Dropout Roulette: Has the "spiral" begun?

"Judi's letter has all the more meaning, doesn't it? Has the 'spiral' begun?" (John Curry, 11/09/05)

"My personal feeling is they used the healthcare money to make it look like they were increasing our investment returns (earnings) because they wanted us not to search so much. They had squeezed us all they thought they could so they eased off. That's why our healthcare went up 800% when AARP said it went up 35%." (Judi)

Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Subject: Dropout Roulette-STRS?

From: Judi
To: Shirlee Zerkle ; Nancy B. Hamant ; Dennis Leone ; Mary Angeletti ; John Curry ; Tom Curtis ; George Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Subject: Fwd: Dropout Roulette

This statement is from the current STRS website:

"This results in an insured pool of enrollees with higher medical costs. As a result, premiums have to increase at substantial rates over time to cover the lost premiums of healthy enrollees who leave the plan."

SOUND FAMILIAR? IT SHOULD; IT'S THE TECHNIQUE CALLED ROULETTE

Date: Sat, 7 May 2005
Subject: Dropout Roulette

Dropout Roulette

When employers cap or cut retiree medical programs, the companies don't benefit just by spending less and reaping accounting gains. They also can benefit from a spiral of dropouts.

As retirees see their out-of-pocket costs rising, some of the healthier retirees quit the company program. Their good health lets them buy cheaper coverage elsewhere. But their departures concentrate the remaining pool with sicker people, costs go up, more dropouts ensue, and the pool gets more concentrated again, in what the industry sometimes calls a death spiral.

Each dropout reduces a company's immediate outlays, since it no longer has to pay even a capped benefit for that person. Dropouts also generate accounting gains for the company, since the concern gets to reverse the liability it had booked for covering those retirees for life.

A company in this situation -- with its own expenses capped -- has little incentive to negotiate the lowest possible prices with medical providers. In fact, it has an incentive not to: Rising expenses not only won't hurt the company but will tend to drive more retirees from the program.

At Sears Roebuck & Co., thousands of retirees have dropped out of a retiree health-benefit plan in recent years, at a time when retirees' share of costs was going up. While no one is saying Sears sought this dropout spiral, the dropouts follow a series of caps Sears established in the 1990s to limit its own expenses. The number of retirees taking part in its health plan has fallen 18% since 2000, to 51,500. Sears has 115,000 retirees in all. It can't say how many are eligible.

Sears says that while cost may prompt some retirees to drop out of the health plan, a more significant factor is that older retirees are dying and fewer people are eligible. Benefits Vice President Liz Rossman says Sears works hard to keep its plan affordable for retirees.

Sears has fed $383 million into earnings since 1997 from accounting gains that arose when the company capped its spending and retirees dropped the increasingly costly coverage.

In January, Sears announced it was further tightening the cap on its spending on retirees' health care, and also eliminating future retiree health benefits for most current employees. Sears says the steps will make it more competitive but declines to say how much they will generate in accounting gains.

What makes such moves different from other accounting quirks is that retirees end up paying the price. In Jeannette, Pa., in early January, about 100 retirees of GenCorp Inc., formerly called General Tire & Rubber, met in a union hall to discuss the latest rise in their health-care premiums.
The new cost of coverage for a couple was $568 a month. For most, this exceeded their company pensions. Because of the higher cost, many of the retirees at the meeting, whose ages hovered around 80, said they were dropping their employer's coverage.

Mabel Kramer began working at the company in 1944 making gas masks for World War II soldiers, and met her husband there. Now a widow, she collects a pension of $179 a month based on his 34 years with the company. Her GenCorp retiree medical benefits cost her $284 a month, consuming the pension and part of her $810 Social Security check. "If they raise it any more, I'll drop it," says Mrs. Kramer, 78. "It's enough to make you sick."

Others don't dare drop it. Edward Peksa, who spent 24 years in GenCorp's tennis-ball department, said he needs the coverage to help pay for five drugs his wife, Anna, takes for arthritis, hypertension and thyroid and cholesterol problems. The couple's premium more than erases his GenCorp pension of $320 a month. To make ends meet, Mr. Peksa, 75, works 30 hours a week as a greeter at Wal-Mart Stores.

These retirees were paying nothing for their health-care coverage until 2000, when the company began charging them. Their premiums have risen steadily since then. GenCorp says the reason is the ceilings it placed in 1995 and 1997 on its own spending on retirees' health care.

GenCorp's spending on the retiree health-care benefit has fallen over the past six years, its filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission show. It paid $30 million for the benefit in 1997 but just $25 million in 2003, according to its annual report. The liability on its books for retiree health care is down 40% since 1995.

Among the reasons is that no one hired since the mid-1990s will get the retiree benefit, GenCorp says. It adds that the liability also shrinks as retirees die or drop out of the health-care plan because they have "other options or coverage available, or possibly because they can't afford it any more."

And this:

How Cuts in Retiree Benefits Fatten Companies' Bottom Lines

Trimming a Health-Care Plan Creates Accounting Gains, Under Some Arcane Rules A Shield Against Rising Costs

By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 16, 2004

The loud message comes from one company after another: Surging health-care costs for retired workers are creating a giant burden. So companies have been cutting health benefits for their retirees or requiring them to contribute more of the cost.

Time for a reality check: In fact, no matter how high health-care costs go, well over half of large American corporations face only limited impact from the increases when it comes to their retirees. They have established ceilings on how much they will ever spend per retiree for health care. If health costs go above the caps, it's the retiree, not the company, who's responsible.

Yet numerous companies are cutting retirees' health benefits anyway. One possible factor: When companies cut these benefits, they create instant income. This isn't just the savings that come from not spending as much. Rather, thanks to complex accounting rules, the very act of cutting retirees' future health-care benefits lets companies reduce a liability and generate an immediate accounting gain.

In some cases it flows straight to the bottom line. More often it sits on the books like a cookie jar, from which a company takes a piece each year that helps it meet its earnings targets.

The art of minimizing retiree-benefit costs while creating income is arcane and poorly understood by the public -- and by the retirees. Here's a field guide to seven techniques.

Hitting the Ceiling

Big companies began in the early 1990s to set ceilings on how much they would ever spend for retiree health care, regardless of what happened to medical costs in general. ConocoPhillips, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. are among the many that did so. A cap can be a fixed annual amount per retiree, a per-retiree average or, less commonly, a fixed sum for a group.

In any case, once it's reached, a company is largely insulated from future medical-cost increases for those retirees.

The fate of retirees can be very different. When Robert Eggleston retired from International Business Machines Corp. 12 years ago, he was paying $40 a month toward health-care premiums for himself and his wife, LaRue, with IBM paying the rest. In 1993, IBM set ceilings on its own health-care spending for retirees. For those on Medicare, which provides basic hospital and doctor-visit coverage, the cap was $3,000 or $3,500, depending on when they retired. For those younger than 65, the cap was $7,000 or $7,500. Spending hit the caps for the older retirees in 2001, the company says, pushing future health-cost increases onto retirees' shoulders.

Mr. Eggleston, 66 years old, has seen his premiums jump more to $365 a month for the couple. Deductibles and copayments for drugs and doctor visits added $663 a month last year. "It just eats up all the pension," which is $850 a month, Mrs. Eggleston says. Her husband has brain cancer.

Though he gets free supplies of a tumor-fighting drug through a program for low-income families, he has cashed in his 401(k) account, and he and LaRue have taken out a second mortgage on their Lake Dallas, Texas, home.

IBM retirees as a group saw their health-care premiums rise nearly 29% in 2003, on the heels of a 67%-plus increase in 2002. For IBM, with its caps in place, spending on retiree health care declined nearly 5%, after a drop of 18% the year before.

IBM confirms that retirees' spending has risen as its own has fallen. It describes the retirees' increased cost in 2003 as not very dramatic, averaging $158 a year, or $13.15 a month, for each of the 190,000 retirees and dependents who participate in the plan. IBM says its costs are down because more retirees are older and eligible for Medicare, so the company's contribution is lower.
It says that this year it established a "zero premium" plan for retirees, although this plan carries deductibles double those of other plans.

_________________________________________

This 2004 STRS made 15.5% on investments. This is in exceptionally bad times. What did they make in 2001-2003?

I requested this from Dave Speas:

From: Slater, Robert
To: David Speas
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: Funding

Hi, Dave.

Total fund investment return for fiscal years 1995-2000 were as follows:

1995 – 17.23%

1996 – 12.67%

1997 – 17.42%

1998 – 14.55%

1999 – 12.74%

2000 – 10.44%

________________________________

This is what STRS investment employees made in really good times. Something is wrong here. I think I'm right. Why weren't they making more in good times? My personal feeling is they used the healthcare money to make it look like they were increasing our investment returns (earnings) because they wanted us not to search so much. They had squeezed us all they thought they could so they eased off. That's why our healthcare went up 800% when AARP said it went up 35%. Check back over your notes.

Better check with Wilshire too.

Judi