"Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from the 2011 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey" and "Is Working to Age 70 Really the Answer for Retirement Income Adequacy?"

Health Care Satisfaction: Satisfaction levels are rising among people enrolled in “consumer-driven” health plans, while they are declining among those in traditional health plans, according to a new report by EBRI. Dissatisfaction with out-of-pocket costs may be driving overall satisfaction trends. Working to 70?: Contrary to some reports that working just a little bit longer—to age 70—will allow between 80 and 90 percent of households to have adequate income in retirement, new research by EBRI shows that for approximately one-third of the households between the ages of 30 and 59 in 2007 that won’t be enough.

Health Plan Satisfaction:

Satisfaction levels have been trending up among CDHP enrollees, and trending down among traditional-plan enrollees. Satisfaction levels with getting doctor appointments were high relative to other aspects of health care, regardless of plan type.
Individuals in consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs) and high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) were less likely than those in traditional plans both to recommend their health plan or to stay with their current plan, if they had the opportunity to switch.
Dissatisfaction with out-of-pocket costs may be driving overall satisfaction trends.

Working to Age 70?

It would be comforting from a public policy standpoint to assume that merely working to age 70 would be a panacea to the significant challenges of assuring retirement income adequacy, but this may be a particularly risky strategy, especially for the vulnerable group of low-income workers.
Prior research demonstrates the significant error introduced into retirement readiness calculations if nursing-home costs are excluded, and highlighted the need for a re-examination of the methodologies behind studies that only extrapolate a relatively static picture of retirement savings
A worker’s participation status in a defined contribution (DC) plan at age 65 will be extremely important due to the multi-year consequences for additional employee and employer contributions to the plan.
While workers need to make their own decisions on the correct trade-offs of saving today vs. deferring retirement, they should be able to expect that those presenting alternatives be as accurate and complete as possible, avoiding simplistic “rules of thumb” that may result in future retirees, through no fault of their own, coming up short.

12 Figure 8 Figure 2 Figure 6 Figure 2 Figure 4 Dissatisfaction with out Conc Differences Between NRRI and RSPM p References plus stochastic prescript The Value of Participating in a Defi r In essence, this number is simply ovi d. “Oregon F . “Retirement Income A in lusio g Monte ion drn ugs), ex Ca upenses ture Retire rlwhi o si -lof-poc mu e fro 16 la m deq ment Income A perc ti nursin ket costs may be on 100 p uac s of ent o y for T ercent mi th g ho fe ne Hoda mes and hom D ssessment nus the “at- HP e ce y’s W ssa dr nrrolle y ned Contribution Plan After Age iving t o r rker e risk” r Pro es and ple s: ac -he h Ho ject.” A project of the Emplo e overa a etings de m aw lt 24 e h care n Certa t r percent of CDHP ll sati scribed in VanDerhei an ates in, Ho (at sfaction tre needed for le wast Muc unt h W pa il the point specific nds. Similar to ill yrticipants e It Cost, and H e d Copeland ( Benefit Res pro suc b wer abili h o 64 201 e v ex o e extremely ties of erall satisfact w arch Institute- 1). penses are picked Do es Elig retirem or ib very iilit on ent- y for Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from Is Working to Age 70 Really the Answer for Retirement Figure 1 Percentage Percentage Extremely Percentage Percentage Extremely Extremely Extremely or V or ery V or or e Likely ry V V ery ery Satisfied With Satisfied Satisfied With to Recommend Health With Out-of-Pocket Ease Overall of Plan a NRRI Percentage of Households "Ready for Retirement" vs. Educati Participation i on and n a Define Research F d Co unndt and th ribution Pla e Milb n Help ank Memor ?” EBRI Notes, ial Fund. 200 no. 9 (Emplo 1a. yee Benefit Research Institute, Sept. satisfied rates, satisfact up income a by Me (F d dicai equ igure d ai). on rates cy un This 4). Satisfaction der versio for o alternative-r n of ut-of-pocket the rates mode isk-m appeared to canagem l is construc osts appear ent be tr t tr e to endi eatments (Va d to simu be trending ng dolate wnward amon r ndownwar Derhei Sept etirement dg t inco among t ember 2006). hose with me adequacy hose with tradit ional cover based upo traditional a nge and Cop 13 eland, Craig, and Jack VanDerhei. “The Declining Role of Private Defined Benefit Pension Plans: Who Is Affected, and As expl There are sev Previously, ained Vaie n more nDerh ral possible r e deta i and C il e io n Va asons for t pelan nDer d (2 hei 01 h a e di 1nd Co ) attem ffere pela nt r pte nd (201 ed to sult qua s fo 1), rn an tify when ag the impact that e-6 th5 e R reSPM tireme was n deferring r t b modifi etween the a ed to all etirem sse oew reti nt a ssment offered grement e past 65 to Note that this is a simple bifurcation a of the participation status. For a more detailed analysis of the number of years of plan eligibility and the 2011 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Income Adequacy? to Friends Getting Health Health or Care Doctor Co-W Plan, Costs, A orkers, by by ppoi T by y nt pe of T men ype Tt y Health s of Health Plan, 2005–201 pe Whe of Health n Plan, Needed, 2005–201 Plan, 2005–201 2005–201 1 1 1 1 TM NRRI Percentage of Households "Ready for Retirement" vs. EBRI 9 Retirement Readiness Ratings at Various Retirement Ages 2010): 13–20. coverage an meetin upwardg th for t 60e a %d hose with v upwar eraged ex a for t pe CD nses of t hHP, wh ose with en hose a a the CDHP. g hig e 6 h5 e or r 2009 s older t atisfaction rat hroughout ret e was irement ignored. in specific income and age groupings Ho 80% w.” In Robert L. Clark and Olivia Mitchell, eds., Reorienting Retirement Risk Management. Oxford University from the be would hav deferre NRRI e d on be and RS various yond age PM. groups of ret 65 However, t , the base irees. line he most likely as That researc sumption of difh h no fera ence s docume job cis the hange nte tr a eatment of defined cont d fte in r ag consi e 6d 4 w eraa bs in le deta trodil t uc ribution (DC) account h ed at . As a r the imepact sult, will the August 2012 • 90 60 Vol. 33, No. 8 % % its impact of retirement income adequacy see VanDerhei (May, 2012). TM EBRI Retirement Readiness for Households Ratings Ages 40–49 in 2007 at Various Retirement . “A Behavioral Model for Predicting Employee Contributions to 401(k) Plans.” North American Actuarial Journal Survey RSPM was significantly enhanced for the May 2008 EBRI policy forum by allowing automatic enrollment of 401(k) By Jack VanDerhei, Ph.D., Employee Benefit Research Institute determinPress for the Pensi ed by a proxy for th on Res e household’s earch Couretirement inc ncil, 2010: 122om –136. e plus uninsured medical costs for the duration of their 55%^ partici depend upon the relative pre-retirem balancp es wit ation status in a h respect to DC fut plan ure tim at a e g perio ee nt 65 in d for a come of s. While work the NRR er h will Io projects usehold, be extrem fina whely im ncial assets i ether a portant membe ndue 401 r of t to its m (k) plans a he house ulti-year n hd oth old co entinu r acco es to unts 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 14 52%^ 53% Ages for Households Ages 50–59 in 2007 Where the world turns for the facts . “T (200 he Impact of Automa 1b). tic Enrollment in 401(k) Plans on F on U.S. employee benefits. uture Retirement Accumulations: A Simulatio n Study Based 100% Initial A separate qu participants For ex di am ffer ple, VanDerhei an ewith the pot nestion on ces in satisf out-of-pock ed Co ntial for action rates peland (2011 automat et spen with ) present alternative results for 50, 70 respect idin c escalatio g related to n qu o specifica a f contri lity of care butio lly to di n prescrip s to be i sappear and 80 pe tn ied bet on clu rcent dr ded ugs was added to t w probabilities of retirement i een (Van tra Der dh ition ei and Co al plh an a e surv pel n ncome ad C nd ey in DHP 52% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 80 70% % retirement; ho wever, 67% alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates, standard-of-living 77% cons partici “based on wealth-to-income patter eque pate nces in a de for a fin de ditional d cont ribution employee n plan s by an a a dg f employ ter a e grou gep 6 er con from 5, an the td ributions how 19 confi 83–2 to t 00 dent th he 7 Fplan. ede ho eral Fiuse gur Resh e eold 4 rve S swants to hows urveys the of Consumer res be tults hat it of wi ll not By Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., Employee B 66%^ enefit Research Institute 100% 50% on Plan Desi 49% gn Modificati 64%^ 49%^ ons of Large Pl 49% an Sponsors.” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 341 (Employee Benefit Research 73% 73%* enrollees, an Helma 2009. 200 adequac 8).n Given Additio y , Ruth, Craig C . 50% td there were hi hnat only al modificat three years of data opelan i63% o d gh satisfact n , and Jack Va s wer 72%^ e adide on were availa d in nDer rates 2 hei. “T 0with 09 for he 201 ble for res a Pensio pec 2 Re t to this questi access tirem n Research Co ent Confid on an to doctors d that uncil enc regardless of e Surve 2009 ap presentatio y: Job In pearn ed pla tsecurit hto be an at involve n type. y, D Yet, outli ebt d a in W er for eigh 14 48%^ 72% 46% 46% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 71% calculations, and other ad-hoc thresholds. 61% 70% bifurc run short Financ atin es of m g th (SCF),” the 90%eo househol ney in 45% RSPM retir ds i e has be n ment. 45% to those en complete with workers who r ly revamped s emain inceDC the part original icipants 200 at a 3 model to ge 65 versus tho 70% account for se not i the dr n that amatic 60%^ Introduction VanDerhei, Jack, and Lori Lucas. “The Impact of Auto-enrollment an 2005 d Auto 2006 20 matic Contri 07 2008 20 but 69%* 09ion Esca 2010 20 latio 11 n on Retirement 68%^ 68% 68% 68% 68%^ Institute, April 201 70% 0). 44% 45%* Retirement and health benefits are at the heart of workers’, employers’, and our nation’s on Retirement Confidence, Savings.” EBRI Issue Brief, 67% no. 369 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, March 201 satisfaction ra “winners/loser 1, the surv 60% tes on overa s” analysis o ey continued t ll f out-of-pocket defi o fin ne dd th ben at i 57%^ e nfi di costs, there t fre viduals i ezes a n C nd wa DtH hs no clear tr P e e s and HDHPs nhanc 66%* ed end employer wer for a e ln e cont y pla ss likel ributions n type. y than t However, those provi hose i ded to n traditional defwith ined plans 90% 65% 64% situation. trends in a Note utomatic enro that this resul llment ts in a (AE) in substan 401(k 41% tially im ) plans, a prov 64%* utomatic escalat ed RRR even at ion of contributions, and the age 65 (64 percent vs. 44 percent increased ) because 63%^ Income Adequacy.” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 349 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, November 2010); and DCIIA Individuals, institutions, and policy makers alike have long been challenged to determine not only the best means of Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from economic security. Founded in 1978, EBRI is the most authoritative and objective source of 201 802). % 41%* both to The traditional contributio basel recom ine cov n version of plans at the tim m erage were m end their the health model o ere likely to r the plan defi used to fr ned bene fo eir this an e port bein nds or fit pla co-wo alysis g n ex s were tassumes all r remely or kers, and to s frozen very (Copelan workers re satisfied tay with d and VanD their tire a with out-of-pocket tcurrent age 65 a erhei 52%* healt n 2d i 010). hmmediately begin costs pla n iffor they had They also dem 40% onstrated the significant error introduced into these calculations if nursing-home costs are excluded Introduction 58%* 39%*^ those households with m utilization of 60% target-date feum nb ders i s (TD nF partici s), whpether t ant status hroug at h age quali 65 fie wo d def uld ault likely hav investment e alre accounts ady been i (QD n defi IAs) or th ned contr rough ibution . “Falling Stocks: What Rese 40% arch Report (Novemb Will Happen to Retirees' Income er 2010). s? The Worker Perspective,” Presentation for The Economic 49%*38%*^ accumulatin information on these critical, complex issues. g resources necessary to provide adequate income in retirement, but to consider alternative accumulation 50% 37%*^ 80% 47%*^ the o the 2011 EBRI/MGA Consumer to with prescript pportu dra ion wnit m dry to switch ugs tha oney from n thos the plae with a in r in s. These dividual ac HDHP or CDH findicounts (de ngs may P have (Figure fined contri 13 beEngagement in Health Care 5). en driven Overall butio m n, however, sat and c ore by ash bala out-ofi-pocket spendi sfaction rat nce plans, as es well with o ng t as IRAs) han ut-o by f-po quc ality ket 46%* from the simulations, and highlighted the need for a re-examination of the methodologies behind studies that only partici This plans paper e for a pant-dir nu 70x %amines satisfa mber o ected investm f years c ents, since with t tion w hieir th va curr th re ious aspects o passage ent employers of th f healt e Pe . nsion h care Prot by type o ection Act f healt of 2 h006 plan amo (PPA).n In g three essence, th groups e of NRRI Crisis of 2008: What Will Happen to Retirees’ Incomes? 2009 APPAM Fall Conference (November 2009). Holden, Sarah, and Jack VanDerhei. “The Influence of Automatic Enrollment, Catch-Up, and IRA Contributions on 401(k) approac hes to address potential shortfalls. One of the more recent alternatives proposed is that of 43%*^ extending one’s Also in 2009 a new subroutine was added to the model to allow simulations of various styles of target-date funds for 33%* of care or a when costs are low ever th ce c e among a sum of th ss to care. ll eir pla e nx types penses an . d uninsured medical expenses exceed41%* the after-tax annual income from Social 50% 32%* extrapolate a relatively static picture of retirement savings from historical ratios of wealth to income and assume away 40%*^40%* Survey, p. 2 Statement of Ownership 29%*^ proj health ections -plan en appear to rollees: rely those on with a an outdat consum ed pers er-dr pective iven hea of 4 lth 01 pl (an (CDH k)-plan des P), igns those with and sa vings a high tre -deduct nds. ible health plan 70% 30%* EBRI focus Accumulations at 30% es solel Retirement.” y on emplo EBRI Issue Brief, yee benefits research — no lobb no. 283 (Employee Benefit Resear ying or advocacy ch Institute, July. 2 005). EBRI Emp 40% loyee Benefit Research Institute Notes (ISSN 1085 ?4452) is published monthly by the Employee Benefit Research working care a comparisone r with , whic partici h, if p po an ssible, wo t-directed uld invhave th estments (Van e 37%* dual bene Derhe ficia i, 2 l e 00 ff9 e). cts of In Ap both ril 237%* 010, defe the rring the mode depletion o l was complete f ly re- 60% 37%* 29%* 30% Security and defined benefit plans (if any). If there is sufficient mo 28%* ney to pay expenses without tapping into the tax- th 35%* 35%*^ longevity . Te an stimon d investment ris y. Joint DOL/k SEC Public H in retiremen eari t, as we ng on ll as Targ th et Dates F e risks ofunds pote . “Ho ntially catastro w Would Taphic rget-Date F uninsured healt unds Likeh ly car Imp ea c ct osts 27%* 27%*^ (HDHP Institute, 1100 13 ), and those wit St. NW, Suit h traditional cov e 878, Washington, DC 20005- erage. The findings pres 4051, at $300 pe ented in this r y pap ear o er ar r is included as part of a membership e derived from the 2011 EBRI stands alone in employee benefits research as an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan 24%*^ 24%* accumulate 40% d resources and providing additional time to accumulate wealth. There are concerns as to whether this parameter Access to Doct ized with 401(k) plan-design ors—Satisfaction levels wit parameters for 31%*h getting 25%* sponsors that ha doctor appoint d a ments wer dopted aue t h omatic-enro igh relative to ot llment her provisions aspects of 23%* quali Endnotes fied individual accounts, the excess is assumed to be invested in non-tax-advantaged accounts 22%*^ where the subscription. Periodicals postag United States P e rate paid in ostal Service St Washingt atement on, DC, and additional mailing offi of Ownership, Management, and Circu ces. POSTMASTER lation : Send address How much difference might t in reti 60% rement Future 401(k) (for exampl Contri e nbutio uhis rsing-home c ns?” make? (T-160). June Hoolden sts for retir and Van 2009. ees wi Derhe tho i (2 ut lo 005n ) demons g-term care trate in dsurance a the largen impa d those not ct AE wou elig ld li ible for kely Munnell, Alic 50orga ia % H., Anthon nization. y W It analyzes a ebb, Luke De nd lorme, and F report 23%* s rersea ancresca ch data Goluwithout b-Sass, “Nationa spin or unde l Retireme rlying nt Risk Inde agenda. All fin x: How ding Mus ch , References EBRI/M Is Working to Age 70 Really the Answer for Retirement GA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, an online survey that examines issues surrounding 30% th 20%* 20%* 1 (Van approac health Der care, h hei repr April 2 regardl esents a r 01 ess of 0). A co ealis pla tic alter mpletely n type,n yet so ative updafor most peopl ted ve me differenc rsion of e s e the nat in were view of the curr fo ional und: m In 2 odel 00 was ent tr 6, tra produced for ends ditional-plan in retir the e enr ment age. Howev M oa llees y 20were 10 EBRI mo e re r, changes to: EBRI Notes, 1100 13 St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC Figure 4 20005-4051. Copyright 2012 by Employee Benefit The cohort of people born between 1946–1964 investment i 20%ncome is taxed as ordinary income. The 18%* individual accounts are trac 18%* ked until the point at which they are have on Medicaid). em pl wheth oyees eli er on fi gible nan to partici cial data, pate option in 40s 1, (k) pla or tren nds, s, especi are reve ally at aling the lo anwer d Ereli BRI -inco bas able elm ine— the re e quartiles. aso VanD n EBRI informatio erhei n is Longer Do We Need to Work?” Issue In Brief, 12 -12. Chest 17%* nut Hill, MA: Center for Retirement Research at Boston 30% Publication Title: EBRI Employee Benefit Research Institute Notes. consumer-directed health care, including the cost of insurance, the cos 16%*^t of care, satisfaction with health care, Fronstin, Paul. Research Institute. All rights reserved, Vol. 33, no. 20% "Findings From the 2011 EBRI/MGA Consum 8. er Engagemen 16%* t in Health Care Survey." EBRI Issue Brief , no. TM 16%* this analysis e Income Adequacy? xplores only the viability of p. this approach 10 to produce an adequate level of retirement income. policy likely tha 50% forum a n C EBRI 40D %HP enrol nd used in t Retirement Readiness lees t he o July be e20 xtremel 10 Iss y or very satis ue Br Ratings ief (VanfDerhei an ied w for Households Ages ith td heir Copelan ability to d 2010). get doctor appoint 50 ?59 in 2007, by ments. Howev er, . “The Expected Impact of Automatic Escalation of 401(k) Contributions on Retirement Income.” EBRI Notes, no. 9 depleted. At t the hat poi gold sta nt, a nn dard y net ho for priva using e te q analysts a uity is assumed to nd decisi be a on make dded to r rs, gove etirem rnme ent savings i nt policyn m th ake e form rs, the media, and of lump-sum 2 (September 2007) used the PPA auto-enrollment safe harbors to show how much larger balances in AE 401(k) plans College, June 2012. 13%* EBRI baseline 20% The cohort of people born between 1965–1973. satisfaction 365 (Emp with hea loye lth c e Benefit Rese are plans, ra erasons for c ch Institute, Decemb hoosing a er 20 plan11) , an . d sources of health information. This paper also Publication Number: 1085-4452 EBRI baseline without between Retirement 2007 and 20Age and Status of Participation 10, differences were not statistically signi in a Defined Contribution ficant, and in 2011, CDHP enrolle Plan at Age 65 es were more likely (Employee Benefit Research Institute, September 2007): 2–8. It would be co the mforting from public. a public-policy standpoint to assume that merely working to age 70 would be a panacea 20% distributio ns (not reverse annuity mortgages). If all the retirement savings are exhausted and if the Social Security 1 would likely be for eligible employees as a result of automatic escalation of employe stochastice hea contri lth butions. VanDerhei and 30% incorporates 40% 10% findings from the 2011 survey as well as findings from the 2005, 2006, and 2007 EBRI/Commonwealth The In rec 3 ne ew mo nt year del s there was use have d to been sev analyze ho eral m w eligi odels construc bility for participatio ted in an attempt to a n in defined contr nalyze the percent ibution plans ia m ge o pacts retir f Baby e Bo ment omer The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) was founded in 1978. Its mission is to than tra Center for dition Retir ael-pl ment Research, an enrollee Boston College, s to be extremhttp://crr.bc.edu/ ely or very sati special-projects sfied with th/eir a national-retireme bility to get nt-risk-index/ doctor ap pointments. In 2011, 80% Munn to the si ell, Alic gnific ia ant chal H., Anthon leng yes W of assuri ebb, Francesc ng retirement a Golub-S -inc ass, o and D me adequacy an Muldo (espe on. “Lon cEBRI ba ially g-T am erm Care Costs and the N seline without ong lower-inc stoome fami chastic a lies), tional but and define 10d %benefit payments are not sufficient to A T pay eA xpenses, the entity is G L A N C E designated as having “run short of 2 Copelan d 10 (200 % 8) used a version of the RSPM to model the impact of automatic enrollment and automatic escalation of NRRI 1) Filing Date: 08/31/2012. 2) Issue Frequency: Monthly. 3) Number of Issues Published Annually: 12. 4) Annual Subscription Fun and dGe Consum neratioerism in n Xer househo Healthl Care Surv ds that contribute to are ey, and the 2008, 20 likely to , to encourag have ade, an equat 09d to enhanc an e ret d 2 ire 010 ment in EBRI e the developmen /MGA Consumer come. Whilt of sound empl e the r Engagement esults deopen yee ben in d to Health e fit a income a . “Retirement Income A dequacy in Septemdeq ber uac 2010 y A (fter PPA and FAS 158: Part One VanDerhei September 2010). I— t was also Plan Spons use od rs' Reactions.” to compute Retireme EBRI Issue Brief, nt Savings no. 10% health 20% 73 percent of CDHP enrollees were extremely or very satisfied with their ability to get doctor appointments, compared EBRI explores the breadth of employee benefits and related issues. 4this may be a Retirement Ris particular k Index ly risky strategy .” Issue In Brief, for this vul 9 -7. Chestnut Hi nerable gro ll, MA: Center for Reti up in view of the unreme certainties o nt Research at Boston f their future health Colleg e, money” 30%at that time. Price: Who we are $300 per year or is included as part of a membership subscription. 5) Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of employee cont The authors categorize the hous ributions for al eholds as low l workers programs and so (wh , mie ddle or high income. ther or und public policy not they are curr through objective ently 401(kresear ) partch and icipants or educati el on. EBR igible I is the only Care Survey. More information about the surveys can be found in Fronstin (2011). Shortfalls for Baby Boomers large ext307 (Emp ent on the lo model’s yee Benefit Rese defi and Gen nition ae r of ch rati “adequacy,” th Institute, Jul on Xers in Oct y 20 ere o0ber 7). re2010 (Va mains a n consensus tha Derhei October 2010a). t a significant percentage of these th NRRI EBRI studies the world of health and retirement benefits — issue EBRI s bas such a eline wis tho 40 ut 1(k)s, IRAs, retirement with 68 percent among traditional-plan 70% enrollees (Figure 6). Furthermore, while the year-to-year increases were not Publicat ion: (No March 20 0% t printer): 09. Employee Benefit Research Institu te (EBRI), 1100 13 Street NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005. status and the marketability of their job skills. 0% private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, Washington, DC-based organization committed exclusively to nonparticipant 10% s). c 0% aa 5 b b stochastic health or c households 0% will fall short of t Tradi htie a onala dequacy threshold, certainly i HDHf P they retire at age 65. CDHPc income adeq Tuacy, raditionalconsumer-driven benefits, HDHSocia P b l Security, tax treatment of both retireme CDHP nt and health 6) Emplo Complete Mailing Ad yee Benefit Research Institute, dress of Head www.eb quarters o ri.org/resea r Generrch/?fa= al Businmodel ess Office of Publisher (Not printer): Employee Benefit Research statistically significant, 20% satisf Tradi action l tionalpublic evels a poli mcy r ong C esearch DHP and enrollees edu HDHcat P ion on appearecon ed to om be tre ic securi nding u ty and em CDH p, whic Pcploh was yee be not th nefit ise sucase es. a b longevity risk th Traditional HDHP CDHP Satisfaction With Health Coverage and Care: Findings from the 2011 EBRI/MGA As noted abov . “Measuring Retirement Income Adeq Source: EBR e, the I/C survey ommonwealth Fund sample Consumerism was di in vided into uac Health C y: Calc are Surv one ulati ey, 2005–2007; ng Re of three gro alistic Inc EBRI/MGu A ps: those C o onsumer me Re EBRI ba Engagement plac with a C em seline without in H ent Rates.” ealth C DHP, thos are Surv sto EBRI Issue Brief, ey ce with a ,ha 2008–2011. stic HDHP and no. In October Institute (EBRI), 1100 13 2010 testimony Stre befor et NW, Suite 87 e the Senate He 8, Washingt alth, Eon, ducation, DC 200 Labor and Pe 05. 7) Full Names and nsions Committee Complete Mailin on “The g Addresse Wobbly s of Appendix B: Brief Chronology of RSPM benefits, cost management, worker and employer attitudes, policy reform proposals, and pension assets EBRI’s membership includes a cross-section of pension funds; businesses; trade associations; Park, Youngkyun. “Self-Reported Benefit Accrual Rates of Defined Benefit Plans: An Analysis of the 2004 and 2007 Survey While workers 0% need to make their own decisions on the correct trade-offs of saving today vs. deferring retirement, 6 Note: Survey question changed in 2009 from 60% asking about "out-of-pocket health care costs for my health care" to "out-of-pocket health care costs for my other for traditional-plan enrollees or HDHP enrollees. 3 health or longevity risk However, Source: EBR for purpos I/Commonw es of ealth Fund determini Consumerism ng wh in H y one m ealth Care Surv ight ey e , 2005–2007; xpect s EBR ign I/M ifica GA Cn onsumer t differenc Engagement es in H betw ealth C een are Surv the ey t , 2008–2011. wo models in terms Publish See Appendi er, Edito Source: EBR x A for more r, and Managin I/Commonw detail. ealth Fund g Editor Consumerism (Do not leave blank): P in Health Care Survey, ublisher, 2005–2007; EBR Emplo I/MGA y Cee Benefit Re onsumer Engagement search In in Health Care Surv stitut eye – Educ , 2008–2011.ation and Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, by Paul Fronstin, Ph.D., EBRI those wit297 (Emp h tra Source: EBR d 65 itional lo I/C ye ommonw health e Benefit Rese ealth Fund coverage. In 66 Consumerism arch Institute, Septemb dividuals in Health Care Surv wer 67 ey e , 2005–2007; ase sr 20 igned 06 EBR to th ). I/MGA 68 C e CDHP onsumer Engagement and HD in H HP 69 ealth C groups are Surv if ey, 2008–2011. they ha 70d Stool: Reti Earlier this year, the Nat rem health care" because of and ent fundi (In)ng. securit ion There is wi the al Reti introduction y in Am rement of erica,” the a de question spread Risk Index specificall mode re ycog asking about (NRRI) l w nition as used to out-of-pocket that if employee be was us anal costs ed to provi for yze th drugs. e relativ de n an efits e assessment of the value of import data exist, EBRI kno ance of employer ws - it. a labor unions; health care providers and insurers; government organizations; and service firms. 10% a Traditional = Health plan w th ith no deductible or <$1,000 (individual), <$2,000 (family). The origiof Consum nal a a version of Traditional = er F Health RS ina plan w nces.” PMi was th no EBRI Notes, deductible used to or <$1,000 (indiv analyz no. 11 e th idual), <$2,000 (family (Emplo e futuye re e Be economic well-being of th ). nefit Research Institute, Janua e retired ry 20 po11): 9– pulation 15. at t he they should T b Trraditional = e aditional = able to H Health ealth ex plan w plan w pect that t iith th no no deductible deductible hose p or or <$1,000 (indiv <$1,000 (indiv resentin iidual), <$2,000 (family dual), <$2,000 (family g alternatives ). ). be as accurate and complete as possible, avoiding Research F b und, 1100 13 Street NW, Suite 878, Washington, DC 20005. Editor, Dallas L. Salisbury, Employee Benefit b of relative improvement o HDHP = High-deductible f health retirement plan with deduc -inco tible $1,000+ (indiv me adequacy idual), $2,000+ (fam Retir by em defer ent Age ily), no rinac g r count. etirement age to 70, a comparative analysis of b HDHP = High-deductible health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual), $2,000+ (family), no account. b 7 HDHP = High-deductible health plan with deductible $1,000+ (individual), $2,000+ (family), no account. deductibles of defe rring reti HDHP = High-deduc re at least ment be$1,0 yond a tible 0 health 0 for ge 65 plan in widivi th (M deduc dua unne tible l covera $1,000+ (indiv ll, Webge or b, idual), $2,000+ (fam De lo $2,0 thrme an 00 for ilyd ), no Gol fa ac mily covera cu ount. b-Sass 2012). The ge. To be as autsh igne ors d concluded tha to the CDHP t by provide d rc etirement benefits and Social Security(VanDerhei October 2010b). c Note this does CDHP = Cons not account for t umer-driven health he fact that man plan with deductible y individual $1,000+ (indiv s may idual), $2,000+ (fam not have the abilit ily), with account. y to continue to work past this age. For example, the Rese Satisfaction with choic state level. arch Institute – Edu EB c c CDHP = Cons RI and th ume er-driv of doctors wa e Mi catio en lb n and health ank M plan Resear w e ith moria s rel deduc c tible a h l Fund, tively hi Fu $1,000+ (indiv nd, 1100 1 worki ghi regardl dual), n3 g $2,000+ (fam wi Street NW, th t ess of hily e ), w gov pla ith Suite 878, Was ac n e type. crnor o ount. In f Oregon, set out 2005 an hingto d n2006, tr , DC 2 in 0005. Managin the lat aditional e 1990s to -plan g ? Satisfaction levels have been trending up among CDHP enrollees, and trending down among traditional-plan simplistic “rule CDHP = Cons CDHP = Cons s of thum um umb” th er-driv er-driven en health health at may result plan plan w w50% iith th deduc deductible tible in$1,000+ (indiv fut $1,000+ (indiv ure reti iidual), dual), re$2,000+ (fam $2,000+ (fam es, through ily ily), w ), wiith th no fault ac acc count. ount. of their own, coming up short. . “Define * Differenc d Benefit Pl e between HDHP/CDHP an Freezes: and Traditional Who' is s s Affected, How tatistically significant at p Muc = 0.05 h or better. , and Replacing Lost Accruals.” EBRI Issue Brief, th no. 291 the treatment of * Differenc households in e between HDHP/CDHP retirement and Traditional ® needs is statistica lly to be unde significant at p =rtaken. 0.05 or better. For a household to be classified as “ready for 0% Sources: EBRI Retirement Security Project Model, Version 1527, and Munnell, Webb, Delorme, and Golub-Sass (2012). EBRI delive * Difference rbetw s a stead een HDHP/CDHP y stream of invaluable research and anal and T EBRI’s work advances knowledge and unders raditional is statistically significant at p = 0.05 or better. tanding of emplo ysis. yee benefits and their group, Editor, Step theyhe * m Differenc n Blakely ust als e betw oeen HDHP/CDHP have , Employ had a ee and T n Benefit Research Institu acco raditional un ist, s statis utic ch as ally signific a h ant e at talth savin e – E p = 0.05 ducatio or better. gs n and Researc account (HSA) or h h Fune d, 1100 13 alth reimbursement Street NW, Sui te VanD age 66 erhe “about i, Jack. “Retirement 55 percent of Income Ade households a qura e proj cy for Bo ecteom d ter o be s and Gen prepared for r Xers: Evidence fro etirement” an m the 2012 EB d that by a retir RI Retireme ement a nt ge of 2012 Retirem ^ Estimate a ent Confidence Surv is statistically different e y from the prior y found that 50 ear show percent of cur n at p = 0.05 or better. rent retirees surveyed indicated that they left the work force earlier than ^ Estimate is statistically different from the prior year shown at p = 0.05 or better. enrollees were more l see ifenrollees. Satisfaction levels this sit National R uation coul etirement ikely t d Readiness beh addressed for an CDH Index with , Center for P en getti rollees to Retirement the ng state. T do Research, Boston C ctor ap be extr hat point emely or analysis ollege. ments w very (Va en re Derh satisfie high r ei a d en la with d C tive to o tpelan heir c other aspects dh 20 oice 01 of a) 10doctors, but focused pr of health im in care, arily ^ ^ Estimate Estimate is is statistica statistically lly different different from the prior y from the prior year show ear shown n at p at p = = 0.05 or better. 0.05 or better. 65 66 67 68 69 70 (Employee Benefit Research importance to Institute, March 200 the nation’s econo 6). my among policymakers, the news media, and the public. It 878, Washin retirement” un gton, DC 20005. der NRRI, its projected 8) Owner ® : Full Nam replacemen e: Empl t rate oyee Ben is simply compared efit Research Institute with a benchmark rat – Education ane. d Rese However, t arch Fund. 9) he In February 2 011, theEBRI modepublications l was used inclu to de analyze in-dep the th cove impact rage of th of key issues a e 2008–2009 nd crisis in t trendsh ; e summ financi arie al an s of rese d real estate arch arrangem 70 that nSecurit u ember incr nt (HRA) y Proj e with ec ases t tion a r o Mod o 86 percent. llover el. ” provision that EBRI Notes, Perhap no. 5 (Emplo s most they csu ould rprising was ye use to e Benefit Res pa the y for m conclusio ear edica ch Institute, Ma l n that expenses, or at ay 2012): 2– ge 70, an accou “low 14. -in n t wit come h planned, consistent with the findings of the RCS in previous years. In most cases, this was due to health problems for themselves or their 200 on simulated r 8 and 2009 e, CDH tirement P e wea nrollees w lth with a ere mor com ep like arison to ly than ad-hoc thresho traditional-plan lds enrolle for rees to tireme be e nt expen xtremely ditur or es. very satisfied with regardless of plan type. 40% Retirement Age Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security does this by conducting Holders Ow and p ning ublishing policy re or Holding 1 Percent or More of T search, analysis, oand tal Am special reports on ount of Bonds, What we do findings and policy developments; timely factsheets on hot topics; regular updates on legislative 4 and RSPM uses a fully developed stochastic decumulation process to determine whether a family will run short of money markets on retirement income adequacy (VanDerhei February 2011). portability so that they could take that account with them if they changed jobs. Individuals were assigned to the households … are nearly as prepared for retirement as their high-income counterparts (82 percent vs. 88 percent).” spouses, changes at their companies, skills required for jobs, or oth ® er w ork-related reasons (Helman, Copeland and VanDerhei, 2012). Mortgages or Other Securities: None.emplo 10) Tax yee benef Status (For completio its issues; holding educational br n by nonprofit organization iefings for EBRI memb s authorized to mail at nonprofit ers, congressional and Sources: EBRI Retirement Security Project Model, Version 1527, and Munnell, Webb, Delorme, and Golub-Sass (2012). their c . “Projections of Future hoice of doctors (Figure 7). Retirement Income Secu With the exception o rity: Impact of Lon f 2010, satisfac g T tion with c erm Care Insuranc hoice of doctors e.” 2005 America has been tr n Soci ending ety on regulatory developments; comprehensive reference resources on benefit programs and workforce a in reti rement . “Modif y(and, i ing the F f so, ede at rawhat a l Tax Tg reatment of 401( e) under each o k) Plan f a thou Contri sand alter butions: Projecte native, simul d Impa ated r ct on Participa etirement paths. T nt Account his allows National Retirement Readiness Index , Center for Retirement Research, Boston College. rates) The purpose, function, and nonprofit federal agen status of this organization and the e cy staff, and the news media; and sponsoring public opinion survey xempt status for federal income tax purposes: s on employ Has ee HDHP group if they did not have an account that met those conditions. This latter group includes individuals with Subs ? e Indivi quent duals i to the n rele consumer-driv ase of the Orego en health n st pl udy, it ans (CDHPs was de) a cide nd hi d that gh-d the ed uctibl approac e he h cou alth p ld lans ( be ap H pDHPs) lied to other were l s ess l tates ike as ly 8 higher amon Aging g/Natio CDHP enrollees. nal Council on Agi 30% ng Joint Conference, March 2005. issues; and major surveys of public attitudes. ® An Apri If the success rate is moved to a threshold of 70 l 2011 article introduced a new method o percent, onl f any alyz 2 in 5 households in the lowest-income quartile ing the results from the RSPM (VanDew rhe ill attain re i April 20 tirement inc 11). ome not changed du Appendix A: Brief Description ring preceding 12 months: 501(c)(3). 11) Publica of RSPM tion’s name: EBRI Employee Benefit Research Institute EBRI Balances.” EBRI Notes, no. 3 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, March 2012): 2–18. for the simulta The EBRI Retireme neous treatmnt Security Projection Model ent of: benefit issues. EBRI’s Education and Re (RSPM) search Fund (EBRI-ERF) performs the charitable, HSA-eligible health plans, but may also include individuals with high deductibles who were not eligible to contribute to well. Kansas and Massachusetts were chosen as the next states for analysis. Results of the Kansas study were than those in traditional plans both to recommend their health plan or to stay with their current plan, if they had EBRI meetings present and explore issues with thought leaders from all sectors. Notes. 12) Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: August 2012. 13) Extent and Nature of Circulation: a. Total Number of Copies: adequacy even if theCHECK OUT EBRI’S WEB SITE! y defer retirement age to 84 educationa . In l, and creasing the th scientific func reshold to 80 perc tions of the Instit ent reduces the ute. EBRI-ERF number of lo is a tax-ex west pre- empt organizatio retirement n Instead of simply computing an overall percentage of the simulated life paths in a particular cohort that would not Figure 9 Figure 3 Figure 7 Figure 5 One of the basic objectives of EBRI’s Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) is to simulate the percentage of In 2003, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) constructed the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection an HSA. I . Ten stimon dividuals y. U.S. Cong with trad ress. Senate S itional health coverage h pecial Comm aFigure 3 ittee on Ag d a broad ran ing. “Do W ge of pla e Have a n types, inclu Crisis in Amer ding heialth mai ca? Resu nlts F tenarnce om Average presente the o No. Co d to pportu t h pies Ea e state EBRI nity to switch. ch Issue ’regula s Long During Pr r -T ly erm C provides are eced Sco ing 12 Months: ervices T ngression ask Forc al 346 testimony ;e on No. Cop July , ies an 11 of d , 2 Singl briefs p 002e I (Va ssue Publ on licy Dem rhei ake ish an ed Ne rs, d Co mem ar peland July est ber to Filin orga g Dat 2 nizations, 00e2 : ), supported b 20% y contributions and grants. . “Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security.” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 364 (Employee Benefit Research income quartile households that can satisfy ? Longevity risk. this standard at a retirement age of 84 to approximately 1 in 7. have sufficient retirem 5 Percentage ent income to Extremely pay for the or simulat Very Likely ed ex penses, t to Stay h With Current e new methodHealth Plan computed the percentage of ® Percentage Extremely Percentage Not a Percentage Too or Extremely or Not Veryat Satisfied With A or V ll Satisfied With ery Satisfied Out-of-Pocket Overall Attitudes Toward Health Plan the population that will be “at risk” of having retirement income inadequate to cover average expenses of those age 346. b. Paid and/or Requested NRRI Circu Percentage lation (1) Paid/Requested of Households Outside-County "Ready Mail for Retirement" Subscriptions Stated on F vs. orm 3526: Average Model (RSPM) —the first and the medi natia onally r on employe epresern tative, micro benefits. -simulation model based on actual 401(k) participant organizations (HMOs), pre the EBRI-ERF Overall Satisfa Retireme ction ferred provi With nt Se Health Plan— curit der organiz y Projecti Unlike satisfaction ations (PPOs) on Model” (T-141), 27 Jan. 20 , other with manage quality o 0 d ca 4 f care . re pla rec ne sive , an dd , w plhans ich with was a steady, variety of cos andt th s, the fi e resu gu lts o resf improve the Massac even more: husetts st 7 u3 d y w perce ere nt of pre the sente se hous d on De ehol c. ds 1, woul 2002d t (Vhen anD b erh e cons ei anid d C ere ope d tla o be nd rea Decd em y by ber age Institute, Nove If Had mber 20 the 11). Opportunit y to Change, by Type of Health Plan, 2005–2011 No. Copies Each Issue Durin Prescription g Preced Health ing 12 M With Drug Costs, Plan, onths: Choice by 207 T; No. Cop ype of of byDoctors, Ty Health ipe es of Sin of Health Plan, 2009–201 2005–201 Plan, gle Issue Publish TM 2005–201 1 ed Nearest to Filing 1 1 Date: 207. (2) households 9 that would meet that requirement more 6 than a specified percentage of times in the simulation. EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings at Various 65 or As in older t previous h r years of oughout EBRI issu the retir s es eu ment in rvey, in press rele spe 2011 as cifi, individu e cs income on nea wsworthy an ls in d CDHPs a age grou developm pin nd H gs and un DHPs w ents, e and i insure re fosund to be d a h mong ealth care the mo les scosts for the likely th st widely qu an t hose oted One likel ?EBRI’s website is easy to use and packe Dissatisfaction y difference deals w with out ith t- he asset allocation of invest of-pocket costs may be driving ments in defined contribution pl d with useful information! Look for overall satisfaction trends. ans. VanDerhei (June 2009) conducts behavior and a stochastic decumulation model. Although it was explicitly recognized at that time that many cost-sharing a differences werrangem re founde in nts. ovThe shared ch erall satisfaction leve aracteristics of this ls by plan typ group were that e (Figure 2). Trad they ition eiather h l-plan aenroll d no deducti ees werbeles o morre likely 65, i 2002). ncreasin With tgh e assistance o to 84 percent fby ag the Kansas I EBRI Issue B e 70. Fign ure surance Dep riefs 2 provid are period es artment, EBRI a similar icals providing exp com was a parison ert evaluati ble to c betwe reate t ons of emplo en the t he EBRI wo mo yee benefit issues and Retir dels e for those ment 70% 10% Paid In-County ? Investment ris 90 60% % Subscr kiption . s Stated on Form 3526; Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 28; No. Copies 40% sources on e Retirement A mployee bene gfits es by all media. for Households Ages 30 ?39 in 2007 VanDerhei, Jack, and Craig Copeland. “The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy.” EBRI remainder of their TM lives once they retire. The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating™ also provides information on the in tra simulations using RSPM sho ditional plans both to r wing t ecommend thei he improvement i trends, as well r healt n terms of ri as crh itical analy plan sk and return to fr ses of iend for larg emplo s or c yo e ee benefit po -workers cohorts of 401(k) (Figure licies an participants w 8) an d proposals. d to h stay with t e EB n TDF RI Notes asset heir is a individuals were retiring at earlier ages, a retirement age of 65 was chosen for baseline results, based upon the deductibles th of than C SinglD e I HP a ssue Publ nat wer d HDHP ishe ed Ne e belo n 64% roll ar west ees to curre t 64% o Filin nt thr beg Dat extr esholds that e emely or : 28. (3) Sales Through very would satisf qua ied lity for Dea with ler t HSA tax s and Carriers, heir ovepre rall fer pl Street Vendors, an in ence, all and that years Counter Sa they of thedi survey. d not les, and have In ages Readi these special features: Our 40– n . ess Rati Te49 stimon in 20 ngs y. U.S. Cong 07 an base d Fig d o ure ress. Senate F n a 3 shows full stocha the com inanc stic dec e Commi parison umulat tt s for those ee. “T ion model t ax Refor ag hat es 30 m took into Options: Prom –39 in 2 acc 007. ount th oting R e ho etirem useholds’ lon ent Securitg y” ( evT ity - 55% 2005 20052006 20062007 20072008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2020 1111 63% As explored in the June 2011 EBRI Issue Brief, the RSPM allowed retirement-income adequacy to be assessed at 80%* EBRI directs members and other constituencies to the information they need and undertakes new 100% monthly periodical providing current information on a variety of employee benefit topics. Issue Brief, no. 358 (Empl 61%^ oye 61% e Benefit Research Institute, June 2011). Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 0; No. Copies of Single Issue 78% distributio current allocations (simulations are run f healt n oh f pla the lik 60% ns if ely n they um ohad t rb aver er o h age, conser fe o years before those at pportunity to s vative, and aggre witch risk “r pl ssive TDF asset a ans un shor (Figure 9 t of mo llocations) are substituted for pa ). The ney,” a percentage of s well as th 78%* CDH e percenta Pr enro ticipant llees ge o -directed f 80% 77% assumption th ? The risk of at most worke potentially catastrophic rs would have healt the h fle care costs (suc xibility to work h as until prolonge that age, i d stays in f they a so chose. nursing home ). an HRA- 2011, 57 bas 170). 15 S perc edent of tra plan ept. 201 . ditio 1. nal-plan enrollees were extremely or very satisfied with their 76% overall health plan, compared risks, post-retirement investment risks, and 0% exposure to 2005 20potential 06 2007 ly cat 2008 astrophic 2009 2010nurs 20ing-home 11 and 76%^ home-health-care 58%* 75%^ ^ 60% 75% retirement ages older tha research 74%^ non a 65 (Van n ongoi Derhei ng and Copelan basis. d June 2011). Published Nearest to Filing Date: 0; (4) EBRI’s Other Classes Ma Fundamentals of Em iled Through the US 2009 ployee Benef 2010 PS: Average i 20t Programs 11 No. Cop offers a straightfo ies Each Issue Dur rward, basic ing • publications EBRI’s entire library of research publications starts at the m 65 ain Web page. Click on 70 EBRI Is Working to Age 7 73% 0 Really the Answer for Retirement Income Adequacy? by Jack 50% 72% 72%^ 72% investments. In contrast, the N compensation they would ne RRIed methodolog in terms of y is based on histor additional sav ical data over a tim ings i 72%^n order toe have period t a hat lar 50, 7g 0ely , or excludes an 90 perce TM y nt pro potenti bal beneficial ability of reportin Comparin g t gh th at e slopes they wo of t uld b he base e extremely or line RSPM wit very likely h the to r NRRI mo ecommend th del in these eir plan figu to fr res quantifi ie 71%* nds or co es just -wo how rkers increased from different the 47% 71%* with 46 pe 90rce % nt of CDHP enrollees and 37 percent of HDHP enrollees. risks. This was followed by t 47%^ he expansion of RSPM and the EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings to a national model Preceding 12 Months: 0; No. Copies of S explan ingle Issue Pub ation of emplo lished yee b Nearest to Filin enefit progr 70%* ams g Date: in the pr 0; c. Tivat otal Pa e and id and/or Requested Circu public sectors. The EBRI lation EBRI maintains and analyzes the most 69%* comprehensive database of 401(k)-type programs in the . “The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:TM Retirement Income Preparation 68%* and Future Prospects.” EBRI Issue RSPM baseline for nonparticipants at 65 70% 44% 57% Issue Briefs and EBRI Notes for our in-depth and 67%* nonpartisan periodicals. VanDerhei, The retiremPh en.D., t-age assumpt EBRI ion of 65 was also used for 30%* congressional testimonies and research reports through 2010 impact from this trend. Anoth Whil e a . “T simpl he Importanc istic, single e of De det er diff e fined Be erence that rministic nefit Pl extr rema apolation ans for Retire ins to be quantified is the assessment of defined of ament Income A ge 65 resource deq s to alte uacy.” rnati EBRI Notes ve-retir benefit accruals. Whereas e, no. 8 (Emplo ment ages to ye det NRRI i e Be erm ne s ine fit retireme 30 results are: percent to nt inc ome adequacy 39 percent bet. ween 2006 and 2007, and reached 45 percent in 2009. It then dropped to 37 percent in [Sum of 15b. (1), (2), (3), and (4)] Average No Databook on E . Copies Ea mployee Benefits ch Issue Duris ing Prec a statiseding 12 Mo tical reference work on em nths: 235; No. Copies of Sing ployee benefit program le Issue s 30% In a July 2011 EBRI N world. otes Its co article mputer (Van simul Derha ei J tion uly 2 analy 011 s), it es on So provide cial d pr Secu eliminary rity reform evidenc and retireme e of the impact of nt income a the “20/20 dequa cy and the presentation of the first micro-simulation, retirement-income-adequacy model, built in part from 49%*^ 49%* Satisfaction Brief, no. 344 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, July 2010). RSPM ba 50 80% % seline for participants at 65 64% 76% Published Nearest to Filing Date: 235. d. Free Distribution by Mail (Sample 27%* s ^, complimentary, and other free): (1) Outside-County as based on SCF retireme (see Appen nt rea Rese dix darch Institute, August 20 a B); d ta that have the iness is c however, erta surve inly a the 2y and work for 0 conven respon 11 11): 7–1 version of de ie nts assess w nt ce-r 6. way to m the elated model hat isse uasure th tes heir eventual defined benefit pa . was modi e imfie pact of d to det dee ferri rmin n yg e w o ret uts w hieth reme ill be, RSP er just nt ag “working a M e, t bases the d he ability efined fe of w Overall satisfaction levels among CDHP enrollees 60%* increased from 37 percent to 5 46%* 2 percent between 2006 and 2009, 2010 and increased to 41 percent in 2011. One-hal 26%* f (49 percent) of traditional-plan enrollees were extremely or very are unique. 26%* 45%*^45%* caps” o administrative n proje 40 cted r 1(ke ) tirem data epresented at t nt accumulatih oe EBRI ns propose Decem d by b the er 20 Natio 03 polic nal y Commission on Fiscal R forum (VanDerhei and Copelan esponsibility d 20and 03). The 60% ? It woul 40%d be comforting from a public policy standpoint to assume that merely working to a44%* ge 7 ^ 0 would be a Stated on Form 3526: Averag • Visit EBRI’s blog. e No. Cop ies Each Issue During Preced 7 ing 12 Months: 52; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Van Respon Derh dents ei (February were asked a 2011) descri series of qu bes ho esw ho tions about useholds ov (who erall satisfact se heads ion wit are curr h th ently e he a alth ges 36–62) ar plan, as well as satisfa e tracked thro ctiugh on ? In Figure 1 (ages 50–59 in 2007), the NRRI model shows an improvement of 23 percentage points over four benefit accruals on a time series of defined-be more years after age 65” would indeed be a nefit-plan-t feasi ype and ble fi 24%* na generosit ncial solution t y parameters coded from o the retirem, inter alia, summar ent income adeq yuacy plan dproble escription ms - the although th NRRI met ere was hodology a drop in satisfaction to adequately de®al rates bet with thes we een types 2009 an of proc d 2010. Satisfa esses appears ction ques rates increased from tionable. 43 percent likely to recom 70% mend their plan in 2011, compared with 29 percent of HDHP enrollees. Sources: EBRI Retirement Security Project Model, Version 1527. 24%*^ Reform. Nearest to Fil . “T he Impact of PPA on ing Date: 52; (2) In-County Retireme as Sta nt Income for 401(k) ted on Form 3526: Average No Participants.” . C EBRI Issue Brief, opies Each Issue Dur no. 318, (Emplo ing Precedinye g 12 Months: e Benefit 9; basic model was subsequently modified for testimony for the Senate Special Committee on Aging in 2004 to quantify panacea to the significant challenges of assuring retirement income adequacy, but this may be a particularly . “Capping Tax-Preferred Retirement Contributions: Preliminary Evidence of the Impact of the National Commission on with the quality of care received, out Contact EBRI -of-pocket ex Publications, (2 penses, choice 38%*^ 22%* 38%* 02) 659-0670; of doctors, and fax publication abil 33%* ity to get orders to doctor appointme (202) 775-6312. nts. retireme years (or nt a 40%ge an an d ho average incr w their retir ease of 5.8 percentage poi ement income/wealth is simulate nts per year d ), for the wher follo eas th win e b g compo aseline RSPM shows an nents: type information on more than 1,000 large-salaried, defined benefit plans per year. Park (2011) analyzed the SCF r 21%* e^ spondents’ self- for those families determined to be “at risk.” The answer from that modeling, unfortunately, is not always “yes”— No. Cop to 46 percent EBRI make ies of S between ingle Issue Pub s information freel 2010 and 2011, lished Nearest to Filing bu y av t the ailable to al incre Date: ase 9. (3) Other Classes Mailed was not statist l. ically sign T 21%* ific hrou an gh the US t. PS: Average No. Copies 50% 36%* Research Institute, June 2008). 31%* 20%*^ the beneficial impact of a mandatory contribution of 5 percent of compensation (VanDerhei January 2004). • EBRI’s reliable health and retirement surveys are just a click away through the topic boxes at risky strategy, espec 60% ially for Subscriptions to the vulnerable grou EBRI Issue Bri p of low-income efs are included worker as part of s. EBRI membership, or as part of a Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Recommendati 34%* ons.” ^ EBRI Notes, no. 7 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, July 34%* Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 0; No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date: 0. e. Free Distribution reporte In 2011, almo improvement d, expect 20%EBRI ed benefits from st 60 assume of 1 perc 2ent perce s of traditional defined benef a publi ntage c points service re it p -plan ension plans and found that, as a ov enrol erspo five ln ees years sibility report (or to ed that an avera make its finding they were extr per ge in centage of fin crease of only s completely emely or al pay 2.4 percenta , the me very acce an ssi likely to stay annual be ble ge poi at www.ebri.org nefit ac nts per with crual even i Orders/ f retirement age is deferred into the 80s. 28%* 30% 32%*^ The August 2011 EBRI Notes article(VanDerhei August 2011) eval uated the importance of defined benefit plans for 27%* $199 annual sub 31%* scription to EBRI Notes and EBRI Issue Briefs. 27%*^ Change of Address: EBRI, Comparison of Percentage of Households “Ready for Retirement” 17%*^ the top of the page. 30%* Outside the Mail (Carriers of oth ? Social S Quality of Car ecurity. e—The e 2 r means): Average No. Co 006 survey found that in piedivi s Each Issue 26%*^ duals in CDHPs a During Preced nd HDHPs ing 12 Months: were less likely to 0; No. Copies of S be satisfie ingle d 2011): 2–6. 17%* While the ove 40%— rall satisfaction so that all deci rates for sions that CDH relate to emp P enrollees inc loyee reased benin mos efits, wheth t years of the er m Eade BRI bas survey, satisf in Cong eline ress action rates or board room among s or rates in 2004 an their year). health pld 2007 ar an if they w e estimated at 2.06 p ere allowed to s ercw ent and 2.48 itch, wherea pers 34 cent, respectively. These percent of HDHP en rates ar rollees wo e higher than t uld swi he tch, an average an d 49 npercent ual 30 50% % . “ERISA At 30: The Decline of Private-Sector Defined Benefit Promises and Annuity Payments: What Will It households, assuming individuals r 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 878, Washington, etire at age 65, while demonstrating the DC, 20005-4051, (202) 659-0670; fax number, impact of defined benefit plans in In an analysis to determine the impact of annuitizing defined contribution and IRA ba 15%* lances at ^ retirement age, Issue P ? Prior rese ublished N arch earest to Fi demonstrates ling Date: the significant 0. f. Total Free Distrib error introduc ution (Sum of 15d ed into re . A tire nd 15e.): Average No. Cop ment readiness calculations ies Each Issue During if nursing- Subscriptions with t Munnel he l, qua Webb, D lity of car elorme, e re a cei nd ved th Goluan t b-Sass hose in (201 traditional 2) provide estimates o plans. Howev f the er, in perc 2007 enta th ge of e ga househo p in satisf 14%* lds “r action eady betw for een families’ homes, are based on the highest quality, most dependable information. EBRI’s Web site posts Results from VanDerhei and Copeland (2011) indicated that the lowest pre-retirement income quartile would need to accrual rate of 1. traditional enro 59 percent r llees decre eport ased ed b in most ye y th (202) 775-6312 e U.S. D ars. Betw epartment o ; e-mail: een f Lab 200 or’s 2005 Nation subs 6 and 2 criptions@ebr 008 the al Compensatio i.o y sl rgi ppeMe d fmbe n r Surve omrsh 67 perc ip Information: y (NCS), ent to which is based 63 perc Inquiries ent, on of CDHP enrollees would switch. The percentage of traditional-plan enrollees who reported being extremely or very Preceding 12 M Mean?” onths: EBRI Issue Brief, 61; No. Copies of Sin no. 269 (Emp gle Issue Publish loyee Benefit Res ed Nearest to Filing earch Institute, Ma Date: 61. g. T y 200 o4). tal Distribution (Sum of 15c. And When the households without DC-participating members are assumed to retire five years later (without the benefit of VanD achievin erhei g r an etird Co ement pelan income d (2004 ade ) q wer uacy e a for ble to Baby demonstr Boomers ate that and Gen for Xers a household see . king a 75 percent probability of • Need a number? Check out the EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits. home costs are excluded, and highlighted the need for a re-examination of the EBRI meth baselinodologi e without es behind studies ? Defi . “Retirement Income A ned contri 40% bution bal deq ance uac s. y: Alternative Thresholds and the Importance of Future Eligibility in Defined Contribution 30% 8 retirement” at all selected a research g finding es. Figure 1 pro s, publications, vides aan compa d news rison for alerts hous . EBRI also exte eholds ages 5 nds 0–5its e 9 in d200 uca 7 tion betw and pu een the bli c NRRI service those in tradit 20% ional plans and those with CDHPs disappeared, because satisfaction increased significantly among those ? In Figure 2 (ages 40–49 in 200 regarding 7), the EBRI NRRI mod membership an el shows d/or con an averag tributio e improvem ns to EBRI-ER ent F of 8. should be dir 8 percenteacted ge to points EBRI per def 15f.): Average No. Cop er retirement to aig es E e 84 ac before h Issue Durin 90 perce g Preced nt ofing 12 M the hous onths: eholds 296woul ; No. Cop d have ev ies of Sin en a gle Issue Publish 50 percent pro ed Nearest to Filing bability of success. official plan docu and, after increasing ments. This betw suggests that the 200 een 2008 and 204 and 2007 S 09, they fell C fr F om 66 respondents ove percentr to 5 estimated their 7 perc stent ocha expected pe bet stic hea wlth een nsion benefits at 2009 and 2011. likely to switch health plans if they could appeared to be trending downward, with a statistically significant decline any addition 20%al years of employee or emplo 10%^ yer retirement-plan contributions), the RRR increases to 57 percent. In retirement income adequacy, the additional savings that would otherwise need to be TM set aside 11 each year until that only extrapolate a relatively static picture of retirement savings Retirement Plans.” role to improving Ameri EBRI Notes, can no. 4 (Emplo s’ financial ye kn e Ben owlee dge fit Re thro search ugh Institute its award , April 201 -winning 1): 10-19. public se rvice campaign ® President Dallas Salisbury at the above address, (202) 659-0670; e-mail: salisbury@ebri.org Date: 296. h. Copies not Distributed: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months: 50; No. Copies of Single Issue with C findings DHPs, a at ret 10% in rement d since t ages hat t 6i6 me th and ere 70 an has d the EBR been noI di Rff etir ere ence ment in satisf Readin aess Ratings ction with qua (RRR lity of ) care der bet ivedw from t een those he RSP in M year, whereas the baseline RSPM shows an average improvement of only 2.2 percentage points per year. . “Can America Afford Tomorrow's Retirees: Results From the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model. ” retirement, u Although a si 30n % less the gnificant y had mo port 8%re ion of generous accrual the improv formulas than pl ement would take an participants in the 2005 N place in the first fou C NRR rS. y e I ars after age 65, the Finally, EBRI’s Se8% ptember 2011 ® Senate Finance testimony (VanDerhei September 2011) analyzed the potential impact between 2010 and 2011. In8% contrast, there was not a clear upward trend among CDHP enrollees. • Instantly get e-mail noti8% ?cations of the latest EBRI data, surveys, publications, and meetings other ? IRA ba words, 20%lances. 23 percent of those who would have been at risk if they retired at age 65 would now be “ready to retirement would decr 7%ease by a median amount of 30 percent. Additional refinements were introduced in 2005 to Publ ished NeC arh est oosetoSave to Filing Date:and 50 7% . i. T the otal (S companio um of 15g. And 15h.): Average No. Co n site www.choosetosave.op rg ies E ach Issue During Preceding 12 Months: at retirement ages 65 and 70. The NRRI model shows that 66 percent of households in this age range would be ready traditional Very few tra pla din tional-plan s and those enr with C ollees Dwere HPs (Figure not too or 1). Wh not at ile the all percent satisfied with their h age of HDHPe e alt nrollees h plans in report any ing t year o hat th f th ey e su were rvey EBRI Issue Brief, no. 263 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, November 2003). improvement would tend to level off in the early 70s before picking up in the late 70s and early 80s.Higher-income of various ty 10 346; No. Copipes of ta es of Single I x-re ssue form Publ options o ished Ne n r are est tirement to Filing Dat incom e: e adequacy. This 346. j. Percent Paid and/or was expande Requested Circ d in the ulatio November n: Averag 201 e No. 1 Editorial Board: Dallas L. Salisbury, publisher; Stephen Blakely, editor. Any views expressed in this publication and those of the authors should ? A worker . “A Post and sem 10% ’s par -Crisis Assessment of Reti inars by clicking on the “Notify Me” or ticipation status in are dment Income A efined contributio deqn uac (DC y for Ba “RSS” buttons at the top of our ho ) planb at a y Boomers a ge 65 win ll dbe Gen Xers.” extremely EBRI Issue Brief, impo mrtant d e page. ue to no. retire.” However, when the same calculation is performed for plan-participant households, 33 percent of those who evaluate Although the be the 10 20% % imnchmark rates pact of purchasing long-te were not provided rm care in Munnell, Webb, insurance on Delorme an retirem d e Golub-Sass (201 nt income adequacy 2), previous publications utilizin (VanDerhei 2005). g NRRI EBRI baseline without ? In Figure 3 (ages 30–39 in 2007), the NRRI model shows an average improvement of 9.0 percentage points per extremely or v (Figur for retir e 3). ement Wh e (un ile HDH ry satisfied der their P an definit d with the quality CDHP e ion) at nrolle ae g s e of care rec were 66, an much d tha eiv more ted increase by alikely to ge 70 thi d b report t se woul tween 20 d i hat th ncrea 05 and 20 ey were se to 809, 9 not to perc satisfaction o or not ent. Simila at all ler vels Copnot be ies Ea ascribed to the officers, ch Issue During Preceding 12 Mo trustees, mem nths: bers, or 79% other sponsors of the E ; No. Copies of Single Is mploye sue Pub e Benefit Research lished Nearest to Filin Institute, the EBRI Educ g Date: 79%ation and . 16. households 10% would be in a much better situation: 90 percent of the highest-income stoc quartile hastic hea wou lth or ld already have a 50 EBRI Issue ? Defined bene Brief (Va fit annu nDerhei ities a November nd/or lump-su 2011), m distri and a ne bution w set of s. survey results were added to the model in the March the mult 354 (Emp i-year lo conseq yee Benefit Rese uences for a arch dditio Institute, Febru nal employee ary an 2011). d em ployer contributions to the plan. would hav EBRI is sup e been at ported b risk if thy ey retir organizations from all industries and sectors that appreciate the value of ed at age 65 would be “ready” to retire at age 70. Similar results (not shown) (Munnell, Webb, Golub-Sass, and Muldoon, 2009) do provide these values. What is not clear, however, is whethe 12 r these benchmark rates Conclusion 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, Publicat year, whereas . “Kansas Future Retirem ion of Statement of Ownership the baseline ent Income A RSPM sho Publication: Will be printed in the w ssessment Pro s an average improvement o ject.” A project of August 2012 the EBRI Educatio f only 2. issue of 1 long percen ev this publicatio ity risktage n anpoints d Re n. 14) Signature a search F per year. und and nd numbers for the EBRI baseline show that only 52 percent would be considered to be “ready” at age 65 and that the have h satisfied eld stea with 10% tdy since heir health 20 pla 07, other n, dissatisf thanaction levels appear a drop in 2010. The ed to gap i be tr n sat endin isfaction g downwa between tr rd in most yea aditional enroll rs of th ees a e survey. nd percent probability of success by age 65, while those in the next-highest income quartile would need to wait until age 201 The2 mode EBRI N l wa otes s next article used to (Van evaluat Derhei Marc e the i h 2 mpact of 012). defined benefit freezes on participants by simulating the minimum or interpretative rule, or as legal, accounting, actuarial, or other such professional advice. unbiased, reliable information on employee benefits. Visit www.ebri.org/about/join/ for more. Title of Ed have been modified for later were obtai itor, Publisher, Bus ned for the tw retire o y ine o ment ages and, if ss Manager, or Ow unger cohorts. Clearly, so, ho ner: Dallas There’s lo w vari co ous age-relate ntS inuin alists more! bury g to , editor; wor d expe k until nditure patte Employ age ee Bene 70 rns would h w fit Research Ins ere factor elp in ed int enhanc ot the mo itute, publishe ing dification. r; 0% the Milb 0% ank Memorial Fund. July 16, 2002. The EBRI/MGA Consumer 0% Engagement in Health Care Survey finds a number of divergent tre c nds related to a b HDHP enrollees was pr number ? Net housin incr 0%eases much l g equity. esent ess in all dramatically a years o by age f the survey. 70: on ly 64 percent b would be considered ready for retirement. a c . Testimony. U.S. Cong Tradiress. Senate H tional ealth, Education, Labor a HDHP nd Pensions Committee. “T CDHP he W c obbly Stool: Stephen B 72 ?for Whil 90 per le akworkers ely cent of , managing ed nee thed ir to gr itor. Date: 08/13/2012. make oup to their have ow a n 50 dec perc isions on th ent probabil e correct trade-o ity. T b hose in the ffs of saving to second-lowest i day vs. deferring nccome quartile would Traditional a HDHP b CDHP employer-contribution rate that would be needed to financially indemnify the employees for the reduction in their Traditional HDHP CDHP retirement rea 0% diness—but continuing to work and participate in a DC plan until age 70 would produce an even more In essence, by ignoring thT e radi potential tional dramatic impact of long-t HDHP erm care costs and by choosing to CDHP disregard longevity 11 TM Out-of-Pocket Costs—Differences in out-of-pocket costs may explain some of the difference in overall satisfaction with various aspects of health coverage and care. Concerning overall satisfaction with health coverage, The EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings measure the percentage of households that are likely to have sufficient money in retirement to EBRI Notes is 65registered in the U.S. Patent and T 66 Visit EBRI on-line today: rademark Office. 67 ISSN: 1085 ?445www.ebri.org 2 1085 68 ?4452/90 $ . 50+. 6950 70 Retirement (In)security in America” (T-166). 7 Oct. 2010b. need to retirement, th wait until aey should ge 81 befo be a re 9b 0le to expect t percent of th heir at those pr group ha es d a entin 50g pe alt rcent ernatproba ives be bili as ty of s accu urcc ates e an s. d complete as expected retirement income under various rate-of-return assumptions (VanDerhei March 2006). Later that year, an . “Massachusetts Future Retirement Income Assessment Project.” A project of the Employee Benefit Research risk, the dramatic impr NRRIovement. model pro duces a much more optimistic (if arguably less realistic) result. Source: Source: EBR Source: EBR EBRI/M I/C I/CG ommonw ommonw A Consumer ealth Fund ealth Fund Engagement C Consumerism onsumerism in Health C in in H Health C ealth C are Surv a are Surv re Surv ey, 2009–2011. ey ey, , 2005–2007; 2005–2007; EBR EBRI/M I/MG GA A C Consumer onsumer Engagement Engagement in H in Health C ealth Care Surv are Survey ey,, 2008–2011. 2008–2011. However, when the EBRI baseline is modified to ignore Retir them e stochastic ent Age health costs outlined above, the figures improve A househol satisfaction ra Source: EBR d is conside tes among enr I/Commonw red to ealth Fund o run llees in tra C short of onsumerismd in itmoney in H ional ealth Caplans, H re Surv this ey, 2005–2007; mo DHPs, an del EBR if aggre I/M d CD GA CHPs. In onsumer gate r Engagement esource 2011, in H s in ret 41 ealth C perc are Surv ireme ent o eynt f , 2008–2011. traditional are not suf -pla fici ne nt traditional-plan enrollees were more likely than CDHP or HDHP enrollees to be extremely or very satisfied with the pay for average expenses of those age 65 or older throughout retirement in specific income and age groupings plus uninsured heath care I certify that all information furnished on aa a this form is true and complete: Stephen Blakely, Editor and Director of Commun ® ications. aT T T rr r aditional = aditional = aditional = H H H ealth ealth ealth plan w plan w plan w ith iith th no no no deductible deductible deductible or or or <$1,000 (indiv <$1,000 (indiv <$1,000 (indiv idual), <$2,000 (family iidual), <$2,000 (family dual), <$2,000 (family ). ). ). possible, Traditional = avoiding simplistic “ Health plan with no deductible rules of or <$1,000 (indiv thumb” that may idual), <$2,000 (family result in ). future retirees, through no fault of their own, updat ed version of the model was developed to enhance the EBRI interactive Ballpark E$timate worksheet by Institute-Educ b b ation and Research Fund and the Milbank Memorial Fund. December 1, 2002. b bHDHP = High-deduc HDHP = High-deduc HDHP = High-deduc tib tib tib lle le e health health health plan plan plan w w w ith iith th deduc deduc deduc tible tible tible $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiv idual), $2,000+ (fam iidual), $2,000+ (fam dual), $2,000+ (fam ily ily ily ), no ), no ), no ac ac ac c c c ount. ount. ount. to meet m substantially: 66 perc Date: 08/13/201 participants inim HDHP = High-deduc we 2. um retir re either ent etib e ment lo e xhealth ftr these emely or ex plan pen who ith d deduc useho itur vetible ry satisf es, de l $1,000+ (indiv ds wo fin ied with out- e uld d as a idual), $2,000+ (fam be cco ons mbination idere of-p ilyocket costs ), no d to ac o c b ount. fe determi rea( dfy orby a nistic health care g ex e 6penses 5, in service creas froin m s g the other th to 80 Consum pe an rcen for er t by overall . “Retirement Savi plan in all years of th ngs Shortfalls for T e survey. However, satisfacti oday’s Workers.” on leve EBRI Notes, ls were no. 10 (Emplo trending upye ine Ben moste years fit Research Institute of the survey , costs. c c c c CDHP = Cons CDHP = Cons CDHP = Cons um um um er-driv er-driv er-driv en en en health health health plan plan plan w w w ith iith th deduc deduc deduc tible tible tible $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiv $1,000+ (indiv idual), iidual), dual), $2,000+ (fam $2,000+ (fam $2,000+ (fam ily ily ily ), w ), w ), w ith iith th ac ac ac c c c ount. ount. ount. coming up Source CDHP = Cons s:EBRI sh ort. Retirement umer-driven Se health curity plan Proj wect ith deduc Modtible el,® $1,000+ (indiv Version 1527, iand dual), M $2,000+ (fam unnell, Webb, ily), w Del ith oac rm ce, ount. and Golub-Sass (2012). * * * Differenc Differenc Differenc e e e betw betw betw een HDHP/CDHP een HDHP/CDHP een HDHP/CDHP and T and T and T rrr aditional aditional aditional is is is s s s ttatis tatis atis tic tic tic a a a lly lly lly s s s iignific ignific gnific ant ant ant at at at p p p = = = 0.05 0.05 0.05 or better. or better. or better. a th age 70. When * Differenc the e betw EBRI een HDHP/CDHP baseline and T is rfurther aditional is s modi tatisticafie lly sid gnific to ant di at sregard lon p = 0.05 or better. gevity risk in addition to the stochastic health Expenditur October 201 Nat e S ion ualrvey (as a Retirement 0a): 2 Readiness fu -9. nction o Index, Center f inco fo me), a r Retirement nd some he Research, Boalth ston Co insur llege. ance and out-of-pocket health-related expenses, among CDHP enrollees, and trending down among traditional-plan enrollees. © 2012, Employee Benefit Research Institute 1100 13 Street ?Educ NW · Suite 878 ation and Re search Fund. All rights reserved. ^^ ^ Estimate Estimate Estimate is is is statistica statistica statistica lly lly lly different different different from the prior y from the prior y from the prior y ear show ear show ear show n n n at p at p at p = = = 0.05 or better. 0.05 or better. 0.05 or better. ^ Estimate is statistically different from the prior year shown at p = 0.05 or better. Washington, DC 20005 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 ebri.org ebri.org No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Nottttttttttttttte e e e e e e e e e e e e e ess s s s s s s s s s s s s s • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • • August 2012 • Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 Vol. 33, No. 8 14 12 10 15 21 20 19 18 16 11 17 6 5 2 3 (202) 659-0670 www.ebri.org www.choosetosave.org A monthl y newsletter from the EBRI Education and Research Fund © 2012 Employee Benefit Research Institute ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org ebri.org Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes • • • • • August August August August August 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 • • • • • Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, No. No. No. No. No. 8 8 8 8 8 13 4 8 9 7