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.     

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.     

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.     

Employee preferences for pension plan features

Data from 517 survey respondents were used to analyze the determinants of the shares of a hypothetical $1,000 budget that employees were given to allocate to cash wages and pension plan features involving early retirement, postponed retirement, and infla-tion protection. Employee preferences for pension plan features generally reflected the potential for pensions to deal with such factors as risk sharing, family lifecycle decision making, and cash constraints, as those factors were related to observable per-sonal and demographic characteristics of employees as well as to their labor market circumstances and wealth embodied in their pension plans. Amongst other implica-tions, our analysis highlights that the demand is greater for early retirement and infla-tion protection than for postponed retirement, and the demand for early retirement is likely to increase as the work force ages, dual pension families become more promi-nent, and layoffs and job changing continue. Financial assistance from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.     

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.     

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.     

Retirement plans, personal saving, and saving adequacy

This Issue Brief addresses three questions raised by recent trends in personal saving: How are national savings measured and what is the meaning of the trends in measured personal saving rates, given what is included and what is not included in those measures? What is the effect of retirement saving programs--in particular, 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs)--on personal saving levels? What are the implications of existing saving behavior for the retirement income security of today's workers? The National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), the most commonly referenced gauge of personal saving, is a widely misunderstood measure. One could argue that a complete measure of saving would include increases in wealth through capital gains, but NIPA does not factor accrued and realized capital gains on stocks and other assets into the saving rate. By one measure, accounting for capital gains results in an aggregate personal saving rate of 33 percent--more than double the rate of four decades ago. A major policy question is the impact of tax-qualified retirement saving plans (i.e., IRAs and 401(k) plans) on personal saving rates. Empirical analysis of this issue is extremely challenging and findings have been contradictory. These programs now represent an enormous store of retirement-earmarked wealth in tax-deferred vehicles: Combined, such tax-deferred retirement accounts currently have assets of about $4 trillion. Ninety percent of IRA contributions are now the result of "rollovers" as employees leave employer plans, like 401(k) plans. While leakage from the system remains a challenge, the majority of the assets in the system can be expected to be available to fund workers' retirements. One could argue that, from a retirement income security perspective, workers in general are better off because IRA and 401(k) programs exist. Surely, many of the dollars in these programs would have been saved even without the programs; but they would not necessarily have been earmarked for retirement and been available to fund retirement expenses. As rollovers become larger, this "partnership" of employment-based qualified plans and IRAs will grow even more important. The evidence indicates that many groups of American workers appear unlikely to be able to afford a retirement that maintains their current lifestyle (at least not without working more years than currently planned). Consensus does not exist on how many workers are at risk or the typical magnitude of their retirement saving shortfall. There is a consensus, however, that a substantial number of individuals are at risk. This is not surprising--despite the fact that the 70 percent of workers are saving for retirement--since relatively few workers know how much it is that they need to accumulate to fund their retirement.     

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?     

EBRI research highlights: health benefits

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy research organization based in Washington, DC, that has been researching economic security issues for almost 25 years. Founded in 1978, its mission is to contribute to, encourage, and enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education. EBRI does not lobby and does not take positions on legislative proposals. EBRI receives funding from individuals, employers of all types, unions, foundations, and government. EBRI's research work has focused on retirement- and health-related issues, particularly involving pension/retirement plan coverage and health insurance coverage in the employment-based benefits system. EBRI is a major source of unbiased data on the uninsured and current trends involving 401(k), IRA, and traditional pension-type retirement plans. EBRI research programs also include economic modeling of Social Security reform proposals and development of the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, the largest and most detailed of its kind. This EBRI Special Report/Issue Brief (May 2003) synthesizes highlights of recent EBRI research on health issues. The next Issue Brief (June 2003) will present recent EBRI research on retirement benefits. It should be stressed that this document contains only highlights of EBRI's collection of research and analysis; for greater detail and information, visit EBRI's Web site (www.ebri.org) or contact EBRI directly.     

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.     

Flexible benefits, choice, and work force diversity

This Issue Brief evaluates the prevalence of flexible benefits plans and their ability to achieve cost management goals and to meet the needs of diverse employee groups. In addition, it examines flexible benefits plans' current legislative and regulatory status and typical plan design features. Sec. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code allows employers to provide employees with a choice among benefits, including moving otherwise taxable cash compensation to the pre-tax purchase of benefits, without requiring them to include the value of the noncash benefits in their adjusted gross income unless they choose taxable options. Although the percentage of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments who are eligible for cafeteria plans has not increased appreciably, the percentage of employees eligible for freestanding flexible spending accounts (FSAs) nearly tripled between 1988 and 1991. Generally, the proportion of employers sponsoring cafeteria plans or FSAs increases with employer size. Recent surveys show that 27 percent of employers with 1,000 or more employees offered choice-making plans in 1991, 48 percent of firms offered health care FSAs, and 54 percent offered dependent care FSAs, either in conjunction with cafeteria plans or as a stand-alone option. Ten percent of full-time employees in private firms employing 100 or more workers were eligible to participate in cafeteria plans in 1991. Only 5 percent of full-time employees in state and local governments and 1 percent of similar employees in small private establishments were eligible for cafeteria plans in 1990. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics' surveys show that, among full-time employees, 27 percent in private establishments with 100 or more employees, 28 percent in state and local governments, and 6 percent in small private establishments were eligible to participate in freestanding FSAs. In 1992, 21 percent of eligible employees contributed to a health care FSA, and only 3 percent of eligible employees contributed to a dependent care FSA. Contributions to health care FSAs averaged $651, and those to dependent care FSAs averaged $2,959. National health reform could have a significant impact on these plans if the tax treatment of health benefits is changed. Taxation of health benefits in excess of a standard benefits package would fundamentally reduce the ability to use FSAs.     

ERISA and health plans

This Issue Brief is designed to provide a basic understanding of the relationship of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to health plans. It is based, in part, on an Employee Benefit Research Institute-Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) educational briefing held in March 1995. This report includes a section by Peter Schmidt of Arnold & Porter, a section about multiemployer plans written by Judy Mazo of The Segal Company; and a section about ERISA and state health reform written by Kala Ladenheim of the Intergovernmental Health Policy Project. Starting in the late 1980s, three trends converged to make ERISA a critical factor in state health reforms: increasingly comprehensive state health policy experimentation; changes in the makeup of the insurance market (including the rise in self-insurance and the growth of managed care); and increasingly expansive interpretations of ERISA by federal courts. The changing interpretations of ERISA's relationship to three categories of state health initiatives--insurance mandates, medical high risk pools, and uncompensated care pools--illustrate how these forces are playing out today. ERISA does have a very broad preemptive effect. Federal statutes do not need to say anything about preemption in order to preempt state law. For example, if there is a direct conflict, it would be quite clear under the Supremacy Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] that ERISA, or any federal statue, would preempt a directly conflicting state statute. States can indirectly regulate health care plans that provide benefits through insurance contracts by establishing the terms of the contract. And they also raise money by imposing premium taxes. But they cannot do the same with respect to self-funded plans. That is one of the factors that has caused a great rise in the number of self-funded plans. State regulation [of employee benefits] can create three kinds of problems: cost of taxes, fees, or other charges; cost of dealing with substantive, possibly inconsistent, benefit standards; and cost of identifying, understanding, and complying with the regulations themselves.     

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.     

Voluntary long-term care insurance: best practices for increasing employee participation

This is the second of two Issue Briefs (April and May 2000) on long-term care (LTC) insurance. The previous Issue Brief addressed the problem of increasing sponsorship, while this report addresses the issue of increasing employee participation. Participation rates in group LTC insurance plans tend to be low. A potential watershed event for the development of the employment-based group LTC market is the proposed LTC program for federal employees and retirees (a program that would have to be enacted by Congress). The perception of a successful offering to federal employees could provide an enormous boost to the group LTC insurance market. Employee communication and education are seen as critical to the success of LTC enrollments. The importance of support shown by an employer for a new LTC plan offering cannot be overstated. Unlike 401(k) plan participation trends, LTC participation rates are highest among large companies. Insurers tend to view the 40-60 age range as the primary target for group LTC insurance, and employee salary as the best predictor of LTC insurance enrollment. Higher educational levels also are associated with higher levels of LTC participation. Perceived need for LTC insurance is perhaps the biggest barrier to the purchase of LTC insurance by employees due to competing financial priorities and the fact that LTC issues are generally off the "radar screens" of younger employees. Plans with skilled nursing home and home care benefits experience higher participation rates than plans lacking these benefits. The availability of lower-cost and long duration benefit options can be an important factor in determining participation. Most sponsors have chosen to offer noncontributory (i.e., fully employee-paid) LTC plans. Employer reluctance to make contributions may be caused by HIPAA's prohibition on the inclusion of LTC insurance in cafeteria plans. One of the major advantages of group LTC plans is the availability of guaranteed issue (i.e., issuing coverage without requiring evidence of insurability) for employees, which is not available in the individual LTC market. It is easy for enrollment to be derailed by the presence of any of a number of harmful conditions, such as employer-sponsors who distance themselves from the offer, ineffective communications, or difficult enrollment processes. Achieving consistently strong levels of participation in LTC plans will require employer-sponsors and their insurance carriers to form strong partnerships, with worker participation as their primary stated goal.     

Retirement Plan Participation in an Era of Change: The Case of a Rural Region*

Individual savings are critical for retirement as government and employer‐based provisions fade or become less secure. Rural communities are vulnerable given their higher proportion of elderly and more who rely on Social Security. Using a telephone survey of working‐age residents in Michigan's rural Upper Peninsula, this research investigates factors associated with participation in tax‐advantaged retirement plans that have largely replaced defined‐benefit pension plans for earmarked retirement savings. The project also identifies factors predictive of making maximum contributions to those retirement plans. We consider several distinct categories of variables to reflect the social embeddedness of economic action. In addition, the research included community variables describing aspects of respondents' social context, a new component of the savings discourse, which we show to be significantly related to saving outside a tax‐advantaged retirement plan and making maximum contributions to a tax‐advantaged retirement plan.     

Employee benefits, retirement patterns, and implications for increased work life

This Issue Brief examines why policymakers are concerned about the trend toward early retirement and how it relates to Social Security, Medicare, and employee health and retirement benefits. It reviews the rationale for the effects of economic incentives on early retirement decisions and includes a summary of empirical literature on the retirement process. It presents data on how employee benefits influence workers' expected retirement patterns. Finally, it examines the implications of public policies to reverse early-retirement trends and raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare. An employee Benefit Research Institute/Gallup survey indicates that there is a direct link between a worker's decision to retire early and the availability of retiree health benefits. In 1993, 61 percent of workers reported that they would not retire before becoming eligible for Medicare if their employer did not provide retiree health benefits. Participation in a pension plan can be an important determinant of retirement. Twenty-one percent of pension plan participants planned to stop working before age 65, compared with 12 percent among nonparticipants. Workers whose primary pension plan was a defined benefit plan were more likely to expect to stop working before age 65 (23 percent) than workers whose primary plan was a defined contribution plan (18 percent). Expected income replacement rates effect retirement patterns, indicating that as the expected replacement increases, the probability of expecting to stop working before age 65 increases. Twenty-two percent of workers with an expected income replacement rate below 60 percent expected to stop working before age 65, compared with 29 percent for those in the 60-69 percent replacement range, and 30 percent for those in the 70-79 percent replacement range. Workers expecting to receive retiree health insurance are more likely to expect to stop working before age 65 than workers who do not expect to have retiree health insurance. Twenty-one percent of workers with retiree health insurance expected to stop working before age 65, compared with 12 percent of workers not expecting to receive retiree health insurance. The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program depends on obtaining sufficient revenue from active workers' payroll taxes to fund the benefits received by retired beneficiaries. Funding the program in the past was in large part effortless because of the relatively large number of workers per retiree. Today, funding the program is a greater challenge because the ratio of workers to retirees has fallen. Policymakers have been able to agree that reform of the program is necessary for its survival; however, the debate over options to reform the program is just beginning, and it is likely to be a long time before a consensus emerges.     

Changes in Firm Pension Policy: Trends Away from Traditional Defined Benefit Plans

In light of the recent concerns regarding the solvency of Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI), private pensions may play an increasingly important role in retirement welfare of US retirees. However, the private pension landscape has evolved in ways that may result in lower private pension wealth for retirees. One recent such phenomenon involves the conversion of traditional defined benefit pension plans to cash balance plans, which results in lower pension benefits for many workers. In this study, I investigated how characteristics of the firm’s workforce influenced whether the firm converted their traditional pension plan to a cash balance plan and how these characteristics related to the firm’s pension plan policy more generally. Using the Longitudinal Employer-Household Data and pension plan data from the Department of Labor/Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, I found little evidence of workforce age distribution effects on the likelihood of DB plan conversion to a cash balance plan in the 1990s. More generally, I consistently found positive associations between firms with older and more female workforces and defined contribution plans during the same time.     

Employment-based retirement plan participation: geographic differences and trends, 2010

LATEST DATA: This Issue Brief examines the level of participation by workers in public- and private-sector employment-based pension or retirement plans, based on the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS), the most recent data currently available (for year-end 2010). SPONSORSHIP RATE: Among all working-age (21-64) wage and salary employees, 54.2 percent worked for an employer or union that sponsored a retirement plan in 2010. Among full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21-64 (those with the strongest connection to the work force), 61.6 percent worked for an employer or union that sponsors a plan. PARTICIPATION LEVEL: Among full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 21-64, 54.5 percent participated in a retirement plan. TREND: This is virtually unchanged from 54.4 percent in 2009. Participation trends increased significantly in the late 1990s, and decreased in 2001 and 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the participation trend flattened out. The retirement plan participation level subsequently declined in 2005 and 2006, before a significant increase in 2007. Slight declines occurred in 2008 and 2009, followed by a flattening out of the trend in 2010. AGE: Participation increased with age (61.4 percent for wage and salary workers ages 55-64, compared with 29.2 percent for those ages 21-24). GENDER: Among wage and salary workers ages 21-64, men had a higher participation level than women, but among full-time, full-year workers, women had a higher percentage participating than men (55.5 percent for women, compared with 53.8 percent for men). Female workers' lower probability of participation among wage and salary workers results from their overall lower earnings and lower rates of full-time work in comparison with males. RACE: Hispanic wage and salary workers were significantly less likely than both white and black workers to participate in a retirement plan. The gap between the percentages of black and white plan participants that exists overall narrows when compared across earnings levels. GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES: Wage and salary workers in the South and West had the lowest participation levels (Florida had the lowest percentage, at 43.7 percent) while the upper Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast had the highest levels (West Virginia had the highest participation level, at 64.2 percent). OTHER FACTORS: White, more highly educated, higher-income, and married workers are more likely to participate than their counterparts.     

Questions and answers on health insurance benefit issues

This Issue Brief addresses eight topics in the areas of health insurance and health care costs. Using a question and answer format, the discussion draws largely on EBRI research and the EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits, third edition. In 1993, U.S. expenditures on health care were $884.2 billion, and they are projected to reach $2,173.7 billion by 2005, increasing at a projected average annual rate of 7.8 percent. Health care spending accounted for 13.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1993 and is projected to reach 17.9 percent of GDP by 2005. Among the factors contributing to the increase in health care costs are the growth in the number of individuals with traditional reimbursement health insurance coverage, the rapid expansion of technology and treatment options, and demographic factors such as the aging of the population. In 1993, employers, both public and private, spent $235.6 billion on group health insurance, accounting for 6.2 percent of total compensation. Group health insurance is the fastest growing component of total compensation, increasing at an average annual rate of 13.7 percent from 1960 to 1993. An increasing number of employees are required to make a cash contribution to their health insurance plan premium. In 1993, 61 percent of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments who participated in an employee only health insurance plan were required to make a contribution to the premium, up from 27 percent in 1979. In 1993, 185.3 million persons under age 65 had health insurance coverage, while 40.9 million people--or about 18.1 percent of the nonelderly population--received neither private health insurance nor publicly financed health coverage. Of those individuals who had health insurance coverage, 60.8 percent, or 137.4 million persons, received their health insurance through an employment-based plan. In 1993, 15.2 percent of the nonelderly population without health insurance coverage were noncitizens. In six states noncitizens represented a higher proportion of the total uninsured population than individuals in the nation as a whole. An increasing number of employers are self-funding their health insurance plans. In 1994, 74 percent of employers with 500 or more employees self-funded their health insurance plans, up from 63 percent in 1993. An estimated 22 million full-time employees in private industry and state and local governments participated in a self-funded employment-based health insurance plan.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)