Can the Actuarial Reduction for Social Security Early Retirement Still Be Right
The option to claim Social Security benefits earlier than the program’s Full Retirement Age, in exchange for receiving an actuarially reduced benefit, is a key feature of the nation’s Social Security program. This principle remained in place when Congress increased the Full Retirement Age from 65 to 67. Most workers choose to claim early and retire on the reduced benefits. The option to claim early was enacted over 50 years ago, when Congress set 62 as the program’s Earliest Age of Eligibility. To make up for the extra three years of benefit payments, those claiming at 62 received 20 percent less in monthly benefits than if they had claimed at 65. Despite a significant increase in life expectancy in the intervening years, benefits claimed at 62 today are still about 20 percent less than benefits claimed at 65. This brief asks whether this actuarial reduction is still correct...
Have We Finally Achieved Actuarial Fairness of Social Security Retirement Benefits and Will it Last?
This paper develops a framework to analyze the actuarial adjustments faced by American workers who claim Social Security benefits before or after their Full Retirement Age (FRA). We derive the conditions under which these adjustments are “actuarially fair” (or “neutral”) and develop measures to characterize the devi- ation from the fair form. Fair adjustment schedules are increasing at an increasing rate in take-up age and become flatter as longevity rises. We document that the actuarial fit has improved across generations. Our baseline 3% discount rate scenario estimates that the current schedule deviates from its fair form by less than 1% for average-mortality beneficiaries, compared to 5.1% and 4.0% for male and female beneficiaries in 1980, respectively. The improvement is largely due to the increases in the Delayed Retirement Credit. For men, gains in life expectancy combined with the increase in the FRA also contributed to the improved fit. We predict that the designated increase in the FRA to age 67 will have little effect on the actuarial fit. We investi- gate schedules reflecting (further) increases in the retirement ages, as recommended by the President’s 2010 Fiscal Commission, and propose alternatives. We also discuss results from the analysis of the adjustments to spousal and widow(er) benefits.
CLINICAL TRIALS OF THE ABDOMINAL LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (ALVAD): PROGRESS REPORT.
An abdominal left ventricular assist device (ALVAD) is undergoing controlled clinical trials in our institution. The ALVAD is pneumatically-actuated, synchronously or asynchronously with an external console and is interposed between the apex of the left ventricle and the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It is an order of magnitude more effective than conventional intraaortic balloon pumping. Thus far, we have implanted this pump in 21 patients (15 males and six females). The average age has been 50. The duration of cardiopulmonary bypass with intensive pharmacologic support and IABP until ALVAD implantation has been nearly 4 hours. The plasma hemoglobins prior to ALVAD implantation have averaged 168 mg%. The platelet counts at implantation have averaged 68,000 mm(3). The average duration of ALVAD support has been in excess of one day and the longest trial extended for one week. We have been able to remove the pump after ventricular recovery in two instances and effected cardiac allografting in one instance of ALVAD dependency. We have found that (1) the profoundly depressed left (and right) ventricles can recover if totally supported with this device; (2) the device can function in the presence of ventricular fibrillation and/or standstill; (3) the device can effectively replace both left and right ventricular function in the presence of normal pulmonary vascular resistance and microcirculatory hemodynamics; and (4) in the presence of impending multiple organ failure, procrastination in use is to be avoided.