IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Monthly Labor Review Online

November 2012, Vol. 135, No. 11 [30 November 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/11/home.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/11/mlr201211.pdf

[full-text, 108 pages]

Older women: pushed into retirement in the 1970s and 1980s by the baby boomers?
Ann C. Foster and Craig J. Kreisler
Summary | Full text in PDF

Stop, drop, and roll: workplace hazards of local government firefighers, 2009
Maureen P. Doherty
Summary | Full text in PDF

Adding eldercare questions to the American Time Use Survey
Guy L. Podgornik
Full text in PDF

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

Vital and Health Statistics

Series 10, Number 255

Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population:

National Health Interview Survey, 2011 [30 November 2012]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_255.pdf

[full-text, 196 pages]

Abstract

This report presents both age-adjusted and unadjusted health statistics from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States. Estimates are disaggregated by sex, age, race, Hispanic origin, education, family income, poverty status, health insurance coverage (where appropriate), place of residence, and region of residence. The topics covered are respondent-assessed health status, limitations in activities, special education or early intervention services, injury and poisoning episodes, health care access and utilization, and health insurance coverage.

Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................... 8

Introduction ............................................................................ 10

Methods ................................................................................... 16

Data Source............................................................................ 16

Estimation Procedures ........................................................... 19

Injuries and Poisonings .......................................................... 21

Transition to 2000 Census-based Weights ............................. 22

Age Adjustment ..................................................................... 23

Sample Size Changes in NHIS............................................... 24

Income and Poverty Status Changes ...................................... 25

Data Limitations .................................................................... 26

Variance Estimation and Significance Testing....................... 28

Further Information ............................................................... 29

Selected Highlights ................................................................. 31

Respondent-assessed Health Status ....................................... 31

Limitation in Usual Activities ............................................... 33

Limitation in Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living ..................................................... 34

Limitation in Work Activity ................................................. 35

Special Education or Early Intervention Services .................. 37

Incidence of Medically Consulted Injury and Poisoning Episodes ................................................................................ 38

Causes of Injury and Poisoning Episodes ............................. 39

Activity at Time of Injury and Poisoning Episodes .............. 40

Place of Occurrence of Injury and Poisoning Episodes ........ 41

Access to Medical Care ......................................................... 42

Overnight Hospital Stays ....................................................... 44

Type of Health Insurance Coverage ...................................... 45

Periods Without Health Insurance Coverage Among Currently Insured Persons Under Age 65 .............................................. 47

Length of Time Since Last Covered by Health Insurance Among Currently Uninsured Persons Under Age 65 ............ 48

Reasons for No Health Insurance Coverage Among Currently Uninsured Persons Under Age 65 ......................................... 49

References ............................................................................... 51

Appendix I. Technical Notes on Methods ..............................56

Age Adjustment ..................................................................... 58

Treatment of Unknown Values .............................................. 60

Hypothesis Tests .................................................................... 67

Appendix II. Definitions of Selected Terms .......................... 69

Sociodemographic Terms ...................................................... 69

Terms Related to Health Characteristics or Outcomes........... 81

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

National Science Foundation (NSF)

NSF 13-306 | November 2012 |

New Data on Line of Business Improve Understanding of U.S. Industry R&D Statistics [28 November 2012]

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13306/

or

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13306/nsf13306.pdf

[full-text, 8 pages]

In 2008, an estimated 92% of companies devoted all of their research and development efforts to one line of business, according to the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS). The remaining 8% diversified their R&D spending across multiple lines of businesses, and these companies were the ones that tended to heavily invest in R&D. Companies reporting more than one line of business accounted for $107 billion (33%) of the $328 billion worldwide R&D expense for U.S. businesses. Survey findings also showed that 82% of companies with R&D expenses derived all of their worldwide sales from one line of business.

Companies typically start out offering a single type of good or service to their customers, but as these companies grow (organically or through acquisitions) they sometimes diversify into offering different types of products. Companies typically group related products together for both management and accounting purposes. This InfoBrief examines companies' R&D statistics in terms of these groups, commonly known as lines of business. Companies located in the United States that received BRDIS were asked to identify the lines of business in which they operated in 2008 and, for the first time, were asked to report their sales and R&D expenditures for these lines of business.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES...

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC)

Growth opportunities and obstacles for Swedish SMEs [28 November 2012]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/surveyreports/SE1207019D/SE1207019D.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/surveyreports/SE1207019D/SE1207019D.pdf
[full-text, 13 pages]

The fourth in a series of nationwide surveys on the business environment and reality for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) was conducted by the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth and Statistics Sweden in 2011. The survey examined the situation of SMEs, the opportunities for growth and perceived threats to growth. Over 19,000 SME owners gave their views on topics such as growth, competition, regulations, internationalisation and access to finance.

About the survey

Structural data on Swedish SMEs

Trends and key findings

Commentary

References

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO)

COMPARATIVE STUDY

Changing business landscape and industrial relations in the EU electricity sector [15 November 2012]
November 2012
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1202028s/index.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1202028s/tn1202028s.htm
or
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/eiro/tn1202028s/tn1202028s.pdf
[full-text, 47 pages]

The electricity sector in Europe has undergone radical reform since the mid-1990s. Within the framework of the broader energy sector, a series of EU Directives has accompanied the liberalisation of national markets and the establishment of an internal electricity market under a common regulatory framework. The business landscape has changed from one in which national markets were dominated by monopolist operators to an integrated EU market with large companies on a continental, and increasingly global, scale. In the past decade, EU policies promoting renewable energy sources (RES) in electricity generation, as well as in heating and transport, have contributed to further transform the market structure, with the emergence of new firms, often SMEs, and the progressive dispersion of generating plants. Employment has fallen considerably since the mid-1990s and restructuring and reorganisation have marked the electricity sector ever since. While the business structure has undergone considerable change, industrial relations have remained relatively stable, with continuing high union density rates and collective bargaining coverage.

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The reports have not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

Contributing articles:

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS, OCTOBER 2012 [30 November 2012]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2012/pi1012.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2012/pdf/pi1012.pdf

[full-text, 12 pages

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2012/xls/pi1012.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2012/pdf/pi1012_fax.pdf

Personal income increased $0.4 billion, or less than 0.1 percent, and disposable personal income

(DPI) increased $0.8 billion, or less than 0.1 percent, in October, according to the Bureau of Economic

Analysis.  Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) decreased $20.2 billion, or 0.2 percent.  In

September, personal income increased $47.8 billion, or 0.4 percent, DPI increased $42.1 billion, or 0.4

percent, and PCE increased $84.0 billion, or 0.8 percent, based on revised estimates.

Real disposable income decreased 0.1 percent in October, compared with an increase of less than 0.1

percent in September.  Real PCE decreased 0.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.4 percent.

AND MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

SOCIAL PANORAMA OF LATIN AMERICA 2012: Briefing Paper [27 November 2012]

http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/4/48454/P48454.xml&xsl=/tpl-i/p9f.xsl&base=/tpl/top-bottom.xsl

or

http://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/4/48454/SocialPanorama2012DocI.pdf

[full-text, 60 pages]

Press Release 27 November 2012

Poverty Continues To Fall in Latin America, but Still Affects 167 Million People

http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/9/48459/P48459.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl-i/p6f.xsl&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl

(27 November 2012) The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) predicts that the region will end the year with 167 million people living in poverty (or 28.8% of the population), which is one million fewer people than in 2011. The number of people in extreme poverty or indigence will remain stable in 2012 at 66 million people (the same as in 2011).

Poverty in Latin America will continue its downward trend, but at a slower rate than in recent years, thanks to projections of positive economic growth and moderate inflation for the region in 2012, according to the report Social Panorama of Latin America 2012, which was presented today at the ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile.

According to the report, 168 million Latin Americans (or 29.4% of the region's population) were living under the poverty line in 2011. That year, the figure was 1.6 percentage points lower than in 2010.

As in previous years, the rise in wages for poor households was the main determining factor in the poverty reduction. Transfers (public and private ones) and all other revenue played a smaller part in the reduction.

According to ECLAC Executive Secretary, Alicia Bárcena, "Current poverty and indigence rates are the lowest for three decades, and this is good news, but we are still facing unacceptable levels in many countries.  The challenge is to generate quality jobs as part of a development model based on equality and environmental sustainability".

According to the report, the last decade has seen reduced inequality in income distribution, although this issue remains one of the region's main challenges.  The most recent available statistics for 18 countries indicate that, on average, the richest 10% of the Latin American population receives 32% of total income, while the poorest 40% receive just 15% of income.

In addition, ECLAC points out a different trend in the region's public social spending. Up to 2010, such spending continued to rise in Latin America, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total public spending and GDP (in what was a countercyclical tendency during the international crisis). However, partial data from 2011 indicate that there is tendency towards a relative shrinkage of social spending to shore up public finances, which does not necessarily mean an absolute reduction in the sums allocated to social sectors.

The 2012 edition of the Social Panorama also tackles some aspects of the care issue in Latin America.  The report states that this is "a fundamental issue involving profound gender discrimination and inequality that have a negative impact on women, who bear the burden of care in the form of unpaid and relatively unrecognized work". The document adds that it is difficult for women to reconcile unpaid care work in the household with paid work outside the home.

In specific terms, the document examines paid employment in care activities, as well as household spending on care services, and proposes a series of policy recommendations.

According to the publication, 6.7% of all employed people in Latin America (based on data from 14 countries) work in the care sector, of which around three quarters are employed in domestic household work. Women hold 94% of the jobs associated with this sector: 71% in domestic service and 23% in educational and health services. The remaining 6% corresponds to men in domestic service and other care sector occupations.

There is a higher rate of poverty among care workers than among other employed people (24.1% compared with 20.2% in 2010). Domestic employment in particular combines scarce regulation, low wages, limited access to social protection, discrimination and extremely precarious labour conditions, according to the Social Panorama 2012.

The report also states that a low percentage of households (15%) spend on care services.  On average, only 7.6% of households in the poorest quintile spend on care services (compared with 32% among the richest quintile). Among those who do spend on care, the expenditure is significantly higher in households that include older adults.

ECLAC also studies the situation of disabled people in the region, their care needs and the challenges for public policies. According to the most recent available data from various sources (which remain extremely variable in gathering information that is comparable among countries), around 12% of the Latin American and Caribbean population is thought to be living with at least one disability, which represents around 66 million people.

Lastly, the Commission states that "we need a new balance in terms of the role of the State, the market, families and the community in the provision of care". It calls for a new social contract to establish a fairer distribution of roles and resources among men and women in families and society, and to promote a new link between the public and private work spheres with positive effects for productive development.

As for the role of the State, it is vital to set up national care systems with public institutions capable of integrating policies and services, linking organizations and public, private and civil society resources, and of ensuring the relevance, comprehensiveness and quality of those services.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2012 (second estimate) [29 November 2012]

Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2012 (preliminary estimate)

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/gdp3q12_2nd.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp3q12_2nd.pdf

[full-text, 18 pages]

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/xls/gdp3q12_2nd.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp3q12_2nd_fax.pdf

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property

located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that

is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the

Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.

                The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for

the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.0

percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from

personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, federal government spending,

residential fixed investment, and exports that were partly offset by negative contributions from

nonresidential fixed investment and state and local government spending.  Imports, which are a

subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased slightly.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected upturns in private inventory

investment and in federal government spending, a deceleration in imports, an acceleration in residential

fixed investment, and a smaller decrease in state and local government spending that were partly offset

by a downturn in nonresidential fixed investment and decelerations in exports and in PCE.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Towers Watson

2012–2013 Talent Management and Rewards Survey — U.S. Report [November 2012]

http://towerswatson.com/united-states/research/8415

or

http://towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/8415/TowersWatson-US-Report-TMR-Survey-NA-2012.pdf

[full-text, 14 pages]

Growing global competition continues to drive the stakes for attracting and engaging critical-skill talent ever higher. As U.S. employers remain focused on cost management and improving productivity, and seek profitable growth in a period of economic volatility, they need to craft reward and talent management strategies aligned with what top talent and critical-skill workers are looking for. Yet, according to the 2012 – 2013 Talent Management and Rewards Survey — U.S. Report, when it comes to attracting employees with critical skills and other top talent, more than 60% of our survey respondents report significant difficulty.

This year’s research also indicates that organizations with highly engaged employees tend to be more profitable, which means that companies can improve the return on their investments in reward and talent management programs by focusing on the top drivers of sustainable engagement. This year’s U.S. report includes a look at those top drivers of sustainable employee engagement, complete with recommended actions organizations can take to promote it.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Ensuring Workers Get What They Need, While

Organizations Realize Stronger Outcomes 2

Career Advancement Opportunities 4

Merit Increases and Bonus Funding 4

Performance Management 5

Leadership Development 6

Succession Management 6

Sustainable Engagement 7

Promoting Sustainable Engagement:

Actions Organizations Can Take 9

Conclusion 10

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Mercer

Press Release 14 November 2012

Employers held health benefit cost growth to 4.1% in 2012, the smallest increase in 15 years

http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1491670

Decisive action by employers in 2012 – in particular, moving more employees into low-cost consumer-directed health plans and beefing up health management programs – was rewarded with the lowest average annual cost increase since 1997. According to the National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, conducted annually by Mercer and released today, growth in the average total health benefit cost per employee slowed from 6.1% last year to just 4.1% in 2012 (Fig. 1). Cost averaged $10,558 per employee in 2012. Large employers – those with 500 or more employees – experienced both a higher increase (5.4%) and higher average cost (Fig. 2).

Employers expect another relatively low increase of 5.0% for 2013. However, this increase reflects changes they plan to make to reduce cost; if they made no changes, cost would rise by an average of 7.4%.

Mercer’s nationally projectable annual survey includes public and private organizations with 10 or more employees; 2,809 employers responded in 2012.

“Employers are very aware that in 2014, when the health reform law’s provisions kick in, they will be asked to cover more employees and face added cost pressure,” said Julio Portalatin, President and CEO of Mercer. “They’ve taken bold steps to soften the impact and it’s paying off already.”

Those that may have been waiting for the election results will need to act quickly, he says, “because critical decisions need to be made by the summer so they can be implemented for 2014 open enrollment.”

Success in controlling cost growth in recent years may be contributing to employers’ commitment to providing health coverage. Few believe it is likely that they will terminate their employee health plans within the next five years, even though state-based health insurance exchanges will provide another source of health coverage for individuals beginning in 2014. Just 7% of large employers and 22% of small employers (those with 10-499 employees) believe it is likely or very likely that they will do so (Fig. 3).

In fact, there was a slight uptick in the percentage of employers offering coverage in 2012:  it rose from 55% to 59%, after falling in each of the previous two years. Most of the increase was among the smallest employers – those with 10-49 employees – which are the least likely to offer coverage and the quickest to drop it when cost goes up (Fig. 4).

Enrollment shift to low-cost consumer-directed health plans helped to hold down overall cost increase
With a growing number of employers now positioning a high-deductible, account-based consumer-directed health plan as their primary plan – or even their only plan – employee enrollment jumped from 13% to 16% of all covered employees in 2012 (Fig. 5). Many employers see these plans as central to their response to health care reform provisions that will raise enrollment. Over the past two years, offerings of CDHPs have risen from 17% to 22% of all employers, and from 23% to 36% of employers with 500 or more employees. Well over half (59%) of very large organizations (20,000 or more employees), which typically offer employees a choice of medical plans, now offer a CDHP (Fig. 6).

“If we’re not already at the tipping point for CDHPs – and we may well be – at this rate of growth it’s coming soon,” says Sharon Cunninghis, US business leader for health and benefits.

Moving even a small number of employees out of a more expensive plan into a CDHP can result in significant savings for an employer. The cost of coverage in a CDHP with a health savings account is about 20% lower, on average, than the cost of PPO coverage – $7,833 per employee compared to $10,007 (Fig. 7). While employers have been reluctant to offer the CDHP as the only medical plan, survey results suggest that attitudes are shifting. When asked if they expect to offer a CDHP five years from now, 18% of large employers say they expect to offer it as the only plan, up from 11% in 2011. Among large employers that offer an HSA-based CDHP, average enrollment rose from 25% to 32%.

“PPACA requires that health plans cover, at a minimum, 60% of eligible health plan expenses,” says Ms. Cunninghis. “Some employers are resetting their health plan value to move closer to that minimum, and saving money as a result.”

Offering a lower-cost CDHP is one way employers “reset” plan value in 2012. Others simply raised the deductible of an existing PPO plan. The average PPO in-network deductible reached $1,427 for an individual in 2012. Although large employers typically require much lower deductibles, the average deductible amount among employers with 500 or more employees rose by about $80 in 2012, to reach $666 (Fig. 8).

“Over the past decade, employers have figured out how to stabilize health benefit cost increases through cost-shifting and other cost management techniques. Now we’re seeing a move toward even greater control through defined contribution strategies,” says Ms. Cunninghis.

An example of a defined contribution strategy is determining in advance what the employer contribution to the cost of coverage will be, and requiring employees to pay anything above that amount. If the employer offers a range of plans, employees can save money by choosing a lower-cost plan. Nearly half of employers – 45% – say they currently use or are considering using a defined contribution strategy (Fig. 9).

Employers believe health management is helping to slow medical trend
Workforce health management, or “wellness”, has emerged as employers’ top long-term strategy for controlling health spending. Over three-fourths of large employers (78%) say that senior leadership is supportive or very supportive of health management programs as a means of encouraging more health-conscious behavior.

“While most employers believe that health management programs are making a difference,” says Tracy Watts, a partner in Mercer’s Washington, D.C. office, “proving ROI remains a challenge for many. That said, there are many examples of programs saving lives by identifying a ticking time bomb and getting that person immediate care.”

The largest employers are the most likely to have formally measured the return on investment (ROI) of their health management programs (53% of employers with 20,000 or more employees). Of those, more than three-quarters say that their programs have had a positive impact on medical plan trend.

Perhaps because they are seeing results, employers are increasingly willing to invest in the success of these programs. For the third year in a row there was a sharp increase in the use of incentives or penalties to encourage higher participation: 48% of large employers with health management programs provided financial incentives or penalties, up from 33% last year (Fig. 10). When non-financial incentives (such as recognition, gifts or lotteries) are included, this figure reaches 54%.

At the same time, incentives have become more substantial. The most common incentive offered by large employers for completing a health assessment in 2012 is a reduction in the employee’s premium contribution; the median reduction in the annual contribution required for employee-only coverage is $260. In addition, a growing number of employers are providing incentives for achieving desired outcomes, instead of (or in addition to) incentives for participating in programs. Where incentives for achieving, maintaining or showing progress toward specific health status targets were rare in 2011, in 2012 nearly a fifth (18%) of large-employer health management programs include them.

 
Looking ahead

With the future of health reform secured by the re-election of President Obama, employers will be focusing on the next generation of cost management strategies. One approach that is increasingly in the spotlight is the use of private exchanges, a private-sector alternative to the state health insurance exchanges. Private exchanges give employers a way to offer employees a broader choice of benefits while allowing carriers to compete for their business and manage their risk.  More than half of all employers (56%) say they would consider a private exchange for either their active or retired employees.

The changing health care market is presenting employers not only with new ways to purchase health insurance, but with new ways to influence the quality of care that their employees receive.  Among very large employers (5,000 or more employees), the use of high-performance (or “narrow”) provider networks rose from 14% to 23% in 2012, while the use of surgical centers of excellence rose from 18% to 35%. There was also strong growth in the use of medical homes (from 3% to 9%), which also promise to save money by improving care.

“While employers deserve a lot of credit for curbing cost growth in 2012, they know that no one silver bullet will end cost escalation forever,” says Ms. Watts. “Health reform has presented us with a new set of challenges and we have to keep thinking one step ahead.”

Other findings

• Offerings of retiree medical plans remains stable in 2012  About a fourth (24%) of large employers offer an ongoing plan to retirees under age 65 and just 17% offer a plan to Medicare-eligible employees, essentially unchanged from 2011. An additional 15% have stopped offering a plan for which new hires will be eligible but continue to offer coverage to a closed group of employees retiring or hired before a specific date.
• Domestic partner coverage  Close to half of large employers include same-sex domestic partners as eligible dependents – 47%, up from 39% in 2010. This varies significantly based on geographic regions, from 73% of employers in the West to 30% in the South.
• Spousal surcharges  Very large employers are adopting special provisions concerning spouses of employees with other coverage available. In 2012, 18% of employers with 5,000 or more employees had such a provision in place, up from 15% in 2011. They either imposed a surcharge for spouses with other coverage available (14%) or denied them coverage entirely (4%).
• Tobacco use surcharges  19% of large employers (up from 17% in 2011) vary the employee contribution amount based on tobacco use status, or provide other incentives to encourage employees not to use tobacco. Growth was especially strong among very large employers: 46% of employers with 20,000 or more employees now use an incentive, up from just 35% in 2011.

 
Survey methodology

The Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans is conducted using a national probability sample of public and private employers with at least 10 employees; 2,809 employers completed the survey in 2012. The survey was conducted during the late summer, when most employers have a good fix on their costs for the current year. Results represent about 800,000 employers and more than 104 million full- and part-time employees. The error range is +/–3%.

The full report on the Mercer survey, including a separate appendix of tables of responses broken out by employer size, region and industry, will be published in April 2013. The report costs $600 and the report and tables cost $1,200. For more information, visit www.mercer.com/ushealthplansurvey or call Tara Lewis at 212-345-2451.

Notes for editors
Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) use a network of health care providers and do not cover care provided outside of the network.

Preferred provider organizations (PPOs) utilize a network of providers. There may be incentives for members to use the network providers, but they are covered for care received outside the network. Point-of-service plans are included.

A consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) is a medical benefit design in which employees use spending accounts – Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) – to purchase routine health care services directly. Non-routine expenses are covered by traditional insurance after members meet a generally high deductible. Online health and financial tools are generally provided. With an HSA, employees may contribute pre-tax dollars into the account; an employer contribution is optional, but employees have full control over all money in the account. With an HRA, only employers may fund the account and they decide whether money left in the account at the end of the year may roll over.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Mercer

Press Release 29 November 2012

Many National pension systems will be stressed as 'working age' populations shrink by 2020

http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1493015

The economically vital 15-64 age group is set to drop by as much as 6% as a percentage of total population in some nations in the next eight years, highlighting the pressure on unfunded national pension systems, says Mercer.

Hong Kong faces the biggest decline in this age group from 76% of total population today to 70% in 2020. Canada, Japan and Russia are major economies in which the working age population as a percent of total population is expected to decline by 4%. China, the United Kingdom and the United States are expected to see a 2% decline.

By contrast, in some major growth economies the working age population will grow as a percentage of total population over the next eight years. These include Pakistan, which is expected to see a 3% growth, and 2% growth is projected in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico.

 According to Dr Deborah Cooper, Partner in Mercer’s retirement business, “While the changes seem small in percentage terms, one must remember that this is a dramatic demographic shift over the next eight years, represents hundreds of millions of workers, and can have a major impact on state pension systems. Most national retirement schemes are state funded and start paying pensions from around age 65, so a contraction in the numbers of the most economically active group will see a reduction in funds available for welfare, health and retirement programmes. Concurrently, the 65+ group in a country might be increasing, drawing on a greater proportion of scarcer financial resources from the smaller working population.”

Many Governments have reacted to their ageing populations by a mixture of increasing the minimum payment age for the state pension and reducing the pension paid. According to Mercer, companies, already coping with the impact of demographic change in their own retirement plans, will be expected by employees in many countries to fill the gap in health and retirement benefits as the nation state retreats. 

“To do this effectively, we believe that companies and employees need to revisit fundamental beliefs on how to prepare for and structure retirement,” said Dr Cooper. “Governments are already moving in this area by removing default retirement ages or adjusting normal retirement ages.  At Mercer, we are seeing movement on the corporate front, too. More clients are asking us to investigate phasing out traditional pillars of retirement like fixed pension benefits. Instead, they are interested in implementing new types of scheme design, like the workplace savings products in the UK.”

According to Dr Cooper, “If you look beyond the overall percentage of the population that is “working age”, there can be offsetting positive factors. If the proportion of those of working age who are in employment, or actively seeking employment, has increased, it will help mitigate the problem. Also, recently, the steady reduction in the age at which people leave employment due to age has slowed, and even reversed in some countries. It suggests that individuals are beginning to react to the increasing cost of retirement at existing ages.”  

In the UK, the implications of demographic change can be best illustrated by the 2012 edition of the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index. The Index highlighted that the UK was lagging behind other countries on the ‘sustainability’ of its pension system with a score of 46.5 against an average of 52.1. In 2009, when the index first launched, the UK held a sustainability score of 56.4. This ‘sustainability’ section tracks the sustainability of arrangements against issues like old age dependency, state pension age, the opportunity for phased retirement and the labour force participation rates of older workers. The index implies that, whilst the UK government is taking steps to reduce the cost of the state pension, delays in implementing auto enrolment make it less clear how adequate retirement incomes will be provided to individuals who aren’t already in employer sponsored pension schemes, or making their own provision.   Only about 50% of the workforce in the UK is a member of an employer sponsored pension scheme and there is a risk that the system will fail the other 50%, since continuing demographic change will make it hard for the (sometimes self) excluded group to catch up.

“Emerging economies face their own challenges,” concluded Fergal McGuinness, senior partner in Mercer’s retirement business. “Will their populations get old before they get rich?  Will they follow the developed world down the dangerous path of unsustainable social security systems? China, in particular, will be interesting to watch, as their ‘one child’ policy has accelerated the aging phenomenon there.  Certainly the high saving rates amongst the Chinese population at large point to concerns about the security of both state and company offered provision.”

“Demographic change will also have implications on costs associated with healthcare,” concluded Mr McGuinness, “and throws up interesting workforce planning challenges.  An older workforce also means an aging clientele.  Will an older sales force relate better to the retail customers of the future?  Certain industries are already facing talent shortages for key skills due to the retirement of seasoned professionals.  Strategies that include mentoring the younger cadre and allowing greater flexibility during the transition to retirement can make a material difference to the bottom line for affected organisations.“

- ends -

Notes for editors
The data comes from the International Labour Organisation from their LABORSTA database and has been published by Mercer to highlight the impact and scale of changing demographics. The 15-64 age group is important - a reduction in this demographic group potentially causes financial problems for states and businesses, most obviously, but by no means exclusively, by reducing the amount of income that is available to fund pension provision.  The data, which is past, current and predictive, covers 2007, 2012 and 2020 and was published in Mercer’s HR Factbook. The data outlines the percentage of a country’s population that falls into one of three age ranges: 0-14, 15-65 and 65+.

The ‘15-65 age group’ is used here as it includes the portion of the population that is most economically active. However, we acknowledge that there are many variables impacting on this generalisation; for instance, some outside this age group will be participating in the labour market and that others within this age group will not be employed or even eligible for employment.

Please contact the Press Office for Data Tables.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.