State Pension Age review due before 7th May 2017

nicknameless

This landed in my in-box and made me think of the discussion in this thread.

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
Divisional Seminar

“Was Mackenbach right?
Neoliberal epidemics, the new Gilded Age, and the politics of health inequality”

Ted Schrecker
Professor of Global Health Policy, Durham University

Monday, March 21, 2016, 1pm – 2pm, Room HS 208

Abstract: Although the New Labour government of the UK (1997‐2010) identified reducing health inequalities as a priority,
on most measures they actually increased. Writing about this experience, Johan Mackenbach correctly observed that
‘health inequalities are the result of the cumulative impact of decades of exposure to health risks, some of them
intergenerational, of those who live in socioeconomically less advantaged circumstances.’ Because reducing them ‘requires
a massive re‐allocation of societal resources’, he argued that ‘it is unlikely that a majority of the English electorate would
have supported the substantial redistribution of income and wealth that would have been necessary’. (Scottish and Welsh
electorates are quite different, but they are too small to alter the overall distribution of Parliamentary power at
Westminster.) Mackenbach’s article appeared in the same year that a Conservative‐led government came to power and
embarked on a systematic upward redistribution of income, wealth and economic opportunity.

Against a background of rising economic inequality in most high‐income countries, what can be learnt from the UK
experience by other jurisdictions like Canada and its provinces? The public health community must begin by understanding
and framing public finance as a public health issue. This means not only becoming familiar with the evidence of the health
damage associated with neoliberal economic and social policies – ‘neoliberal epidemics’ – but also supporting strong
counter‐narratives to the equation of economic competence with deficit reduction through selective, regressive spending
cuts. If such counter‐narratives can be advanced, then forceful advocacy around the principle of ‘first, do no harm’ in
economic and social policy might prove effective. On the other hand, the authors of the best book on the politics of
responses to the post‐crisis recession in the United States and the UK identify a constituency of the ‘squeezed but basically
safe’, arguing that ‘in hard times the exposed are more desperate for help than ever, but the majority ... have come to
calculate that it is better to throw their lot in with the haves, than to risk being saddled with tax rises to provide assistance
to the have‐nots’. If they are correct, then prospects for avoiding further increases in health inequalities in jurisdictions
where such constituencies are substantial must be reckoned as bleak.

For further information: Marija Vasilevska, [EMAIL="sbhs.dlsph@utoronto.ca"]sbhs.dlsph@utoronto.ca[/EMAIL]

Anybody holidaying in Toronto might like to report back :T

Prospects for pension policy accommodating such inequity also seem bleak.

zagfles

nicknameless wrote: »

Abstract: Although the New Labour government of the UK (1997‐2010) identified reducing health inequalities as a priority,
on most measures they actually increased.

Yes, they commissioned a report into health inequalities and found that the greatest health inequality wasn't between rich and poor, or north and south, or black and white, it was between men and women.

As the health secretary Yvette Cooper publicly stated at the time, the difference between men and women was the "biggest health inequality of all", and that 8 times as much was spent on specific female health issues as males ones.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/jan/08/health

Strangely enough the acedemics of the time didn't really pick up and run with this...instead obsessing over socioeconomic differences...

Writing about this experience, Johan Mackenbach correctly observed that
‘health inequalities are the result of the cumulative impact of decades of exposure to health risks, some of them
intergenerational, of those who live in socioeconomically less advantaged circumstances.’ Because reducing them ‘requires
a massive re‐allocation of societal resources’, he argued that ‘it is unlikely that a majority of the English electorate would
have supported the substantial redistribution of income and wealth that would have been necessary’. (Scottish and Welsh
electorates are quite different, but they are too small to alter the overall distribution of Parliamentary power at
Westminster.) Mackenbach’s article appeared in the same year that a Conservative‐led government came to power and
embarked on a systematic upward redistribution of income, wealth and economic opportunity.

This clearly exposes the writer's own political bias. The IFS published a detailed analysis of the coalition's record on income redistribution, which shows that the top 10% actually lost the most in cash terms and more than average in % terms. There was a hump in the middle where those on average income didn't lose as much in % terms as those on lower incomes, but to refer to it as a "systematic upward redistribution" just smacks of the typical left-wing "Tories looking after their rich mates" type simpletons, rather than a serious acedemic.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/budget2015/Distributional_slides_post_budget_draft_2015and2017.pdf

Against a background of rising economic inequality in most high‐income countries, what can be learnt from the UK
experience by other jurisdictions like Canada and its provinces? The public health community must begin by understanding
and framing public finance as a public health issue. This means not only becoming familiar with the evidence of the health
damage associated with neoliberal economic and social policies – ‘neoliberal epidemics’ – but also supporting strong
counter‐narratives to the equation of economic competence with deficit reduction through selective, regressive spending
cuts.

Yeah, worked well in Greece didn't it. How's the health of Greeks compared with countries which didn't run up such huge deficits?

If such counter‐narratives can be advanced, then forceful advocacy around the principle of ‘first, do no harm’ in
economic and social policy might prove effective. On the other hand, the authors of the best book on the politics of
responses to the post‐crisis recession in the United States and the UK identify a constituency of the ‘squeezed but basically
safe’, arguing that ‘in hard times the exposed are more desperate for help than ever, but the majority ... have come to
calculate that it is better to throw their lot in with the haves, than to risk being saddled with tax rises to provide assistance
to the have‐nots’. If they are correct, then prospects for avoiding further increases in health inequalities in jurisdictions
where such constituencies are substantial must be reckoned as bleak.


Anybody holidaying in Toronto might like to report back :T

Prospects for pension policy accommodating such inequity also seem bleak.

Yeah I don't there's any prospect of earlier state pension age for men, or for those who smoke, or for those who drink heavily. As they are as if not more significant factors in life expectancy than socioeconomic group. But not factors that get certain acedemics very excited as they don't really forward their thinly disguised political agenda.

nicknameless

We were talking about 'geography' though which of course is a proxy for socio-economic status, not gender, hence the direction of the discussion. Plenty of academic attention on gender inequalities.

zagfles

nicknameless wrote: »

We were talking about 'geography' though which of course is a proxy for socio-economic status, not gender, hence the direction of the discussion. Plenty of academic attention on gender inequalities.

Yet the abstract for that talk starts with

Although the New Labour government of the UK (1997‐2010) identified reducing health inequalities as a priority...

but makes no mention of the biggest health inequality they identified. Plus of course the usual underlying assumption of socio-economic status as a cause rather than a symptom.

woolly_wombat

SnowMan wrote: »

John Cridland has been appointed as the independent reviewer of State Pension Age

I thought others might be interested to see what Towers Watson made of this:

https://www.towerswatson.com/en-GB/Insights/Newsletters/Europe/rumour-rhetoric-and-reality/2016/03/Has-falling-life-expectancy-killed-off-the-state-pension-age-longevity-link?webSyncID=239b294d-0d0d-3094-16ba-7dbed555c273&sessionGUID=6311ec27-3c64-0424-0512-8a3a647a91d5

"2 MARCH 2016: HAS FALLING LIFE EXPECTANCY KILLED OFF THE STATE PENSION AGE-LONGEVITY LINK?

The Government has launched the review of the State Pension Age (SPA) which it is legally required to complete before 7 May 2017. It has indicated that this will only affect what happens to the SPA after it reaches 67 in 2028.

Oddly, none of the materials published by the Government refer to the formula for increasing SPA with life expectancy that the Chancellor unveiled in his 2013 Autumn Statement.

Is this because life expectancy has since been revised down by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) – with the result that sticking to that formula would see the SPA reach 68 five years later than previously envisaged?
.....
Human life expectancy has fallen a bit. As a result, the life expectancy of the SPA-longevity link may have fallen a lot!"

SnowMan

SnowMan wrote: »

A review of State Pension Age is set to take place before 7th May 2017 and subsequent reviews at least every 6 years. These reviews take into account increasing life expectancy and other factors such as healthy life expectancy, and differences in life expectancy between socio-economic groups. At least 10 years notice of a change of SPA is likely to be given.

The increasing life expectancy principles on which the State Pension Age will be further increased at these reviews is that people should spend, on average, up to one third of their adult life drawing a State Pension.

There is a technical note that explains in some detail how the one third of adult life in retirement principle will work in practice:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-state-pension-age-rises-dwp-background-note

The 2014 mortality projections which form the starting point for the review have been published today here

On the basis of these principles, assuming the central projection is used, and assuming my calculations are correct, the starting point for the review (before the other factors are allowed for) is that State Pension Age will increase from

- Age 65 to age 66 between 6th December 2018 and 5th September 2020 (already legislated for)

- Age 66 to age 67 between 6th April 2026 and 5th March 2028 (already legislated for, noting this is very close to what the projections give also)

- Age 67 to 68 around 2040, with a transition period perhaps April 2040 to March 2042, affecting those currently aged below about age 43; this compares to the legislated transition period of between 6 April 2044 and 5 March 2046.

- Age 68 to 69 around 2055, with a transition period perhaps April 2055 to March 2057, affecting those currently aged below about age 29.

It is interesting to see that the Cridland review recommends arbitrarily (in my opinion, the waffle doesn't convince me) abandoning the 33.3% methodology based on the latest mortality projections.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602145/independent-review-of-the-state-pension-age-smoothing-the-transition.pdf

The report suggests that SPA should be increased from 67 to 68 between 2037 -2039 based on an average of the 2012 and 2014 mortality projections.

Timetable

We commit to a universal State Pension age across the UK which should increase to reflect changes in life expectancy. To this end, we recommend:

• State Pension age should rise to age 68 over a two year period starting in 2037 and ending in 2039;
• State Pension age should not increase more than one year in any ten year period, assuming that there are no exceptional changes to the data.

Because the 2012 mortality projections suggested a faster increase in SPA than the 2014 projections, partly using the out of date projections speeds up the increase in SPA.

This is just silly. Surely you base your calculations on the latest mortality projections rather than bringing in out of date projections that just happen to result in a faster increase in SPA.

The report also seems to recommend that when SPA does go up to 68 that pension credit should still be claimable from age 67, which seems sensible.

kidmugsy

SailorSam wrote: »

Are they going to take into account where you live.
I seem to remember something along the lines that a man in Glasgow will die 30yrs earlier than the average man living in Kensington London.
And i've got a cold, i'm not well. Maybe my time is up.

The cost of living in Glasgow is lower. Maybe Weegies should be given a smaller pension that starts earlier. What could possibly go wrong with that?

kidmugsy

atush wrote: »

They cant lower the SPA for anything self inflicted. AS it would not be fair to those who take their health seriously. Those above already take up more of NHS services.

And as far as I am concerned, this covers the geographical differences. Which as far as I have read, are not genetic, but lifestyle based such as smoking, drinking, and not eating a healthy diet.

I expect part of it is neither to do with genetics nor with some PC list of preferred lifestyles. Glasgow doesn't get much sun. I dare say that's part of it.

kidmugsy

nicknameless wrote: »

The general academic consensus is that ...

Early in adult life I had a spell when I read quite a bit of social science research. It was mainly dismally bad stuff, leaving me with a low view of the intellectual rigour, intellectual firepower, and intellectual consistency of social scientists.

That is to say, I decided that on the whole they were lazy, dim and dishonest. Amazingly, the man on the Clapham omnibus had reached this conclusion without devoting any time to studying their literature.

kidmugsy

woolly_wombat wrote: »

Human life expectancy has fallen a bit. As a result, the life expectancy of the SPA-longevity link may have fallen a lot!

On several threads a few years ago I said that it was foolish to take it for granted that life expectancy was bound to keep increasing. I was accused of being .... I can't remember what exactly, but the thrust was that I must be a madman; how dare I question the unthinking consensus that trends never end?

It's always cheering to remember the words variously attributed to Robert Conquest or Kingsley Amis: "I told you so you effing fools".

Forgive the bowdlerisation.