Public Employees Retirement System Research Articles

Impact of Alcoholism Treatment on Total Health Care Costs:

This is a six-year longitudinal study to determine if the treatment of alcoholism as a primary diagnosis results in a reduction of total health care cost and/or utilization for the alcoholic as well as other nonalcoholic family members. All health care costs and utilization were tracked for a group of 90 families, representing 245 individuals, enrolled with Blue Cross/Blue Shield through the Health Benefits Division, California Public Employees Retirement System. At least one member in each family received treatment under a specific diagnosis of alcoholism from July 1, 1974 to December 1, 1975. All health care utilization and costs were obtained for a 12-month period before initial treatment for alcoholism and up to July 1, 1979. In addition, a matched group of 83 comparison families with no alcoholic members and covering 291 persons was selected to reflect family composition, age, and sex. Total health care data were obtained over the same time period for these families. The results indicated that utilization and costs of all forms of inpatient care for both nonalcoholic family members as well as alcoholic family members dropped after alcoholism treatment began and ultimately reached a level similar to the matched comparison group. On the average, outpatient care also decreased in terms of frequency and costs for all members of the alcoholic's family; and in similar fashion converged in the fourth follow-up period to the matched comparison families. Total health care costs per family member decreased substantially over time following initiation of treatment of the alcoholic family member. The findings support the contention that the direct treatment of alcoholism can yield significant reductions in total health care costs and utilization not only for the alcoholic but his/her family members as well.

Is the Price Right? State and Local Government Architect and Engineer Selection

8. For a detailed discussion of arguments for and against full funding, see Bleakney, op. cit., pp. 1 10-1 17. 9. See Rubin G. Cohn, Employee Retirement PlansThe Nature of Employees' 'Rights', Law Forum (Spring 1962). 10. This argument is discussed in Wellington, Harry H., and Ralph K. Winter, Jr., The Unions and the Cities (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971), pp. 19-20. 11. See Woolf, op. cit. 12. The possible relationship between pension funding policy, wages, and employment is discussed by Mumy, op. cit. 13. See Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, op. cit., for some discussion on the relationship between pensions and debt. Three general factors limit the degree to which pension and general fund borrowing can be considered fiscal substitutes. First, as ruled in a Washington State Supreme Court decision, pension obligations are not formally debt but rather contingent liabilities and so are not subject to constitutional debt limitations. Next, there are political limitations on the degree of trade-offs a priori between allocating revenue to debt and pensions because of the role of the pension fund administrator, as reinforced by the legal and derived accounting treatment of trust funds in the budgetary process. See Harry D. Kerrigan, Fund Accounting (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969). Finally, in terms of the economic theory of public finance, pension and debt apply to different factors of production, labor and capital respectively. Conceptual implications of the difference, in terms of the labor intensity of the public sector, relative factor costs, and factor substitution are fundamental in theoretical analyses of the issue but, while posing interesting questions about the relationship between public sector labor productivity, financial capacity, and fiscal crisis, are outside the scope of this paper. 14. On these points, see Roger F. Murray, Economic Aspects of Pensions: A Summary Report (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1968); and Municipal Finance Officers Association, Accounting and Operating Handbook for Public Employee Retirement Systems (Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association, 1966).

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Further Comment

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Further Comment

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Author's Reply

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Author's Reply

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Comment

Mr. Bleakney's article' is most worthwhile, not only because it focuses attention on some of the major problems facing public retirement systems today, but also because to a large extent the same problems may also apply to private pension plans. In short, the issues he discusses are pertinent to the pension field as a whole, and as such should be of vital concern generally. Most practitioners in the field of government retirement systems have become very much aware of the continual pressures exerted by public employees, including teachers, for liberalizations in the benefits provided. Their efforts have usually been rewarded by frequent improvements in the provisions of their systems. In jurisdictions where public employees are also covered by social security, the upward trend in the federal coverage, as well as its tilt in favor of the lower-paid employees, has magnified the problems associated with liberalizations in the local system. Under a number of public retirement systems whose members are also covered under social security-but, unfortunately a number that is too low and growing lower-the benefit design reflects the fact that the benefits of the local system were intended, at least initially, to supplement the benefits available under social security. If the acceptance of this concept of supplementation could be maintained, or reinstituted in situations where it has been ignored, the disastrous effects of an uncontrolled effect, to use Mr. Bleakney's term, could be mitigated. Mr. Bleakney's theory is that, as a practical matter, changes in a public retirement system can only be in one direction-toward greater liberalization. This is probably indisputable with respect to any particular employee's total benefit package. But if it can be accepted by the employees, the legislators and the public that the benefit package consists of two integrated segments-the local system and social security inextricably intertwined-then the ratchet concept need not apply to the benefits of both the local system and social security separately. The ratchet effect seems to to be ineradicable from social security; it need not be so in a supplemental

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Discussion

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Discussion

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Discussion

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems: Discussion

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems

Problems and Issues in Public Employee Retirement Systems

Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement. A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems

Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement. A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems

Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement: A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems.

Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement: A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems.

Book Review: Social Insurance and Employee Welfare: Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement: A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems

Book Review: Social Insurance and Employee Welfare: Protecting Purchasing Power in Retirement: A Study of Public Employee Retirement Systems