Survey Finds Strong Support for Public Pensions

The American public continues to hold positive opinions of defined benefit pension plans, according to the latest survey data from the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS).

Researchers contacted more than 1,200 adults aged 25 and older across the country to understand public opinion about defined benefit plans like what Colorado PERA offers. They found 86% of survey respondents think all workers should have access to a defined benefit pension, and not just public employees.

In addition, while Americans may be divided politically, the NIRS survey found strong agreement on the value of pensions. More than 80 percent of each political group—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—voiced their support for pensions.

Unlike a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k), a defined benefit plan like the PERA Defined Benefit Plan provides retirement income a person cannot outlive. That makes for a valuable benefit that can be a powerful tool in maintaining a qualified workforce.

Two pie charts showing results of a survey of Americans' attitudes toward pensions. The left chart shows 82% of Americans agree that pensions are a good way to recruit and retain qualified teachers. The right chart shows 84% of Americans agree that pensions are a good way to recruit and retain qualified public safety employees.
Image courtesy: National Institute on Retirement Security

Defined benefit plans are most common in the public sector today, and the NIRS survey asked respondents whether they agreed that pensions are a valuable tool to recruit and retain workers who provide important public services, such as teachers and public safety workers. The survey found 82% agree that pensions help recruit and retain teachers and 84% agree that they help recruit and retain public safety workers.

Since 1931, Colorado PERA has been helping support Colorado’s public workforce by providing lifetime retirement and other benefits. In addition to the PERA Defined Benefit Plan, PERA members have access to defined contribution plans, health care benefits, and more, ensuring the state’s public workers have the tools they need for a secure retirement.

Updated Tax Brackets, Contribution Limits and More to Know for 2025

The new year is mere weeks away. To make sure taxpayers are informed and prepared, the IRS announced inflation adjustments for many tax provisions in 2025, including marginal tax brackets and retirement account contributions.

Retirement plan contribution limits

The IRS announced higher contribution limits for 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans next year.

The maximum amount a worker can contribute to those plans is $23,500 in tax year 2025, an increase of $500. The catch-up contribution limit for most plan participants age 50 and older remains unchanged at $7,500.

Beginning in 2025, some older workers can make additional catch-up contributions. As part of the SECURE 2.0 Act, plan participants who are between the ages of 60 and 63 can make catch-up contributions totaling up to $11,250 in tax year 2025.

Learn more about PERAPlus 401(k)/457 Plans

HSA/FSA contribution limits

The amount of money workers can contribute to medical savings accounts also will increase in 2025.

  • HSA: Individuals enrolled in a high deductible health plan (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA) will be able to contribute up to $4,300, and those with family coverage will be able to save a maximum of $8,550.
  • FSA: For workers who don’t have an HDHP with an HSA and instead use a flexible spending account (FSA), the maximum contribution for 2025 is $3,300. For plans that allow unused balances to roll over, the maximum amount that can be rolled over will increase to $660.

2025 tax rates

Below are updated marginal tax rates for single taxpayers and married couples filing jointly. Visit the IRS website for more tax tables and additional details.

Note that since these changes are for tax year 2025, they will generally apply to tax returns filed in 2026; 2024 tax rates will apply to returns filed in 2025.

  • 37% for incomes over $626,350 ($751,600 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 35% for incomes over $250,525 ($501,050 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 32% for incomes over $197,300 ($394,600 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 24% for incomes over $103,350 ($206,700 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 22% for incomes over $48,475 ($96,950 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 12% for incomes over $11,925 ($23,850 for married couples filing jointly)
  • 10% for incomes $11,925 or less ($23,850 or less for married couples filing jointly)

Standard deduction

In addition to updated tax rates, the IRS announced increases to the standard deduction for tax year 2025:

  • Single taxpayers and married couples filing separately: $15,000 ($400 increase)
  • Heads of household: $22,500 ($600 increase)
  • Married couples filing jointly: $30,000 ($800 increase)

Taxpayers who are 65 or older can take an additional standard deduction, which is also adjusted for inflation. For tax year 2025, that amount is $2,000 for single filers and $1,600 for others.

Visit the IRS website for more adjustments to tax provisions in 2025.

PERA benefits and taxes

Colorado PERA benefits are subject to federal income tax, as well as applicable state and local taxes. PERA retirees who would like to update their tax withholding can do so by logging in to their secure member account or completing a paper Form W-4P.

Retirees and benefit recipients can expect to receive their 1099-R tax forms for tax year 2024 in January 2025.

Learn more at copera.org/taxes-on-benefits.

Why the State is Commissioning a Study on PERA’s Plan Design

Since 1931, Colorado PERA has been providing retirement and other benefits to the public employees who keep our state running. As the workforce and retirement landscape have changed, PERA also has adapted and grown; Colorado’s largest public retirement plan now covers nearly 700,000 current and former public workers.

PERA benefits, including the hybrid defined benefit plan and the option for some members to choose a defined contribution plan, have been valuable in helping public agencies recruit and retain employees for decades. Critics of defined benefit pensions, however, argue that today’s workers would be better served by other types of plans. An upcoming study will help shed light on that debate.

Purpose and scope

During the 2024 legislative session, state lawmakers passed House Bill 1427, which calls for the State Auditor, in cooperation with PERA, to enlist an independent actuarial firm experienced with public pensions to conduct a comprehensive study comparing the cost and effectiveness of the PERA Defined Benefit (DB) Plan to alternative plan designs, as well as providing an analysis of certain aspects of PERA’s current defined benefit and defined contribution plans.

The study will be similar in scope and purpose to a study that took place following similar legislation in 2014. That study compared various facets of the PERA DB Plan—such as cost per member, contribution rates, income replacement ratio, and portability—to other public and private sector plan types, including Social Security. The study is available online here.

Why refresh the study after a decade? In part, things have changed, and state leaders see value in having updated data. Since the last study, Colorado has seen tremendous growth, the public workforce has changed, and various reforms have put PERA on a path to full funding. This new study will incorporate all those changes to provide a more accurate assessment of PERA’s value to employers and the state as a whole.

While a lot has changed in the past 10 years, one thing that hasn’t is PERA’s commitment to providing retirement security to our members. The previous study concluded that PERA’s plan provides a better benefit at a lower cost than other plans, making it the best option for providing retirement benefits to the state’s public employees. We believe an updated study will show the same results.

What’s next?

The State Auditor and PERA have until the end of October to select an actuarial firm to conduct the study. Once a firm is selected, the study is likely to take several months to complete.

When the study is complete, PERA and the State Auditor will provide a report of the study’s findings to the governor, the Joint Budget Committee, the Legislative Audit Committee, and the House and Senate Finance Committees.

We’ll also provide a summary of the study’s findings here on PERA On The Issues. Make sure you’re subscribed to our biweekly newsletter to receive all the latest updates.

What to Expect for Medicare Advantage in 2025

Recent changes to Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage will affect the cost of PERACare health benefits in 2025.

What’s changing

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays MA insurers a base payment for every enrollee in their plan, as well as additional money for enrollees that have more health issues. CMS will be reducing the base payment amount for 2025. In addition, in 2024 CMS started phasing in changes to how it calculates the additional health status payments. These actions are expected to reduce the amount CMS reimburses insurers.

For 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act adds an out-of-pocket maximum of $2,000 to costs MA enrollees pay for their Part D prescriptions. This means after that first $2,000, enrollees will not have to pay anything for their prescriptions. While this is a positive change for those who take multiple medications, this means more costs for the insurance companies.

While final rates and plan benefits for 2025 are not yet available, MA and Part D carriers have already noted that in response to these changes they are likely to increase MA premiums more significantly than in recent years and may also make benefit reductions. This will impact individual Medicare Advantage plans, individual Medicare Part D plans, and the Medicare plans offered by PERACare.

Other factors affecting cost

PERA’s insurance team uses a competitive bid process to identify carriers and plans that provide valuable health benefits to PERA retirees, and we negotiate the best rates we can. PERACare was able to negotiate a rate guarantee keeping MA premiums unchanged for several years, but that guarantee is now expiring.

PERACare plans offer generous benefits and broad networks of providers across the United States. The plans also cover only retirees, who tend to have more medical needs and use more services than the general population, resulting in higher plan costs. PERA offers a subsidy, based on years of service, to help offset some of the cost of PERACare premiums.

Everyone’s health care needs are different, and we encourage retirees to take a look at all their health insurance options to choose a plan that best fits their budget and needs.

What to know about open enrollment

PERACare staff are working to finalize plans and premiums for 2025, and we’ll be mailing information out in the coming months.

Here are some important dates to keep in mind:

  • October 1: 2025 PERACare information available online
  • Mid-October: PERACare open enrollment materials mailed to current PERACare enrollees
  • October 21 to November 21: PERACare open enrollment
  • October 15 to December 7: Medicare open enrollment
  • December 15: Last day for PERA to receive cancellation requests for January 1

For more information, visit copera.org/peracare.

The Latest on Federal WEP/GPO Legislation

Update: In November 2024, the House passed H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. Please visit this page for the latest.


We often hear from Colorado PERA members who want to know if legislators have made any progress in their efforts to change two provisions of federal law that can reduce retirees’ Social Security benefits.

Because most PERA members do not participate in Social Security while working for a PERA employer, any Social Security benefit they earned from private-sector work may be affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) or the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

Those provisions have been part of federal law since the 1980s, but lawmakers in recent years have repeatedly sought to modify or repeal them without success.

Why WEP and GPO exist

Social Security benefits are designed to replace only some of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings, and lower-paid workers receive a larger replacement percentage than higher-paid workers. Prior to the WEP being enacted in 1983, non-Social Security government workers like PERA members would receive a larger-than-intended Social Security benefit because of those years in their earning record when they weren’t contributing to Social Security. The WEP was meant to remove that advantage.

The GPO applies to PERA retirees who also receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefit and reduces the Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the PERA benefit. That’s because spousal and widow(er) benefits are considered “dependent” benefits and were meant to help spouses who stayed at home and depended on their working partner for financial support. According to the Social Security Administration, now that it is common for both spouses to work, the GPO requires the “dependent” benefit to be offset by the dollar amount of their own retirement benefit.

It’s important to note that a retiree’s PERA benefit will never be reduced to Social Security or other benefits. Learn more about PERA and Social Security.

Where things stand

While federal lawmakers have introduced about a half-dozen bills this Congress that touch on the WEP and GPO issue, the one that has received the most attention and support is H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023. Its counterpart in the Senate is S. 597. Both bills were introduced in early 2023.

Other bills that seek to modify or repeal WEP and/or GPO include H.R. 4583 and S. 2280—both known as the Social Security 2100 Act—which propose a number of changes to Social Security, including temporarily eliminating WEP and GPO. Those bills were introduced in July 2023.

In April 2024, the House Ways and Means Committee convened for an informational hearing on the topic of WEP and GPO. The meeting didn’t result in any action on the above bills, but lawmakers heard from a panel of experts on the effects the two provisions have on retired public employees and the potential impacts of any changes to Social Security. Testimony largely centered around the fact that the Social Security Administration now has better worker data and WEP/GPO formulas could potentially be updated, but the cost to make any changes would amount to billions of dollars over the next decade.

Neither Social Security Fairness Act bill has made forward progress in Congress, but they continue to gather support—H.R. 82 in particular has gained more than 300 cosponsors in the House. And in May, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus threw its support behind the Social Security Fairness Act with its 62 members endorsing the legislation.

In September, bill sponsors Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Garret Graves (R-LA) filed what’s known as a discharge petition, seeking to move H.R. 82 out of committee and force a floor vote. That petition reached the required threshold of 218 signatures, allowing the sponsors to request a vote in the House of Representatives. With Congress in recess for the month of October, a vote could happen as soon as November, but even if it passes the House, the bill faces an uncertain future in Senate.

What’s next?

We can expect congressional lawmakers to continue discussing this issue. Even if none of the above bills see any meaningful action before the current Congress ends, legislators are likely to introduce new bills in the next Congress.

As we’ve seen repeatedly over the years, bills that seek to modify or repeal WEP and/or GPO face a steep uphill battle, with lawmakers often citing the cost of increased Social Security benefits as a significant hurdle to overcome. That’s especially true in the face of pessimistic forecasts of Social Security’s finances.

While the most recent projections are somewhat better than expected, Social Security’s cash reserves are still expected to be depleted in about a decade. If that happens and Congress hasn’t taken any action, Social Security will be forced to begin reducing benefits, but experts expect lawmakers will take action to shore up the system’s finances before any benefit reductions are necessary. It’s possible that a package of reforms for Social Security could also include some changes to the WEP and GPO, but only time will tell.

One of the most effective forms of advocacy is for PERA members and retirees to contact their senators and representatives in Congress to let them know how the WEP and GPO affect them, as this issue is will be decided at the federal level.

We’ll continue to monitor this issue and post any updates on PERA On The Issues when we can. To stay in the loop, be sure to subscribe to our biweekly newsletter.

Measuring the Impact of $4.5B+ in Annual Retirement Benefits in Colorado

Every month retired public employees across the state receive their benefit payments from Colorado PERA. Retirees then spend their income in their communities, supporting local economies and jobs and providing an important stabilizing economic force.

In 2023, PERA paid $4.56 billion in benefits to 114,432 retirees living in Colorado, resulting in $7.1 billion in total economic output and supporting 28,525 jobs in the state, according to a newly released report from Boulder-based Pacey Nehls Economic Consulting. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts report also found PERA retirees paid nearly $382 million in state and local taxes on those benefits, supporting schools, roads, and other vital services.

The multiplier effect

When retirees spend their pension income, it sets off a multiplier effect as businesses then spend money to stock more inventory and hire staff, employees of those businesses spend their own income, and governments collect taxes on all that spending. The result is every dollar in PERA benefits grows as it cascades through the economy.

This cycle of spending illustrates the economic measure of “value-added,” which counts only the additional production of goods and services resulting from PERA distributions rather than total output.

Pacey Nehls estimates a PERA retiree’s economic output multiplier at 1.56, meaning an extra 56 cents are generated in the economy for every dollar a retiree spends. In total, PERA retiree spending resulted in $3.39 billion in added economic value statewide last year.

The stabilizing effect

A chart showing annual PERA retirement distributions per capita for various regions in 2009 and 2023. Colorado statewide: $480 per capita in 2009, $780 per capita in 2023. Metro Denver: $412 per capita in 2009, $708 per capita in 2023. Colorado Springs: $491 per capita in 2009, $735 per capita in 2023. Pueblo-Southern Mountains: $1,007 per capita in 2009, $1,555 per capita in 2023. San Luis Valley: $647 per capita in 2009, $1,155 per capita in 2023. Southwest Mountain: $496 per capita in 2009, $775 per capita in 2023. Western: $507 per capita in 2009, $879 per capita in 2023. Mountain: $363 per capita in 2009, $654 per capita in 2023. Northern: $567 per capita in 2009, $809 per capita in 2023. Eastern: $531 per capita in 2009, $996 per capita in 2023.
Regional per capita annual PERA retirement distributions in 2009 and 2023

The consistent flow of billions of dollars in PERA retirement benefits into communities across the state every year helps add stability to the state and local economies. This stabilizing effect is especially strong in some of Colorado’s rural areas, where public employees make up a larger portion of county payroll and their retirement benefits are higher per capita.

For example, the Denver metro area has the most overall PERA distributions in Colorado at more than $2.3 billion last year, which equates to $708 per person. Meanwhile, the Pueblo-Southern Mountain region’s $382 million in PERA benefits comes out to $1,555 per person.

The stabilizing effect of PERA benefits was especially helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic. When businesses, schools, governments, and other entities shut down or greatly reduced staff due to the health emergency, PERA continued to pay benefits to retirees across the state, providing consistent, reliable money to local economies when other economic activity was lower than usual.

For more information, including detailed breakdowns by region and county, download the Economic and Fiscal Impacts report here.

America Saves Week: Three Reasons to Save More This Year

Saving money is always a good idea. Whether it’s for a rainy day or for a major purchase, saving now can help provide flexibility and security when big expenses come down the road.

April 8 through April 12 is America Saves Week, an annual initiative of the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization. It promotes the value of saving money and the importance of making a plan to save.

Beyond peace of mind, here are some additional reasons to consider stashing away some more money this year, if you can.

Take advantage of high interest rates

The Federal Reserve started raising its key interest rate in March 2022 in an effort to fight inflation. Increases continued throughout 2023, and so far this year, the Fed is holding rates steady.

While the Federal Reserve rate mostly pertains to financial institutions, many banks have passed on those higher rates to their customers. That means interest rates on many savings accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) are higher than they’ve been in years.

Some high-yield accounts, especially those offered by online banks, advertise rates of 5% annual percentage yield (APY) or higher. On a $5,000 account balance, 5% APY can result in $250 in interest earnings over the course of a year. That extra cash from interest could help you reach your goals faster or help you pay for an unexpected expense.

You may be eligible for a tax break

If you make pre-tax contributions to a retirement plan such as an IRA, 401(k), or 457 plan, you may already be reducing your taxable income. But you may also qualify for an additional tax break for a portion of your contributions, based on your income.

The Retirement Savings Contributions Credit, also known as the Saver’s Credit, offers a credit between 10% and 50% of eligible retirement plan contributions (for a maximum credit of $1,000 for single filers or $2,000 for joint filers).

For tax year 2023, the maximum income for a single filer to qualify for the Saver’s Credit is $36,500 ($73,000 for joint filers).

Boost your retirement security

PERA members are already setting aside money for retirement with every paycheck. Members in the PERA Defined Benefit Plan can count on PERA to provide monthly retirement income for life, but you’ll never regret having more money available in your golden years.

Whether you’re saving in a traditional savings account, an employer-based plan such as a PERAPlus 401(k) or 457 Plan, or even a health savings account (HSA) if eligible, additional savings can provide the flexibility to cover expenses that are hard to plan for. That could include costs like health care—one of the biggest (and growing) expenses—in retirement, long-term care, family needs, and housing.

Colorado PERA will be sharing more information and tips for America Saves Week on social media, so be sure to join the conversation on Facebook and Instagram.

Americans Underestimate This Retirement Risk. Do You?

Consider these two questions:

Question #1

Which of the following poses the biggest retirement risk in the United States?

  • Market risk (investment losses)
  • Family risk (unforeseen needs of family members)
  • Longevity risk (outliving savings)
  • Health risk (unexpected health expenses)
  • Policy risk (changes in law that affect retirees)

Question #2

What is the average life expectancy for someone who is 65 today?

The Answers – and Why They Matter

New research shows that longevity risk poses the biggest threat to retirees. However, most people perceive market risk as the biggest risk to their retirement.

The answer to Question #2 underscores why retirees should take Question #1 seriously: Data shows that the average 65-year-old woman will live to be 86.1, and the average man lives to be 83.5.

The average response to this question, however, shows that people underestimate this reality: 65-year-old women guess 78.2 while men guess 77.4.

That gap—six to eight years—represents a retirement that’s longer than retirees anticipate. If relying heavily on defined contribution accounts, a retirement plan that accounts for 12 years of spending instead of 20 can lead to serious problems down the line.

The Benefit of Lifetime Income

Retirement plans that rely heavily or completely on defined contribution accounts carry more individual risk: increased market risk, increased longevity risk. A person might enter retirement with seemingly adequate 401(k) savings. The first 10 or 15 years of retirement could even go exactly as planned. But retirements can last longer than expected. Investments can underperform at any point. Savings can dry up.

Retirees in a defined benefit plan like PERA’s receive a steady stream of income they can’t outlive. Member contributions, employer contributions, and investment returns together help fund the retirement for thousands of members. The individual does not bear the risk of outliving retirement savings in plans like these.

Those who are fortunate to have a retirement that’s longer than average—and the average PERA member has a higher life expectancy than the average American—know the value of a defined benefit plan first-hand. Currently, more than 17,000 PERA retirees are between 80 and 89. Nearly 4,000 are between 90 and 99. About 100 are 100 or older.

What Lifetime Income Means to PERA Members

Michael Judish has been a PERA Customer Service Representative for 15 years. During his tenure he’s spoken with countless PERA retirees and family members who have commented on the value this type of benefit provides.

Judish said that the annual statements retirees receive often prompt calls to PERA. The statements show how much retirees put into their account and how much they’ve received in retirement. On average, retirees receive all of their contributions, plus interest, back in the first five years of retirement. But the benefit lasts a lifetime, whether that means 10, 20, 30 years or more.

Michael Judish
PERA Customer Service Representative

“Many retirees will call in and ask ‘am I still receiving a benefit?’” Judish said. “Many can’t fathom how much they have received compared to how much they put in. There is a lot of appreciation when they see the actual numbers.”

Family members of retirees who have recently died often express similar sentiments. “Children maybe realize that they didn’t need to come up with money for their parents because their parents had a lifetime benefit,” Judish said. “Although many of these relatives aren’t PERA members, they knew their relative had a benefit they could rely on, and they were grateful.”

Judish added that the benefits of lifetime income extend beyond the bank account. The peace of mind contributes to overall health, too. “People have told me that part of the reason they have a long life is PERA,” he said. “Knowing that they had a lifetime benefit took a lot of stress out of their life. The longer they live, the more grateful they seem to be.”

Can These Ideas Control Health Care Costs?

Two initiatives—one led by the state and one led by private parties—aim to address the rising cost of health insurance premiums in different ways. Both are still in early phases, but they have shown the potential to influence prices in the years ahead.

A New Approach to Setting Prices

Consumers fed up with rising prices often have a familiar request for insurance companies: “negotiate better prices!”

If only it were that easy.

Negotiating requires coming to an agreement. You could very well negotiate with a car salesperson by asking him or her to sell you a new sports car for $10,000. But the salesperson is under no obligation to agree.

In the case of health care providers, including hospitals, they aren’t required to join any health insurance plan. If an insurance plan asks for prices to be lowered, providers can say no.

And that’s not all. Insurers feel pressure from both sides of their business. As PERA’s Director of Insurance Jessica Linart puts it, “insurers want to keep prices low for clients, but they also have pressure from those same clients to keep a broad network.”

As much as consumers want low prices, if a person’s favorite doctor isn’t covered by their insurance, or, worse yet, if he or she was covered but dropped out due to hard-ball price negotiations that could motivate someone to look for insurance elsewhere.

In this sense, the negotiation between customer and insurer is as important as the negotiation between the insurer and a health care provider. And in order to keep their network as big as possible, insurers often must accept prices set by providers.

Health care in Colorado has an additional complicating factor, especially when it comes to hospital care. For years, hospital systems have been growing and merging, leading to concerns about reduced competition, which can keep costs high and lower quality.

While hospitals contend that the correlation among consolidation, competition, prices, and quality is tenuous, Colorado does have high hospital costs relative to other states, regardless of the driving factors.  And the profits hospitals generate suggest to some that there is room for prices to come down.

It’s within this context that the Colorado Health Purchasing Alliance (CHPA) was born. “The idea of the Purchasing Alliance is that they would take the carriers out of the discussion,” Linart said. “They put employers directly in negotiation with providers.” (Note: CHPA was created in and supported by Colorado Business Group on Health, a non-profit, employer-led coalition “committed to collaboratively improving the health care value-proposition.” Colorado PERA is a member of CBGH.)

The Alliance works like this: Currently, insurance carriers negotiate with hospitals and providers for lower prices. The Alliance would effectively replace the insurance company as the main negotiator with hospitals. It would negotiate on behalf of all Alliance members collectively, rather than for each plan individually, and would create a network of hospitals all members could access. Insurers would still administer the plan and pay claims.

To incentivize hospitals to accept lower prices, the Alliance members would direct more business to those hospitals that deliver quality care for low prices through benefit incentives, such as lower copays. Hospitals that participate, for example, could see a boost in business as consumers flock to those facilities due to lower costs and quality care.

The negotiating power that comes with representing a larger pool of consumers is self-evident. But forging such agreements is not easy. Health risks, and their associated costs, carried by some groups are greater than others. PERACare, for example, is a retiree plan and consists of older people with more expensive healthcare needs than a plan built for a company or school that is built around a wide range of ages. While those in a retiree plan would jump at the chance to combine their risk with a younger risk pool, the enthusiasm to combine might not be as great on the other side. The Alliance sidesteps this problem by focusing squarely on setting up a network, not joining risk pools together.

PERA is actively monitoring the development of the CHPA. The Alliance is still in its early phases and no network is currently operational. But it does hold potential to lower costs for members in the future. “What PERA hopes is that if the Alliance gets this up and running, we can participate,” Linart said. “Our members would benefit from the lower cost as the long-term goal is that this would bring down premiums.”

Reinsurance—Managing the Outliers

Imagine going out to dinner with a few friends and agreeing to split the check. Everyone orders a $10 burger and a $5 beer except for one person, who orders a $40 T-bone and a $100 bottle of wine.

A similar situation can occur in a risk pool if one person incurs a really high bill—an expensive treatment for a disease, for example. Premiums for the entire group can go up in the following year, even if everyone else had a fairly healthy year.

Earlier this year, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 20-215, which, among other measures, creates a reinsurance program. Under the reinsurance program, the state serves as a financial backstop for insurers, helping cover the most expensive patients. This, in turn, dampens the premium increases the following year. The funds come from federal dollars that would otherwise have been spent on subsidies for higher premiums, as well as from fees imposed on hospitals and insurers.

The Colorado Division of Insurance estimates that, in 2021, the program will save consumers 17.4% over what premiums would be without reinsurance (though premiums still will rise an average of 2.2% compared to 2020). The biggest savings occur in rural areas of the state.

While this is encouraging news, the reinsurance program only includes those who purchase health insurance through Connect for Health Colorado.

PERACare is not associated with Connect for Health Colorado, but Linart said anyone looking for health insurance should review and consider all their options. It’s a decision with multiple variables—premium cost, ability to pay out-of-pocket expenses up to the policy max, projected health care needs, and coverage area to name just a few. PERACare offers multiple plans that covered more than 60,000 people in 2019. But for those considering all the options, Connect for Health Colorado provides a centralized marketplace where dozens of plans can be compared.

Retirement Roundup: Recession Effects on State Pensions

A digest of news from publications around the nation about finance, investing, and retirement.

Sudden-Stop Recession Pressures U.S. States’ Funding For Pension And Other Retirement Liabilities | S&P Global

Nationally, pensions have been improving funding discipline, according to this report. But economic woes could undermine some of this progress. Colorado was mentioned for its “notable reforms,” though the story also noted the suspension of the direct distribution will have an effect.

2020 Election: Retirement Security | Kiplinger

Presidential campaigns are full of ideas. Many of these ideas wouldn’t get off the ground without Congress agreeing to pass the necessary legislation. So why listen? Presidents have the ability to shape debate, set priorities, and persuade the public, which can end up making a difference. So when Presidents share ideas to, for example, change the way Medicare works, people listen.

Selecting TDFs Ending in Zero Can Affect Your Retirement Savings?  | National Association of Plan Advisors

Do you invest in a target date fund? If so, what’s your birthday? That might seem like a strange question, but researchers found that your birth year can influence your investment choices, and not always for the best. People have a tendency to choose target date funds that end in a zero (2020, 2030, etc.) over those that end in a five, even if the latter is closer to their target date. As a result, people with a birth year of eight or nine tend to select funds designed for retirement around age 60, while those born in years ending with zero, one, or two tend to select funds with a retirement age closer to 70.

Retirement expert: The ‘do-nothing’ approach is not great advice right now | Yahoo! Money

Are you a do-nothing retirement planner? This article shows two types of “do-nothing” approaches to beware of. The first is never reviewing or updating your retirement plan. While many retirement plans allow you to put your investments on “autopilot,” this doesn’t take into account changes that take place in your life and outlook. The second “do-nothing” approach is to avoid the topic of retirement savings altogether.