--both in terms of their health in general and their financial security during retirement. This shift has been supported, in part, by legislation--namely ERISA, the HMO Act of 1973, the Revenue Act of 1978, and most recently, the Pension Protection Act. This Issue Brief does not pass judgment on this development or address who should bear the responsibilities of preparing workers for retirement or of rationing health care services. The current trend in health care design is toward increased "consumerism." Consumer-driven health is based on the assumption that the combination of greater cost sharing (by workers) and better information about the cost and quality of health care will engage workers to become better health care decision makers. It is hoped that workers will seek important, necessary, high-quality, cost-effective care and services, and become less likely to engage providers and services that are unnecessary and ineffective from either a quality or cost perspective. As employers look ahead toward continually improved plan design, there may be benefits in considering the lessons learned from studying worker behaviors. Specifically, there is evidence about the effects of choice, financial incentives, and information on worker decision making. As a result of research in this area, many retirement plan sponsors have moved toward plan designs and programs that recognize the benefits of well-designed defaults, simplified choices, required active decision making, framing, and commitment to future improvements. With respect to choice, it is now known that more is not always better and may even be worse in some cases. Just as fewer shoppers actually bought a jar of jelly when it was one of 24 as opposed to one of six, evidence has shown that people tend to be less likely to join a company-sponsored retirement plan when more investment options are offered. More choice can also lead to lower satisfaction. It is also known that workers may not be able to appropriately sort through many complex alternatives and that education is not always as effective as employers would hope. Decision complexity often forces people to find a way to simplify, and one of the easiest rules of thumb is to pick the option with the lowest short-term cost, even when that alternative is more costly in the longer run. It is also known that, for good or for bad, choices are constructed on the fly; preferences are dynamic, and logic does not always apply. Financial incentives are helpful in motivating behavior, but they do not affect everyone's decisions. Despite significant financial incentives to participate in 401(k) plans, many workers choose not to. Similarly, despite many of the financial incentives embedded in health care plan design, it can be expected that these incentives will not effectively motivate and engage all workers. One seemingly rational approach to improve workers' decision making is to provide education and guidance to help them sort through complex alternatives and to demonstrate the value of financial incentives. Certainly, providing education and guidance in the form of decision support tools may be an employer's responsibility. However, some studies have shown that, even when "educated" workers have the intent to make improved decisions, they often lack follow-through and fail to take action. In short, education and guidance may not be enough to foster improved health care consumerism. Some employers have begun to design benefit programs with a view toward overcoming behavioral tendencies that negatively affect workers' well-being. Newer retirement plan designs involve careful consideration of default choices. These defaults apply unless workers actively choose a different alternative. Typically, the default attempts to "nudge" workers toward optimal behavior. In the case of 401(k) retirement plan design, more employers are moving toward a default of automatic enrollment in the plan, with automatic investment in a diversified portfolio. Still, additional empirical research and experimentation may be needed to further understand the effects of new retirement plan design features. Future work may also precisely illuminate how the lessons discussed in this Issue Brief may apply to health care plan design that results in improved health-related behaviors. Given the impressive preliminary results in improving retirement planning behaviors, such research and experimentation are likely to be worthwhile.     

Voluntary Retirement Savings: The Case of Australia

The shift to defined contribution plans has increased concerns about retirement adequacy for the working population. Different from prior research in countries where retirement savings are voluntary, this study explored the drivers of additional savings within the Australian superannuation system where mandatory savings are in place. Results suggested that age, economic and financial status, and job characteristics are important indicators for voluntary superannuation savings. Affordability, false beliefs, and lack of awareness about retirement savings inhibit participation. Past saving habits and retirement planning positively affect voluntary retirement savings. Joint modelling of pre- and post-tax savings decisions suggested a substitution effect between the two, adding new evidence to the literature.     

Health insurance portability: COBRA expansions and job mobility

This Issue Brief discusses continuation-of-coverage mandates under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). It provides background information on health insurance portability and job mobility, data on the cost to employers of providing continuation of coverage to former employees, and a summary of empirical research on COBRA's effect on employee benefits and job mobility. COBRA coverage can be considered advantageous for most workers, as it allows continuation of the health insurance policy they had in place at work when they lose or leave a job. Although employees can be required to pay 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, they can usually realize significant savings compared with the cost of purchasing the equivalent insurance policy in the private market. Many employers consider COBRA to be a costly mandate for three reasons. First, premiums collected from COBRA beneficiaries typically do not cover the costs of the health care services rendered. Second, COBRA imposes an additional administrative cost on employers. Third, many employers view the penalties for noncompliance as excessively large. According to a survey conducted by Charles D. Spencer & Associates, of the 10.2 percent of employees and dependents who were eligible for COBRA coverage in 1996, over 28 percent elected it. In addition, average employer claims costs for COBRA beneficiaries amounted to $5,591, compared with $3,332 for active employees in surveyed plans. According to Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the COBRA population is much older than the general insured population. COBRA beneficiaries also have higher personal income than the general insured population, with this difference being almost entirely due to differences in retirement income. Any attempt to expand COBRA coverage, either through subsidies or by allowing workers to choose from plans with lower premiums, would likely result in increased employer health care costs. As a result, employers may consider various alternatives to reduce, shift, or eliminate the impact of this increased cost. One alternative would be to continue requiring active employees to share in the increased costs through higher employee contributions. A second alternative would be to reduce or eliminate health care benefits for active employees and/or future retirees and their families. A third alternative would be to reduce the size of the work force eligible for health insurance benefits. Finally, employers may pass additional costs on to workers or consumers.     

Demographic and employment shifts: implications for benefits and economic security

This Issue Brief examines factors affecting the population's age distribution and composition, such as mortality rates, fertility rates, and immigration. In addition, it examines factors affecting labor force composition, such as immigration, increased labor force participation of women, and retirement trends, and discusses the potential impact of these changes on publicly financed programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and federal employee retirement systems. The discussion also highlights the implications of these population and labor force changes on employers, employees, and retirees. The elderly population--now 31.8 million, representing 12.6 percent of the population--is projected to experience tremendous growth between 2010 and 2030, when the baby boom generation reaches age 65, rising from 39.7 million, or 13.3 percent of the population, to 69.8 million, or 20.2 percent of the population. Growth in the elderly population has implications for retirement and health care systems. Population projections suggest that the traditionally pyramid-shaped work force, with a proportionately greater number of younger workers than older workers, will be replaced with a more even age distribution. Consequently, significant and continued modifications to benefit packages, such as changes in compensation structures in which earnings automatically rise with age, are likely to occur. Women's labor force participation began to accelerate in the mid-1950s, rising 75 percent among women aged 25-44 in 1991, although there is some indication that this growth may be flattening. With women comprising a greater part of the labor force, employers will be encouraged to develop and implement programs to better accommodate their needs. Increased life expectancy, a decreased percentage of entry level workers, changes in Social Security's normal retirement age from 65 to 67, and employer plans to raise the normal age of retirement or provide incentives to delay retirement, could raise the average age of retirement. However, other factors, such as poor health, other sources of retirement income, and individual preferences for retirement, could still dominate the retirement decision. The combination of increased average life expectancy guaranteeing more years of retirement to finance and rising dependency ratios increases the future cost of Social Security financing. Medicare financing is also an important policy issue because the program is projected to experience financial difficulties in the short term, resulting from explosive health care costs. In addition, Medicaid expenditures are consuming increasing amount of shrinking state budget resources--a large portion of which is used to finance nursing home care for a growing elderly population.     

Overcoming Inertia: Do Automated Saving and Investing Strategies Work?

Many workers do not take advantage of savings opportunities provided to them at their workplace, nor do they always make wise investment decisions regarding employer plans. Various automated strategies have been implemented by employers with the objective of increasing retirement plan participation and, hence, the financial security of workers. Automatic strategies work by proactively arranging some type of action (e.g., plan enrollment) to occur unless people specifically opt out. This article examines and synthesizes previous empirical research about five automatic savings and investing strategies: (a) automatic retirement savings plan enrollment, (b) automatic contribution increases, (c) automatic portfolio rebalancing, (d) automatic rollovers, and (e) automatic investment plans. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are discussed, along with implications for financial educators.