This year is a major milestone for the retirement industry as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) reaches its 50th anniversary today.
ERISA is the federal law that for the first time set important standards for most voluntarily established retirement and health plans in the private sector to protect individual participants and beneficiaries. Key provisions of ERISA require plans to provide participants with essential plan information; set minimum standards for participation, vesting, benefit accrual, and funding; establish fiduciary responsibilities for those who manage plan assets; and guarantee payment of benefits through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) for terminated defined benefit pension plans.
There are numerous ERISA successes to celebrate, but there also are challenges associated with the law that can be addressed to help create better retirement outcomes in the future.
Major Successes of ERISA
ERISA has helped Americans prioritize saving for retirement through employer plans at a key juncture when people are living longer. When ERISA was enacted, defined benefit pension plans were the primary type of retirement plan offered by private sector employers.
Thanks in part to ERISA, U.S. pension plans have paid out roughly $8.7 trillion dollars to America’s seniors just since 2009. According to the Investment Company Institute, another $12 trillion in assets are held by pension plans that invest and manage these funds for the benefit of 25 million retirees and millions of workers. Pensions continue to do much of the heavy lifting to preserve a reasonable standard of living for retirees by supplementing Social Security benefits.
Another success of ERISA is that it provides a wide range of protections to workers to ensure retirement assets go toward workers’ retirement benefits and employers are adequately funding these plans. ERISA also created a federal insurance program directed by the PBGC that protects retirement benefits, even if a plan closes or a company goes out of business. Importantly, the program is funded by premiums paid by pension funds, not taxpayers. Typically, the PBGC steps in to oversee plan assets and ensure payment of benefits after a firm ceases to exist. This has proven to be an incredibly successful program, protecting millions of retirees and their beneficiaries.
Author(s): Dan Doonan
Dan Doonan is executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security, a non-partisan, non-profit research think tank located in Washington, D.C. Dan has been a Forbes Contributor since 2021, and he has more than 25 years of experience on retirement issues from a variety of vantage points – an analyst, consultant and plan trustee. His work is driven by the belief that everyone has a shared interest in a strong and resilient retirement infrastructure in the U.S. that provides sufficient retirement income in the most cost-efficient manner possible. Dan holds a B.S. in Mathematics from Elizabethtown College and is a member of the National Academy of Social Insurance.
Let’s look at another set of paired charts. These two graphs, one from the EC just last week and the other from Bloomberg in 2014, both use a series of tall and narrow slope charts to compare two values.
In this case, I wouldn’t argue that the EC should attribute Bloomberg’s—after all, they are just slope charts, the topics are different, and the overall design is different. As some other people pointed on out LinkedIn, a designer may begin creating with an echo of another design in their head but not be able pinpoint it (not to mention that some projects no longer live online).
The question remains: where do we draw the line between inspiration and recreation? Is 13 years long enough for a graphic to enter the “pantheon” of visualization techniques, thereby no longer requiring attribution? Or does the uniqueness of the Scarr piece mean that it should always be credited when reused or adapted?
It’s a tough question, and one without an easy answer. It’s clear from Sebastian’s response that he was inspired by Scarr’s original, so my preference would have been to include a citation or reference. But honestly, I’m not even sure where the attribution should go! Maybe under the Source line, or maybe in the Created by line that appears not in the graph but in the newsletter email itself? More questions without clear answers.
In the end, it’s about respecting the creative process. As creators, we all draw from what’s come before us—whether consciously or subconsciously. Acknowledging the work that inspires us not only gives credit where it’s due but also fosters a culture of openness and honesty. It shows respect for our peers and for the community as a whole.
I want to be very clear: this discussion in no way diminishes the fabulous work from The European Correspondent team. I have very much been enjoying their work and I love how they are taking chances with their design decisions, trying new designs and graph types, and being inspired by what people have created before! I’ve been impressed with their ability to distill complex data into short, engaging stories and the near-daily innovative and interesting graphs and charts. I find myself bookmarking two or three of their graphs each week, and adding them to my dataviz catalog. I highly recommend you subscribe to their newsletter. Even if you’re not keenly interested in European news, they are doing some great data visualization work on an almost daily basis, no small feat on its own.
Author(s): Jon Schwabish
Publication Date: 27 Aug 2024
Publication Site: PolicyViz newsletter at substack
Here are several examples of ChatBots and other AI applications for actuaries to try.
Answers that you might get from a general AI LLM such as ChatGPT may or may not correctly represent the latest thinking in actuarial science. These chatBots make an effort to educate the LLM with actuarial or other pertinent literature so that you can get better informed answers.
But, you need to be a critical user. Please be careful with the responses that you get from these ChatBots and let us know if you find any issues. This is still early days for the use of AI in actuarial practice and we need to learn from our experiences and move forward.
Note from meep: there are multiple Apps/Bots linked from the main site.
We analyzed all deaths from 1999 to 2023 in which the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision code was P81 (environmental hyperthermia of newborn), T67 (effects of heat and light), or X30 (exposure to excessive natural heat) as either the underlying cause or as a contributing cause of death, as recorded in the Multiple Cause of Death file. Data were accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER platform,5 which combines death counts with population estimates produced by the US Census Bureau to calculate mortality rates. For each year, we extracted age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100 000 person-years for heat-related deaths. The AAMR accounts for differences due to age structures, allowing direct comparisons across time. The approach of analyzing cause-specific mortality rates rather than excess mortality is warranted because the excess mortality methodology is subject to confounding from the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023. This study used publicly available, deidentified aggregate data; thus, it was not considered human subjects research.
Joinpoint version 5.2.0 (National Cancer Institute) regression6 was used to analyze AAMRs to assess trends and determine elbow points where the trend began to shift to a new trajectory. Results of joinpoint analyses are reported as average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates with 95% CIs. Statistical significance was defined as 2-sided P < .05. Data were visualized with R version 4.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
Results
From 1999 to 2023, 21 518 deaths were recorded as heat-related underlying or contributing cause of death, with an AAMR of 0.26 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 0.24-0.27) (Table). The number of heat-related deaths increased from 1069 (AAMR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.36-0.40) in 1999 to 2325 (AAMR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60-0.65) in 2023, a 117% increase in the number of heat-related deaths and a 63% increase in the AAMR. The lowest number of heat-related deaths in the study period was 311 in 2004, whereas the highest, 2325, was in 2023.
Results of the joinpoint trend analysis showed that during the entire period, the AAMR increased by 3.6% per year (AAPC = 3.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-7.2%; P = .04) from 1999 to 2023 (Figure). The number of heat-related deaths and AAMR showed year-to-year variability, with spikes in 2006 and 2011, before showing steady increases after 2016. Joinpoint results showed a nonsignificant decrease of 1.4% per year from 1999 to 2016 (AAPC = −1.4%; 95% CI, −4.7% to 2.1%; P = .42), followed by a significant increase of 16.8% per year in the AAMR from 2016 to 2023 (AAPC = 16.8%; 95% CI, 6.4%-28.2%; P = .002).
Author(s): Jeffrey T. Howard, PhD1; Nicole Androne, MS1; Karl C. Alcover, PhD2; et al
Publication Date: Published online August 26, 2024 ` Publication Site: JAMA Network
More Americans died from heat in 2023 than any year in over two decades of records, according to the findings published Monday. Last year was also the globe’s hottest year on record, the latest grim milestone in a warming trend fueled by climate change.
The study, published in the American Medical Association journal JAMA, found that 2,325 people died from heat in 2023. Researchers admit that number is likely an undercount. The research adjusted for a growing and aging U.S. population, and found the death toll was still staggering.
….
Howard – along with researchers from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, in Maryland, and Pennsylvania State University – examined death certificate data between 1999 and 2023. Deaths were counted if heat was listed as an underlying or contributing cause of death.
Reported deaths remained relatively flat until around 2016, when the number of people dying began increasing, in what Howard, who studies health effects from extreme weather, calls a “hockey stick.” The hockey stick analogy has been used to describe warming global temperatures caused by climate change, where temperatures have swooped upward at alarming rates in recent years.
Howard’s study suggests the human toll follows the same outline. An important indicator is age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 people. That heat-related death rate has increased dramatically compared to the early 2000s, regardless of age or population size.
The upward trajectory appears to be sharpening recently. In 2022, 1,722 people died at an adjusted rate of 0.47. But 2023 saw 603 more deaths than the previous year, with an adjusted rate of 0.63, the highest on record.
Deaths weren’t evenly spread nationally. In an interview, Howard said deaths were overwhelmingly concentrated in traditionally hot regions: Arizona, California, Nevada and Texas.
The study is limited in how local governments classify heat-related deaths, which could mean the actual number of deaths is an undercount. It’s also potentially skewed as more people become aware of the fatal risks of heat. The study didn’t break down vulnerable groups. For example, people without air conditioning, those who live or work outdoors, and people with underlying health conditions, are all at greater risk of serious illness or death from heat.
