The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: job insecurity, debt weigh on retirement confidence, savings

Americans' confidence in their ability to retire comfortably is stagnant at historically low levels. Just 14 percent are very confident they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement (statistically equivalent to the low of 13 percent measured in 2011 and 2009). Employment insecurity looms large: Forty-two percent identify job uncertainty as the most pressing financial issue facing most Americans today. Worker confidence about having enough money to pay for medical expenses and long-term care expenses in retirement remains well below their confidence levels for paying basic expenses. Many workers report they have virtually no savings and investments. In total, 60 percent of workers report that the total value of their household's savings and investments, excluding the value of their primary home and any defined benefit plans, is less than $25,000. Twenty-five percent of workers in the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey say the age at which they expect to retire has changed in the past year. In 1991, 11 percent of workers said they expected to retire after age 65, and by 2012 that has grown to 37 percent. Regardless of those retirement age expectations, and consistent with prior RCS findings, half of current retirees surveyed say they left the work force unexpectedly due to health problems, disability, or changes at their employer, such as downsizing or closure. Those already in retirement tend to express higher levels of confidence than current workers about several key financial aspects of retirement. Retirees report they are significantly more reliant on Social Security as a major source of their retirement income than current workers expect to be. Although 56 percent of workers expect to receive benefits from a defined benefit plan in retirement, only 33 percent report that they and/or their spouse currently have such a benefit with a current or previous employer. More than half of workers (56 percent) report they and/or their spouse have not tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved by the time they retire so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Only a minority of workers and retirees feel very comfortable using online technologies to perform various tasks related to financial management. Relatively few use mobile devices such as a smart phone or tablet to manage their finances, and just 10 percent say they are comfortable obtaining advice from financial professionals online.     

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.     

Medicare on life support: will it survive?

This Issue Brief discusses Medicare reform. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reduces spending in the Medicare program by $115 billion between 1998 and 2002. Most of the reduction in spending comes from reducing payments to providers, and most of the savings (36 percent) occur in 2002. By 2007, the Part A trust fund is expected to be insolvent, four years before the baby-boom generation reaches the current Medicare eligibility age of 65. Congress is likely to revisit Medicare reform in the near future. A number of reforms received a significant amount of attention during the Medicare reform debate, but were not included in the final legislation. The Senate-passed legislation would have increased the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, imposed means testing on Medicare Part B, and imposed a Part B home health copayment of $5. While these provisions were not included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, they may be the focal point of future Medicare reform. Many changes to the Medicare program are likely to significantly affect employment-based health plans for both active and retired workers. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would undoubtedly affect both workers and retirees. Unless workers are willing to work until age 67, their likelihood of becoming uninsured would increase. In 1995, 15.8 percent of retirees ages 55-64 were uninsured, compared with 11.5 percent of workers in the same age group. Early retirees might also find themselves unable to afford health insurance in the private market. An Employee Benefit Research Institute/Gallup poll indicates a direct link between the availability of retiree health benefits and a worker's decision to retire early. 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. If workers responded to an increase in the retirement age by working longer, employment-based health plans would probably experience an increase in costs, because older workers are the most costly to cover. Some employers might respond to an increase in the Medicare eligibility age by dropping coverage altogether. The message for future beneficiaries is becoming very clear: expect less from Medicare at later ages and higher premiums. As was true prior to the enactment of Medicare in 1965, workers will increasingly need to include retiree health insurance as an expected expense as they plan and save for retirement.     

A post-crisis assessment of retirement income adequacy for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers

DETERMINING THOSE "AT RISK" OF INSUFFICIENT RETIREMENT INCOME: The analysis in this paper was designed to answer two questions: 1) What percentage of U.S. households became "at risk" of insufficient retirement income as a result of the financial market and real estate crisis in 2008 and 2009? 2) Of those who are at risk, what additional savings do they need to make each year until retirement age to make up for their losses from the crisis? The results are from the 2010 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. KEY FINDINGS: Range at risk: The percentage of households that would not have been "at risk" without the 2008-2009 crisis but that ended up "at risk" varies from a low of 3.8 percent to a high of 14.3 percent. 50-50 chance of adequacy: Looking at all Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), the median percentage of additional compensation for these households desiring a 50 percent probability of retirement income adequacy would be 3.0 percent of compensation each year until retirement age to account for the financial and housing market crisis in 2008 and 2009. 90 percent chance of adequacy: Looking at all Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), the median percentage of additional compensation for these households desiring a 90 percent probability of retirement income adequacy would be 4.3 percent of compensation. Range of adequacy: Looking only at Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), that had account balances in defined contribution plans and IRAs as well as exposure to the real estate crisis in 2008 and 2009 shows a median percentage for of 5.6 percent for a 50 percent probability and 6.7 percent for a 90 percent probability of retirement income adequacy.     

Encouraging workers to save: the 2005 Retirement Confidence Survey

This Issue Brief reports findings of the 15th annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), which points to potential solutions to the American retirement savings problem, specifically ways that could help workers save more through their employment-based retirement plans. IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYER MATCH: More than 7 in 10 workers not currently contributing to their employer-sponsored retirement plan say an employer contribution of up to 5 percent of their salary would make them much more or somewhat more likely to participate (72 percent). SIMPLIFIED OPTIONS: Other retirement plan options that nonparticipants say would make them more likely to contribute are an investment option that automatically becomes more conservative as their retirement date approaches (66 percent) and a feature that automatically raises workers' contributions by a fixed amount or percentage when they receive a pay raise (55 percent). Two-thirds of nonparticipants indicate they would be very or somewhat likely to remain in their employer's plan if they were automatically enrolled (66 percent). SOCIAL SECURITY: Nearly 7 in 10 of today's workers are skeptical that Social Security will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to those received by current retirees (68 percent). This proportion has remained relatively constant in recent years, but is below the 1995 level (79 percent). Workers continue to be unable to identify the age at which they will be eligible for full Social Security benefits. MOST BEHIND SCHEDULE IN SAVING: A majority of workers believe they are behind schedule when it comes to planning and saving for retirement (55 percent). Most of those behind schedule say that high expenses, particularly everyday expenses (49 percent), child-rearing expenses (39 percent), and medical costs (35 percent), are a major factor in keeping them from saving. LESS THAN HALF HAVE TRIED TO CALCULATE NEEDED SAVINGS: Approximately 4 in 10 workers say they have tried to calculate how much they need to accumulate for retirement. More than one-third of these workers say they asked a financial advisor to calculate this number or used their own estimates; 10 percent say they simply guessed how much they will need in retirement.     

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.     

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.     

The evolution of retirement: results of the 1999 Retirement Confidence Survey

The ninth annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) shows continued evidence of progress in the drive for retirement income security for American workers. However, there are still hurdles to overcome. The RCS tracks Americans' retirement planning and saving behavior and their confidence regarding various aspects of their retirement. It also categorizes workers and retirees into distinct groups based on their individual views on retirement, retirement planning, and saving. The retirement envisioned by today's workers looks different in many respects from that now experienced by current retirees. Today's workers expect to work longer than current retirees actually worked before retiring--and many say they plan to work for pay after they retire. Twenty-four percent of workers reported that they are very confident they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, and 45 percent reported that they are somewhat confident. However, there are indications that many may be falsely confident. The good news is that 70 percent of Americans are saving for retirement, and a growing percentage (49 percent) are going further and determining how much they need to save to fund their retirement. The bad news is that 30 percent of Americans have not begun to save for their retirement, and 51 percent have never tried to determine how much they need to save. Employers play a major role in ensuring adequate retirement preparation. Forty percent of all workers said they expect that money provided by their employer will be a major source of retirement income. Forty-six percent expect the money they put into a retirement plan at work to be a major source of income. The availability of a retirement plan at work is credited by 48 percent of savers as motivation to save. While worker education is a point of emphasis among both employers and policymakers, more remains to be done. For example, 59 percent of workers expect to be eligible for full Social Security benefits sooner than they actually will be, and an additional 19 percent admit they do not know when they will be eligible. There is evidence that education can have an impact on individual behavior. Forty percent of workers receiving educational material at work in the last year said that information caused them to begin saving (19 percent) or resume saving (21 percent) for retirement, while 40 percent said they changed the amount they were contributing to a retirement savings plan and 41 percent changed the allocation of their money in a retirement savings plan.     

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.     

The Crisis in Retiree Health Benefits

Over 7 million retirees currently are covered by employer-sponsored health benefits plans in which the employer contributes all or a portion of the premium cost. Almost one-third of these retirees are under age 65 and therefore lack Medicare coverage. The annual cost to employers for this coverage is now $9 billion and is expected to be $22 billion in 20 years. However, inflation in health care costs, recent court decisions, the aging of America, and a major proposed accounting rule change by the Financial Accounting Standards Board have combined to produce a "crisis in retiree health benefits" in the business sector. As a result, employers are rapidly redesigning retiree benefit plans to shift future health care cost increases to their retirees. Until now, the aging network has been largely oblivious to this transformation in financing. Yet, this "crisis" begs for public/private sector dialogue and partnership, and the White House Conference on Aging could be a major forum for this dialogue.     

Expenditure patterns of older Americans, 2001-2009

PRE- AND POSTRETIREMENT EXPENSES: Before retirement, people pay FICA taxes, incur work-related expenses, and set aside money for retirement. But after retirement, most people have different financial obligations, and, as a result, retirees may still be able to maintain their level of preretirement well-being with very different income levels. Studying income, expenditures, and wealth-holding patterns together provides a more complete idea of how people are doing in terms of being able to afford retirement than arbitrary estimates such as income replacement ratios. UNIQUE DATA: This Issue Brief examines the expenditure patterns of the older section of the population. It uses data from the Consumption and Activities Mail Survey (CAMS), a supplement to the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, contains detailed expenditure data on 32 categories, and follows the same group of individuals over eight years In addition, the income and wealth data available in the HRS are used to establish the financial standing of older households. DECLINING EXPENSES: Household expenses steadily decline with age. With the age 65 expenditure as a benchmark, household expenditure falls by 19 percent by age 75, 34 percent by age 85, and 52 percent by age 95. HOME EXPENSES: Home and home-related expenses remain the single largest spending category for older Americans. On average, those over age 50 spend around 40-45 percent of their budget on home and home-related items. RISING HEALTH CARE EXPENSES: Health-related expenses are the second-largest component in the budget of older Americans. It is the only component which steadily increases with age. Health care expenses capture around 10 percent of the budget for those between 50-64, but increase to about 20 percent for those age 85 and over. DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS: Singles, blacks, and high school dropouts do not have a sound financial standing in retirement. Their expenditures exceed their income and they hold very little financial wealth. The bottom income quartile, which includes mostly these demographic groups, has the weakest financial standing in retirement. LONG-TERM CARE and PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE: Long-term care and some form of private health insurance coverage have a significant effect on increased spending by older households.     

Making Child Care "Affordable" in the United States

Two alternative federally financed plans are presented as modelsfor a program which would make child care of acceptable quality"affordable" for millions of American families. Taking a cuefrom currently operating state programs, care is defined as"affordable" if it costs parents no more than 30 percent ofthe amount by which their income exceeds the poverty line. Thefirst plan would cost the government $25 billion per year andwould concentrate help on families with incomes up to twicethe poverty line. The second would cost $39 billion per year,would provide higher quality care, and would allow all UnitedStates families to have access to care that was "affordable"by our definition. Costs of these magnitudes preclude financingof any significant part by employers or philanthropies. Whilesome government savings might result from the beneficial effectsof these programs, the main rationale for them rests, not onthe calculation that they will save the government money (althoughthey might), but on the fact that they will prevent considerablemisery to children and their families. Making quality childcare affordable to all families would result in safer, moreeducational, and more enjoyable care for children, and wouldgive a financial boost to families pitifully short of resourcesin a non-stigmatizing way. It would reduce child poverty andreduce enrollment in welfare-type programs. It would also giveparents a chance to particiopate in the world of work and toachieve the gains in resources and status that such a participationwould alllow.     

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.     

Proposed bill for HEROES Act would give $1.5 billion to SAPT block grant

With the House of Representatives planning to vote last Friday on the fourth COVID‐19 stimulus package, substance use treatment stands a chance of being included — if the Senate, which at press time was still opposing the measure, as was the White House, goes ahead to approve it as well. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, for about $2 trillion, would finally give some money to states, counties and health care. So far, more than $2 trillion has been spent on stimulus funding, with the field trying hard to be included in each bill (see “NASADAD requests $250 million for Phase 4 stimulus,” ADAW April 13, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adaw.32688 ).     

Portability of health insurance: COBRA expansions and small group market reform

Proposals are currently being put forth to change the health care system incrementally. One area of proposed legislation addresses portability, which allows an individual to change insurers without being subjected to a new waiting period for preexisting conditions. These proposals, discussed in this Issue Brief, contain provisions to limit preexisting condition exclusions, guarantee access to health insurance, guarantee renewal of health insurance, allow individuals to contribute to medical savings accounts on a pretax basis, and change the current law under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). The proposals would affect insurers, employers, and insured individuals by potentially increasing the cost of providing and purchasing health insurance. Concern about the portability of health insurance primarily arises in situations where an individual is leaving, or would like to leave, a job. If health insurance is not offered by a prospective employer, if the worker must satisfy a waiting period before becoming eligible for coverage, if the benefits package offered through the prospective employer is less generous, or if the employee (or a dependent) has a medical condition that is considered a preexisting condition and would not be covered by the new plan, the employee may opt to remain with his or her current employer--a situation known as job lock. Expansions of COBRA may not have any effect on portability. Employers can charge up to 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, making it unaffordable for many workers. Because cost is a major factor, if there is no reduction in cost (or health care cost inflation) there could be little or no increase in coverage. According to one survey, in 1994 average COBRA costs were $5,301 per COBRA covered worker, compared with $3,420 for active employees. Any expansion of COBRA would almost certainly increase employer cost for health insurance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

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.