Search

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it addresses the delicate issue of divisor obsolescence within Non-financial Defined Contribution (NDC) pension schemes. It suggests a method to measure the impact of this obsolescence, referring to the Swedish mechanism of diversifying divisors by birth cohort. Given the serious impact of divisor obsolescence on the fairness and sustainability of NDC systems, the paper also proposes possible solutions to limit this impact. The second aim is to analyze the shortcomings of the Italian system in the light of the challenge to NDC architecture resulting from the obsolescence of divisors. The first anomaly is the current mechanism of periodical revision of the divisors, which prevents Italian workers from planning their retirement on the basis of definite and unchanging information. The second is the extremely wide retirement age range due to the existence of seniority pensions: this needs to be replaced by a small retirement age range with a sufficiently high and rigorous lower bound. Finally, the paper focuses on the need for all NDC systems to compute new divisors based on a much lower frontloading rate, as has recently been done in Norway. It finally suggests that the severe reductions in the replacement rates implied by a lower 'frontloading' can be avoided by either removing the survivors benefit from the old-age scheme or by giving workers the option to choose it 'at their own expense', as in the second pillar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]