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.     

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.     

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.     

Issues in mental health care benefits: the costs of mental health parity

This Issue Brief discusses issues in mental health care benefits. It describes the current state of employment-based mental health benefits and discusses studies and issues regarding full mental health parity. It also includes an analysis of the effect of full mental parity on the uninsured population and the effects of the limited mental health parity provision contained in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The final section discusses the implications of mental health parity for health plans and health insurers. When employers began to provide health insurance benefits to their employees and their families, they extended coverage to include mental health benefits under the same terms as other health care services. Many employers continued to add mental health benefits through the 1970s and early 1980s until cost pressures required employers to re-examine all health care benefits that were offered. They quickly found that, while only a small proportion of the beneficiaries used mental health care services, the costs associated with this care were very high. As a result, employers placed limits on mental health benefits in an attempt to make the insurance risk more manageable. The general strategies employers have used to manage their health care costs are cost sharing, utilization review, managed care, and the packaging of provider services. Employers' cost management strategies may be restricted, however. Five states have mental health parity laws, but three of the states--Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire--apply these laws only to the seriously mentally ill. In addition, 31 states mandate that mental health benefits be provided. However, state mandates apply only to insured plans, not to self-insured employer plans, which are exempt from state regulation of health plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A number of recent studies have examined the effect of mental health parity on health insurance premiums in a "typical" preferred provider organization and on the uninsured. In general, the studies concluded that mental health parity could increase health insurance premiums, decrease health insurance coverage for non-mental health related illnesses, and increase the number of uninsured individuals. All studies of mental health parity, and mandated benefits in general, assume that there is a strong likelihood that increased health benefit costs would be passed along to workers in the form of higher cost sharing for health insurance, lower wage growth, or lower growth in other employee benefits.     

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)     

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.     

Retiree medical plan design: determining the philosophy, communicating the need

Much has been written, both in benefit-related journals and in the general press, about the recent statement, FAS 106, issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). This statement requires most employers to begin accounting for retiree health care benefit costs for active employees as well as current retirees, creating a significant negative financial impact. Most of the attention has been focused on getting the numbers that will tell the extent of the impact resulting from FAS 106. The next step has been to review retiree medical coverage to see how the affected companies can change it to reduce their liability. Although the urge is strong to adopt a quick-fix solution, employers can greatly benefit by reviewing their benefit philosophies and making plan decisions that make sense for them. This article discusses key questions that can help focus the issue on company philosophies and lays out a framework for determining suitable plan designs that can also help companies manage the retiree medical liability.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Medical tourism: reverse subsidy for the elite

The medical tourism sector in India has attracted global attention, given its phenomenal growth in the past decade. India is second only to Thailand in the number of medical tourists that it attracts every year. Estimates indicate that the medical tourism market in India could grow from $310 million in 2005 to $2 billion by 2012. These figures are significant when contrasted with India's overall health care expenditure - $10 billion in the public sector and $50 billion in the private sector. Factors that have contributed to this growth include the relative proficiency in English among health care providers and the cost effectiveness of medical procedures in India. Generally, most procedures in Indian hospitals cost a quarter (or less) of what they would cost in developed countries. The expansion of medical tourism has also been fueled by the growth of the private medical sector in India, a consequence of the neglect of public health by the government. India has one of the poorest records in the world regarding public financing and provisioning of health care. A growing driver of medical tourism is the attraction of facilities in India that offer access to assisted reproductive care technologies. Ironically, this is in sharp contrast with the acute neglect of the health care needs of Indian women. The Indian government is vigorously promoting medical tourism by providing tax concessions and by creating an environment enabling it to thrive. However, there is a distinct disjunction between the neglect of the health care needs of ordinary Indians and public policy that today subsidizes the health care of wealthy foreigners.     

Paying for the health and social care of the elderly

The aging population of Japan is causing serious concern among social policymakers. The most urgent issue is to find a way to pay for the health and social care of the frail elderly. After universal coverage of pension and health insurance was achieved, but just before the economic growth rate was considerably slowed, in part, because of the oil crisis, the Japanese government more than doubled pension benefits and made medical care for the elderly free. Since the early 1980s, the government has tried hard to cut and control these benefits, only with moderate success. With a consumption tax rate of only 5%, rather than the proposed 7%, the government is now considering establishing a new health and social care insurance scheme for the elderly to finance the increasing cost of their care.     

Paying for the Health and Social Care of the Elderly

The aging population of Japan is causing serious concern among social policymakers. The most urgent issue is to find a way to pay for the health and social care of the frail elderly. After universal coverage of pension and health insurance was achieved, but just before the economic growth rate was considerably slowed, in part, because of the oil crisis, the Japanese government more than doubled pension benefits and made medical care for the elderly free. Since the early 1980s, the government has tried hard to cut and control these benefits, only with moderate success. With a consumption tax rate of only 5%, rather than the proposed 7%, the government is now considering establishing a new health and social care insurance scheme for the elderly to finance the increasing cost of their care.     

Social protection for retirees: the diminishing role of employers

Jobs are changing in ways that will reduce benefits for retirees. This paper explores the variety of pressures that will tend to produce this result. One major factor is that employers have been responding to cost pressures and the need for flexibility by redesigning jobs. There has been a trend--which is likely to continue--toward more part-time and temporary jobs, more subcontracting, and more contingent-pay systems. The consequences are complex and not all bad, but for retirees the tendency will be toward fewer, less generous, or less secure benefits. As workers approach retirement age facing the prospect of diminished benefits, increasing numbers of them will have to choose work to maintain their standard of living. At the same time, demographic pressures will gradually push employers to seek new pools of workers, including retirees. Gradually, employers are likely to provide fewer social-protection benefits to older people, but more employment opportunities.     

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.     

Health Insurance for All Long-Term Care Workers: Estimated Costs and Coverage Impacts in Minnesota and Recommendations for States

A major barrier to building a strong workforce to meet the growing need for long-care is lack of affordable health benefits. This study projects impacts of funding health coverage for all long-term care workers in Minnesota. Under the most cost effective model plan design, enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage would increase 73% to 100% for individual coverage and 26% to 42% for family coverage. Total monthly costs would be $698/worker in the commercial market or $634/worker through a new dedicated risk pool. Based on our findings and past research, the authors present recommendations for structuring and implementing a long-term care worker health insurance initiative.