SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY

BOARD

Forum on a Long-Range Research and

Program Evaluation Plan for the

Social Security Administration

June 24, 1997

Proceedings and Additional Comments

Washington, DC
Social Security Advisory Board

 An independent, bipartisan Board created by Congress and appointed by the

 President and the Congress to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner

of Social Security on matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Programs
Forum on a Long-Range Research and

Program Evaluation Plan for the

Social Security Administration

June 24, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction 1

II. What Issues Should Be On SSAs Research and Program Evaluation Agenda?

Why Are They Important? What Should SSA Be Doing To Address Them? 3

A. Social Security, Retirement, and the Economy 3

1. Trends in Retirement; Employment for Older Workers;

 Increase in the Retirement Age 3

2. Individual and Aggregate Saving; Pensions; Other

Retirement Resources 5

3. Relationship of Earnings to Benefits; Progressivity; Insurance

 Provisions; Economic Distortions 7

4. Sustainability of the System 8

5. Trust Fund Investment Policy 8

6. Retirement Income Modeling 8

7. Increase in the Social Security Earnings Test 9

8. Economic Well-being of Older Women 9

9. Experience in Other Countries 11

10. Administration of Social Security 11

B. The Disability Programs (DI and SSI) 11

1. Impact of the Baby Boom Generation on the Disability Programs 11

2. Incidence and Prevalence of Disabling Conditions Over Time 12
3. Interface Between Disability and Retirement Benefits 12

4. Impact of Changes in the Labor Market and the Nature of Work 12

5. Employment/Rehabilitation/Encouraging Return to Work 13

6. Alternative Approaches/Definitions 14

7. Health Care Coverage 14

8. Disabled Children and Younger Adults under the SSI Program 15

9. Research on Other Specific Populations 15

10. Disability Systems in other Countries 16

11. Effects of the Application Process on Application and Award Rates 16

III. What Should SSA do to Encourage Outside Research on these Issues? 17

A. Continue and Expand Linkages between Social Security Administrative

 Data and Survey Data 17

B. Make Administrative Data Available for Others to Analyze 19

C. Increase Extramural Research 20

D. Set Up Periodic Technical Panels to Review and Advise SSA 21

E. Open Up the 75-year Forecasting Models to Outside Researchers 22

F. Organize or Sponsor an Annual Conference of Academics 23

G. Use the Mechanism of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)

 to Bring in Visiting Researchers; Start a Visiting Scholars Program 23

H. Start a Mailing List of Outside Researchers Working on Issues Related

 to Social Security 23

I. Increase ORES Research Capacity 23
IV. What are the Limits on the Access by Outside Researchers to SSAS

Data Methods, and Assumptions? What Could or Should be Done

to Reduce or Remove these Limits? 25

V. Comments on the Proceedings of the Forum 27

Appendix I

Mandate of the Social Security Advisory Board 33

Appendix II

Biographies

A. Members of the Social Security Advisory Board 34

B. Panel Moderators and Presenters 35

Forum on a Long-Range Research and

Program Evaluation Plan for the

Social Security Administration

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 24, 1997, the Social Security Advisory Board held a forum in Washington, D.C.,

to hear recommendations to assist the Board in meeting its statutory mandate of making

recommendations with respect to a long-range research and program evaluation plan for the

Social Security Administration. In his introductory remarks, Advisory Board Chairman Harlan

Mathews said that the Nation needs the benefit of the best thinking available on Social Security

research and evaluation. Acting Commissioner of Social Security John Callahan emphasized the

importance of stimulating research both within SSA and in the outside research community.

As summarized below, the forum was organized around two major areas: (1) Social

Security, Retirement, and the Economy, and (2) The Disability Programs (Disability

Insurance and SSI). Twelve academicians and researchers participated in the forum as

presenters or moderators.

Panelists were asked to address five questions:

1. What issues should be on SSAs long-range research and program evaluation agenda?

Why are they important? What should SSA be doing to address them?

2. Are there resource/data limitations in addressing these issues? If so, how can they be

overcome?

3. What related issues could more appropriately/economically be addressed by researchers

outside of SSA?

4. What should SSA do to encourage outside research on these issues?

5. What are the limits on the access by outside researchers to SSAs data, methods, and

assumptions? What could or should be done to reduce or remove these limits?

As the next step in formulating its recommendations to SSA, the Board requested

additional experts and interested parties who are knowledgeable about the Social Security

and Supplemental Security Income programs to review the summary of the forum

proceedings and provide their comments to the Board. The comments that were received are

incorporated into Part V of this document.

The recommendations in the Boards January 1998 report Strengthening Social Security

Research: The Responsibilities of the Social Security Administration, reflect what the

Board learned from these contributions.

1
Forum Panels

Panel 1: Social Security, Retirement, and the Economy

Moderators: Carroll Estes, University of California, San Francisco

Eugene Steuerle, The Urban Institute

Panelists: Gary Burtless, The Brookings Institution

Eric Hanushek, University of Rochester

Karen Holden, University of Wisconsin

Michael Hurd, University of Michigan

Joseph Quinn, Boston College

Stephen Zeldes, Columbia University

Panel 2: The Disability Programs (DI and SSI)

Moderator: Dorothy Rice, University of California, San Francisco

Panelists: Richard Burkhauser, Syracuse University

Pamela Loprest, The Urban Institute

David Stapleton, The Lewin Group

Gerben DeJong, National Rehabilitation Hospital

Pamela Loprest was unable to attend, but provided an advance copy of an outline

of her presentation. Her recommendations have been incorporated in this summary at

the appropriate points.

This document was prepared by the staff of the Social Security Advisory Board.

2
II. WHAT ISSUES SHOULD BE ON SSAS RESEARCH

AND PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA?

 WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?

WHAT SHOULD SSA BE DOING TO ADDRESS THEM?

A. Social Security, Retirement, and the Economy

1. Trends in Retirement; Employment for Older Workers; Increase in the

 Retirement Age

 Gary Burtless urged the Social Security Administration to maintain an ongoing

research program on the timing of retirement and the determinants of the timing of

retirement.

 He posed the following questions for research: Are we observing a turnaround in

the long-term trend toward earlier retirement among men? What are the labor-force

departure patterns among women? How are the trends connected to the long-term

trend toward rising applications for early retirement benefits?

 Burtless said that he sees little sign that private saving has returned to the level that

prevailed through the post-war era up until the mid-l980s. When combined with the

scheduled increase in the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 early in the next

century, the decline in the private saving rate will eventually result in lower income

and consumption when workers retire, unless workers are planning to retire at an

older age than has been the norm in the recent past. Do we see any sign of pause or

reversal in the 90-year trend to earlier retirement among men? Are trends toward

rising employment-to-population rates and labor force participation rates among

women large enough to offset the income losses that will be associated with lower

saving rates and earlier retirement among men?

 Joseph Quinn recommended research that addresses the question of whether

retirement patterns are changing, specifically: (1) stereotypically abrupt retirement

versus gradual or partial withdrawal, (2) the importance of bridge jobs, (3) the

determinants of different exit routes, and (4) the impact of different choices on

economic and psychological well-being.

 Quinn also suggested studying the extent and influence of flexible retirement

options in firms, including: (1) the reasons why so few gradual retirement options exist

3
in career jobs, (2) which employers and professions offer such opportunities, and (3)

how much the existence of such an option affects withdrawal patterns.

Quinn predicts that in the future workers will be staying in the labor force longer,

and he is interested in looking at different ways that this will be achieved. Some

strategies include moving to another job or remaining in their current career. He

discussed the significance of self-employment later in the life-cycle, and

recommended that research be conducted to determine why some wage and salary

workers become self-employed at this point in life, and the impact of selfemployment on economic and psychological well-being.

 Quinn raised the question of how the increasing importance of career

employment among women will affect future retirement patterns. Career men and

women appear to differ much less in their retirement patterns than all men and

women do.

 Eric Hanushek recommended research on behavioral aspects, including when

people retire, and what affects their retirement decisions.

 Hanushek also recommended looking at the employer side of pension policies, and

how it affects elderly incomes. He said that in the past more of the focus on

retirement has been placed upon what happens to the individual, rather than the

employer policy. Therefore, he suggests considering the feasibility of an employer

panel data design that would allow us to learn more about job structures, types of

work that are available, and job flexibility.

 Observing that it will not be a useful thing to try to raise the age of retirement if

workers are incapable of working, Michael Hurd said that the relationship between

life expectancy and health status is an important research topic. What is and will be

the ability of people to work longer? How can you accommodate the wide range of

physical and mental status among those of retirement age without it being too

expensive or discouraging work effort among those able to work? What will be the

availability of work (job requirements, both physical and mental, and job flexibility)?

What are employer attitudes toward older workers? How will the withdrawal of the

baby-boom generation from the workforce affect labor market balance between

supply and demand?

 Quinn recommended studying the impact of raising the normal retirement age

from 65 to 66 and eventually to 67, which he describes as nearly equivalent to an

across-the-board benefit decrease. Are there effects over and above the benefit

decrease, e.g., a societal message about the appropriate retirement time? Quinn also

recommended examining the impact of raising the early retirement age from 62.

4
What are the characteristics of those who claim Social Security benefits at age 62? How

many seem like they could work longer? How many are desperately awaiting age 62

eligibility?

2. Individual and Aggregate Saving; Pensions; Other Retirement Resources

Gary Burtless recommended that SSA begin a major research effort on retirement

saving, both inside and outside of employer-sponsored pension plans. He suggested that

the pension research should be done by or sponsored with the Department of Labor and

the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. However, he said, SSA must be part of that

research effort because it is the only organization with an overarching concern and

responsibility for overall income adequacy among the aged. Burtless said that the

savings issue will become especially important when the Congress and the

Administration turn their attention to fundamental reform of Social Security. This will

be particularly important given the suggestions for privatization of some Social Security

responsibilities.

 Burtless also recommended investigating the following general questions:

• What is the effect of public old-age pensions on labor supply of the aged? On

labor supply of people approaching retirement age?

• What are the effects of public pensions on private saving? On aggregate national

saving?

• Would substitution of private for public pensions push up private saving? Would

it raise aggregate saving? Under what kinds of institutional framework are public

pensions most likely to boost aggregate saving?

• What would be the long-term effects on the capital stock and the overall economy

of a large accumulation in private or public pension reserves?

 Stephen Zeldes recommended research in the area of private consumption, saving, and

portfolio choices. Questions that need to be addressed include: What are the effects of

the current system and various reforms on saving and portfolio choices of workers? How

would reforms alter these choices and also the consumption of the elderly?

 Eric Hanushek commented that although Social Security is an extraordinarily

important part of our income policy for the elderly, it is only one part of a system that

also includes private pensions, retirement policies of firms, and the private savings

decisions of individuals. He pointed to the need for research on how people save, when

they save over their lifetime, and how savings accumulate.

5
Joseph Quinn recommended studying the importance of inheritances, lump-sum

pension withdrawals, and accumulated savings over a lifetime.

 Quinn also urged study of the responses of employer pension plans to changes in

Social Security rules and regulations. Noting that the primary purpose of employer

plans is to facilitate and influence departure from the firm (and that defined benefit

plans do this more effectively than defined contribution plans), Quinn raised the

following questions: Will firms use defined benefit plans to offset loss of mandatory

retirement provisions and Social Security retirement incentives? Will the shift toward

defined contribution plans slow or reverse because of this?

In the view of Michael Hurd, most important for understanding economic security

is the interaction among the sources of resources and requirements, with the average

amount of resources coming from each source being inadequate because of very

substantial interactions and requirements. Hurd recommended looking at the

interaction of all the major resources of the household, including earnings, Social

Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, pensions, personal savings, and family

resources.

 With respect to pensions, Hurd raised the following questions: Who will have

them and at what levels? Will they be indexed, and have survivors benefits? In the

long-run, what will be the supply of pensions from firms?

 With respect to personal savings, Hurd recommended looking at: financial

savings; housing; tax-advantaged, pre-retirement saving rates and determinants; and

post-retirement saving rates and determinants.

 With respect to family resources, Hurd asks: Because of changing demographics,

how many of those of advanced age will have no children? What are the extent and

determinants of financial and time help from children? How does family help

substitute for socially-provided help?

 Holden supported efforts to conduct research on what happens to a widows

income when the husband dies, including an examination of the loss of husbands

earnings and insurance replacement and how Social Security and other savings factor

into the circumstances. She also expressed interest in who chooses a joint and

survivor benefit, its relationship to poverty, and whether or not there is evidence that

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Retirement Equity Act affect

the choice.

6
3. Relationship of Earnings to Benefits; Progressivity; Insurance Provisions;

Economic Distortions

 Gary Burtless recommended research on the following questions: Using

information in the earnings records and master beneficiary records available to SSA,

what can we say about the relationship between lifetime earnings and life expectancy?

What is the connection between earnings and the number of dependents who receive

Social Security survivor or disability benefits and the length of time they receive

benefits? Can information from the earnings records and master beneficiary records

be combined to give an estimate of the internal rate of return on contributions among

workers with successively higher average lifetime pay? Burtless recommended that

returns be calculated separately for (1) worker old-age benefits; (2) old-age survivor

benefits; (3) young survivor benefits; and (4) disability insurance benefits. Results

should also be combined for all classes of benefits. These calculations should be

retrospective (for workers who have already retired) as well as prospective (for

workers who will retire in the future, assuming that the relationships among average

earnings, longevity, disability, and survivorship remain similar to those of the past).

In considering the current benefit formula and changes to that formula, such as

those recommended by the Advisory Council, Burtless believes that it is essential to

ensure that the benefit formula become or remain progressive, that is, we should

attempt to ensure that workers with low lifetime earnings obtain a more favorable

payoff from their contributions to Social Security than the one that is available to

average- and high-earnings workers. Many critics of Social Security, Burtless says,

claim that poorly paid workers subsidize workers who are more highly paid because

their life expectancy is much shorter than that of higher wage workers. Burtless says

that it seems essential to him to know whether this is true (and he is skeptical that it

is) and to provide convincing evidence that it is false (if it is false).

Noting that poor people tend not to live as long as well-to-do or higher income

people, Stephen Zeldes also recommended research on how progressive the system is

and/or how much insurance it actually provides, taking into account any correlation

between life expectancy and earnings.

In addition, Zeldes recommended looking at the tradeoffs between distortions to

labor supply decisions and the earnings insurance provided by the system. Can we

reduce the distortions without losing the insurance?

Michael Hurd recommended research on the redistributional aspects of Social

Security, particularly the interaction between what people have contributed to the

system and what they will receive from it.

7
4. Sustainability of the System

 Stephen Zeldes listed as his first research question the sustainability of the

system. What is the best forecast of the long-range revenues and expenses for the

Social Security system? At what point are costs expected to exceed revenues, and at

what point is the Social Security Trust Fund expected to be exhausted? What are the

probabilities of outcomes being substantially different from this forecast?

5. Trust Fund Investment Policy

Stephen Zeldes recommended research on trust fund investment policy: Should

part of the trust fund be invested in the stock market or other financial securities? If

so, how much and in what securities?

6. Retirement Income Modeling

Eric Hanushek cited the recommendations of the Panel on Retirement Income

Modeling of the National Research Council, which he chaired. With respect to the

Social Security Administration, the Panel recommended more attention to assessment

of the accuracy and uncertainty in long-range projection models, and said that SSA

should consider prioritizing efforts to enhance its actuarial cost model by:

 moving from a scenario approach to probabilistic projections;

 adding some distributional analysis to projected policy effects;

 evaluating sensitivity to mortality projections; and

 developing means of providing documentation and research access

 to models.

 Hanushek said that development of an integrated microsimulation model for

considering retirement income policy should be a long-term objective, but

construction should not begin now.

Stephen Zeldes believes that serious improvements are needed to SSAs current

methodology of reporting low, intermediate, and high cost forecasts. Asserting that

SSA is not currently well-equipped to analyze trust fund investment policy, he said

that some form of stochastic modeling is needed that takes into account the fact that

investment choices are not only about return, but about risk as well.

Zeldes stated that modeling techniques need to take macroeconomic interactions

into account. He asked: Are the assumptions that go into the long-range forecast

internally consistent? For example, are the assumptions about real growth consistent

with the assumptions about the expected return on the stock market, or with interest

8
rate assumptions? Zeldes also said that modeling techniques need to take into

account the effects of reform on economic performance. For example, if a reform

plan alters national saving, how might that in turn alter the path of interest rates, real

GDP, and real wages?

Eugene Steuerle commented that you have to go to microsimulation if you want

to analyze a variety of options under Social Security, and to better understand the

long-range impacts of policy changes. Only a microsimulation allows one to do a

cross-walk between the distributional estimates and the actuarial estimates in terms of

the consequences. Also, only microsimulation deals well with the interaction of

many policy changes. He cited earnings sharing as only one of many examples.

7. Increase in the Social Security Earnings Test

Joseph Quinn recommended studying the natural experiment relating to the

earnings test, which is scheduled under current law to increase from $13,500 (in

1997) to $30,000 (in 2002) for people age 65 to 69. The interesting question, Quinn

said, is how these changes affect the labor supply, earnings decisions, and the

patterns of job market exit.

8. Economic Well-being of Older Women

Karen Holden recommended that SSA launch research to fill in the gaps of

knowledge about why women are at greater risk of economic insecurity during their

later years of life.

She said that, on average, women experience a large decline in income when their

husbands die, and it is not yet known why this occurs. Also, there is very little

known about how married individuals estimate their chances of surviving alone, and

there is no information on how couples save or what they bequeath to each other.

Holden said much more needs to be known about how couples plan for widowhood,

and that Social Security could sponsor modules of the Health and Retirement Survey

that answer those questions directly.

Holden recommended methodological studies to examine the effect of the death

of a spouse on the accuracy of survey data on income and assets. If the amount

reported by the surviving spouse is more or less than the amount reported by the other

spouse prior to death, the change in resources upon widowhood will be inaccurately

estimated. She urged a comparison at the individual level of reported and

administrative record amounts, for example, comparing reported and actual Social

Security payments, by linking survey data with Social Security and SSI benefit

records. She also recommended comparing actual and reported hospital episodes and

9
costs by linkage with Medicare records, comparing actual and reported employerprovided insurance by linkage with employer records, and actual and reported income

sources by linkage with income tax records.

Holden suggested that the Social Security Administration should explore the

consequences of early widowhood for Social Security policy, and it should not

continue to consider widowhood something that solely occurs to the elderly.

Holden said that what determines well-being after widowhood is the complex mix

of resources upon which widows may draw, including public and private pensions,

life insurance, and all other assets accumulated during marriage, by both the husband

and the wife. It is this interaction that determines how well widows fare after their

husbands death and should determine the appropriate role of a public insurance

system.

The purpose of research by SSA on widowhood, Holden said, should be to guide

policy makers on the appropriate role of Social Security in providing survivor

benefits. To reduce economic distress among widows, she said, it may be that

widows benefits should not be just a higher percentage of couples Social Security

benefits, as suggested by the Advisory Council, but may need to be differentially (or

progressively) structured to take account of the larger resources available to widows

of higher income workers.

Holden said that there are other areas in which there needs to be a better

understanding of benefit coordination. One such area is disability. Widows

husbands are more likely to have been disabled, but within the program there is no

distinguishing between a widow of a worker who first came on the rolls as a disabled

or retired worker. Another factor is changing marital status. Although most widows

will continue to remain unmarried, over time many women will remarry, and we have

to begin to examine what that means for the allocation of the couples resources.

 Widowhood, she said, is a rarely observed event in a population sample surveyed

only over a short period and the consequences of widowhood may be long-term. For

these reasons, SSA must launch a multi-year research agenda that allows for support

of both long-term surveys and multi-year research grants.

 Holden recommended that another growing population which SSA should focus

upon is that of unmarried, low-wage, single parents who will eventually become a

large group of poor elderly women.

 Joseph Quinn recommended research on the impact of reallocating some spousal

benefit to a survivors benefit (the effect on poverty rates and other measures of wellbeing).

10
9. Experience in Other Countries

Eugene Steuerle recommended that SSA take a much more active role in trying to

help us understand what is happening internationally. He noted that there are a lot of

examples around the world of populations that are aging faster than ours, and as long

as we believe the human condition has certain things in common, there are a great

many lessons to be learned from abroad. For example, if other nations such as Japan

are starting to retire a little bit later, there may be some important institutional

features in Japan that are allowing this to happen, and from which we could learn.

 Stanford Ross, former Commissioner of Social Security, recommended studying

the experience of other countries. Ross noted that although there is much discussion

on the effects of the open economy on jobs, wages, and the tax system, there is very

little on what it means for retirement income systems and other social protection

systems.

10. Administration of Social Security

 Eugene Steuerle recommended studies of SSA administrative practices to examine

what works and what does not. As an example, he cited the administration of the

earnings test. How well is it administered? What are the real costs? What happens

when there are errors that have to be corrected? How do its customers react to it? In

addition, does the agency know when people die? How long do payments continue

after death, and how successful is the agency in recapturing that money?

B. The Disability Programs (DI and SSI)

1. Impact of the Baby Boom Generation on the Disability Programs

One of the cutting edge issues that will affect Social Security in the future, in the

view of Richard Burkhauser, is the impact of the aging of the baby boom generation

on the Social Security and SSI disability programs. Pointing out that the prevalence

of disabilities is higher as individuals age, especially as they get into their 50s,

Burkhauser raised the following questions:

• What is the size of the baby boom population with disabilities?

• What portion of this population is potentially eligible for DI/SSI and what

portion will successfully apply for benefits?

• How will these numbers change as the age distribution changes over the

next 30 years?

• How will baby boomers affect the DI and SSI programs in the absence of

policy changes?

11
• How will changes in policy (e.g., lessening or tightening of eligibility

criteria, changes in health services, temporary benefit periods, or greater

rehabilitation) change these outcomes?

• How sensitive are SSAs projections of these outcomes to behavior and

macroeconomic factors not currently part of the projections?

2. Incidence and Prevalence of Disabling Conditions Over Time

In the view of Gerben DeJong, research is needed on the underlying epidemiology

of disability to understand incidence and prevalence of disabling conditions over time,

including understanding the demography of the population, advances in medical

treatments, increased survival rates for certain disabilities, changes in the workplace,

and how all of this will alter the profile of who is likely to acquire a disability that

places them at risk for receiving disability benefits.

 Pamela Loprest raised the question of how changes in the disabled population (e.g.

increases in the number of individuals with mental impairments and higher disability

rates for younger workers) will affect the DI and SSI programs. She poses the

question: What do we know about the size of the potential pool of eligibles for SSA

programs and how it is changing?

3. Interface Between Disability and Retirement Benefits

Pressures to raise the retirement age are going to increase pressures for utilization

of the disability income transfer programs, in the view of Gerben DeJong. He

therefore thinks it is important to examine the interface between disability and

retirement benefits.

Richard Burkhauser also recommended study of how changes in the OASI

program (change in retirement age and change in the benefit formula) will affect

applications for DI and SSI.

4. Impact of Changes in the Labor Market and the Nature of Work

Pamela Loprest suggested that research is needed on how changes in the labor

market, such as more jobs in the service economy, will interact with the disability

programs.

 Gerben DeJong similarly observed that we need to think about the changing nature

of work and how that shapes the kinds of people who enter the disability system.

12
5. Employment/Rehabilitation/Encouraging Return to Work

All of the disability panelists recommended conducting research on which

programs are the most effective in returning people to work, and specifically testing

of providing vouchers to disabled beneficiaries as a means of expanding the

vocational rehabilitation choices that are available to them.

 David Stapleton urged analysis of how private insurers and employers are actively

managing employer disability costs and whether their efforts could be applied to

public disability programs. He also suggested research on the interactions between

SSAs disability programs and employer disability programs, workers compensation,

and disability management.

 There were several recommendations concerning continued employment of people

with disabilities as an alternative to the receipt of DI/SSI benefits. Richard

Burkhauser recommended research on the willingness of employers to accommodate

workers with disabilities. He also remarked that, because the accommodations

provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act do not apply to employers of 15 or

fewer employees, there is a potential natural experiment to analyze the experiences of

small employers and employers of 15 or more employees.

 Burkhauser recommended several additional issues for study:

• The importance of on-the-job accommodation to the length of time before

job exit and application for disability benefits;

• How tax policies that experience rate firms, or use other strategies to

make employers bear more of the cost of DI benefits, would affect the DI

rolls;

• The appropriate time for intervention to help people get off or stay off of

the disability rollsat onset of disability, before they file for benefits, or

after they fileand what the outcomes of each intervention are;

• How people transition out of the work force following the onset of a

disability; and

• What policies could increase the employment of people with disabilities,

especially at younger ages, and reduce the use of the DI and SSI programs

by younger workers.

13
With regard to rehabilitation, David Stapleton suggested research on the incentives

given to individuals who are being rehabilitated. Gerben DeJong suggested the need

to study the market incentives being given to rehabilitation providers for rehabilitating

individuals. In her outline, Pamela Loprest suggested a study of the availability of

services to those who are attempting to return to work.

 During the discussion period, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Louis Enoff recommended that the Board consider multiple demonstration projects

across the country as a means of identifying approaches for encouraging return to

work.

6. Alternative Approaches/Definitions

David Stapleton stated that in his view, policy makers need to consider changing

the disability program to one that is not founded on the idea that people with

disabilities cannot work, and researchers need to conduct research that would support

the development of a new approach. The definition of disability that the program now

uses inevitably leads to incentives that encourage dependence and discourage work.

 Gerben DeJong stated that the definition of disability for DI/SSI should be made

more congruent with the assumptions governing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Research is needed, he said, to determine how environmental accommodations should

be factored into the disability determination process; how such a process could be

operationalized; whether an accommodations factor would result in valid and reliable

decisions; and the probable impact of such a change in the definition of disability on

program participation and costs. DeJong also commented on the need for an ongoing

research capacity to estimate the probable impact of major policy changes.

 Stapleton mentioned an alternative to the current disability programs in which

eligibility would be based on medical impairments regardless of employment. He said

that the primary objection to this alternative has been cost, but it is not known how

much this alternative would cost because earnings, tax revenues, and participation in

other programs might change. Also, he suggested that research is needed on

alternative means of controlling program costs, such as lower benefit levels, partial

disability categories, and ways to tighten eligibility requirements.

7. Health Care Coverage

Gerben DeJong said that SSA needs to think of creative public-private solutions

that will neutralize the cost of health care as a material consideration for people with

disabilities and their employers, and evaluate the probable impact of alternative

arrangements, including field testing if necessary. He also indicated the need to look

at the issue of health insurance and part-time work because part-time work is often a

14
transitional step for people who have a disability but do not want to make a complete

exit from the work force. The part-time work may not include employer-sponsored

health insurance and people may choose to take disability benefits in order to obtain

health insurance coverage.

 In her outline, Pamela Loprest also stated the need to study the extent to which the

desire for access to health care is a factor in people seeking DI/SSI benefits.

8. Disabled Children and Younger Adults under the SSI Program

Richard Burkhauser recommended research on the dramatic growth of childhood

beneficiaries in the SSI program and the likely effect of recently legislated changes

on new applications, program participation, and the economic well-being of families

and children with disabilities. Burkhauser also suggested study of how the 1996

welfare reform legislation will affect the DI/SSI programs, including how State

reforms and treatment of the AFDC populations will affect SSI.

 Burkhauser also recommended research on how work-related programs, structured

like the Earned Income Tax Credit but targeted to young adults age 18 to 25 with

disabilities, could slow their movement onto or encourage their movement out of the

SSI program. He asked whether these programs could be targeted on the transition

from school to work and reduce the number of SSI children who come onto the SSI

adult program.

 Pamela Loprest recommended:

• More research to understand the disability-related needs of children

receiving SSI, including how their medical and nonmedical needs differ

by impairment, how families use SSI benefits, and to what extent they

enable parents to access services not covered by other programs;

• Research on how to promote and assist the transition from school-to-work

among childhood SSI beneficiaries as they approach working age; and

• Research on how SSI connects with other programs for children with

disabilities, including any overlap in eligibility and what needs the other

programs do not meet that cash benefits can address.

9. Research on Other Specific Populations

Several comments were directed to the need for more research on specific

population groups of people with disabilities. The suggestions included women,

minorities, differences between DI and SSI beneficiaries, categories of impairments,

15
16

and ages at which people come on the DI/SSI rolls. David Stapleton emphasized the

need to recognize the heterogeneity among people with disabilities. (He also pointed

out that the use of SSAs large administrative data base facilitates research on specific

subpopulations.)

Stapleton also suggested research on whether the breakdown of the family and

increased divorce rates cause or contribute to the growth in the number of women

who apply for benefits based on mental impairments.

10. Disability Systems in other Countries

Richard Burkhauser suggested that much can be learned by cross-national

analysis of disability systems in Western European countries. Former Commissioners

Stanford Ross and Louis Enoff also supported this view.

11. Effects of the Application Process on Application and Award Rates

Richard Burkhauser recommended looking at the application process for disability

benefits and how the ease of ability to get onto the program impacts the decision to

apply for benefits. He raised the question of whether there are systemic differences in

application and award rates across geographical locations and, if they exist, whether

they have behavioral consequences with respect to application rates.
III. WHAT SHOULD SSA DO TO ENCOURAGE OUTSIDE

RESEARCH ON THESE ISSUES?

A. Continue and Expand Linkages between Social Security

Administrative Data and Survey Data

Most of the panelists spoke of the value of linking Social Security administrative

data and survey data as a means of encouraging outside research.

Michael Hurd stated that it is not necessary for SSA to sponsor its own

household survey, but that it should have input into development of surveys such as

the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics

Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD). He expressed the view that SSA needs to give

higher priority and more resources to linking HRS and AHEAD data with Social

Security administrative data. Hurd said that there is a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) to link Social Security contributions history, W-2 earnings

records, and benefit records to HRS. Linkage of the HRS with contributions and

benefits records has been achieved, he said, but the linkage of HRS with W-2

earnings records has not yet been achieved.

Hurd also said that although there is a memorandum of understanding to link

HRS and Social Security data for the first HRS interview wave, it is important to

achieve an MOU for new cohorts. He also urged an MOU for linkage of Social

Security data with AHEAD survey data.

These linkages, Hurd said, make it possible to research questions such as

retirement decisions and the redistributional aspects of Social Security. These are

questions that you cannot address by looking at Social Security records by

themselves. There would be considerable benefit, he said, if, with enhanced staffing

at ORES and the use of these linkages, particular data products could be suggested

and worked out.

Gary Burtless pointed out that such linkages would allow the kind of comparison

of Social Security pension wealth and outside pension wealth and assets that is

necessary to evaluate reform plans, especially those involving some degree of

privatization.

Burtless urged that SSA work with the Department of Labor to establish an

interagency work group to consider the collection of data on employer information.

He noted that such data collection should consider both the short and the long range

goals for data.

17
Eric Hanushek commented that the issue of matched data  Social Security and survey

data  cannot be overemphasized. Matching has been moving along better recently than in

the past, Hanushek observed, but should be pushed along and become more routine. Survey

designers should collaborate on content and methods of obtaining more reliable data. He

suggested that other government agencies can play a role, such as the U.S. Department of

Labor, which should make the development of employer models a long-term objective.

Longitudinal data collection is essential, in Hanusheks view, and current efforts such as

HRS and AHEAD should continue to be supported.

Stephen Zeldes stated that he thought it was crucial to continue with and expand linkages

between Social Security administrative data and household level data sets. Particularly

important are linkages to the AHEAD and HRS data sets. These linkages, he said, are easy

and cheap to do, and extremely beneficial to all of those in the research community. They are

also crucial for analyzing economic behavior relevant to understanding Social Security policy.

Joseph Quinn urged SSA to try to focus considerable external support on data sets like the

HRS and AHEAD, by helping with financing the continued collection of data and with

funding research once these data are available. These data sets, he said, potentially combine

the strengths of representative samples with: selected over-sampling of particular groups that

you are interested in; detailed individual demographic, health and economic data; Social

Security earnings and benefits records; actual employer pension information; and a

longitudinal framework with the ability to fine-tune and add questions over time and to add

new cohorts. Such a data set could potentially cover the entire age range from pre-retirement

to death.

.

Commenting that HRS is only at the margin able to talk about what happens with regard to

disability, Richard Burkhauser said that SSA should either work with other agencies, linking

more disability-related questions to national surveys such as the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP) and the Current Population Survey (CPS), or field its own survey

to capture information on younger cohorts with disabilities. SSAs administrative records

could then be used to supplement a cross-sectional panel, get work histories, and see how

people make the transition out of the labor force following the onset of a disability.

David Stapleton agreed with the importance of linking administrative data to outside data

for several reasons. First, he said, SSA data include only limited information. Linkages, for

example with Medicare or Medicaid claims data, would offer a way to get a much richer

picture of the health status of the individual. Second, SSA data can enrich what can be done

with outside data. Third, disability program participants participate in many other programs

besides SSI and SSDI, and it is helpful to be able to link SSA data with these other program

data.

18
Pamela Loprest supported connecting administrative data to other data sources,

such as attaching earnings/benefits records to the NHIS disability survey or the new

SIPP. She recommended that SSA support: on-going data collection efforts such as

HRS; additional questions/supplements to other data sets such as SIPP, CPS, and

NHIS; and new data collection/specific projects such as surveys on children with

disabilities, surveys of young people with disabilities, and potentially focus on

specific impairment groups.

B. Make Administrative Data Available for Others to Analyze

Gary Burtless praised SSA for its important role in setting up the Longitudinal

Retirement History Survey and in supporting the Health and Retirement Survey, but

stated that he was skeptical that resources for that kind of effort would be available to

the agency in the future. Burtless said that in the absence of resources to mount new

kinds of data-gathering efforts, it is imperative that steps be taken to make SSAs

administrative data, stripped of identifying information, available to the public and the

research community. For example, the analysis of the changing distribution of

earnings in the U.S., he noted, has been completely dominated by two sources, the

Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the Current Population Survey, whereas the

government itself has much better information about this subject which has never, in

the last 15 or 20 years, been made available to outside researchers to analyze. It is a

national scandal, Burtless said, that so little useful analysis has been done with a data

source of such unique value.

Stephen Zeldes recommended that SSA provide a large representative public use

panel data set of administrative records, independent of the HRS, and even larger than

the HRS, that would give a random sample of Social Security participants entire

earnings and benefits history, obviously protected to maintain confidentiality.

David Stapleton addressed the issue of the use of SSAs administrative data from

the perspective of research on people with disabilities. Administrative databases are

particularly valuable in this context, he said, because their size allows analysis of the

relationships among outcomes, impairments, and other characteristics of people with

disabilities. Treating people with disabilities as a homogenous group is not only an

injustice to them, but also an impediment to conducting good research and developing

better policies. SSAs databases, he said, are large enough to allow researchers to

perform analyses using specific subgroups of individuals with disabilities, defined by

impairment, age, sex, and preprogram earnings, and assess variations in findings

across these groups. SSAs data also have the value of being longitudinal, allowing

researchers to watch people as they go through important transitions in their lives and

get information that can seldom be acquired from surveys. This is especially true,

Stapleton said, if databases from different programs are linked together.

19
In Stapletons view, general purpose surveys and, to a lesser extent, even those that

focus on people with disabilities, are not large enough to allow researchers to make

statistically meaningful distinctions among important subgroups of people with

disabilities. It is too expensive to conduct surveys that are large enough to do justice to

the heterogeneity of people with disabilities, especially on a regular basis. Large

administrative databases offer one way to accomplish that.

Stapleton urged SSA to give higher priority to increasing accessibility of SSA

administrative data for legitimate research purposes, and suggested that the Social

Security Advisory Board is in a position to push on this matter.

Richard Burkhauser said that SSA should provide outside researchers with better

methods of accessing in-house SSA records and linked Social Security records, perhaps

through cooperative agreements with universities or research organizations.

Pamela Loprest thinks that SSA should provide more information about in-house

administrative data sets to allow researchers to develop research ideas that might

incorporate them.

C. Increase Extramural Research

Gerben DeJong said that there is a need for a mixture of both intra and extramural

research. SSA needs an enhanced internal research capacity that can service its

institutional and day-to-day administrative and policy needs; but it also needs to have the

benefit of outside analysts who are not constrained by the assumptions and culture that

currently define SSA. Extramural research needs a mixture of funding mechanisms,

whether grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, or other. DeJong also encouraged

greater opportunity for investigator initiated research to help ensure a steady stream of

new ideas that might otherwise not emerge from within the ranks of SSA itself.

DeJong commented that there is a need to strengthen the extramural research capacity

as well as intramural research capacity because of the currently very thin network of

research expertise in the area of disability. Because of that, he said, SSA has a very

limited number of organizations it can turn to for expert advice in disability related

matters. DeJong suggested there is a need for an extramural research infrastructure,

providing an academic home, curriculum development, and graduate and post-graduate

research opportunities through assistantships, fellowships, post-doctoral research

opportunities, and disability income policy research centers. This research infrastructure

should have ready access to large public use data files.

Michael Hurd stated that SSA needs to encourage academic research. Academics

have their own objectives, he said, but will be active where good data exist. SSA has

somewhat different objectives from outside researchers. They are not completely

substitutable.

20
Richard Burkhauser suggested that SSA consider providing support for

universities or research organizations with a critical mass of researchers interested in

SSA program issues. He cited, as an example SSA might follow, the nine centers on

demography and economics of aging that have been created by the National Institute

on Aging to sponsor research on aging by outside individuals.

Joseph Quinn expressed the view that SSAs extramural research budget is quite

small, and pointed out that extramural support is often the least costly way to fund

research. There are many important policy relevant projects already underway by

outside researchers, who have data sets up and running. Quinn said that they would

be very responsive to research suggestions from the Social Security Administration,

and would also provide innovative ideas of their own. This, he said, seems to be a

more fruitful approach than trying to do all this in-house.

 Quinn also recommended that SSA provide dissertation fellowships, which he

thinks are particularly cost effective. With very modest support, he suggested, SSA

could start young scholars on a lifetime of research on aging, particularly when they

begin by using one of the longitudinal panel microeconomic data sets, for which there

is a big start-up investment which people then want to amortize with additional

research.

 Pamela Loprest proposed that SSA hold open grant competitions to encourage

outside research ideas.

 David Stapleton said the audience should keep in mind the financial and

professional interests of the panelists when considering their recommendations, but

said they should not dismiss them entirely because of that. In the long run, however,

there is a need to beware of how funding for outside research is expanded because

over time there is a strong and natural tendency for such funding to serve the interest

of the funder less and less, and to serve the interest of the researchers more and more.

 Stanford Ross, former Commissioner of Social Security, observed that the kind of

full-scale research operation that SSA had in earlier years had begun to break down

by the late 1970s, and has broken down more in the years since. He suggested that

SSA will need to have people inside knowing how to reach out and get research done

on the outside, and not replicate activities that it can cost effectively contract out for

or find outside the agency more expeditiously.

D. Set up Periodic Technical Panels to Review and Advise SSA

Stephen Zeldes proposed that SSA set up periodic technical panels of academics

to review and advise on assumptions and methods, economic models, and policy

choices.

21
E. Open up the 75-year Forecasting Model to Outside Researchers

Stephen Zeldes also urged that SSA open up what he called the black box of

the 75-year forecasting model. Although the actuaries at Social Security have been

extremely helpful in answering questions and providing simulation results on a oneon-one basis, Zeldes said that he thinks more resources need to flow in the direction

of some more formal mechanism for obtaining information about the model and

actually getting at the model. He urged giving outside researchers software, data, and

documentation so that they can learn and improve the process.

Eric Hanushek also urged releasing Social Security modeling to the rest of the

world to make possible interactions between outside and internal researchers.

Hanushek said that there has to be more effort to try to integrate the interactions

between Social Security, private employers, and private decision making, and for

research purposes, that requires a lot of knowledge that we do not currently have.

Steve Goss, SSAs Deputy Chief Actuary for Long-Range Estimates, commented

that the Office of the Actuary has gone into excruciating detail on its

methodologies with previous Advisory Council technical panels. He said that the

office has put out a number of actuarial studies over the years describing the data and

methodologies that they use. Resource limitations are part of the reason why there

has not been as much in the way of actuarial studies and documentation put together

on some of the methodologies as the actuaries would like.

Goss commented that there have been instances when they have specifically

shared methodologies, including diskettes, with other people, and they have often run

into a situation where these are so large and cumbersome that it turns out that people

have not found them to be as useful as they wished. The biggest problem, Goss said,

is the amount of time it takes to really get others up to speed on exactly what the

methodologies are, and the way things are put together.

Goss objected to the reference to the methodology as a black box, adding that

the actuaries have made an effort over many years to publish background

information. Much of the information put together for the Advisory Council on the

moneys worth and other issues has been put on the Social Security Web page, and

has been shared with academic researchers.

Goss said that the actuaries are also in the process of trying to formalize and put

on the Web page some of the kinds of data that have been shared in the past with

outside people, relating to such things as explicit projections by age and sex and

marital status of the beneficiaries population.

22
F. Organize or Co-Sponsor an Annual Conference of Academics

Stephen Zeldes recommended that SSA organize or co-sponsor an annual

conference of academics, where academic and Social Security researchers would

produce papers and discuss data needs and the availability of data. This, he

suggested, would provide a forum for an ongoing discussion and interaction between

the public researchers and the SSA researchers.

G. Use the Mechanism of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)

to bring in Visiting Researchers; Start a Visiting Scholars

Program

Richard Burkhauser said that using IPAs would allow for cross-fertilization

between the outside research houses and SSA. (Peter Wheeler, SSAs Associate

Commissioner for Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, said that ORES currently has

four IPAs.)

Along similar lines, and citing the Federal Reserve Board as a model, Stephen

Zeldes recommended that SSA start a visiting scholars program, where outside

academics can be brought in for short periods of time, 3 to 5 days, and present a

seminar on the work that they are doing themselves, and have a chance to interact

with SSA staff. This, he said, would build links between Social Security and the

outside world.

Karen Holden said that SSA should encourage short-term research visits to ORES

or the Census Bureau in order to use the data these agencies have.

H. Start a Mailing List of Outside Researchers Working on Issues

Related to Social Security

To help build links between SSA and outside researchers, Stephen Zeldes

recommended starting an e-mail or paper mailing list of outside researchers working

on Social Security. SSA should use the list to let academics know what is going on

in the agency, and outsiders can respond.

I. Increase ORES Research Capacity

A number of panelists commented on SSAs limited capacity to conduct and fund

valuable research activity.

 Dorothy Rice, who left the Social Security Administration in 1976 after having

served as Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Research and Statistics, commented on

23
the strong research capability and resources that the Office of Research and Statistics

had in its heyday. She expressed regret that over the years there has been an erosion

of resources and people. Although the office still has good people, they are too few.

She commended the Board for taking on the important issues of research and the

additional resources  both staff and funding  that are required to carry it out, and

for addressing these issues in its first report.

 Gerben DeJong stated the opinion that SSAs research capacity is very small

relative to its mission and the scope of its work, particularly in the area of disability.

He cited the fact that SSA spends over $65 billion a year for disability income

transfer payments, not including what is spent under Medicaid, Medicare, and

Workers Compensation.

 Disability income programs are going to receive increased scrutiny in the years

to come, DeJong said, and therefore it is important to have a research capacity to

answer questions. SSAs Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics has the

problem of diminished staffing and funding. Large amounts of money are set aside

for very large-scale studies, which are needed, but leave very little money for any

kind of discretionary research.

DeJong thinks that what SSA needs is a stronger in-house think tank that can

more critically examine goals, purposes and missions of the organization 

encouraging more out of the box thinking. He urged a mixture of both large and

small scale studies. The large scale studies are needed given the scale of SSAs

programs. But also needed are smaller studies that can focus on specific features of

the programs, specific sub-populations, and that can address emerging policy issues

that require relatively quick turnaround.

24
IV. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THE ACCESS

 BY OUTSIDE RESEARCHERS TO SSAS DATA,

METHODS, AND ASSUMPTIONS?

WHAT COULD OR SHOULD BE DONE TO

REDUCE OR REMOVE THESE LIMITS?

A number of the panelists commented on the problem of access to SSAs data,

methods and assumptions, citing both the problems of privacy and limited resources.

In the view of Joseph Quinn, access to data sets such as HRS is too restrictive,

which he thinks will discourage or prevent some researchers from using them. The

current inability to combine restrictive data sets  for example, the Social Security

earnings data, geographic identifiers, and upcoming pension data  eliminates one of

the primary advantages of the HRS, which is great data on people, their Social

Security benefits and histories, and their pension rights.

 Michael Hurd commented on the resource limitations at ORES, and expressed the

view that there would be considerable benefit, both to ORES and to the HRS and

AHEAD surveys, if with enhanced staffing, particular data products that might be

produced from linking SSA data and survey data could be suggested and worked out.

The accomplishment of some of the agreed upon tasks, he said, has been limited by

resources.

 Hurd also referred to the issue of data confidentiality as a very vexing issue.

Progress has been made and further progress needs to be made. Linking of data could

become much more routinized if we could thoroughly understand and study the issue

of data confidentiality.

 Eric Hanushek said that a lot of work has been done recently on confidentiality

issues, some of which has come out of the National Academys Committee on

National Statistics, and some elsewhere, that should be incorporated into discussions

about these issues. There are a variety of different approaches that have not been

adequately entered into the debate, both in terms of the underlying science, and how

agencies handle confidentiality administratively. Currently, Hanushek said, each

agency that releases data that has confidentiality concerns tends to do it in its own

way. They do not think about various statistical techniques. He suggested that there

ought to be more serious regular discussion to try to incorporate the available

information, and to encourage further research on privacy. Hanushek thinks that

every agency has been very conservative on privacy issues, as they should be, because

information should not be improperly released. But, he said, there is a lot more that

could be done that would improve our ability to answer some fundamental questions.

25
Gary Burtless stated that he thinks that there are two distinct kinds of

confidentiality issues. One has to do with the linking of administrative information

from Social Security with other data. The Census Bureau and other interviewing

organizations, he said, always want to be confident that they have a high level of

response when they go out and meet people, and if people think that there is a chance

that what they say will be linked to their tax records or their Social Security records,

that will contribute to a long-term trend in which people are less willing to respond to

these surveys. With data linkups we have to be much more demanding in terms of

preserving confidentiality and having very high standards.

 Another issue, however, has to do with stand-alone data files that simply are the

administrative records in Social Security, where there are ways to mask the data

before it is released, yet give external researchers a lot of evidence that is helpful both

for analyzing issues that are special to Social Security and wider economic issues.

 Peter Wheeler, SSAs Associate Commissioner for ORES, made the point that it is

not a question of SSAs willingness to provide data. The problem is that matching

data and sanitizing it to ensure that individual privacy is protected is not simple, but is

a meticulous, resource-intensive job which, over time, should get easier as ORES gets

better at it. He pointed to the agencys financial support of the HRS, and the serious

negotiations that have gone on to protect privacy while moving ahead with matching

HRS data.

 Bernard Wixon of ORES described an ongoing ORES modeling project that

combines Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data with SSAs

disability determination data, allowing staff at ORES to estimate whether someone in

the SIPP panel would be disabled under SSAs criteria, as well as the basis for

eligibility or ineligibility. In response to a question, Denton Vaughan said that these

data are not available to outsider researchers because statutory confidentiality

restrictions limit the release of SSA data linked to the SIPP.

 Peter Wheeler said that one of the things ORES is doing is trying to hire a chief

statistician for SSA so that data issues could more readily be addressed. The point

was made, however, that masking data to protect privacy is complex and SSA has to

have staff who can deal with the problems if they are going to be addressed.

 Karen Holden noted that the small staff at ORES inhibits the ability of SSA to do

the labor-intensive work of protecting confidentiality when linking data sets.

26
V. COMMENTS ON THE FORUM PROCEEDINGS

Following the Social Security Advisory Boards June 24, 1997 Forum on a LongRange Research and Program Evaluation Plan for the Social Security Administration,

the Board produced a report on the proceedings of the forum. This was circulated to

additional Social Security experts, requesting their comments. Following is a

summary of the comments that were received.

Henry Aaron, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Henry Aaron agreed that the menu of recommendations by the Boards panels is

comprehensive and well conceived. However, he noted that it is more than SSA

can handle, given SSAs current capabilities. He said that building the research

capacity of ORES merits top priority.

Aaron cited three areas as being at the top of his research list:

1. The determinants of retirement. It is all well and good to talk about policies to

change the retirement age. But unless we have a better idea about policies that

are likely to work, we cannot begin to have a serious policy discussion and

consider which of these policies might have political appeal.

2. The economic status of widows and how they got that way. Widows

comprise the economically most disadvantaged group among the elderly. It is

worth investigating what sorts of actions cause that outcome. As David Card

pointed out at a recent Retirement Workshop, one should not presume that this

outcome is necessarily unplanned (although most of us think it is unplanned).

3. Look at age-specific disability rates by age cohort. With that sort of information

in hand, one can then look at age-specific mortality rates of the disabled versus

age-specific mortality rates of the non-disabled, an exercise that should shed

some light on the perennial and important question of whether the criteria for

disability benefits is changing. This is a study that would use the

so-called difference in differences approach. It is pure number crunching and

could easily be done internally.

27
In addition, Aaron attached a list of research questions that were discussed at a

Retirement Workshop at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

on April 5, 1997, which he said had objectives similar to those of the June 24th

research forum. These relate to: determinants of the retirement decision; the

adequacy of attempts to model retirement as a joint spousal decision; effect of

increasing divorce and remarriage; effect of demand-side and supply-side factors in

determining timing of retirement  the role of employers; effect of changes in the

form of delivering pensions or health benefits (with no change in cost) on the timing

of retirement; the expectations of people in making retirement decisions; the role of

norms and peer behavior in making retirement decisions; the reasons for the high

poverty rate among widows; and how annuity markets could be made to work better.

Frederick B. Arner, Consultant

Former Staff for Disability Issues, Committee on Ways and Means

Frederick Arner recommended increasing research on the administration of the

disability program and improving and making more available statistics relating to the

program. He said that an improved understanding of how the disability program is

administered will provide better information on the true nature of program.

Christopher Bender, Consultant

Christopher Bender agreed with the recommendation of Eugene Steuerle on the

value of learning from the experiences of other countries. He commented that

international approaches to pension reform are sometimes bolder (and less prudent),

experimental, and more varied and consequently quite informative.

Connie Citro, Staff, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council

Connie Citro stressed that there is a critical need for enhanced access to SSAs

administrative data for research and modeling purposesboth SSA data alone and

SSA data linked with survey data.

Alan Gustman, Professor of Economics, Dartmouth College

Alan Gustman said that he is very sympathetic with many of the panelists

recommendations, including strengthening the role of SSA in developing and

supplying data; ensuring that Social Security data are attached to many surveys (on a

confidential basis), as they are to HRS; and further exploring behavioral models of

28
retirement, savings and health determination. In addition, he made the following

suggestions:

1. Establish a formal panel to evaluate all the in-house research conducted by ORES

over the past decade in terms of quality, emphasis, innovation, and importance to

policy. This information, he said, is necessary to produce a meaningful research and

program evaluation plan for the future. Gustman said that one might conclude that

the current emphasis, quality and product are the best that one can expect given the

resources available, or that resources could be better used, or that more or fewer

resources should be devoted to ORES, or that there should be a reorganization

between in-house and extramural research. He also recommended evaluating the

relation of ORES to research undertaken elsewhere in SSA, including the actuaries

office, and independently evaluating that research.

2. Gustman said that the omission of mention of any research on a privatized Social

Security system is astounding. He noted that this is the major public policy

alternative to the current system, and one would expect a significant fraction of ORES

resources to be devoted to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of various

forms of a privatized system, so that if and when policy makers decide to consider

privatization, there will be a body of research to guide policy decisions.

3. There should be a mechanism created to insure that research at SSA will be at the

cutting edge of social science technology. Rather than be at the mercy of the ebb and

flow of ideas in the academic sector, SSA should be encouraging and guiding the

innovation in research technology so that they will be in the best position to guide

policymakers in the future. This requires a commitment to innovation and the

presence of considerable in-house expertise, as well as a very close relationship with

the best researchers in the academic community.

Martha McSteen, President, National Committee

to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

Martha McSteen said there is a need to increase the overall budget for staff, materials,

and equipment for SSA research. She said that the staff needs to be highly capable

researchers who are paid sufficiently to make it possible to secure and maintain a high

quality staff.

In addition, she said that there must be a well focused effort to efficiently use outside

researchers to assist with or conduct research under contract. Strengthening the SSA

capability to effectively use and pay for high quality outside research should have

positive results. McSteen also said that a more comprehensive external research effort

will require an effective internal SSA staff component to direct this external research activity.

29
Relevant research is presently being carried out in a variety of universities and

other research facilities, McSteen said, and SSA should develop an approach that

enhances the sharing of information and stimulates not only the continuation of this

research but creates an environment that further stimulates it. She said that this could

be achieved in a number of ways but an annual conference where current research is

presented could prove useful and would assure that SSA remained more involved in

this type of research rather than becoming insulated from it because of the work

pressures that automatically come with its own internal research.

McSteen recommended the following as areas where research is especially

important:

1. The work and health needs of older people;

2. Disability and work;

3. Means testing and other basic principles of social insurance;

4. The adequacy of the program for surviving spouses;

5. Privatization of Social Security;

6. Economic growth and other long-range financing issues; and

7. Social Security in other countries.

Robert J. Myers, Consultant, Former Chief Actuary, SSA

Robert Myers said that on the whole he strongly agrees with the views expressed

by the panelists and others at the research forum. In addition, he made the following

comments:

1. Too much importance should not be attached to opinion surveys and to surveys

asking people for information about hard data on their personal matters, as

against using hard data from general sources.

2. More mention should be made of the actuarial research that has always been done

in the process of preparing the actuarial cost estimates.

3. Research on the internal rates of return on OASDI contributions is unnecessary

because it is not a relevant matter insofar as social insurance programs are

concerned.

4. He opposes the great emphasis on probabilistic projections because,

 although it is a great intellectual exercise and of interest to experts, it

 is confusing to policymakers who want the answer, not many answers.

30
5. There should be research on administrative expenses and service of SSA

 and how well SSA meets the goal of providing world-class service. He

 defines this as, among other things, having virtually all 800 calls answered

 by a person within one minute, seeing drop in callers to district offices

 within 15 minutes, making appointments at district offices within a few days

 at most, and adjudicating disability claims reasonably rapidly.

James M. Perrin, M.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics

Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital

James Perrin supported the recommendations from the forum regarding improving

access to research data, support for junior investigators, and the general development of

stronger, more diverse research into Social Security activities. However, he noted that

the report gives very limited attention to the tremendous growth in the child and

adolescent SSI program and the key questions that might be raised about this program

and its growth. He also noted that the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunities Act created major changes in the definition of disabilities for children in

the SSI program, and the recent budget reconciliation legislation affected continued

access to Medicaid for children with disabilities.

Dr. Perrin also made the following recommendations and observations with respect

to the child and adolescent SSI program:

1. Basic information regarding the clinical and functional status of childhood

beneficiaries with disabilities is remarkably lacking. The SSI program for children

includes several cohorts of children with different trajectories. These include very

young children, entering the rolls often through presumptive eligibility categories.

Many of these children will not have a disability two or three years later. Other

categories include young children with permanent physical disabilities although

likely to improve over time; adolescents with developmental and mental impairments

who likely will have long-term disability without much improvement; and other

adolescents for whom long-term outcomes should be quite good. A better

understanding of these different patterns and categories would help.

2. Only limited information exists regarding trends in childhood disability over

 time, growth in the population in general as well as growth in specific types of

 conditions.

3. Study the interaction of several other programs for children and families,

 including welfare, Medicaid, public health program, special education and

 maternal and child health, with consideration of the tradeoffs among them.

31
4. The influence of child disability on work participation of parents has had only

 limited attention, despite its major importance for work policy and programs.

5. Current SSI incentives encourage maintaining evidence of disability among

children and especially adolescents. To maintain benefits, adolescents emphasize

their disability rather than obtain skills to minimize disability. Given the general

epidemiologic data regarding longer-term outcomes of child disability, one would

expect that many young people with major disabilities should be able to become

self-sufficient, employed, and relatively independent. Thus, carefully evaluated

experimentation with different incentive plans seems a high priority as well.

In regard to recent changes in the child and adolescent SSI program that will

cause over 100,000 children and adolescents to lose benefits, Dr. Perrin

recommended that the following questions be addressed: What are the implication of

these losses for these children and their families? How will it affect work force

participation of their parents? To what degree will other public programs effectively

replace SSI benefits? What will the loss of benefits mean for child functioning and

health status?

It would help, he said, to begin a systematic approach to the development of

serious data regarding this program.

Howard Young, Actuarial Consultant; Chair, l994-96 Advisory Councils

Technical Panel on Methods and Assumptions

Howard Young commented that the panelists gave a very comprehensive range of

useful suggestions. He called the Boards attention to the recommendation of the

Technical Panel to establish an ongoing advisory committee of experts who would

maintain familiarity with OASDI and the related procedures for making estimates,

and would be available for ad hoc advice on specific matters. (As recommended in

the Panel report, this group  with gradually changing membership  could meet

every six months or so and receive interim materials from SSA, stay in touch with

procedural developments, and be available for ad hoc consultation on an individual or

group basis for advice regarding the proposals that SSA is asked to evaluate.)

Howard Young also called the Boards attention to his analysis of the

affordability of Social Security, as distinct from the burden. (Another Look at the

Affordability of U.S. Social Security Cash Benefits (OASDI)), 1994.

32
Appendix I

Mandate of the Social Security Advisory Board

In 1994, when the Congress passed legislation establishing the Social Security

Administration as an independent agency, it also created a 7-member bipartisan Advisory

Board to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) policy. The conference report on

this legislation passed both Houses of Congress without opposition. President Clinton signed

the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 into law on

August 15, 1994 (P.L. 103-296).

The law gives the Board the following functions:

1) analyzing the Nations retirement and disability systems and making recommendations

with respect to how the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability (OASDI) programs and the

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, supported by other public and private

systems, can most effectively assure economic security;

2) studying and making recommendations relating to the coordination of programs that

provide health security with the OASDI and SSI programs;

3) making recommendations to the President and to the Congress with respect to policies

that will ensure the solvency of the OASDI programs, both in the short term and the long

term;

4) making recommendations with respect to the quality of service that the Social Security

Administration provides to the public;

5) making recommendations with respect to policies and regulations regarding the OASDI

and SSI programs;

6) increasing public understanding of Social Security;

7) making recommendations with respect to a long-range research and program evaluation

plan for the Social Security Administration;

8) reviewing and assessing any major studies of Social Security as may come to the

attention of the Board; and

9) making recommendations with respect to such other matters as the Board determines to

be appropriate.

33
Appendix II

A. Members of the Social Security Advisory Board

June 1997

Harlan Mathews, Chair

Harlan Mathews served as a U.S. Senator from Tennessee from January 1993 to

December 1994. Prior to that, he was Secretary of the Cabinet for Tennessee Governor Ned

McWherter and Tennessees State Treasurer. During his 13-year tenure as Tennessees State

Treasurer, Senator Mathews administered a state-wide public employee pension program.

Jo Anne Barnhart

Ms. Barnhart is a political and public policy consultant to State and local governments on

welfare and social services program design, policy, implementation, evaluation, and

legislation. From 1990 to 1993 she served as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,

Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing more than 65 programs, including Aid

to Families with Dependent Children, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

program, Child Support Enforcement, and various child care programs. Previously she was

Minority Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and

legislative assistant for domestic policy issues for Senator William V. Roth. Most recently,

Ms. Barnhart served as Political Director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Lori L. Hansen

Ms. Hansen is a Policy Analyst at the National Academy of Social Insurance. She was a

Technical Assistant to former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball in his capacity as a

member of the National Commission on Social Security Reform. She was also a Special

Assistant to the President and Director of Government Affairs at the Legal Services

Corporation. In addition, Ms. Hansen was a senior professional staff member on the U.S.

Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Employment, Poverty,

and Migratory Labor, and was legislative assistant to Senator Gaylord Nelson, then Chairman

of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Senate Committee on Finance. She also served

on the professional staff of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

Martha Keys

Martha Keys served as a U.S. Representative in the 94th and 95th Congresses. She was a

member of the House Ways and Means Committee and its Subcommittees on Health and

Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation. Ms. Keys also served on the Select

Committee on Welfare Reform. She served in the executive branch as Special Advisor to the

Secretary of HEW and as Assistant Secretary of Education. She was a member of the 1983

National Commission (Greenspan) on Social Security Reform. Martha Keys is currently

consulting on public policy issues. She has held executive positions in the non-profit sector,

lectured widely on public policy in universities, and served on the National Council on Aging

and other Boards. Ms. Keys is the author of Planning for Retirement: Everywomans Legal

Guide.

34
Gerald M. Shea

Mr. Shea is the Assistant to the President for Government Affairs of the AFL-CIO. Prior

to his present appointment, he held several managerial positions related to economic issues

within the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. In addition to his role

on the Advisory Board, Mr. Shea served as a member of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on

Social Security.

Carolyn L. Weaver

Ms. Weaver is Director of Social Security and Pension Studies at the American Enterprise

Institute. She was a member of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security. She was

a senior adviser to the 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform and a member

of both the 1987-88 Social Security Advisory Council and the 1989 Social Security

Commissioners Disability Advisory Committee. Ms. Weaver also served as Chief

Professional Staff Member on Social Security for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance.

She is the editor of Social Securitys Looming Surpluses: Prospects and Implications and

Disability and Work: Incentives, Rights, and Opportunities, and author of Crisis in Social

Security: Economic and Political Origins.

B. Panel Moderators and Presenters

Richard V. Burkhauser

Richard V. Burkhauser is a Professor of Economics and Associate Director of the Center

for Policy Research at Syracuse University. He has published widely in the area of United

States and European social security disability policy. He is on the Editorial Boards of The

Gerontologist, The Journal of Disability Policy Studies, The Review of Income and Wealth

and Labour Economics. In 1996 he co-edited two books on disability policy: Disability,

Work and Cash Benefits, and Curing the Dutch Disease: An International Perspective on

Disability Policy Reform. Professor Burkhauser received his Ph.D. in economics from the

University of Chicago.

Gary Burtless

Gary Burtless is a Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings

Institution in Washington, D.C. He does research on issues connected with public finance,

aging, saving, labor markets, income distribution, social insurance, and the behavioral effects

of government and tax policy. He is co-author of Five Years After: The Long Term Effects of

Welfare-to-Work Programs (Russell Sage, 1995), Growth with Equity: Economic

Policymaking for the Next Century (Brookings, 1993), and Can America Afford to Grow Old?

Paying for Social Security (1989); editor and contributor to Does Money Matter? The Effect

of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success (1996), A Future of Lousy

Jobs? The Changing Structure of U.S. Wages (1990), and Work, Health and Income Among

the Elderly (1987); and the author of numerous articles on the effects of Social Security,

public assistance, unemployment insurance, taxes, and manpower training programs.

35
36

His recent research has focused on sources of growing wage and income inequality in the

United States, the influence of international trade on income inequality, the job market

prospects of public assistance recipients, and reform of social insurance in developing

countries and formerly Communist economies. Burtless has consulted extensively for the

World Bank and national governments on reforming social security policy in countries

outside the industrialized West, including Egypt, the Republic of Georgia, Mexico, Russia,

Ukraine, and Venezuela. He has also served, over a lengthy period, as a consultant to the

U.S. Social Security Administration and, more briefly, to the Secretaria de Desarrollo

Social, the Mexican Cabinet agency responsible for income maintenance and social welfare

policy. He recently served on the Technical Panel on Trends and Issues in Retirement

Savings for the 1994 Advisory Council on Social Security, and he now serves on the Panel of

Privatization of Social Security of the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Burtless graduated from Yale College in 1972 and earned a Ph.D. in economics from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977. Before going to Brookings in 1981, he

served as an economist in the Office of the Secretary of Labor and in the Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare. In 1993 he was a Visiting Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland,

College Park.

Gerben DeJong

Gerben DeJong is the Director of the National Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH) Research

Center in Washington, DC. In this capacity, he also serves the Director of the NRH Research

Centers two federally funded Research and Training Centers (RTCs), the RTC on Medical

Rehabilitation and Health Policy (RTC-MR&HP) and the RTC on Managed Care and

Disability (RTC-MC&D). He also serves as a professor in the Department of Family

Medicine and as an adjunct professor in the Georgetown Public Policy Institute at

Georgetown University. Prior to coming to Washington in 1985, Dr. DeJong was a Senior

Research Associate and Associate Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at

Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, MA. Dr. DeJongs academic training is in

economics and public policy studies (MA and MPA, University of Michigan; Ph.D., Brandeis

University). His main research interests are in disability and health outcomes, health care

utilization, disability policy, long-term care policy, national health care policy, and

biomedical ethics. He is the author or coauthor of more than 160 papers on health, income

maintenance, and disability issues. He is perhaps best known for his seminal work on

disability and health policy and the independent living movement. His works have appeared

in a variety of health, science, business, and public policy journals, and have been published

in more than seven different languages. In 1985, he received the Licht Award for Excellence

in Scientific Writing from the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. He is a

frequently invited speaker both in the United States and abroad. In 1984, he was a Fulbright

Scholar in the Netherlands serving with the research staff of the Social Security Council.

Dr. DeJong is an ardent student of health care reform and the managed care revolution.

He is especially interested in managed cares probable impact on medical rehabilitation and

on people with disabilities. He has had an abiding interest in the consumer side of health

markets and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions about health plans and
health care providers. During the Clinton transition, Dr. DeJong served on the Transition

Teams working group on long-term care policy. During the health care reform debate in the

103rd Congress, he spoke throughout the country on health care reform. He continues to

testify before Congress on health care and disability income issues. In 1993, Dr. DeJong

presented the honorary Coulter Lecture to the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

on the topic of Health Care Reform and Disability. In 1994, he gave the keynote address to

the National Brain Injury Associations annual meeting on the future of health care reform

and brain injury. In 1995, Dr. DeJong presented the honorary John W. Goldschmidt Lecture

at NRH on Empowering the Consumer and Enabling the Provider in an Era of Managed

Care.

Carroll L. Estes

Carroll L. Estes is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Social and Behavioral

Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Director of

the Institute for Health & Aging. Dr. Estes, whose Ph.D. is from the University of California,

San Diego, conducts research on health and aging policy, long-term care, health and

economic security of the aged, older women, fiscal crisis, and devolution. She is the author

of The Decisions-Makers: The Power Structure of Dallas (SMU Press:1963), The Aging

Enterprise (Jossey Bass, 1979); co-author of Fiscal Austerity & Aging (Sage, 1983), Political

Economy, Health and Aging (Little Brown, 1984), The Long Term Care Crisis (Sage, 1993);

co-Editor of The Nations Health (Jones & Bartlett, 1997) with Philip Lee, Health Policy &

Nursing (Jones & Bartlett, 1997) with Charlene Harrington, and Critical Gerontology

(Baywood, 1997) with Meredith Minkler. She is past president of the Gerontological Society

of America, The American Society on Aging & The Association for Gerontology in Higher

Education. Dr. Estes is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of

Sciences and current National Vice President of the Older Womens League.

Eric A. Hanushek

Eric Hanushek is Professor of Economics and of Public Policy and Director of the

W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy at the University of Rochester. He joined the

University of Rochester in 1978 and has previously been Director of its Public Policy

Analysis Program and Chairman of the Department of Economics. From 1983 through 1985,

he was Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

His research involves applied public finance and public policy analysis with special

emphasis on education issues. He has also investigated the determination of individual

incomes and wages, retirement income security, housing policy, social experimentation,

statistical methodology, and the economics of discrimination. His publications include

Assessing Policies for Retirement Income, Improving Americas Schools, Assessing

Knowledge of Retirement Behavior, Modern Political Economy, Making Schools Work,

Educational Performance of the Poor, Improving Information for Social Policy Decisions,

Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, and Education and Race along with numerous

articles in professional journals.

Born in Lakewood, Ohio, in 1943, he was a Distinguished Graduate of the United States

Air Force Academy where he received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1965. In 1968, he

completed his Ph.D. in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served in

the U.S. Air Force from 1965-1974.

37
He had prior academic appointments at the U.S. Air Force Academy (1968-1973) and

Yale University (1975-1978). During 1971-1972 he was a Senior Staff Economist at the

Council of Economic Advisers. During 1973-74, he was a Senior Economist at the Cost of

Living Council. He was president of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and

Management in 1988-89.

Karen C. Holden

Karen C. Holden is Professor of Public Affairs and Consumer Science and Associate

Director of the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs, University of WisconsinMadison. She received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1973.

She serves on the Executive Committee of the Institute for Research on Poverty and the

Steering Committee of the Center for Demography and Ecology. She is also an associated

faculty in the NIMH training program in the Economics of Mental Health in the Department

of Economics. She is a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America, a founding member

of the National Academy of Social Insurance, and an Associate of the Fellows program of the

Employee Benefit Research Institute. In 1986-87 she was a Visiting Economist at the Office

of Research and Statistics, Social Security Administration.

The general area of Professor Holdens research is the economic well being of the elderly

and disabled and how public insurance policy has influenced individual behavior and

economic resources across demographic groups. Currently, she is principal investigator of a

grant awarded by the Social Security Administration on Economic Circumstances of

Widows: Effects of Age at and Duration of Widowhood. Professor Holden is also coprincipal investigator of another grant awarded by the Social Security Administration on

Changes in the Economic Status of Disabled and Aged Beneficiaries, and their Correlates.

Michael Hurd

Michael Hurd is Professor of Economics, SUNY, Stony Brook; Senior Economist,

RAND; and Research Associate, NBER. He received a Masters Degree in Statistics and a

Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of a widely

cited article (J. of Economic Literature, 1990) on the economics of aging. He has written

research papers on the economic status of the elderly, the structure of private pensions and

Social Security and their effects on retirement decisions, the determinants of consumption and

saving (particularly mortality risk), forecasting the economic status of the elderly, and the

determinants of the use of health care services among the elderly. His current work includes

the use of subjective information, particularly survival probabilities, to explain economic

decisions such as saving and retirement. He served on the Technical Panel of Experts (1990)

and the Panel of Experts (1991) to the Social Security Advisory Council, and on the Advisory

Committee for the World Bank Old-Age Security Study. He is a Co-Principal Investigator of

the Health and Retirement Study and of the study of the Asset and Health Dynamics among

the Oldest-Old.

Pamela Loprest

Pamela Loprest is a Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute. She is a labor

economist conducting research in the areas of disability policy, work and welfare, and aging.

Her recent research includes studying the effects of disability on work and welfare receipt,

changes in the Supplemental Security Income program for children with disabilities, health

insurance coverage of the near-elderly, and the effects of health insurance on retirement.

 Dr. Loprest is also co-author of a book entitled Serving Children with Disabilities: A

Systematic Look at the Programs with Laudan Aron and Eugene Steuerle.

38
Joseph Quinn

Joseph F. Quinn is a professor of economics at Boston College. His research focuses on

the economics of aging, with emphases on the economic status of the elderly, the

determinants of the individual retirement decision and the patterns of labor force withdrawal

among older Americans. He recently co-chaired the Technical Panel on Trends and Issues in

Retirement Savings for the 1994-96 Social Security Advisory Council.

Dorothy P. Rice

Dorothy P. Rice is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Social and Behavioral

Sciences, School of Nursing, at the University of California-San Francisco. Previously,

Professor Rice was Director of the National Center for Health Statistics and Deputy Assistant

Commissioner for Research and Statistics in the Social Security Administration. She is a

member of the Institute of Medicine and a former member of the Committee on National

Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, and has received numerous awards.

Professor Rice is the author of numerous publications including Health Status and National

Health Priorites, Cost of Injury in the United States, and The Economic Cost of Alcohol

and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness. A founding member of the National Academy of

Social Insurance, she received an honorary Sc.D. from the College of Medicine and Dentistry

of New Jersey and her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

David C. Stapleton

David C. Stapleton is a Vice President and Senior Economist at The Lewin Group, a

health care consulting firm located in Fairfax, Virginia, and is the Director of Lewins

Applied Economics Practice. Dr. Stapleton is widely recognized as an expert on disability

and employment issues and has directed numerous research projects on SSAs disability

programs. He recently directed five projects funded by the SSA and the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) in the Department of Health and Human Services on the

causes of recent growth in Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income disability

program participation. This work culminated in a conference on SSAs Disability

Programs: Explanations of Recent Growth and Implications for Disability Policy, held in

Washington, D.C. on July 20-21, 1995. He is currently co-editing a volume of papers and

presentations from the conference with SSAs Kalman Rupp, to be published by the Upjohn

Institute at the end of this year. He is also directing a project for SSA to assess the impacts of

the elimination of disability benefits to those for whom drug abuse or alcoholism is material

to eligibility, and a second project for ASPE, conducted in cooperation with SSA, concerning

the importance of access to health insurance for employment and program participation of

people with disabilities.

Prior to joining Lewin in 1991, Dr. Stapleton held Associate Professor appointments at

both Dartmouth College and the University of Maryland at College Park. He received his

Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, in 1978.

Eugene Steuerle

Eugene Steuerle is a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute and author of a weekly column,

Economic Perspective, for Tax Notes Magazine. At the Institute he has conducted

extensive research on budget and tax policy, social security, health care and welfare reform.

39
His publications include six books, and more than 100 reports and articles, 400 columns and

35 Congressional testimonies or reports. One recent book (co-authored with Jon Bakija)

Retooling Social Security for the Twenty-First Century, was cited by the former Executive

Director of the National Commission on Social Security Reform as undoubtedly the most

comprehensive analysis of the very long-range financing problems confronting the Social

Security program. His most recent book, The New World Fiscal Order (co-edited with Masahiro

Kawai), lays out implications of common fiscal problems, including an aging population, for

industrial countries across the globe.

Earlier in his career Dr. Steuerle served in various positions in the Treasury Department

under four different Presidents and was eventually appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury for Tax Analysis. Between 1984 and 1986 he served as Economic Coordinator and

original organizer of the Treasurys tax reform effort, for which Treasury and White House

officials have written that tax reform would not have moved forward without your early

leadership and the Presidential decision to double the personal exemption...[is] due to your

insightful analysis. A former IRS Commissioner has written During the past decade, few

people have had greater impact on major changes in the tax law.

Dr. Steuerle serves or has recently served as an advisor, consultant, or board member to a

Technical Panel to the Social Security Advisory Council, the National Commission on Retirement

Policy, the National Academy on Aging, the Joint Committee on Taxation, retreats of the Senate

Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, the

International Monetary Fund, the IRS, the Entitlement Commission, the National Commission on

Children, the Department of Labor, the American Tax Policy Institute, and as a member of the

Capital Formation Subcouncil of the Competitiveness Policy Council. Previous positions also

include Federal Executive Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Resident Fellow at the American

Enterprise Institute, and President of the National Economists Club Education Foundation. He is

cited frequently in newspapers and news magazines such as The New York Times, The

Washington Post, The Economist, Newsweek, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, USA

Today, The Financial Times, and The Philadelphia Inquirer; and has appeared on TV and radio

shows or stations such as CNN, ABC, and NPR.

Stephen P. Zeldes

Stephen P. Zeldes is the Benjamin Rosen Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia

Universitys Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Associate with the National

Bureau of Economic Research and a Visiting Academic Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York. Professor Zeldes served as a member of the Technical Panel on Trends and Issues

in Retirement Saving that reported to the 1994-96 Advisory Council on Social Security, and is

currently a member of the National Academy of Social Insurance Panel on Social Security

Privatization.

Professor Zeldes joined the Columbia University faculty in 1996. Prior to this, he was a

Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He received his doctorate in

economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.

In his research, Professor Zeldes has examined a wide range of applied macroeconomic

issues, including social security reform, the determinants of household saving and portfolio

choice, the effects of government budget deficits, and the relationship between consumer

spending and the stock market. His research has been published in the leading academic journals.

40
Social Security Advisory Board

400 Virginia Avenue, SW

Suite 625

Washington, D.C. 20024

Tel: (202) 475-7700

Fax: (202) 475-7715