Nevin's Data "Points"

About a month ago, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a bulletin outlining proposed policies that it said would “give states more flexibility and freedom to implement the Affordable Care Act.” It did that by proposing to allow individual states to select a single benchmark to serve as the standard for qualified health plans inside the Exchange operating in their state – and for the plans offered in the individual and small group markets in their state. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that health insurance plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside the ”Affordable Insurance Exchanges” (Exchanges), offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as “essential health benefits (1) .” This benchmark would set the standard of the items and services included in the essential health benefits package called for in PPACA (2) . Acknowledging that “[t]There is not yet a national standard for p

There is an old adage that cautions about the consequences “when you assume…” And yet, the business of retirement planning is replete with any number of so-called “common wisdom” rules of thumb. Doubtless many have well-intentioned origins – to make complicated concepts easier to grasp, and thus to address. One of the more pervasive notions is that a realistic target for retirement savings can be determined by accumulating a sum that will provide an income stream equal to a percentage of one’s pre-retirement earnings – a sum that is generally expressed as 70-80% of what you earn prior to retirement. This starting point - generally called a "replacement ratio" - includes any number of imbedded assumptions, perhaps most significantly that the individual will need to spend less post-retirement, generally understood to be on things such as taxes, housing, and various work-related expenses (including saving for retirement). Moreover, the replacement rate approach represent

One of the more pervasive statistics bandied around about the voluntary retirement system is that only about half of working Americans are covered by a workplace retirement plan. It’s a data point that is widely and openly presented as fact—not only by those inclined to dismiss the current system as inadequate, but even by some of its most ardent champions, who see that result as a call to action for expanded access to these programs. There’s only one problem: It doesn’t tell the whole story. A 2011 EBRI report found that in 2010, 77.6 million workers worked for an employer/union that did not sponsor a retirement plan and 91.0 million workers did not participate in a plan. However, focusing in on employees who did not work for an employer that sponsored a plan, 9.0 million were self‐employed. Of the remaining 68.5 million: • 6.2 million were under the age of 21, and • 3.7 million were age 65 or older. • 32.0 million (approximately) were not full‐time, full‐year worke

On Dec. 8, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) convened a forum on “the Future of Pensions.” The forum was structured around two separate panels of experts (including EBRI President and CEO Dallas Salisbury) who spoke to an audience of pension industry thought leaders on the current retirement landscape, as well as potential enhancements and solutions. Among the insights/observations shared in the session: • In 1975, among those over age 65, 23 percent had pension/annuity income; in 2010, that had risen to 33 percent. • According to EBRI’s Retirement Readiness Rating (RRR) 57 percent of those under age 65 were considered to be at risk of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for “basic” retirement expenditures and uninsured health care costs, a figure that had declined to 45 percent in 2010. • In fact, a world in which 30-year job tenure (and associated pension benefit) was never a reality for 80 percent of the nation’s workers. Rather, it was a myth

While the headlines out of our nation’s capital are driven by talk of the looming budget crisis, concerns about the sluggish economy, and the impending 2012 elections, discussions about retirement, retirement savings, and ways to improve retirement savings have been the order of the day here in Washington. The Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) recently convened its Annual Women’s Retirement Symposium, with a focus of the future of retirement (broadly defined) and the specific implications for women (who live longer, are frequently paid less than men, and whose working careers often include family interruptions in pay and savings). EBRI data surfaced in a number of presentations throughout the event, including references to gender participation rates (see http://www.ebri.org/pdf/FFE.192.21Mar11.RCS-Gender.Final.pdf , http://www.ebri.org/files/FS4_RCS11_Gender_FINAL.pdf ), as well as differences in retirement confidence, and men’s and women’s response to opportunities s