“Retirement Plan Participation: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Data, 2012,” and “Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey”

Retirement Participation: Since the end of the economic recession, a higher percentage of workers are working for employers that offer retirement plans and a higher percentage of them are participating in the plans, according to a new report by EBRI. <A href="http://www.ebri.org/pdf/PR-1037.27Aug13.RetPart.pdf ">Press release. </A> Health Satisfaction: Americans with health insurance appear to be warming up to so-called consumer-driven health plans, even as the traditionally greater popularity of traditional health plans is slipping, according to new research from EBRI. <A href="http://www.ebri.org/pdf/PR-1038.28Aug13.Notes-HlthSat.pdf ">Press release. </A>

Retirement Plan Participation: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Data, 2012

The latest SIPP data from the U.S. Census Bureau show 61 percent of all workers over age 16 had an employer that sponsored a pension or retirement plan for any of its employees in 2012, up from 59 percent in 2009. Workers participating in a plan increased to 46 percent in 2012, up slightly from 2009 (45 percent) but below 2003 (48 percent).
The vesting rate (the percentage of workers who say they were entitled to some pension benefit or lump-sum distribution if they left their job) stood at 43 percent in 2012, up from 24 percent in 1979. This increase is largely due to the increased number of workers participating in defined contribution retirement plans (such as 401(k) plans), where employee contributions are immediately vested, and faster vesting requirements in private-sector pension plans.
Defined contribution (401(k)-type) plans were considered the primary plan by 78 percent of workers with a plan. Defined benefit (pension) plans were the primary plan for 21 percent of workers.

Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey

While the overall satisfaction rates for consumer-driven health plan (CDHP) enrollees increased in most years of the Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, satisfaction rates among traditional enrollees decreased in most years of the survey.
While high-deductible and CDHP enrollees were much more likely to report that they were not too or not at all satisfied with their health plan, their dissatisfaction levels appeared to be trending downward in most years of the survey.
Differences in out-of-pocket costs may explain some of the difference in overall satisfaction rates. In 2012, 44 percent of traditional-plan participants were extremely or very satisfied with out-of-pocket costs (for health care services other than for prescription drugs), while 18 percent of HDHP enrollees and 27 percent of CDHP participants were extremely or very satisfied.

Figure Figure 2 6 21 Figure Figure 2 Figure 8 Figure 6 Figure 4 4 Figure 8 Some possible answers includ enrollees to A separate qu of nona reg All Workers’ Participation from the Endnotes This is consist ardless of gric Nona first ult be extremely job of the worker from the core is used for the employ p gricult ural, estion on lan typ ent with findin wage an ura e, satisfaction out-of-pock l Wage ord salary very satisfied e the issues fro gs from Craig Copeland (Septe and S eworkers age 16 an wi t spen a lary Work th out-of with t m endnote 4 on ding r -pocket ers— h eeir latin over The gd c specifica remain o over all plan sts were co how the que mber 2012), op. cit. In this study, the perc hader o d a in lly to er/job sal all y n f th prescript s stions are aske characteristics (firm size, industry, union covered ary reduction istently low. eis stu ars of t diy is r on he sur dr e They d, as well as which job is ugs was added to t plan stricte vey. In that t do, d to how 2012, hnona ey e considered th entage of famil ver, a 62 gricu perc hppe e surv ltural ent o ar tey in wage oeir be fies Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from Retirement Plan Participation: Survey of Income and Statement of Ownership Salary Reduction Retirement Plan Sponsorship Plan Sponsorship Rate, and Participation Participation Rate, Am and ong Primary Plan Trends Percentage Percentage Extremely in Percentage Extremely Percentage Extremely Retirement Extremely Plan or Participation V or ery V or or e Likely ry V V ery ery Satisfied With Satisfied With Satisfied With to Rates Recommend Health Amon Out-of-Pocket g Ease Ov Nonagricultural erall of Plan 13 24 Proportion of Salary Reduction Plan Participants by Percentage of Annual 1 8 with a retirement plan that determined to be primary or the type of worker as classifie job, hours of work) for the workers in this had a defined be study. Furthermore, if the busine nefit plan only d was found to h by the different surveys. Fur ave decreased ss is determined to be the most important, t tfrom 40.0 percent in 1992 to hermore, a similar issue has arisen 17.9 he trendi primary r traditional 200 and salary 9. Altho ng hi e- wo tire ghe pla ugh only ment n enro rkers age 16 a r for t plan four llees hose in we ye wit 2ars of 012. n re e hd over. a C Mark Your Calendar! x Th tremely D data HP. I is was Amo we nit o re availa an incr rial diff ng t very satisfi hese eren ease ble work ces fo fr ed w om 29. r this in satisfaction ers, 49. ith t question 2 h1 eir perce perc ov, and w nt in erall ent rates wit 2 part health 009, hile ici hp 2 an res pl ate 0ans, compared with 09 a d from p dect to in p a peare 7. pe quality 5 nsion per d to c of ca or ret be ent i an n 1 48 perc re r irement outli 9e 8ceiv 8e .ent of r for ed See Craig Copeland, “Individual Account Retirement Plans: An Analysis of the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances,” EBRI The sponsorship level for all workers for pay age 16 and over (defined as the fraction of workers whose employer or Percentage Nonagricultural Among Nonagricultural Wage and W Salary age and WoSalary rkers, A W go e rkers, 16 and Ag Ov e 16 er, and Over, the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Program Participation (SIPP) Data, 2012 Wage and to Friend or Co-W Salary Getting Health Health Workers, Care Doctor Plan, Costs, A orker A by pg poi T e by y 16 and , by nt pe of T men y pe TyHealth pe tOv of Health Plan, 2005 When Needed, 2005 of Health Plan, 2005 er, by Plan, Ann 2005 ual ? Earnings 2012 ? ?2012 2012 ?2012 in 1993 $s, Earnings Contributed (Among Those Responding), Nonagricultural Wage percent in 201 first in the estimation of the percentage of business of the worker fr 0. om the core is Americans with healt used for charach teristic insura s of the nce when co business in this mparing the results from both surveys, analysis. Likewise, if the worker is disappeare satisfaction ra CDHP enrollees and 38 perc plan in 2012, d betwee up tes on overa from n tra 48.4 diti ll perce o ent of HDHP out-of-poc nal-plan nt in an 2 ket 0d enrollees. 09 costs, satisfaction wi CDHP enrollees, and t but belo w the highest th o here were h level ut-of-pock recorded over igh et spending satisfaction rates the has bee study period of 51.5 per wi n tren th respect to ding upward cent Issue Brief 60 , no. 375 (Employee Benefit Resear % United States Postal Serv ch Institute, September 201 ice Statement of Ownership, Manag 2). ement, and Circulation union sponsors a pension or retirem 1988, ent pl 1993, 1998, an for any of2003, the em 2006, ploye2009, es at the and workers 2012 ’ place of employment) was 80% 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012 August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012 and Salary Workers, Age 16 and Over, 1993 60% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 14 Survey Employee Contribution Rates—While the participation level in salary reduction plans (and the proportion of particularly wit determined to only work for others or to only h regard to the time frame that the questi have a busine ons refer to in the survey. Se ss, the first job or business data, respectively, is used to provide e Paul Fronstin, “Counting the By Craig Copeland, Ph.D., Employee Be 20 ne 05fit R 2006 esearch 2007 In 20stitute 08 2009 2010 2011 2012 since 2 access to doct 22 in 20030 . 1This 070% , recompares gardl ors regar ess of dwith less pla of 47. n type. plan 2 perce T type. hose nt iYet, in n 1 with tr 998, 2 aditio 4 01 92 .3 , t na perce hl covera e survey nt in ge con 19 we 9t3inue re more , and to d 47.7 likely fin p d ethat in rcent i to report dividual n 198 bein 8 s in a (Fi g e gxur treme CDHP e 2).ly or or an 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 61 2 percent in 2012, according to SIPP (Figure 1). This is just below the highest level (63 percent) of the study period These plans have also been Publicat referred to as 55%^ ion Title:401(k)-type plans EBRI Employee Ben in other EBRI publications. efit Research Institute Notes. For example, s ee Craig Copeland 80% See Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland, “The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy,” EBRI December 11, 2013 90% Less than $5,000 $5,000–$9,999 $10,000–$14,999 $15,000–$19,999 52%^ Sponsorship Level Participation Level workers citing them as their primary plan) increased during the study period, the average employee contribution for Un data on the em insured: A Comparison ployer or business characteristics. 53% of National Surveys,” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 225 (Employee Benefit Research Inst 9 itute, September very satisfied However, HDHP w ere th le e l with o ss likely than evel ouft-o partici f-po tcket costs for p hation ose invar a tra ied greatly across 52% di ^prescript tional plan ion bot drworker demo ugs tha h to recomme n thos graphic e with a nd their charact n healt HDHhP e pl ristics. or a an to CDH frie Pn (Figure ds or co5). -work ers 70% 52% Figure 1 found in 2003, and abov 67% e all the other years studied (1979 to 2012). The percentage of workers participating in a By Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., Employee Benefit Research Institute (September 2012), op. cit. The contributions could be either before or after taxes. 66%^ Issue Brief, no. 358 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, June 2011) an 25 d Jack VanDerhei and Craig C $50,000 or moro epeland, “The EBRI $20,000–$24,999 $25,000–$29,999 $30,000–$49,999 50% Publication Nu 2005 mber: 2006 20 1085-445 07 20082 2009 2010 2011 2012 workers who reported a 64% pos ^ itive employee contribution to these plans decreased in 2012 from 2009: 6.7 percent of 2000) for further comparisons between the s 49% 49%^ 49% urveys. 1988 1993 1998 2003 2006 2009 2012 10 63% 9 50% Percentage Extremely or Very Satisfied With Quality of and to stay with their current healt 48%h ^ plan 58.9% if they had the opportunity to switch plans. These findings may have been plan regardl 80 70% %ess of wheth 46% 46% er the plan was s 62%^ pth onsored at the work 67.9% ers’ place of employment (the participation level ) See endnote 60% 4 on the comparison 77% issues to the CPS supplements. 61% 23 Retirement Readiness Rating 45% 45% ™: Retirement 60%^ Income Preparation and Futur 26 e Prospects,” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 344 (Employee 90% 65.0% 44% 65.3% As previously stated, the sponsorship level is defined as 64.4% the fraction of workers whose employers or unions sponsor a Introduction salary in Access to Doct Age— 2012 compare The level of ors— d wit partic h 7. Satisfaction levels wit 4 ipati 44% perce on in nt i a r n 2 e009 tirement h(Fi getting gur plan e 7doctor ) inc . The distribution of the reased appoint with ments wer the age oe f h th contributio igh e worker throu rel 45% ative to ot * n rates shifted to gher h age aspects of 60, a EBRI’s 35 Health83% Care Rece Anniversary Celebration ived, by Type of Health Plan, 2005–2012 73% 73%* 73% 15 60% 63.1% 72%^ 63.5% 63.8% driven more by out-of-pocket spendin 57%^g than by quality of care or access to care. 72% increased to 46 percent in 2012 from 45 71% percent ^ in 2009, but was still below the peak value 71% of the study period at In SIPP, only mo 70% nthly earnings are given. Consequently, the earnings had to be annualized by multiplying by 12 for Benefit Research Institute, July 2010), along with 10 1) Filing Date: 08/15/2013. 2) Issue Freque 52.4% 41%ncy: Monthly the appe . 3) Number of Issues Publish ndixes included in the publications. 79% ed Annually 70% : 12. 4) Annual Subscription 79% 69%* 79% Retirement Plan Par 68%^ ticipation: Survey of Income and 68% 68% 68%^ 68% 78% salary-reduction (retirement) plan The participation level for workers is calculated by determ for any of the employees at the ining all workers who say they participate in a pension or workers’ places of employment. 67%^ health then highedecr r care, percent 70 ease % red. In gardl age o 2 efss of 012, the 3 lower contri pla 4 perc n type, ent o some butor f 21–30 s dif from 1993 fere year nces -oldwe tworkers p o 20 re fo 12 und: (Fiartic g In ur 2 es 8 a ipate 006, dnd trad in a 9) reti itiona . The rement l-pla perce n pla enroll ntag n, c eee of t ompared s were hose more with li kely 51.0% 67% 76% 41%* 40%* A critical component o 80% f savin 49.9% g for retirement is the availability a 66%*nd use of an employment-based retirement plan. 78% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 52%* Introduction Price: $300 60% per year or is included as part of a membership subscri 75% ption. 5) Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of 40% 65% comparisons with the past sur 48 percent in 2003. veys. This creates issues for those workers who have 64%* 64% uneven earnings 39%*^ during the year, but in 63%^ 40 50% % 38% 27 *^ 3 The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) thwill celebrate 35 years of 73% 49%* retirement plan in their main job/business or other job during the reference period of the survey. This incl 37%*^ 48% udes anyone who * Contributed 72% than C Program Participation (SIPP) Data, 2012, 24 Publicat 62 perc contributi See Craig Co D ion: (No ent HP 50 ng % o en 5 f 51 peland, “Retirement Plan P rollees to tperce printer): ?60 year nt or Employ be les -ol ed x ss (Fi increase tremely ee Benefit Research Institu gure 3). or ve da rticipation: Surv from 44. For ry satisfied w workers o 8 perce eiv nt in y tte (EBRI), 1100 er age h of Income an the 1i993 r a 60, t b to ility h52.7 e lev to get 13 d Program Part p Street NW el o e doctor rcent f parti p. 2 in 2 a c, Suite 878, Washingt icipation (SIPP) Data, 2009,” ipation ppointm 012. decre ents.ased, dippin on, DC 2 g to EBRI 0005. 45.9% 73% Americans with an 76% individual account retirement plan have significantly more wealth, 47% *^ on average, than those without 80% 68% These percentages include as a base both the workers wi 58%* th a retirement 51.5% plan and those without a plan. Therefore, of 46%* This artic most cases the monthly earni le examines satisfan ction w gs are reflective of the earni ith various aspects o 70% fn healt gs for all mo h care a nths during the mong three gryear. oups of In additi health on, all income f -plan enrollees igures : 67% 10 percent 60 70% % 76% References 6) Complete Mailing Ad providing "Just dress of Head the Facts" quarters o on benefit r Gener issues al Bus at ina ess Office of Publis reception 43. to 0%be her (Not prin held Weter): dnesday, EmployDec. ee Ben 64% 11, efit 2013, Research answered no t 1 o the first ques 74% tion about participating in a 49.3% pension or retirement plan, but answered yes in a fo 49.llo 1%w-up 33%* 48.4% 43%*^ 36 Notes perc , no. 11 (Employee Benefit Research In ent for those age 65 or older. This overall tr stitute, Novem or mor end has e: ber 2010): 2 63% been consistent over -12; Craig Copeland, “Retirement Plan Participation: the entire study period. In 2012, the 50% 73% 73% one. Consequently, 47. when 7% trying to assess how prepared Americ 32%*ans are in terms of meeting their expected retirement th 72% 47.2% 46.7% 72% those with a plan, 78.3 percent had a salary reduction plan as 62% Figure their primar 1 y retirement plan in 2012, co 41%* mpared with 60.3 are in 1993 dollars, so all of the 1998, 65% 71% 71 2003, % 2006, 2009, and 2012 income amounts were adjusted app 61% ropriately for the 71%^ 71% those with a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP), those 40% wi *^40% th a * high-deductible health pl 71an %^ 71 (HDHP % ), and those with Institute (EBRI), 1100 13 Street NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005. 7) Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of 70% 28.5% 30%* EBRI Employee Benefit Research Institute Notes (ISSN 1085 ?4452) is publish 58% ed monthly by the Employee Benefit Research However, between 2007 and 2010, any differences were not statistically 29% sign * ificant, and in 20 29% 11, C *^ D38. HP 4%enrollees question to participating in a pl from 6:00–8:00 40% pm, at an similar to a 401(k) plan. The Shriners’ Building, 1315 K Contr St. ibute NW, d Washington, DC, 20005. 30 40% % 29% 38% * * Survey of Income and Progra 60% m Participation (SIPP) Data, 2006,” EBRI Notes, no. 2 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, 68%^ levels of 70 pa % 30% rticipation 36.8% were identical with, or just be 37%low, * the 2009 levels, exce a pt 37% for a * n increase b for those age 65 or Fronstin, Paul. 50% "Findi thngs From the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer Enga 28%* 36.3% gem 37%* ent in Health Care Survey." EBRI Issue Brief, no. expenses, it Publisher, Edito is importa r, and Managin nt to g Editor know th 63% (Do not e perc leave blank): P entage of worublisher, kers with Emplo an employment yee Benefit Re -basearch In sed retirement pla stitute – Educ n. ation and percent in 2009, 64.5 percent in 2006, 55.0 Trends in Retire peme rcent in 200 nt Plan Spo 3, and 15.7 per nsorshi cent in 1988. p, Participation, Conc intervening infl lusion ation between 1993 and 2012. Using the consumer 27%* price index (CPI), the dollars in 1993 would have to be 27%*^ 5 percent 27%*^ traditional Satisfaction With Health C Institute, cov 1100 erage. 13 The St. NW, findSuit ingse pr 878, esent Washington, ed are deriv DC overage and Care: Findings from 35% ed fr *20005- om t 34.9%435% 051, he *^ 20 at 12 $300 EBRI pe /M r GA C year o onsumer En r is included gaas gement part of in He a membership alth th 34.6% were more likely than traditional-plan enrollees to be 25% e * xtremely or very satisfied with their ability to get doctor 59% 63%* 63%* or less: 63% 63%* Rese 11 February 2009) arch F 40% und: 1 , 1100 13 -12; Craig StreCopeland, “An Analysis of the et NW, Suite 878, Washington,Retirement DC 20005. and Edit Pension Plan C or, Dallas L. Salisbury overage Topical Module of SIP , Employee Benefit P,” older. c 24%*^ 24%* subscription. 380 (Emp Pelo riodicals yee Benefit Rese postage rate arch paid Institute, Decemb in 31% Washingt * on, DC, er 20 57%and 12). additional 62%*mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address 61%*^ 56% Both the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and t and Vesting Rate he E s conomic Gr Among owth W 61%o *^ rk and ers Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 s for Pay, Age 16 and Ov 23%* er, hortened the multiplied by 1.5478 to have constant 2012 dollars, so the 23%* upper bound for the lowest-income group would be $7,739 in 25 50% th 44.8% 22%*^ Care S the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer E urvey, an online survey that examines issues surroundinngagement in Health Care g consumer-directed health care, including the cost of The results from the SIPP data show th a continuin 54%g of the upward trend in the percentage of workers participating in a 53% 30.1% Rese Not all salary reduction plan particip For arch Institute – Edu m 40o %re information, cation and contact Resear ants ha Nevin chd complete data needed for c FuAda nd, 1100 1 ms, nadam 3 Street NW, s@ebri.org Suite 878, Was alculating this number, either , 202/775-6329. hington, DC 20005. Managin because the g appointments. 30% In 2011, 73 percent of CDHP enrollees we 29.1% re extremely 58%*^ or very satisfied with their ability to 29.2% get doctor changes 60% to: EBRI Notes, 1100 13 St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005-4051. Cop 28.y3% right 2013 by Employee Benefit Other Employee B EBRI Issue Brief, no. 245 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, Ma enefit Research Institute (EBRI) pu 57%blic * ations have examined the percentage of A y 2002); and Craig Copeland, “An Anm alysis of the ericans at risk of 20%* 20%* 30% 50% th required vesting schedule for 26.9% 1979, all or some priv 1983, 1988 ate-sector , 1993, 19 , employment-based retirement plans. 98, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012 2012 dollars; for the next lowest-income group the upper bound would be $15,478 in 2012 dollars, etc. 48% insurance, Editor, Step Survey, 20 the cost of c % hen Blakely p. 14, Employ are, satisfaction ee Benefit Research Institu 15 with health care, tsatisfaction e – Educatiowith h n and Researc 18%* ealth care pla h Funn d, 1100 13 s, reasons for choosin Street NW, Sui g a te retirement pla Research 20%Institute. n that 47% All started rights reserved, after the shar Vol. 34, p no. decli 8. ne 18% in *2006 from the highest level 18% (5 * 1.5 percent in 2003) of the study earnings or the contributions were not determinable. Eight and one half percent of the sample of salary reduction 30% 17% 45% * appointments Income— 40% , compare As a worker’s i d with 68n perce coment a incr mong tra e44% ased, the ditio likeli nal-plan hood that enrolle he or es (Fi sh gure e part 6). Beca icipated use of in a t retirem he increase ent pla inn also Retirement and Pension Plan Coverage Topical Module o 23.8% f SIPP,” EBRI Issue Brief, 16%*^ no. 245 (Employee Benefit Research not bein 70% g able to cover standard expenses plus long-term health car16% e expenses in * retirement and the amount of 16%* 43% 50%* 878, Washington, DC 20005. 8) Owner: Full Name: Employee Benefit Research Institute – Edu 22.4% cation and Research Fund. 9) 30% 12 63% 16 31% plan, and sources of 31%health information. 31% This pa Contr per ibute also d betw pr eesents en health care satisfaction tren 40% ds based on findings period. Furthermore, a surge in the percentage of work 30% ers participating in a 39% DC plan they considered their primary participants is eliminated The two sets 50% 20% of numbers pre because of this issue. sented for 1988 show the impact of these follow-up questions 2 and potentially the increased See Ala 65% n L. Gustman and Thomas L. Steinmeier, “Imperfect Knowledge, R 60% etirement, and Saving,” paper presented at The satisfaction a increased. For m those maki ong those with tra ng less than ditional $5 ,coverage 000 ann 13%u betw *ally (in co een 20 nstant 11 an 1d 993 dollars 2012, the ) dif in 201 ference 2, 14 perc in satisfaction ent partici 61 bet %pw ate eedn in a Institute, May Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security 2002) for studies of prior SIPP datasets on t Holders 59%h Ow is topic. ning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, additional retirement savings necessary to pay for these expenditures in retirement.59% A key parameter of these stu 28% dies 5 percent and 27% 59% 26% 30% 20% 57% 56% 60% 17.4% from the 2005, 2006, and 2007 EB 55% RI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Surveys, and the 2008 ?2011 plan was 20% found in the 2012 data. In a December 12, 2013 ddition, the percen 10 percenttage o : f workers reporting that they had a salary reduction Mortgages or Other Securitie numbers of defined contribution plans on the vesting rate. s: None. 10) Tax Status (For completio Withon u by t th nonprof e follow-u it organization p questions authoriz s on lump-sum distributions, the ed to mail at nonprofit Third Annual Conference of the Retirement Research Consortium, Making Hard Choices Washington, DC, May 17–18, 2001. 26 The Employee Benefit Research Institute(EB RI) was founded in 1978. Its mission is to those wit retirement p h 20 tra %lad nitional , compar covera ed with ge a79 nd p CDHP ercen t of enrolle those ma 15.3% es wasking no lo 21% $5 ng 0,00 er statistically signi 0 or more in 1993 ficant in dollars 2012. (Figure Furthermore, 4). Worker w s’ hile 10% 4 has been t 10h %e percentage of 52% American workers with an employment-based retirement plan and the characteristics that In 55a very % large database of 401(k) plan participants, Sarah 26.7% Holden and Jack VanDerhei, “Contribution Behavior of 401(k) The 2008 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Part 18% icipation (SIPP), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, is going rates) The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes: Has 40% 17% EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement contribute in Health Care toA T , to Surv encourag eA ys. More in e, G L A N C and to form enhanc ation a e the Ebout developmen the surveys ca t of sound n be fo empl unod in yee benefit plan vesting rate in incre 10 ased % 1988 was 28 p , although theercent, compar average empled with 34 percent wi oyee contribution levth the follow-up questions. T el to those pla 16%48% ns fell in 2012. hus, better data do not seem For SIPP specif 20% ic results, see, for example, Irena Dushi, Howard M. Iams, and Jules Lichtenstein, “Assessment of Retirement 16% most year-to-year incr partici 50% pation levels in 2 e0 ases 12 were were hi 14% not gher stati in all stically signi income cat fice an gories, t, satisfactio relative to n levels amon 2009. g CDHP enrollees trended up 46% 14% 46% 46% make them more or less likely to participate in one. Plan Participants.” EBRI Issue Brief no. 238 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, October 2001) found t 45% he average before- not changed during preceding 12 months: 501(c)(3). 11) Publication’s nam 44% e: EBRI Employee Benefit Researc 44% h Institute EBRI Who we are to follow the same households for a five 43% programs -year period, askin and 43% sound public g variou policys qu through estion objective s on th 44% resear eir econ ch omic an and educati d demograph on. EBRI is ic statu the 43only % s. 10 10% 10% % 42% 7.5% (Fron 45s %tin 2012). 42% to be the only explanation for the increased vesting rate since 1979. 41% Plan Coverage by Firm Size, Using W-2 Tax Records,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2011, pp. 53-65. 41% 41% Notes. 12) Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: August 2013. 13) Extent and Nature of Circulation: a. Total Number of Copies: prior to Emplo 2009 (which y was ee Benefits: Hindsight, Fo not the case for traditional-plan enrollees or HDHP e resight, and Insight nrollees) but appeared to be unchanged tax contribution rate to be 6.8 percent in 1999. While this number is close to the number reported in this study, there are 10% private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, Washington, DC-based organization committed exclusively to 40% 13% 14% Survey participants are intervi 30% ewed at four-month intervals about a core set of 13% demographic and economic issues. In While these to 0% p-line 4%results from SIPP support findings from other data, the be 11%nchmarking o 11%f this data is important 0% 4% Average No. Co 0% pies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 34% 496; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Ne c arest to Filing Date: a b a 17 This article presents results from the a latest Survey of Income an bd Program Participation (SIPP c ) data on retirement since th Retirement Plan Participatio en. public poli n: Survey cy research of Income and edu b cation and Program Parti on economic security and c cem ipation ployee benefit issues. 35% Traditional HDHP CDHP two explanations for the diffe For background on the chan 0% Tradi grence: (1) in es in the data t tional the Holden and VanDerhei stud hat account for HDH these two nu P mbers for 1988 y, only 401(k) participants are examined, whereas , the first set of numbers pre CDHP sented The questions for plan deter Tradimination were refined for the tional 2009 surve HDHP y to include cash b rd alance plans. A CDHP similar change addition, topical modules ask Primary Plan Types 0% more specif a ic questions about important economic issues. Topical Module 11, fielded in c 496 To e . b. Paid an xamine trd/or Requested ends in satisfaCircu ction rates, t lation (1) Paid/Requested he sample was Outside-County divided into t b h Mail ree groups: those Subscriptions Stated on F with a CDHP, those orm 3526: Aver with an age when examining the more detailed SIPP questions not included in other datasets, because it allows for comparisons of 3 Join us on Decem 0% ber 12, 2013, from Traditional 28% 8:30 am-1:15 pm HDHP for EBRI’s 73 policy forum CDHP : “Employee 30% EBRI’s membership includes a cross-section of pension funds; businesses; trade associations; 0% plan participation. SIPP is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau to examine Americans’ participation in various (SIPP) Data, 2012, 1988 by Craig 1993 Copeland, 19 Ph.D., 98 EBRI 20 03 2006 2009 2012 the SIPP data in Figure 1 omits th do not separately identify e impact of follow 1988 24% 1993-up qu the salary reduction plan types; ( estion 1998 s (so as to compare with earlier periods 2003 2) part 2006icipants could also have made after- that did not have those 2009 2012 tax No. Cop was made in th ies Each Issue Durin e 2004 Survey g Preced of Consumer Finances (SCF). In ing 12 Months: 338; No. Cop both instance ies of Single Issue Publish s, the prevalen ed Nearest to Filing 16ce of defined benefit plans Date: 338. (2) 20% 24% December 201 Sources: EBR 1 -March 2012, I/Commonwealth Fund C asked qu onsumerism estions about workers’ participatio in Health Care Survey, 2005 ?2007; EBRI/MGA C n in retirement and/or pension plans. These t onsumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, 2008–2012. ypes HDHP, and t Sources: EBR Sources: EBR hose with I/C I/Commonw ommonw tradit Spon ealth Fund C ealth Fund C soional h rship Lev onsumerism onsumerism el ealth co in in verage. H Health ealth C Care are Indivi Surv Survey ey P , , ar 2005 2005 dual ticipati ? ?2007; EBR 2007; EBR s on were Level I/M I/M as G GA A s C Consumer Engagement igned onsumer Engagement to the CDHP a in in H HP ealth ealth rima C C ry and a re re PlSurv Surv a HD n ey eyHP grou , , 2008–2012. 2008–2012.ps if they important Workers’ kno 25% resw ults in ledge the reti of their pe rement nsion or field for analysts retirement plan and s is known policymaker to sbe . Thes quite e lim more ite deta d. Furthermor iled questions e, workers’ will be labor unions; health care providers and insurers; government organizations; and service firms. a Sources: EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey, 2005 ?2007; EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, 2008–2012. Benefits: Tomorrow, Today, Yesterday,” where we’ll examine the current benefits landscape, the The same a patt a Traditional = ern em health plan erged for satisfaction with choic with no deductible or <$1,000 (individual), <$2000 (family e oInc f do om Y ). ear ctors: R e (1993 $s)elatively high regardless of plan type. In 2005 Paid In-County Traditional = Subscr health plan iptions S with tated on Form 3526; Average no deductible or <$1,000 (individual), <$2,000 (family No. Copie ). s Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 50; No. Copies government a Traditional = nd private-sec health plan with tor programs t no deductible or <$1,000 (indiv hat rel idual), ate to <$2,000 (family their income ). and well-being. The latest data are from Topical a contributions t questions), while the second set of numbers o salary reduction plans that were excluded in presented do incl the Holden and VanDerhei s ude the follow-up questions (so as to bette tudy but not from the SIPP data. A r account for the increased, and 20% b Traditional = then in sub health plan seq with uent years t no deductible or <$1,000 (indiv he increasing trend idual), <$2,000 (family for defined c ). ontributions resulted. A similar result occurs for b b of questions ha HDHP = High-deduc d been as tib ked p le health reviously in the plan with deductible $1,000+ (indiv employee benefi idual), $2,000+ (fam t supplements to the Current Po ily), no account. pulation Survey (CPS) in May HDHP = High-deduc HDHP = High-deductib tiblle e health health plan plan w wiith th deduc deductible tible $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiviidual), $2,000+ (fam dual), $2,000+ (family ily), no ), no ac acc count. ount. had a deductible of at least $1,000 for individual coverage or $2,000 for family coverage. To be assigned to the CDHP examin perceptions o ed in b ffu what ture E they BRI co publications. nsider to be their most im portant plan can also vary tremendously. (Among larger, of Single Issue Publ c ished Nearest to Filing Date: 50. (3) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, 4 Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and path(s) that HDHP = High-deduc Source: led Employhere ee Benefit tible over health Research plan the Instit with past deduc ute estimates tible 35 $1,000+ (indiv of years, the May 1988 idual), $2,000+ (fam and and April what 1993 ily the Current ), no ac next Population count. generation Survey employee benefit of benefit plan designs supplements; the 1996, and 2006, c c CDHP = Cons traditional um- er-driv plan e en health nrollees wer plan with deduce tible more $1,000+ (indiv likely idual), than $2,000+ (fam CDHP ily enrollees to ), with account. be extremely or very satisfied with their 15% CDHP = Consumer-driven health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual), $2,000+ (family), with account. Module ? The 1 latest S 1 of CDHP = Cons Source: the 200 Employ IPP um data ee 8 Panel er-driv Benefit from en R health esearch , fie th plan lde Instit e U.S. C wid from Decem th ute deduc estimates tible ensus $1,000+ (indiv of the Bureau May b er 20 1988 idual), and show 1 $2,000+ (fam April 1–March 1993 61 C ily urrent perc ), w 2i0 th Population 1 ent o ac2 c. ount. f Surv all work ey employers ov ee benefiter ag supplemen e 16 ts; the had an employer c Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the April 1993 Current Population Survey employee benefit supplement. time series on contribution rat presence of de 10% fined contribution plans). Sp es is not available from this database. ecifically, in the first set of numbers, workers who reported that their employer or the SIPP data. Source: CDHP = Cons See Copeland (September 201 Employ um ee er-driv Benefit en health Research plan Inst with itute deduc estimates tible 2), op. c $1,000+ (indiv of the May it. 1988 , for idual), and $2,000+ (fam th April e resu 1993 C ily lts from S u ), w rrent ith Population account. CF. Survey Employee Benefit Supplements; 2001, and 2004 Panels of the Survey of Income and Program Partici pation Topical Module 7; and 2008 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program 1979, May 1 * Differenc 983, May 1988, a e between HDHP/CDHP nd April 1993, prior to their in and Traditional is statistically significant at cl p = usion in SIPP 0.05 or better. in the 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 Panels. While Other Non-USP * * Differenc Differenc S Paid Distribution: Average No e e betw between HDHP/CDHP een HDHP/CDHP and T and T EBRI’s rraditional aditional is is s swork . ttatis atis Copies E tic tica ally llyadvances s siignific gnific ach Issue Dur ant ant at at p p = = 0.05 knowledge 0.05 or better. or better. ing Preand ceding 12 Months: unders tanding of 0; No. Copie employee s of Single Issue benefits and their group, they1996, mus 2001, t als and o2004 have Panels had a of the Surv n acco ey of Income unt, s and uch as Program Part a h icipation ealth savin Topical Module gs 7; account and 2008 Panel (HSA) or h of the Survey of ealth Income rei and m Program bursement private-sector employers, it is still relatively common for workers to be covered by both a DB pension plan and a DC 10% the 1996, 2001, and 2004 Panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation Topical Module 7; and 2008 Panel of the Surve y of Income and * Participation Difference betw Topical een HDHP/CDHP Modules 3 and and T 11. raditional is statistically significant at p = 0.05 or better. will en ^ Estimate tail, tapping is statistically different into from the prior y the perspe ear show ctives n at the p and = 0.05 or better. insights of an array of leading workforce experts, choice of doct ^ Estimate ors, is but in 2008 statistically different an from the prior y d 2009, C ear show DHP n at the p enrollees = 0.05 or better. were more likely than traditional-plan enrollees to be that sponsore ^ Estimate Participation is statistica d a Topical pe lly Modules nsion or different 3 and from the prior y 11. retirem ear show ent pl n at the p an for = 0.05 or better. any of its employees in 2012, up from 59 percent in 2009. union did not have a pension plan or retirement plan for any of its employees were not counted as working for an employer Published Ne ^ Estimate Program arest tParticipation o is Filin statistica g Dat lly T opical different e: M 0odules ; (4) from the prior y importance Other Classes Ma 3 and 11 ear show . to n th at the p e nation’s iled = 0.05 or better. Through the US economy among PS: Average policym akers, No. Cop the news ies Ea media, ch Issue Dur and the ing public. It 27 these datasets 18 5% have similar questions, they are not identical, nor are the methods the surveys use ?for instance, the CPS arrangem An important consideration i ent (HRA) with a ros llover the grow provision that th in plans using they cautomatic enroll ould use to pay for m ment for its new participants. Typically, those edical expenses, or that provided retirement pla Some follow-up questions ar n, such as a 401(k e asked about ) plan, and on the most impor e or the other is tant plan only i deemed to f the participant reports that tax-deferred be the primary plan.) extremely or v futurists, and ery satisfied “trend tr with their c ackers,” h including: oice of doctors (Figure 7). With the exception of 2010, overall satisfaction with Preceding 12 M 0% onths: 0; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date: 0; c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation Workers participating in a plan incr does this eased by t oco 46 nducting percent and in 2p012, ublishing up slipolicy ghtly from 20 sear rech, analysis, 09 (45 perc and special ent) but belo reports w on where a plan w 0% as sponsored, even if the workers reported that their employer offered a profit-sharing plan or a stock plan in b c What we do a interviewed all of its respondents in a single month, while SIPP was conducted over a four-month period. The results in this Data Sources auto portabil -enro ity, so lled have lo that they wer co coul Trad ntributio itd take that ional n rate ac s due to the relatively low default rate count with them if HDH they c P hanged jo s common to these plans, although some bs. Individuals were CDHP assigned to the [Sum of 15b. (1), (2), (3), and (4 contributions can be made to the plan. )] Average No . Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 388; No. Copies of Single Issue 1979 1983 1988 1988 1993 1998 2003 2006 2009 2012 employee benefits issues; holding educational briefings for EBRI members, congressional and choice of doctors has been trending higher among CDHP enrollees. 2003 (48 percent). a follow-up question. Furthermore, participants who reported not being a Year ble to receive some benefits at retirement if they Notes article are presented as trends, but caution should be used when drawing conclusions from the results due to the Publ In SIP ishP ed Ne , partic arest ipants ar to Filine ask g Date e:d a 388 b. d. Free out their Distribution by most importa Mail (Sam nt pension or ples, complim retireme entary nt pla , and other free): n, specifically i (1) Outside-Cou f “your plan’s nty as The participants contribute because of auto SIPP data have the advantage federal of-enrollment who oth prov agen idin cyg r staff, elatively and th erwise might not. This could deta e news ilemedia; d infor and mation on sponsoring wor be a driver of t public kers’ retir opinion eme survey hnt pl e decreased s ans, but t on employhey ee HDHP group if Sources: they EBRI/Com dim d not onweal thhave an Fund Consu accou merism in n He t use alth Care d for Survey, he2alth ca 005 ?2007; E reBRI/M expe GAnses with Consumer Eng a ro agement llover provisio in Health Care Survey, n or po 2008–20 rtabil 12. ity. This 19 b c ? Arnold Brown, Chairman of Weiner, a Edrich, Brown, Inc. were to For the 2012 leave the plan no a results if the q w were no uestions are not combined and on t counted as vested, even if they later ly the pensrespon ion plan-type question is used ded that they could receive a lump-sum , 44.1 percent of Stated on Form 3526: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 50; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Traditional = health plan with no deductiblS e p or on <$1,00 sorship L 0 (individ evel ual), <$2,000 Pa (rftam icip ily). ation Level Vesting Rate survey differences. Typically, different surveys yield different results. Therefore, while some trends are reflected in the data, benefit issues. EBRI’s Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) performs the charitable, benefit is defined by a formula usually involving your earnings and years on the job,” are “contributions made by you average contribution rate. also have t group inc b lude he d draw indivi back o duals f with being fi an HSA elded o -eligi nly once ble healt eve h ry plan three to but may five also have i years. By com ncludp ed arison, th individua e C ls u with rrent a hi Popu gh lation HDHP = High-deductible health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual), $2,000+ (family), no account. ? The vesting rate (the percentage of workers who say they were entitled to some pension benefit or lump-sum Nearest to Filing Date: 50; (2) In-County as Stated on Form 3526: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 8; distribution if they left their pl retirement plan participants reported that their primary plan an now. Workers who reported was a defined that their employer benefit plan (plan based on or union did not have a ea pensio rnings and n plan o yearr s c educational, and scientific functions of the Institute. EBRI-ERF is a tax-exempt organization CDHP = Consumer-driven health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual),Figure $2,000+ (fam 3ily), with account. Attitudes Toward Health Plan it is important t ? Mike Davis o note that a portion or , Senior Vice all of any trend m President of General a Figure 9 y be due to the d Mills. ifferences in the surveys. However, the data for Figure 3 Figure 7 Figure 5 and/or your employer going into an individual account fFigure or you,” or i 7 f “your employer contributes a value equal to a Figure 5 No. Cop Survey i(CPS es of S ), ialso condu ngle Issue Pub cteld ished by the Nearest to Filing U.S. Census Bur Date: ea Figure 8u, pr . (3) Other Classes Mailed ovi 9 des overall partici Tp hat rou ion lev gh the US els of PS: A woverage No. Cop rkers on an annual ies deductible plan who were not eligible to contribute to an HSA. Individuals with traditional health coverage included * Difference between HDHP/CDHP and Traditional is statistically significant at p = 0.05 or better. distribution if they left their job) stood at 43 percent in 2012, up from 24 percent in 1979. This increase is largely Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute supported estimates of bthe y co May ntributions 1979, May 198 and 3, M grants. ay 1988, and April 1993 Current Population Survey employee benefit retirement plan for any of its e on the job or plan was cash bamployees were counted in th lance), compared with 55.7 percent who reported being in a defined contr e second set of numbers as working for an em ibution plan ployer where a Trends in Retirement Plan Participation Rates Among Percentage Extremely or Very Likely to Stay With Current Health Plan 1998, 2003, 20 ^ Estimate 06, 2009, and is s A tatis verage tically different Percentage Extremely Percentage Percentage Not 2012 are from from the priPercentage Extremely or year s of SIPP, how A n n at the T noo or so there ual p = or 0. Earnings 05 Not V or e should be limited effects from survey dif b ry etat t eSatisfied With r. A or ll Contributed Satisfied With Very Satisfied Out-of-Pocket to a Salary Overall Reduction ferences on the tre 5, 6 nds Each Issue During Preceding 1 Primary 2 Months: Retirement 0; No. Copies of S Plan A ing mle Issue Pu ong All Nonagricultural blished Nearest to Filing Wage Date: and 0. e. Free Distribution In 2012, as i percentage of supplements n; the your earn previous y Proportion 1996, 2001, and ings ears of t 20 of each year an 04 Panel Salary he su s of the Su rv Reduction ey, individu d there is a rvey of Income als in Plan Participants a rat nd Program e of a CDHP retur Partic or a ipa n on tion n T that contri opic HDHP w by al M Percentage odule e 7buti re ; and the 2008 fo on. This type und to be l of Pa A nel n o n fe th uss likely al e of plan Survey of than is Income those ? Howard Fluhr, Chairman of the Segal Company. basis, but those with do health maintena es not provide i nce or nformation ganizations (HMOs), on the specific ty pref pes of plans i erred provider or n whiganizations ch the workers are (PPOs), ot parti her ma cipatin naged g. Th care e due to the increased number of workers participating in defined contribution retirement plans (such as 401( k) Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Workers, Age 21 and Over, plan was spons (individual acco and Program Pa o unt plan) red if they rep rticipatiIf Had on T and opicalthe M 0. od o2 percent who rted that their employer offered ules Opportunit 3 and 11. were unkno y to Change, wn. Co by a profit- nsequently, the better identifica Type sharing plan or a st of Health Plan, 2005 ock plan in a fo ? tion of plans and impr 2012 llow-up question. oved Outside the Mail (Carriers of other means): Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 0; No. Copies of Single Plan, Prescription Nonagricultural Health With Choice of Doctors, Drug Costs, Plan, Wage by Type of and by TSalary y Health pe of Health Plan, 2009 Workers, 2005 Plan, ?2012 2005 A ? g2012 e 16 and ?2012 Over, from 1998 to 2012. However, Salary Workers, the 2008 PaA nel ge did include rev 16 and Over, ision Who Participate s on the order of the ques in a Pension tions and who was asked the Plan, a Earnings Contributed (Among Those Responding), Nonagricultural Wage sometimes called a cash b in a traditional plan both to a r lance ecommend th plan.” The first eir health (as pla weln l as the thir to friends or d) describes a co-workers (Figur DB plan, e 8) a whil nd to stay with their e the second describes The fraction of workers whose employer or union sponsors a plan for any of the employees at the worker's place of employment. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) National Compensation Survey annually surveys establishments’ offerings of plans, and plans with a broad variety of cost-sharing arrangements. The shared characteristics of this group were that 60% EBRI Issue Briefs are periodicals providing expert evaluations of employee benefit issues and Issue P plans), u ? bl ished N w Mathe here earest to Fi w employee Gree ling D nw cont ald ate: ributions , 1988, Presi 0. f. Average No. Cop dent, 1993, 1998, areMathew immediate i2003, e Greenwald s Each Issue During Prec ly ve2006, sted, an Associat 2009, d faster vestin and es. eding 2012 12 Months: g requirements 58; No. Cop in private-sector ies of Single b 40% Moreover, parti skip patterns regarding who is asked the cipants who reported not bein follow-up question g able to receive some benefits at reti s results in only adjustments rement if they were to leave the plan for those who are asked the final Overall satisfa Workers who ction lev reported tha e t ls a their empl mong C oyer or 1988, D uHP nion di ed not hav n 1993, 1998, rollees e a pens incre ion a 2003, pla sed from n or reti 2006, rement 37 p 2009, lpercent an for anyand of its to 5 empl 2012 2 oy percent ees were bet not count wee ed n 2 as w006 orking an for d an 2009, 70 17 % 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012 18 follow-up detailed questions on plan types. D and Salary espite these caveats, these da Workers, Age 16 and Ov tasets provide the most comp er, 2012 arable results for 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a DC current pla healt n. Th h pla e survey a n even if t lso hcontains fo ey ha trends, d the o as llopportu well w-up as question nity to critical analy switch s descri ses plans of bing s emplo (Figure p yecif ee benefit ic 9). featur Tpo helicies e perc s of th an enta d e most i proposals. ge of CDHP mportant EBRI Notes enrol plan lee is .s a In Issue P emu ployers w blished N here earest to Fi a plan was spon ling D sored, a ete: ven 58 if they . g. Total Distributio reported that their empln (Sum of 15c. And 15e. oyer offered a profit-sharing plan or ): Average No. Cop a stock plan in a follow-up ies E questi ach Issue Dur on. Participants ing partici employee ben pants die d not fit progr have ams, inclu an HRA-bas dinge r d epl tiran, an ement d th plans. ey e Howe ither ver, had no it ha de s limited in ductible or a for m ded ation on uctible t wor hak ter charact was below eristics. Our 55% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 8.0% pension plans. 2009 2010 2011 2012 no question about contributing to a savings w were co 90%unted as vested i 64% n the seco 64% nd s plan after all the original identification et of numbers if they later responded that th questions are asked in t ey could receive a lump- he survey—basi sum cally, 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–64 65 and up follow we ho d ? reported not be by a Ellen Galinsky droping in s able to r atisec fa eic, vtion rates e s President, ome benefi bet ts 63% at Fam ^retirem ween ilies ent 2 if0 th and 0 ey 9 a w er Work n ed 2 to leav 01 e the Institute. 0. Sat plan now isfaction rates were not counted in ascreas vested, ev eden i from f they 43 later r perc espon ent to ded that these trends. 63% Preceding 12 Months: 446; No. Copies of Sin monthlyg le Issue Publish periodical providing ed Nearest to Filing current informati Date: on on 446a . h. Copie variety sof not Distributed: Avera employee benefit topics. ge 90% 52%^ some cases, the ans reporting that they wo wers uld b pre ovid extr ed b emely or y the worker very likely were in to re conflict commend th with the type of eir plan to fr pl ie an that nds or co the worker ha -workers increased from d. 61%^ 61% (It includes information on occupation, union status, and part-time/full-time work, but no information on age, gender, thresholds t they couldh rece at woul ive a lump-s d qual um diify for c stribution if tu hey rrent left thei HSA tax r plan now. prefer This alloence. ws comparabi lity with the tabulations from earlier years. 60% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 distribution if they left their pl the indeterminate percentage. However, est an now. Furthermore, if they were included in the imates by the Employee Benefit Research Inst profit-sharin itute based on g or stock plan published data in the 1988 No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 50; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing 80%* Date: 50. i. Total 48 pe crcent 70% between 2010 and 2012 EBRIef . is a weekly roundup of EBRI research and insights, as well as updates on surveys, 58%*^ 79% publications Worke 60 rs % who reported that their employer or union did not have a pension plan or retirement plan for any of its employees were counted as working for an 5 50% 7 78% ? Neil Howe, President of LifeCourse Associates. 78%* 80% 77% Conseque 30 percent to ntly, 39 the perc estimates ent bet of t ween 47% he 2pe 00nsion/retir 6 and 200e 7ment and re plan ached type 45 in p this stu ercent in dy c 20 o09 mbin . It th e ae nn sw de rop rs pe from th d to 37 ese p e qrce uesti nt i on n s The C ? Defi urrent P ned contri opulatio bution n Surv (40 ey ( 1(k C)-type PS) is co ) plans nducted by U. were consider S. Cens ed u sth Bu e reau for th primary plan e Bu by reau of L 78 per 76% a cent of work bor Statistics by interviewing ers with a plan. or race/ethnicity.) 47%^ 76% 76%^ (Sum of 15f. And 15g.): Average No. Cop employer where a plan was sponsored 75% if they reported that 75% ies E ^ ach Issue Dur the employer soffered a p ing Preced rofit-sh ing 12 aring pMonths: lan or a stoc 496 k plan ; No. Copie in a follow-ups of Sin question. gle Issue Pu Participants who blished studies, litigation, legislation and regulati 78. on 0%affecting employee benefit plans, while EBRI’s follow-up question or said they particip from Form 5500s, which all private-sector pe 80% 74%^ ated in a 401(k)-type plan in the nsion/retirement plan sponso SIrs must file PP follow-up q with the IRS, sho uestion, they were considered w that approximately 73% 72%^ 65% 72%1988 1993 1998 2003 2006 2009 2012 72% 72% 19 reported not being able to receive some benefits at retirement if 30% they * were to leav 72% e the pl ^ an now were counted as vested, if they later responded that they could 71%* 71%* to det N 201 earest to Fil 0 a en rmine d rebo 65% inwhat ty g D unde ate: d496 to pe o 4 . j. Percent Paid an f1 plan th percent 64% e in worker 2011 d/ iden or Requested , holding at tified as t 40 Circu h pe eir most lation: rcent in 20 Ave important (or rage No. Cop 12. One- pr half ieim s Each Issue During Prec (52 pe ary) plan. rcent) of traditio eding nal-pla 12 n about 50,000 h 30% ouseholds and asking n Blog u merous questions a supplements our regular bout pub individuals’ work status, em lications, offering commentary ployers, income, and basic on questions received from Defi ? ned Dallas Salisbury, benefit (pension) pla CEO, ns wer Em eploy the ee primary pla Benefit 69%*Research n for 21 70%* pe Institute. rcent of workers. receive a lump-sum distribution if they left their plan now. This allows comparabilit63% y with the tabulations from later y 68% ears * . Whil vested, becaus 31 percent of p e the overe these types o r all satisfaction ivate-sector workers in a retirement plan f rates for plans provide CDH lump-sum distributions. P enrollees inc had a defined be reased in mos nefit plan, although it was not necessarily t years of the survey, satisfaction rates among 7.5% Satisfaction 70% 67%* 62% 49%*^ 62% 49%* 62% Months: 87%; No. Copie 61% s of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing 7.5% Date: 87%. 16. Publication of Statement of Ownership 48%* 50% 27%*^ Each of these surveys collects data i news n a different m reporters, policy anner, mak aters, different times, and has and others. EBRI’s Fundamen differetals nt q of Employee Ben uestions that can l efiet ad 60% demographic characteristics. enrollees w 70% ere extremely orFurthermore, very likely to r the CPS ecommend has as 26%* th ked questio eir plan inn 20 s in 1 a co 2, compa nsistent manner eac 26%*red with 29 peh rce Ma nrch since at lea t of HDHP st 7.5% 67.1% 60% 60% Contributed 46%* traditional considered the primary plan b 40 e %nrollees decreased y the participa in most years of th nt. See EBRI FAQs 7.4% e survey. Bet About Benefits—“Retirem ween 2006 and 2008, ent Issues: What Are the Tre they fell from 67 percent to nds in Publication: Will ? 60% Labe printed in the rry Zimplema An ugust 2013 , Chairman of Principal Financial Group. issue of this publication. 14) Signatur e and Title of Editor, Publisher, Bus 45% 7.4% *^45%* iness 13 58% 60%* 58% Programs offers a straightforward, basic explantion a of employee ben 44%*^ efit programs in the Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their attitudes toward their health plan and their satisfaction Whe This section n follow-uwill focus only p questions won ere co the 1988, 1 nsidered 993, 1998, 200 along with 10 percen 24% t*h3, 2006, 2009, and 2012 te pension-type questio 57% nre , 78.0 sults, as they are percent of partic derived using ipants were 57% to different conclusions. The CPS collects information about an 57% yone who worked at any point in a previous year, while 1988 about wh enrollees. 60% ether a worker worked for an employer or union that sponsored a pension 24%*^ or retirement plan for any of its Manager, or Owner: Dallas Sa 56% lisbury, editor; Employee Benefit Research Institute, publisher; Stephen B 56%lakely, managing editor. 60.0% The U.S. one Retiremen statistic that t Plans?” ( has sh www.ebri.org own a 55% relat /publications/ben ively steady increase since 1979 or mor faq/index.cfm?fa=retfaq14) e: (save for . Co a nsequently, dip in 2006) cowas the vesti nsidering that the 56% ng rate. 63 percent, and, after increasing betw privateen e and 200 8 a public nd 20 sectors 09, they . Th fe EBRI Datab e ll fro 23% m * 66 p ook on Emplo ercent in 2009 yee Benef to 57 perce its 34%*is ^ nt in a st 2atist 011ic . al Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from the 2012 EBRI/MGA 57.7% 20 60% 56.7% 55% 33%*^ 33%* with various aspects of their health care, including overall sa 22% tisfaction * with their health plan, as well as satisfaction relatively co determined to nsistent fo have a llo DC w-pl up questio an as their n 54% s. Furthermo prim 54% ary pla re, n in uninc 2012 (Fi orporated self gure 5).-employed wor This was the kers are exclud highest leveled (as explained in of the study 55% 22.4% 21%*^ SIPP a Date: 08/15/201 nd BLS 40% ask only abo 3. ut current workers in the month of 38%*^38% inter * est. Consequently, the results fr 53% om the surveys employees, and if the worker was included in that plan. 21%* 31%* 37%*^ 53% reference work on employ20% ee *^ benefit programs and work force-related issues. histo The vesting ra rical numbers are inco te is the 52% percentage of nsistent with o work ther data so ers who say t urces hand ey w are in conflict wi ere entitled to some th descriptive 36% pension * data abo benefitu or lum t the plans in p-sum SIPP, However, between 2011 and 2012, they increased: from 57 percent to 62 percent, a statistically significant jump. 51.5% 51% Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey 50% 7.1% , by Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., EBRI 51% with t endnote 8), while incorporate he quality of care received, out d self-employe -of-po d are included. Those workers determined cket expe 49.nses, choice 8% 34%*^ of doctors, and abil to work in the agricultural industry ity to get doctor appointments. perio In 20d 1 an 2, 6 20 d 3 % al percent most three t of traimes the level ditional-plan enr found in ollees r 1988. eporte Corre d that, sp eve ondin n34% i gfly, a they co * lowuld er p sw ercenta itch, they ge o w f28%* workers ere extremely had a DB or very plan 30% sometime show seemingly divergent trends and levels 50% attributable to these methodological differences. However, 27%* 6 32%*^ 27%*^ adjustments to the plan types 50% 50% 46.3% are undertaken in this study. See Endnote 20 for a description of the adjustments to the data distributio EBRI was founded i n if they leave th n 19 eir job at, 78 to: or very near 31% the tim * e of, their interview by SIPP. This rate 17% incr *^ eased from See Craig Copeland, “Employment-Based Retirement Plan 26%* Participation: G ^ Contreographic Diffe ibuted rences and Trends, 2011,” EBRI 30%* 17%* 17%* from their most important job I certify that all information furnished on or business, respectively, are al this form is true and complete: Stephe so excluded. n Blake This work force ly, Editor and Director of Commun includes only the workers who ications. as likely to stay their prima with t ry plan: heir 2 hea 1.1 lperce th plan, nt swher aid aeas 37 per DB plan was cent t h of HDHP eir primary enrol reltirement ees and plan 48 percent in 2012, of C com DHp P enro ared with llees wo 39.1 per- uld each survey provides im 7.0% portant data that can’t be found elsewher5 e: C percen PS has t t or less:h e annual participation data with a 30% Contact EBRI Publications, (202) 659-0670; fax publication orders to (202) 775-6312. 40% Very few traditional-plan enrollees were either not too or not at all satisfied with th15% eir*^ health plan in any year of the for primary plan determination. 40.5% 24 percent in 1979 to 41 percent in 1993, and (according to SIPP) remained at 41 percent in 1998, before increasing Issue Brief, no. 378 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, November 2012) for the latest results from CPS on employment- Date: 08/15/201 ? While th Quality of Car e over 3. all satisfaction e—The 2006 rates for survey fo cons und t umer-driven hat individuals health in a CDH plan 52.7% (CD P or H P) an HDHP enrollees increased in were less likely to most years of be satisfied 38.2% 14%* 39.1% would be subject to their employer’s decision to offer a plan instead of being able to make their own decision, such as the ? 45% Conduct, and to encourage Subscriptions others to to EBRI conduct, Issue Bri research efs are included relating as to part em of ploy EBRI ee membership, benefit plans, or as whether part of a cent i stay unde n 20r tho 09. This se condit was subs ions. tantially lower than the 1988 level of 56.7 percent of participants who reported a DB plan 40% complete set of worker demographics, while SIPP has the complete set of worker demographics plus retirement plan survey (Figure 3). While HDHP and CDHP enrolle Contribute es w d bee tw re ee much n more likely to report that they were not too or not at Orders/ based retirement plan participation. 20 to 44 percent 20% in 2003, decreasing in 2006 to 41 percent, and increasing to 43 percent in 2012. with tthe Consum he quality of car er Enga 21 e re geme ceived th nt in Healt an those in h Car a tra e Survey, satisfa ditional plan. Ho ction rates wever, in among tra 2007, tdhe ition gap in al enroll satisfaction ees decreased in 30% $199 annual subscription to EBRI Notes and EBRI Issue Briefs. Change of Address: EBRI, self-employed. In the determination of primary plan status, the answer to the “plan type” question was the initial classification. However, governmental, private, or otherwise. 5 percent and 6.7% as their primary plan. types, and BLS has detailed data 30. on 9% establishment characteristics, along with retirement plan type though with limited 10%^ 20% 39% all satisfied 40% with their health plan, their dissatisfaction levels appeared to be trending downward in most years of the 10 percent: 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC, 20005-4051, (202) 659-0670; fax number, 25.8% disappeare 7 most years of 30% d because satisfa the survey. 6.6% ction increased significantly among those with a CDHP, and since 2007 there has been no 10% anyone who answered that their most important plan allowed tax-deferred contributions 37% and that their employer’s Subscriptions ? Assemble an 8% d disseminate information on employee benefits, by publication or otherwise, to the 14 See U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 24.9% BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 8, National Compensation 8% 8%^ 36% 8%36% worker demographics. 8% In Copeland (November 2012), op. cit., th (202) 775-6312 e percentage of ; e-mail: workers participating in subscriptions@ebri.org an Me embe mployment-based retirement plan rship Information: Inquiries Conc survey. Some of lusio this 20% in ncrease a 7% ppears to result from follow-up questions added to the 1988 employment benefit supplement 7% 35% difference in satisfaction with quality of ca 21.1% re between those in a traditional plan and those with a CDHP (Figure 1). contributions d 35% epended on their contributions, that they had the ability to choose how any of the money in the plan was 34% general publi 6.5% c, including interested organizations, both private and 33% governmental. Measures at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch8.pdf In particular, agricultural work 17.ers and certain other small business 5% 10% regarding33% EBRI membership and/or contributions to EBRI-ERF should be directed to EBRI showed a decrease from 2009 to 2011. However, the 2009 participation number from CPS was higher than the 2006 which more cl 20% early measured this issue, but it also appears that other factors were important—suc 32% h as the increased Salary Re 10% duction Plans ? While high-deductible and CDHP enrollees were much more likely to report that they were not too or not at all The latest EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey found that traditional-plan enrollees were more While the percentage of HDHP enrollees 30%reporting that they were extremely or very satisfied with the quality of care invested, or that they had taken or could take a loan from their plan (characteristics virtually exclusive to defined ? 10%Sponsor lectures, debates, roundtables, f President Dallas Salisbur o yrum at thse , and stud above address, y groups (202) 659-0670; on12. em 0% ploy e-mail: ee benefit plans. salisbury@ebri.org This study owners are excluded from the provides “top-line BLS results. ” results from the latest SIPP data on retirement plan participation. The overall Out-of-Pocket Costs—Differences in out-of-pocket costs may explain so 29% me of the difference in overall number in CP 30%S—52.7 percent of full-time, full-year wage and salary workers participated in 2006, compared with 54.4 29% number of workers participating in defined contribution retirement plans (such as 401(k) plans), in which employee satisfied with their health plan, their dissatisfaction levels appeared to be trending downward in most years of Retirement likely than Cpl Dans such as HP and HDH 401(k P enrolle ) plans es to orbe e 403(b) plans xtremely or are oft very satisfi en r28% efer ed red to with t as he ov salar era y reduction ll plan in all ye plans, as a ars of th work e surv er’s ey. contribution plans) were add received increased betweened to the de 2005 and 20 fined contribution 09, satisfaction category, if they we levels held steady f re not already there. Mo rom 2007 to 2012, asireover, anyone de from a drop in 10% participation by all workers and nonagricultural wage and salary workers is presented with breakdowns by workers’ 8 satisfaction rates. In 2012, 44 percent of traditional-plan participants were extremely or very satisfied with out-of- percent in 2009. The complete time-frame trend comparison between SIPP and C 22 PS will not be determinable until the fall The work of EBRI is made possible by funding from its members and sponsors, which includes a broad contributio In this section, all workers age 16 and ov ns are immediately vested, aner d in with earnings accelerated vesting re were included; this in quirements th cludes all self-employed workers, whether at have been imposed since 1979 on Editorial Bo 0% 0% ard: Dallas L. Salisbury, publisher; Stephen Blakely, editor. Any views expressed in this publicat 2.2% ion 1.and 8% those of the authors shoud l the survey. 0% take-home However, sa pa tisf y can action be le used vels tr (re en dd uce ed up d) to in most ye make contributions to the plan. ars of the survey among C These DHP pla enrollees ns are t and he tr pre ende dominant d down a type mong of 0% 25% a b saying their be 2010. The gap in satisfa nefit was affect ctioned by their par was present itn icipation in th all years of t e Social Security program was cl he survey b for traditional and HDHP enrollees. assified as h c aving a defined aa b c 2.0% c a 23% ages and incomes. The folTlo radi wtiing section onal investigates the plHDH an ty Pbc pe—defined benefit (DB) or CDH defi P ned contribution TT radi radi titi ona ona l l HDH HDH P P 11, 12 CDHCDH P P 0.9% 0.9% not be ascribed to the officers, trustees, members, or other sponsors of the ploye Em e Benefit Research Institute, the EBRI Educ ation and pocket costs when data for range of pu (for h 2012 is release blic, private, fo ealth care services oth Tradi d from CPS. Th tiona r-profit and l ere CPS trend m than nonprof for it pres orga acription tched the SI HDH nizations. For P drugs), whi PP trend from 2 mlo e re information go 18 per 003 to 2006 an cent of CDH HDHP P to d from 2006 to 2009. enrolle www.ebri.org es and 27 their business was incorporated or not. However, any workers who were family workers not working for pay were excluded. plans qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Providing some support for traditional DC retirement -pla 0% n enro plan. The spo llees. nsorship level of these plans for nonagricultural, wage and salary workers age 16 and benefit plan. Lastly, anyone 6.0% who did not answer that they participated in a plan until the follow-up question on participating Research Fund, or their staffs. Nothing herein is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the adoption of any pending legislation, regulation, (DC)—that participants regard as their primary (most important) plan. The last section examines participation in, and 20% 1988 1993 1998 2003 2006 2009 2012 percent of CDHP parti In contrast, the findings from or www.asec.org cipa Den fin ts SIPP ed were extrem Benefiand CP t S contradicted ely or very sat D each other from 1993 to 1998 a efin isf ed ied (Fi Contributi g on ure 4). Satisfactionn rates O d from 1998 t ther/Don't di d not Know exh o 2003. SIPP d ibit any long- ata ? Differences in out-of-pocket costs may explain some of the difference in overall satisfaction rates. In 2012, For the SIPP Topical Module, Sources: EBR Sources: EBRI/C I/Commonw ommonwealth Fund C ealth Fund C the worker’s ma onsumerism onsumerism in in in job or business is determined by whic H Health ealth C Care are Surv Survey ey, , 2005 2005 ? ?2007; EBR 2007; EBRI/M I/MG GA A C Consumer Engagement onsumer Engagement h job provided the most income in in H He ealth alth C Ca are re Surv Survey ey, , 2008–2012. 2008–2012. in the these observations, the decline in 2006 in the vesting rate closely matches the decline in the reported participation or interpretative Overall S Sources: EBR ruatisfa le, I/C or ommonw as ction legal, ealth Fund C With Health Plan— accounting, onsumerism actuarial, in Health orUnlike satisfaction with other Care Surv such ey, prof 2005essional ?2007; EBR advice. I/MGA quality o C onsumer Engagement f care r in e Hce ealth ivCed are ,Surv dif ey fe , 2008–2012. rences were found over was 58. Sources: 9 perc EBRI/M ent GA in Consumer 2012, a Engagement n increas in Health C e from are Surv the ey, 2009–2012. 2009 rate of 51.0 percent, and from the 1988 rate of 26.9 per- in a tax-deferred plan was considered a a 1988 1993 to have a defined 1998 contributio 2003 n plan. 2006 2009 2012 Year T Tr raditional = aditional = health plan health plan w wiith th no no deductible deductible or or <$1,000 (indiv <$1,000 (indiviidual), dual), <$2,000 (family <$2,000 (family). ). a contributio a ns to, salary-reduction plans (401(k)-type pla Type n ofs). The work Pension Plan ers in this study are from both the private and Traditional = health plan with no deductible or <$1,000 (individual), <$2,000 (family). show an increa b b Traditional = sed level of par health plan with no ticipation from deductible or <$1,000 (indiv 1998 to 2003 idual), <$2,000 (family and a decreased ). level from 1993 to 1998, whereas Copeland term trends among those with traditional coverage. In contrast, they trended upward for those with a CDHP, when reference month. However, some important 44 perc HDHP = High-deduc HDHP = High-deduc ent 23of traditional tib tiblle e health health -pla plan plan n w wiipart th th deduc deduc icipa tible tible characteristics of this job or business ar $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiv nts were iidual), $2,000+ (fam dual), $2,000+ (fam extremely or very satis ily ily), no ), no ac acc count. ount. fied with o e not included in the ut-of-pocket costs topical module (for health but level, a Dissatisfaction with out nd the increases i -of-poc n 2009 ket cos and 201 ts may have 2 match the be incr en drivin eases in g th partic ese trends ipation . Satisfac levels. tion rates for out-of-pocket costs b b in overall satis HDHP = High-deduc faction levels tible health by plan typ plan with deduc e tible (Figure $1,000+ (indiv 2). Tra idual), $2,000+ (fam ditional-plan ily), no ac en count. rollees were more likely than CDHP and HDHP cent (Figure 6 HDHP = High-deduc ). The partic tible health ipation lev plan with deduc el tible in t $1,000+ (indiv hese plans idual), $2,000+ (fam for these ily wo ), no ac rker count. s (43.0 percent) was also higher in 2012, c c CDHP = Cons CDHP = Consum umer-driv er-driven en health health plan plan w wiith th deduc deductible tible $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiviidual), dual), $2,000+ (fam $2,000+ (family ily), w ), wiith th ac acc count. ount. c Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the May 1988 and April 1993 Current Population Survey employee benefit supplements; the 1996, c Source: Source: Employ Employee ee Benefit Benefit R Research esearch Institute Institute estimates estimates of of the the 2008 May 1988 Panel and of the April Surv 1993 ey C of urrent Income Population and Program Survey Participation employee T benefit opic al M supplemen odule 11.ts; the 1996, the public sectors. CDHP = Consumer-driven health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual), $2,000+ (family), with account. (2012) showed a decreased a EBRI Notes CDHP = Cons is register um ed er-driv in the en health U. nS. d increased le plan Patent with and deduc Ttible rade vel, respectively. It $1,000+ (indiv mark Office. idual), IS$2,000+ (fam SN: 1085 is unclear ? ily 445 ), w2 ith ac 1085 cwhy the differe ount. ?4452/90 $ .50+. nces exist between the datas 50 ets. the higher 2009 satisfaction Source: Employee Benefit rate was ignor Research Institute estimates ed. of the May 1988 and April 1993 Current Population Survey employee benefit supplements; the in the core portion of the survey. If a care servic * * Differenc Differenc es other e e betw between HDHP/CDHP een HDHP/CDHP than for prescript and T and Tr rjob was determined to be the most import aditional aditional is ision dr s sttatis atistic tica augs), while lly lly s siignific gnificant ant at at p p = =18 perc 0.05 0.05 or better. or better. ent of HDant in the topical modul HP enrollees and 27 perce e, the information nt of CDHP were much hi 2001, gher and amon 2004 Panels g t of h the ose wit Survey of h Income trad and itional cov Program Particeipation rage th Topical an among Module 7; and 2008 those wit Panel of the h eit Survey her a of Incon me HDH and Program P or CDHP, Participatio though n 2001, and 2004 Panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation Topical Module 7; and 2008 Panel of the Survey of Incom e and Program * Difference between HDHP/CDHP and Traditional is statistically significant at p = 0.05 or better. * Difference between HDHP/CDHP and Traditional is statistically significant at p = 0.05 or better. compared wit 1996, h the 34.6 per 2001, and 2004 Panels cent i of the n 2009, Survey of Income and m and u Program ch higher th Part icipation an Topical the Module 15.3 7; and perc 2008 ent i Panel n of the 198 Surv 8. In ey of Income additi and on, 3 Program 8.4 percent ^ ^ Estimate Estimate is is statistica statistically lly different different from the prior y from the prior year show ear shown n at the p at the p = = 0.05 or better. 0.05 or better. Topical Modules 3 and 11.s Participation Topical Modules 3 and 11. ^ Estimate is statistically different from the prior year shown at the p = 0.05 or better. ^ Estimate is statistically different from the prior year shown at the p = 0.05 or better. Participation Topical Modules 3 and 11. participants were extremely or very satisfied. ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org No No No No No No No No No No No No Nottttttttttttte e e e e e e e e e e e es s s s s s s s s s s s s • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 Vol. 34, No. 8 10 13 15 11 17 12 20 2 14 7 2 3 4 3 © 2013, Employee Benefit Research Institute ?Education and Research Fund. All rights reserved. A monthl y newsletter from the EBRI Education and Research Fund © 2013 Employee Benefit Research Institute ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 ebri.org Notes • August 2013 • Vol. 34, No. 8 16 19 21 18 9 5 6 8 Percentage of Earnings