Wenliang Hou

New Evidence on the Risk of Requiring Long-Term Care

Long-term care is one of the major expenses faced by many older Americans. Yet, we have only limited information about the risk of needing long-term care and the expected duration of care. The expectations of needing to receive home health care, live in an assisted living facility or live in a nursing home are essential inputs into models of optimal post-retirement saving and long-term care insurance purchase. Previous research has used the Robinson (1996) transition matrix, based on National Long Term Care Survey (NLTCS) data for 1982-89. The Robinson model predicts that men and women aged 65 have a 27 and 44 percent chance, respectively, of ever needing nursing home care. Recent evidence suggests that those earlier estimates may be extremely misleading in important dimensions. Using Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data from 1992-2010, Hurd, Michaud, and Rohwedder (2013) estimate that men and women aged 50 have a 50 and 65 percent chance, respectively, of ever needing care. But, they also estimate shorter average durations of care, resulting, as we show, from a greater chance of returning to the community, conditional on admission. If nursing home care is a high-probability but relatively low-cost occurrence, models that treat it as a lower-probability, high-cost occurrence may overstate the value of insurance. We update and modify the Robinson model using more recent data from both the NLTCS and the HRS. We show that the low lifetime utilization rates and high conditional mean durations of stay in the Robinson model are artifacts of specific features of the statistical model that was fitted to the data. We also show that impairment and most use of care by age has declined and that the 2004 NLTCS and the 1996-2010 HRS yield similar cross-sectional patterns of care use. We revise and update the care transition model, and we show that use of the new transition matrix substantially reduces simulated values of willingness-to-pay in an optimal long-term care insurance model.

National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) Update Shows Half of Working-Age Americans Still Falling Short

The National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) shows the share of working-age households who are at risk of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement. The Index is constructed using the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), a triennial survey of U.S. households that collects detailed financial and demographic information. For SCF households, the NRRI compares projected replacement rates—retirement income as a percentage of pre-retirement income—with target rates that would allow them to maintain their living standard and calculates the percentage of households at risk of falling short. The article begins by describing how the NRRI is constructed. The second section presents the NRRI in 2013, showing that 52% of households were at risk. The third section highlights the key levers and presents the results by age, income, and type of pension coverage. The fourth section discusses the stability of the NRRI despite numerous revisions and then explains why it provides a more dire outlook than the optimal savings literature. The final section concludes that the NRRI confirms that today’s workers face a major retirement income challenge, even if they work to age 65 and annuitize all of their financial assets.

The Behavioral and Consumption Effects of Social Security Changes

Social Security’s Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2034. A variety of changes to the program have been put forward that would either push this date out into the future or delay it indefinitely. Some of these changes would cut benefits – e.g., increasing the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 69 – while others would increase program revenue – e.g., increasing the payroll tax. While Social Security’s Office of the Chief Actuary projects the financial impact on the program of a wide variety of changes, understanding the impact of these changes on recipients’ behavior and well-being is also a valuable exercise. This paper uses the Gustman and Steinmeier structural model to analyze the effects of four changes to the Social Security program on recipients’ retirement timing and household consumption.

Why Are U.S. Households Claiming Social Security Later

Over the past two decades, the share of individuals claiming Social Security at the Early Eligibility Age has dropped and the average retirement age has increased. At the same time, Social Security rules have changed substantially, employer-sponsored retirement plans have shifted from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC), health has improved, and mortality has decreased. In theory, all of these changes could lead to a trend towards later claiming. Disentangling the effect of any one change is difficult because they have been occurring simultaneously. This paper uses the Gustman and Steinmeier structural model of retirement timing to investigate which of these changes matter most by simulating their effects on the original cohort (1931-1941 birth years) of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The predicted behavior is then compared to the actual retirements of the Early Baby Boomer cohort (1948-1953 birth years) to see how much of the later cohort’s delayed claiming and retirement can be explained by these changes.

Pension participation, wealth, and income: 1992-2010

Using data from the 1992, 1998, 2004, and 2010 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), this paper compares pension participation, pension wealth, projected retirement income, and replacement rates attributable to past service, by pension type for households ages 51-56. The analysis includes workers’ pension coverage during both current and past jobs. Defined contribution (DC) wealth is simply the current account balance. DC income is calculated by projecting current plan balances to retirement, assuming no further contributions, and assuming that households then annuitize. Defined benefit (DB) wealth and income are calculated by apportioning projected benefits to past and future service.

The impact of Massachusetts health insurance reform on labor mobility

This paper examines the impact of the Massachusetts Health Insurance reform of 2016 on job mobility and employment exit using administrative data from the Social Security Administration. The Massachusetts reform mandated that every resident have insurance coverage and facilitated this initiative by requiring employers to offer coverage, as well as expanding Medicaid and creating health insurance exchanges with subsidized premiums. These elements provided the basis for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed nationwide in 2010, so the experience of workers in Massachusetts provides evidence for how the ACA may affect labor market efficiency. Of particular interest is the extent to which Massachusetts’ reform reduced “job lock” – the phenomenon in which workers stay with employers to maintain their health insurance coverage, rather than move to a more productive match at another employer (especially a small firm unlikely to offer coverage) or exit employment entirely. The project measures differential effects by age, gender, and firm size, and tries to disentangle the effects of the employer mandate and the individual mandate by identifying individuals who cross state lines between home and work.