EBRI Data Delivers Fresh Retirement Health Care Cost Concerns

Retired couples, according to EBRI research, can require up to $370,000 to cover premiums for Medicare Parts B and D, premiums for Medigap Plan F, and out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs.

The Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) published a new EBRI Notes report on the topic of ballooning retiree medical care costs.

Researchers examine the amount of savings couples will require to cover common medical costs accrued later in life. In particular, premiums for Medicare Parts B and D, premiums for Medigap Plan F, and out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs are weighed. Taking all of these costs together, the EBRI analysis comes to an eye-popping sum.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“In 2017, a 65-year-old man needs $73,000 in savings and a 65-year-old woman needs $95,000 if each have a goal of having a 50% chance of having enough savings to cover premiums and median prescription drug expenses in retirement,” the analysis states. “If they want a 90% chance of having enough savings, the man needs $131,000 and the woman needs $147,000.”

According to EBRI, a couple with median prescription drug expenses needs $169,000 if they have a goal of having a 50% chance of having enough savings to cover health care expenses in retirement. If the couple wants a 90% chance of having enough savings, they need $273,000.

“For a couple with drug expenses at the 90th percentile throughout retirement who want a 90% chance of having enough money saved for health care expenses in retirement by age 65, targeted savings is $368,000 in 2017,” EBRI says. “From 2016 to 2017, projected savings targets increased between 1% and 6%. In contrast, savings targets declined between 2011 and 2014, but then increased from 2014 to 2016 as well.”

Despite the increase in savings targets since 2014, EBRI finds the 2017 savings targets continue to be lower than they were in 2012 almost across the board.

Where the costs come from

The EBRI analysis goes into some depth in explaining how these large sums add up so quickly. Important to the outcome is that the study assumes that all individuals and couples have Medigap Plan F coverage in retirement, and “thus treats all individuals and couples as having the Plan F premium as an expense,  because this approach takes away the uncertainty related to actual use of specific health care services over one’s lifetime.”

“That is, instead of trying to predict when a Medicare beneficiary may use health care services and thus incur health expenses, which are highly dependent on whether the individual has reached their Medicare Part A and/or Part B deductibles, this study assumes that beneficiaries have the most comprehensive health insurance coverage available that is supplemental to Medicare (i.e., Plan F) and thus pay premiums for this coverage on a regular basis,” EBRI explains.

This study includes estimates on out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs based on data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). EBRI researchers highlight that it is currently possible for new Medicare beneficiaries to purchase Medigap insurance (e.g., Plan F) to completely avoid deductibles and other cost sharing associated with Medicare Parts A and B; but it is not possible to avoid the deductibles and other cost sharing associated with Part D outpatient prescription drugs. “Thus, under Part D, for expenses above the deductible, beneficiaries are responsible for 25% coinsurance on expenses between the deductible and the initial benefit limit. And once the initial benefit limit is reached, beneficiaries are in the donut hole until they reach the catastrophic limit, above which they pay 5% coinsurance. When outpatient prescription drug coverage was added to Medicare in 2006, beneficiaries in the donut hole paid 100 % coinsurance. When ACA was enacted, it included a provision to phase in a reduction in the donut hole to 25 percent coinsurance by 2020.”

The research concludes in no uncertain terms that individuals should be concerned about saving for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. 

“Medicare generally covers only about two-thirds of the cost of health care services for Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older, while out-of-pocket spending accounts for 12%,” EBRI states. “Furthermore, the percentage of private-sector establishments offering retiree health benefits has been falling. This is also true in the public sector.”

Read the full report here.

Target-Date Funds Could Be Costing Your Plan More Than You Know

Michael Schultz, RFC, CFS, president, Venn Wealth & Benefit Services discusses variables that should be considered when doing due diligence on TDFs.

Target-date fund (TDF) assets ballooned to roughly $880 billion dollars in 2016, according to April’s Morningstar 2017 Target-Date Fund Landscape annual survey report. And Cerulli Research Associates estimates that TDFs will capture roughly 90% of all new 401(k) plan contributions by 2020.

Considering the kind of money flowing into the funds, and the wide variance in expenses, performance and risk factors, should plan sponsors be increasing their due diligence on these investments? The following are variables that should be considered when undertaking that process.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Advantages of TDFs

TDFs are a “set-it-and-forget-it” or “autopilot” investment. They tend to be better suited for the participant who is not financially sophisticated enough to allocate for himself. They also provide for diversification because the money will be spread over several mutual funds and be rebalanced and reallocated over time as the person’s retirement age approaches. From an administrative standpoint, they can also ease automatic enrollment.

Disadvantages of TDFs

On the down side, the glide path can vary from one of these funds to another. Some TDFs may be more exposed to risk by the time their target date arrives. Most utilize their own funds as part of the investment mix and may not be the best option within their respective asset class. The autopilot quality can also give participants a false sense of security, making them pay less attention to their portfolio over time or when the market is unstable.

Further, participants tend to use TDFs improperly. A TDF is supposed to be a one-stop shop: Pick a date you plan to retire and the TDF closest to that date. However, participants will tend to mix other asset class funds with their TDF, which defeats the intended benefit. A participant could be tactically choosing other investments to overweight an asset class or sector to improve performance, but if he is this sophisticated at allocation decisions, why would he use a TDF to begin with?

The Data

There were 143 funds in the category “Target-Date Funds 2015,” based on information collected from Morningstar Advisor, and the data presented for these funds revealed significant differences.

Net Expense Ratio

The net expense ratio ranged between .08% and 1.75%, which equates to a 1.67-point spread. As a plan sponsor, if you have the more expensive TDFs in your lineup, you had better be prepared to defend your decision to utilize them.

Allocation Range

You would think TDFs with the same target date would be similar in their allocations. The equity allocation ranged between 24.3% and 55.8%, while the bond allocation ranged between 32.5 and 74.6%. Even the amount of cash held ranged from .52% to 30%.

Performance Range

Performance difference is no exception. The five-year performance ranged from 3.1% to 8.3%. Participants not getting the better returns could be missing out on thousands of dollars over time.

Standard Deviation

Lower volatility is perceived as more conservative, and standard deviation measures the volatility of a fund’s return in relation to its average.

TDFs are supposed to have a glide path toward more conservative assets, such as bonds as they get closer to the target date. In a rising rate environment, bonds can be as risky and volatile as their equity counterparts. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF [exchange traded fund] is a good fund, but it has a three-year standard deviation of 11.44, compared with the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which has a three-year standard deviation of 10.04. How does a participant know if the TDF is adjusting the bond position to protect against the effect of rising rates?

Follow the Money

As a plan sponsor, are you paying fair value for an adviser if TDFs are recommended or utilized more heavily? As mentioned earlier, the funds are a “set-it-and-forget-it” investment that doesn’t require allocation changes or rebalancing.

As an example, we’ll take a $3 million plan with 50 participants, assume the adviser meets with each participant for 30 minutes twice a year and provides no other 3(21) or 3(38) fiduciary services. Keep in mind, if most assets are in TDFs, there isn’t much to talk about on visits because of the autopilot nature of the investment. If the adviser receives .50%, this equates to $15,000 a year, or $600 an hour. If we instead use an hourly rate of $150 and the same time assumption, this totals just $7,500 a year, compared with $15,000. Making this single negotiated move would result in a 50% savings staying with the plan or in the pockets of participants.

It’s not that TDFs are completely worthless. As a plan sponsor, you need to understand your participant demographics, needs, amount of service needed and any limitations of your plan provider. TDFs have been manufactured and brilliantly marketed by a very powerful financial service industry. It’s important to understand that they are not superior to other investments when it comes to performance. So, if they’re not superior to other investment options, then you should ask yourself … who stands to profit the most from their use?

 

 

Michael Schultz is president of Venn Wealth & Benefit Services, LLC. With over twenty years of experience in the financial service business and a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting from Penn State University, he has been a strong advocate for plan sponsors and participants to improve the overall effectiveness of retirement plan strategies.

The information contained herein is for informational purposes only. None of the information constitutes a recommendation by Venn Wealth & Benefit Services and is not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Venn does not guarantee the suitability or potential value of any particular investment or information source. Certain information provided herein may be subject to change. None of the information contained herein may be copied, assigned, transferred, disclosed, or utilized without the express written approval of Venn.

 

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of Strategic Insight or its affiliates.

«