Matthew S. Rutledge

Hispanics and Health Insurance Coverage : The Rising Disparity

Background:Many reports have focused attention on the rising percentage of adults in the United States without health insurance. This hides the fact that the uninsured rate for non-Hispanic nonelderly adults has held fairly steady since 1983, while the rate for Hispanics has increased. Objectives:To document the trends in the coverage rate by source of coverage for different population groups between 1983 and 2003 and suggest how changes in the composition of these groups have contributed to these trends. Research Design:We stack panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation to create a nationally representative 20-year pooled cross-section of nonelderly adults. We calculate actual trends in insurance coverage as well as 2 hypothetical time series that disentangle the effect of the decreasing coverage rate for Hispanics from the growth of the Hispanic adult population. Results:Although the increase in uninsured rate is largest for Hispanic noncitizens, US-born Hispanics also have a significant upward trend, primarily driven by a decrease in private coverage, with little change in public coverage. Although the increase in the Hispanic population contributed to the increase in the number of uninsured adults, the widening coverage disparity was more important. Conclusions:Hispanic nonelderly adults, both US-born and immigrants, have fallen behind non-Hispanic nonelderly adults in insurance coverage. Although combinations of economic growth and private and public insurance policy changes have maintained, and in some cases improved, overall coverage rates for non-Hispanics, these changes have not helped Hispanic adults, leading to increased disparities in coverage.

The Effects of the Great Recession on the Retirement Security of Older Workers

The Great Recession had a profound effect on the retirement security of older Americans, and the slow recovery from the downturn will have a lasting impact on their quality of life. The nature of today’s retirement system left older households exposed to the collapse in the equity and housing markets and induced many to plan for a later retirement. More late-career workers experienced job loss than in previous recessions, often with long jobless spells, encouraging a record number of early Social Security retirement claims and disability applications. Going forward, workers who lost a job can expect lower earnings and more instability and, potentially, poorer health. Even households that avoided job loss will have less money available for spending in retirement due to low interest rates and reduced home values. These findings emphasize the importance of Social Security as income insurance and the need for a more robust retirement income system.

Lower-Income Individuals Without Pensions: Who Misses Out and Why?

In 2010, only 19 percent of individuals ages 50-58 whose household incomes were less than 300 percent of the poverty line participated in a pension of any kind at their current jobs, compared to 56 percent of those above 300 percent of poverty. This paper investigates this pension gap. In particular, we decompose the pension participation rate into its four elements in order to compare coverage between higher- and lower-income individuals: 1) the fraction of people who are currently working (the employment rate); 2) the fraction of workers who are in firms that offer pension benefits to at least some workers (the offer rate); 3) the fraction of workers who are eligible for pension benefits, conditional on being in a firm where it is offered (the eligibility rate); and 4) the fraction of workers who enroll in a pension plan when they are eligible (the take-up rate). We find that the substantial pension gap between higher- and lower-income individuals is driven primarily by the lower-income group’s lower employment rate and the smaller probability of working for an employer that offers pensions; when lower-income workers do have a pension plan at work, their eligibility and take-up rates are nearly equivalent to higher-income workers. We also find that the factors associated with a higher value for each element of pension participation are very consistent: higher education and income, previous pension history, and job characteristics including firm size, occupation, job tenure, and union status. Together, these findings suggest that policies such as automatic enrollment that focus on pension eligibility or take-up are unlikely to close the pension coverage gap between older, lower-income individuals and their higher-income contemporaries; instead, greater pension participation requires more jobs and, in particular, more “good jobs.”

Great Recession-Induced Early Claimers: Who are They? How Much Do They Lose?

During the Great Recession, more older workers have claimed Social Security benefits early. This paper addresses two important policy questions: Who are these early claimers? How much retirement income have they lost as a result of claiming early? Using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) we estimate a discrete-time hazard model that makes claiming Social Security benefits a function of age, personal characteristics, and the national unemployment rate. We project that high unemployment rates during the Great Recession led to a 5-percentage-point increase in the probability of claiming early relative to a less severe recession such as the 2001-2003 downturn, and this increase was nearly uniform across socioeconomic groups. Our estimates also suggest that while the Great Recession did impact the claiming decision, it did not cause a dramatic change in benefits. “Great Recession Claimers” – those whom we simulate were likely to claim early during the Great Recession but would not have in a milder downturn – filed for Social Security only 6 months earlier, on average, than they would have in a minor recession. This modest change in timing reduced their monthly Social Security benefit checks by

Point of No Return: How Do Financial Resources Affect the Timing of Retirement After a Job Separation?

56, or 4.6 percent of average monthly benefits, and the Social Security replacement rate fell by 1.7 percentage points relative to a more typical recession. The benefit reduction resulted from the combined effect of the actuarial reduction for early claiming and the foregone opportunity to continue working and increase the wage base used for calculating benefits.

How Do Subjective Longevity Expectations Influence Retirement Plans

This project uses the Survey of Income and Program Participation to examine the decision to retire after job separation among the increasing number of older individuals who leave a job between 55 and 70, and how this decision varies by labor market conditions and the resources available to the unemployed. Among individuals whose jobless spells end in retirement, most do so within a year after separation. The availability of resources like Social Security retirement benefits, high net worth, and defined benefit pensions appear to encourage more rapid labor force exit and retirement, rather than supporting job seekers during a long search. Surprisingly, retirement is only modestly more likely when the unemployment rate is high, and a greater duration of unemployment insurance benefits has little effect on retirement timing. Poor health and work-limiting disabilities are also associated with more rapid labor force exit and retirement. These results suggest little tolerance for long job searches – regardless of labor market prospects – and indicate that those who can afford to retire will do so rather quickly.

DO TAX INCENTIVES INCREASE 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVING? EVIDENCE FROM THE ADOPTION OF CATCH-UP CONTRIBUTIONS

Increasing life expectancy has made working longer both more necessary and more possible, but the relationship between an individual’s survival expectations and his planned retirement age is unclear in the existing literature. This study uses the Health and Retirement Study and an instrumental variables (IV) approach to examine how subjective life expectancy influences planned retirement ages and expectations of working at older ages, and how individuals update those expectations when they receive new information. The estimates in this paper suggest a large and statistically significant relationship between subjective life expectancy and retirement expectations: a one-standard-deviation increase in optimism about living to ages 75 or 85 is associated with an 8-percent to 24-percent increase over the mean probability of working at these ages. Actual retirement behavior also increases with subjective life expectancy, but the relationship is somewhat weaker. Our IV estimates using parents’ longevity as instruments are largely consistent with our reduced form estimates, strengthening the conclusion that subjective life expectancy impacts both retirement planning and actual retirement behaviors. Finally, we find that increases over time in subjective life expectancy are associated with increases in the probability of planning to work at ages 62 and 65. The results further our understanding of how survival and retirement expectations are “anchored” to the previous generation’s experience and suggest how targeted efforts at increasing knowledge about rising life expectancy may increase the proportion of younger cohorts who decide to work longer.

Sticky Ages: Why is Age 65 Still a Retirement Peak?

The U.S. government subsidizes retirement saving through 401(k) plans with

How Will Older Workers Who Lose Their Jobs During the Great Recession Fare in the Long-Run?

61.4 billion in tax expenditures annually, but the question of whether these tax incentives are effective in increasing saving remains unanswered. Using longitudinal U.S. Social Security Administration data on tax-deferred earnings linked to the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the project examines whether the “catch-up provision,” which was enacted in 2001 and allows workers over age 50 to contribute more to their 401(k) plans, has been effective in increasing earnings deferrals. Compared with similar workers under age 50, the study finds that contributions increased by

What is the Long-Term Impact on Zebley Kids?

540 more among age-50-plus individuals who had approached the 401(k) tax-deferral limits prior to turning 50, suggesting that the older individuals respond to the expanded tax incentives. For this group, the elasticity of retirement savings to the tax incentive is quite high: a one-dollar increase in the tax-deferred limit leads to an immediate 49-cent increase in 401(k) contributions.