PERA Transition Year (aka, 93/93 or 110/110)

Summary: For many public school employees, a transition year is a fantastic benefit that can make a huge difference in your retirement finances. It’s definitely worth finding out if your school district offers it, under what conditions, and then investigating whether it might be right for you.


The working after retirement rules for PERA specify that retires can work up to 110 days in a calendar year for a PERA-covered employer after they retire (there’s no limit on non-PERA covered employment). While any PERA-covered employee can possibly take advantage of this, it works especially well for public school employees because our contract year naturally occurs half in one calendar year and half in the next, meaning you won’t exceed the 110-day limit in either year. Some – but not all – school districts offer this transition year benefit (sometimes referred to as 93/93 or 110/110), but often with special conditions. For example, in Littleton Public Schools you must have been continuously employed by the district for the previous 10 years in order to qualify, and the district does not pay benefits during the transition year. Check with your district to see if it’s offered and what conditions there may be. (In Douglas County Public Schools it is also working in the district the previous 10 years plus the permission of your supervisor.)

Despite this being around for a while, lots of folks are a bit unclear on the details (or unaware of it altogether), so I thought I’d use my experience as an example. I officially retired on June 1, 2017 and am now working a transition year with LPS. I currently have 29 years of teaching experience under PERA, plus I purchased 6 years of service credit, giving me 35 years of service credit that my retirement benefit is based on. Thirty-five years translates to 87.5% of my Highest Average Salary (HAS) if I choose option 1 under PERA (full benefit comes to me, but when I die the benefit stops). Since I chose option 3 (I get a reduced benefit, but when I die my spouse gets the exact same benefit until she dies), I’m getting about 91.5% of that which comes out to about 80.1% of my HAS. It’s important to understand that the factor that determines that reduction percentage changes, both according to your age and your spouse’s age and due to PERA’s current actuarial assumptions, but the changes are relatively small from year to year.

What this means is that during this transition year, I’m effectively getting 180% of the pay I would normally get, minus the amount I have to pay for my own insurance coverage. I’m adding on to my wife’s insurance (as is our daughter) so that comes out to approximately 5% of my salary, so I’m making about 175% of what I normally would. (Also, in LPS your pay for the transition year is “frozen” at what you made the previous year, so I do not receive the small cost-of-living raise I would’ve normally received.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that in addition to losing benefits, I’m “giving up” the service credit I would earn with PERA by working this transition year. I (and LPS) still contribute to PERA during this year, but I do not earn any service credit, which is effectively giving up 2.5% of my HAS. Because I’m 75% “ahead” from getting the benefit during my transition year, that’s equivalent to roughly 30 years of retirement. (Not exactly because of the time-weighted value of money, it is actually much longer than that because I can earn money by investing that 75% over those thirty years, but good enough for our purposes). So, with that back-of-the-envelope calculation, the “break-even” point is 30 years. If I live longer than that (which I have decent chance of), then theoretically not taking the transition year would work out better. In reality, because of the compounded investment returns that I can make on that 75%, it’s likely to be 40 years to break-even or perhaps a lot more, so for me the (financial) decision was pretty easy. (The fewer years of service credit you have, however, the closer you need to look at that calculation.)

There are other things to consider in addition to the “break-even” point when looking at the transition year option.

  • Because you have to retire from PERA and keep working for your employer, you have to know you are going to retire (and commit to it) about 16 months before you will actually stop working for your current employer. For some folks, that’s difficult to do.
  • As mentioned above, in many districts you’ll lose your benefits, which includes not only health, dental and vision, but things like life insurance and sick days (in LPS you get 5 sicks days for use during the transition year). So you have to figure out where you are going to get coverage (from a spouse, from LPS via COBRA where you pay the full premium, from PERACare, or on the individual market).
  • During the two calendar years that the transition year affects, your taxable income will increase (both your regular income and your PERA distribution are taxable), and there’s a decent chance it will move you into a higher tax bracket. (In LPS you get two “paychecks” – one from LPS, one from PERA – for a total of 14 months, 7 in each calendar year.) This is especially true in LPS if you have a lot of accrued sick days, as LPS gives you a payout on those as well, for me that’s over $9000 additional taxable dollars for 2017 (this is not PERA-includable salary). This is why many folks increase their contributions to 401k/403b/457 plans during these two years.
  • And it depends a lot, of course, on your personal financial circumstances and needs. There’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to retirement planning.

So, should you take a transition year (assuming your district offers it and you’re eligible)? It depends, and if you choose to work with me we will look at this very carefully, but it’s definitely something to know about, investigate, and perhaps even make some financial decisions prior to retiring based on the knowledge that you will be receiving this benefit.

photo credit

Focus On: LPS Health Insurance


Healthcare and health insurance are complicated. Each person/family has unique needs, and many families have two employer plans to choose from. Therefore it’s really important to look at each person/family individually, so this blog post is going to be a general overview of the health insurance options currently offered by Littleton Public Schools, but your needs may require additional considerations that this post won’t cover.

As a long-time employee of Littleton Public Schools, I’m very familiar with the benefits that LPS offers. I’m also very familiar with the fact that many people don’t like to think much about benefits and aren’t really aware of the different options and what they might mean to them. Again, while each person/family has specific needs, let’s take a look at some general observations about the health insurance options that LPS currently offers.

LPS still offers a choice of two different insurance carriers (which is increasingly rare), CIGNA and Kaiser, and then two plans from each provider (a more traditional, low-deductible plan, as well as a high-deductible plan). So the first decision most people have to make is whether to go with CIGNA or Kaiser. This discussion often ends up being similar to the Apple vs. PC discussions that happened a while back, with folks having very strong opinions on both “sides,” but let me try to share what I know.

The main consideration for most folks is how important it is for them to be able to choose their own doctor. If you have an existing relationship with a doctor (not at Kaiser), and you have perhaps some on-going, chronic conditions that doctor is helping you with, that could be a strong argument for CIGNA. But I’d suggest you really give some thought to both of those conditions to see that they both apply. If either does not, then you have some more thinking to do.

One of the frustrations over the years when I’ve discussed health insurance with folks is the assumptions they make. Many (not all) assume that CIGNA must be better than Kaiser, both because it’s more expensive and because it is not “managed care.” That assumption is not correct. CIGNA is not bad, but Kaiser consistently ranks very high in both quality of care and customer satisfaction (and typically higher than CIGNA). That doesn’t mean that Kaiser is perfect, some folks have had bad experiences with them, but the structure of Kaiser is why their quality of care is so good.

Managed care has a bad reputation, but all health insurers – including CIGNA – are practicing managed care. The difference is that at Kaiser there is a dedicated team to identify best practices based on the research evidence, and that is then disseminated to the doctors, nurses and other staff members to follow. Under plans like CIGNA, doctors have more freedom (which many people like), but the quality of care is more variable from doctor to doctor. An interesting result of all of this is that when folks have a bad experience with a doctor at Kaiser, they typically blame Kaiser, but when they have a bad experience with a doctor with CIGNA (or other carriers), they typically blame the doctor. I am not trying to convince you to change to Kaiser, just to examine your assumptions and make sure you are basing your decision on your needs and the actual evidence.

Once you’ve made the decision between CIGNA and Kaiser, you then have to decide between the two plans they each offer, a more traditional low-deductible, copay/co-insurance type of plan, and the newer (and increasingly more popular among employers) high deductible plans. It is beyond the scope of this blog post to discuss all the pros and cons and the nuances of high deductible plans, but we can look a bit more carefully at the actual out-of-pocket costs under each plan and many folks will find the result surprising.

Before we do that, just a little background. It’s important to understand how LPS decides the district contribution toward your healthcare premiums. Currently (and for many years now), LPS covers 92% of the employee only premium and 54% of any of the dependent options (Employee & Spouse, Employee and Child(ren), Family). That’s notably different than many other school districts in that LPS contributes money toward dependent coverage, not just employee coverage.

Whether that is personally good for you depends, of course, on whether you are covering dependents :-). In effect, employees who choose employee only coverage end up helping subsidize those who choose any of the dependent coverage options. (And a side effect of this percentage method, by the way, is that LPS employees who choose Kaiser end up subsidizing those who choose CIGNA.)

A second piece of background is to understand the purpose of insurance, and particularly group insurance. Folks who grew up in my generation tend to have the view that the purpose of insurance is to “pay for our healthcare costs.” While that would be nice, it’s unfortunately not sustainable. The purpose of insurance (from an individual’s perspective), is to cover outliers. If something bad happens to you (or your family), it prevents catastrophic healthcare costs that you might be unable to pay. (Prior to the Affordable Care Act, medical bills were the leading cause of personal bankruptcies, it will be interesting to see what happens going forward.)

By pooling your risks with those of a group, it becomes affordable for the group as a whole to pay those really high healthcare costs for the (hopefully) few individuals who need it. In effect, those folks who don’t end up with high costs subsidize those that do. When insurance rates go up, it’s not just because the insurance companies are greedy (Kaiser, in fact, is non-profit), it’s because the cost experience of the group (in this case, LPS employees who’ve chosen each particular plan) has been more than the premiums that are paid in. It just takes one or two very expensive cases (a premature baby with complications, brain cancer, etc.) to require higher premiums. To be clear, this is not a bad thing, this is the reason for group health insurance. If you never get sick, the best option would be not to buy health insurance at all. This is the reason for the controversial “individual mandate” in the ACA, for health insurance to work you have to have healthy people involved in order to pay for the sick people.

So now let’s look at the premiums. When folks look at the rate sheet put out by LPS each year, they often skip down to the employee portion of the premium, think about the deductible amount and perhaps maximum out of pocket, and then make a quick decision. For many folks, the idea of a “high-deductible” and paying costs out-of-pocket up front is scary, but if you stop to do the math, the story turns out a bit different. This table shows the total out-of-pocket costs for each plan choice under a couple of sample scenarios. Obviously, your experience will most likely not match the sample scenario, but I tried to pick scenarios that people typically worry about (which is costs that come in right at the deductible amount for the high-deductible plans).


It turns out that under the CIGNA plans, the high-deductible plan is cheaper for almost everyone under almost every scenario. (I think it is actually everyone and every scenario, not just “almost”, but I can’t check every possible scenario so I didn’t want to overstate it.) Check out this google doc for a bit more detail but, basically, with the amount you save in premiums under the high-deductible plan, plus the amount that LPS contributes to your HSA (I’ll write a post soon talking more about HSAs, they are a very attractive option), you come out ahead over the OAP plan even when you have large medical bills. Even better, if you have years where you don’t have large medical bills, you not only come out ahead, but the amount in your HSA (LPS contribution plus whatever you might choose to contribute) rolls over. So not only do you pay less that year, you have “money in the bank” for future healthcare costs.

The math is not quite as straightforward on the Kaiser side, because under the DHMO you have both copays and coinsurance after you meet the deductible, and what those might end up being varies greatly depending on exactly what kind of care you end up needing (plus, ironically, since the premiums are lower than CIGNA, the difference between the two Kaiser plans is not as stark). But, in general, the story is fairly similar to CIGNA. When you have “good” healthcare years with low costs, you will definitely come out ahead with the high-deductible plan and can carry over any money in your HSA. When you have “bad” years with higher costs, you may still come out ahead with the high-deductible plan, but there are certainly scenarios where the DHMO would end up being cheaper. (And, of course, when you compare to the CIGNA plans, Kaiser is less expensive under all scenarios.)

So, which carrier and which plan should you choose? It depends. You also have to look at the benefits offered by any spouse’s plan, your existing health and any conditions you might have. as well as your personal preferences. That’s certainly part of what we’d do if you decide to work with me.

Additional Resources (2017-18)
LPS Benefits Book
Kaiser DHMO
Kaiser HDHP with HSA