Session 54 PD, Credibility and Pooling for Group Life and Disability Insurance Moderator: Paul Luis Correia, FSA, CERA, MAAA

Transcription

1 Session 54 PD, Credibility and Pooling for Group Life and Disability Insurance Moderator: Paul Luis Correia, FSA, CERA, MAAA Presenters: Paul Luis Correia, FSA, CERA, MAAA Brian N. Dunham, FSA, MAAA

2 Credibility and Pooling Applications in Group Disability and Group Life Insurance Brian Dunham Chief Actuary of Group Benefits Liberty Mutual Group Paul Correia Consulting Actuary Milliman, Inc

3 What we will be discussing today Pooling applications in group insurance Current practices for applying credibility in LTD, STD and group life 2

4 Pooling B U S I N E S S C A S E Manual Rate Experience Rate Case Rate A big claim is moving the formula loss ratio enough that most underwriters would remove it to get a better result, leaving pricing potentially inadequate Policy Years What should we do? A. Remove the claim entirely B. Normalize the claim by replacing it with the average claim amount C. Do something else 3

5 Pooling B U S I N E S S C A S E Manual Rate Original Experience Rate Pooled Experience Rate Rate Pooled Case Rate Policy Years Correct Answer is C. You should pool the claim. Replace that claim with a charge that will cover all such claims, as long as you consistently follow some reasonable methodology to cover such claims. This improves the credibility of experience and makes sure you charge for everything. 4

6 Pooling Pop Quiz! Q: What if there is no large claim in the experience? 5

7 Pooling Pop Quiz! Q: What if there is no large claim in the experience? A: You still need a pooling charge if large claims are possible. 6

8 Pooling B A C K T O R E A L I T Y 28% of group disability insurers have a formal methodology for pooling claims (n=11) 75% of group life insurers have a formal methodology for pooling claims (n=8) W H Y May focus on small case Not popular with underwriters Hard to apply consistently Can be a little tricky, especially for LTD May not have necessary data 7 Systems limitations

9 Pooling K E Y C O N S I D E R A T I O N S What exactly do you pool? How do you determine how much should be pooled? What do you charge instead? 8

10 Pooling L I F E I S E A S Y Pool claims excess of a pooling point and remove excess claims from experience How Much Formula pooling point should be consistent Reduction in volatility is a consideration Needs to be reasonably small or underwriters will question/disregard Some cases may fairly have a higher pooling point Base on volume distribution Take care to not carve out credible experience May look at a multiple pooling points to determine underwriter needed Charge Instead Reinsurer rate scale or manual rates on excess volume May have multiple tiers with different rates if reinsurance attachment is high If you don t have salary factors in your manual rates you are charging too much May simply wish to charge manual for AD&D 9

11 Pooling Life Claim Distribution (Basic + Optional) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Coverage Amount Claim Count Total Dollars 10 Pooling point at $500K results in an average pooling charge of ~7% of claims Pooling point at $1M results in an average pooling charge of ~2% of claims

12 Pooling T HE L T D D I L E M MA What do I pool? All outlier claims, or All claims with benefit amounts > attachment point? 11

13 Pooling P O O L I N G O U T L I E R C L A I M S W H A T I S A N O U T L I E R? 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Claim Count Reserve Amount Total Dollars Claims >250K = ~15% of claims dollars Claims >500K = ~5% of claims dollars Claims at a level with <X% chance of occurring Any claim an underwriter would be tempted to exclude Could tailor to the case level multiple of expected average claim, or base on stochastic modelling of some sort Could cap or remove the claim 12

14 Pooling P O O L I N G O U T L I E R C L A I M S W H A T D O Y O U C H A R G E? Could charge the cost of all claims >x as a rate per volume or simple load on every case Could develop a predictive algorithm Base on case level age, sex and covered payroll to adjust for that cases likelihood of generating large claims Younger more likely to generate longer durations but less morbid and lower salary Could do some sort of stochastic modelling at the case level 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Pooling > 250K => 5% load Pooling > 500K => 1% load Reserve Amount Claim Count Total Dollars 13

15 Pooling P O O L I N G A B O V E A N A T TA C H M E N T P O I N T W H A T D O Y O U P O O L? 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Reserve Amount Claim Count Total Dollars Gross Benefit >$10,000 Gross Benefit >$15,000 Pooling point should change based on whether there is a significant amount of excess exposure in a group If what you are pooling is itself a credible group (>50%), you re probably overdoing it ~$10k is popular 14

16 Pooling P O O L I N G A B O V E A N A T TA C H M E N T P O I N T W H A T TO C H A R G E? 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Reserve Amount Claim Count Total Dollars Gross Benefit >$10,000 Gross Benefit >$15,000 Lots of large amount claims are not driven by high benefit amounts! Could charge reinsurance rate issue is that this isn t tailored to the group and you could under or over charge Manual is probably a really bad idea unless you have salary factors Some sort of manual balanced to your reinsurance rate scale makes sense Simple approach would probably only vary by age/sex/dr./lawyer/other 15

17 Pooling P R A C T I C A L C O N S I D E R A T I O N S Census unavailable on renewals solutions Get census! Adjust presale/most recent census distribution Groups with a fishy number of very big claims Probably want a trigger that says if there are more than a certain number, it s the group not randomness, require roundtable etc. Underwriter frustration May be a sign your reinsurer is charging too much Or that your manuals are too high May be an opportunity for education/outreach May want to be willing to adjust pooling point in certain circumstances 16

18 2013 SOA Research Project on Credibility Applications in Group Disability and Group Life Insurance O B J E C T I V E S Gather information on current methods for applying credibility in group life, LTD and STD (through survey) SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Assurant Cigna Florida DOI Guardian Life Discuss challenges in applying credibility concepts in group life, LTD and STD The Hartford Liberty Mutual Lincoln Financial Compile bibliography of sources that describe credibility applications in group insurance Mutual of Omaha New York DOI Principal Reliance Standard Standard 17 Unum

19 Survey Results Factors Affecting Credibility Total number of participating companies = 11 F A C T O R S I N C L U D E D I N C R E D I B I L I T Y F O R M U L A S Factors Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Group Life Life Years of Exposure Elimination Period 7 4 Expected Claims Actual Claims Lives Demographic Mix 1 (average age) 1 Type of Product 1 1 (basic vs. additional) Occupation Class 1 Premium Benefit Period Industry Diagnosis Other (specify) 1 (months of experience) 1 (months of experience) 1 (Avg certificate, max certificate, pooling level, and months of experience) Life years of exposure are used by most carriers for all three products. Many of the formulas used for experience rating STD products vary by elimination period. When claims are used, the formulas are fairly evenly split between actual and expected claims. Formulas that use expected claims capture demographics Some carriers commented on the problems in applying the same formula to every situation. 18

20 Survey Results Exposure Limits - LTD M I N I M U M R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R E X P E R I E N C E R A T I N G L T D P R O D U C T S Limit Number of LTD Carriers No specified limit lives lives lives life years of exposure life years of exposure life years of exposure 1 The minimum requirements for experience rating LTD products vary significantly among carriers that participated in the survey. 19

21 Survey Results Exposure Limits - LTD M I N I M U M R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R F U L L C R E D I B I L I T Y I N L T D Limit Number of LTD Carriers 1 24,999 life years of exposure 6 25,000 34,999 life years of exposure 1 35,000+ life years of exposure claims 100+ claims 1 Varies by experience 2 Most LTD carriers assign full credibility to experience that is based on fewer than 25,000 life years of exposure 20

22 Survey Results Exposure Limits Group Life and STD M I N I M U M R E Q U I R E M E N T S G R O U P L I F E & S T D G R O U P L I F E Full credibility at 25,000 LYE (basic) and 35,000 LYE (supplemental). Credibility generally starts at 500 life years of exposure; 18,000 20,000 is considered fully credible. Cases with fewer than 500 lives get zero credibility. Experience rating starts at 300 lives. At 30 months of experience, full credibility is reached at 25,000 life years of exposure. At 12 months of experience, 25,000 life years of exposure are given 54% credibility. The minimum requirement is 500 lives. Technically, you cannot reach full credibility. The minimum level is 300 life years and full credibility is reached at 21,000 life years. We use a modified square root formula for interpolation. Full credibility at 750 LYE. S T D Credibility starts at 100 life years; roughly 400 life years is fully credible (although it varies by EP). Experience rating starts 100 lives; experience is considered fully credible at 530 life years. Credibility is based on elimination period. Minimum = 100 life years. The minimum level is 100 life years and full credibility is reached at (1) 600 life years for <=8 day EP and (2) 750 for >8 day EP. We use a modified square root formula for interpolation. 21

23 Survey Results Credibility Curves D I F F E R E N C E S I N C R E D I B I L I T Y C U R V E S U S E D F O R E X P E R I E N C E R A T I NG L T D Credibility formulas based on life years of exposure Credibility formulas based on expected claims Graphs show very different pricing strategies among the LTD insurers that participated in the survey. e.g. Insurer A: Greater confidence in manual rates? e.g. Insurer C: Higher limit for full credibility. e.g. Insurer B: No minimum requirement for experience rating. e.g. Insurer D: Near linear credibility curve. 22

24 Survey Results Underwriter Adjustments to Credibility C A N U N D E R W R I T E R S M O D I F Y C R E D I B I L I T Y E S T I M A T E S? Option Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Group Life Most carriers responded that underwriters can modify the credibility of a case s experience Yes No Some companies have formal guidelines for how underwriters can affect the credibility estimates, but the majority of companies make informal adjustments S I T U A T I O N S T H A T M A Y T R I G G E R A D J U S T M E N T S T O C R E D I B I L I T Y : Quality of data e.g. missing benefit components, missing diagnoses, missing demographic information Stability of experience e.g. exposure of lives or loss ratio changes significantly during the experience period Catastrophic events 23

25 Survey Results Data Quality Issues D O E S T H E Q U A L I T Y O F C L A I M D A T A A F F E C T C R E D I B I L I T Y? Option Short Term Long Term Disability Disability Group Life Yes No C O M M E N T S : Minimum data requirements ensure quality of data (e.g. point system) Challenge knowing how to quantify every situation that arises in which data quality is relevant Best estimate reserve assumptions fill the gaps, but these don t make it into the credibility formula 24

26 Survey Results Updates to Credibility Formulas H O W O F T E N A R E C R E D I B I L I T Y F O R M U L A S U P D A T E D? Option Annually or More Often Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Group Life Every 2 5 Years Every 5 Years or Less Often Majority of participants update their credibility formulas every 5 years or less often 6 of 11 survey participants have tested their credibility formulas in the past 5 years M E T H O D S F O R T E S T I N G C R E D I B I L I T Y F O R M U L A S 1. Start with five consecutive years of historical experience Study how three years of experience correlates with two years of subsequent experience Calculate the level of credibility that would minimize the error between the two periods 2. Run a Monte Carlo simulation using assumed claim incidence rates to test number of lives required to get credible experience 3. Predictive modeling can help understand which attributes of claim are most relevant for predicting future experience 25

27 Survey Results Outlier Claims H O W A R E O U T L I E R S I N T H E E X P E R I E N C E D E A L T W I T H? Option Outliers are removed from the experience and the credibility is unaffected Outliers are left in the experience and the credibility is unaffected Pooling points (e.g. floors and ceilings on the experience rate) are used and the credibility is not a function of pooled claims Outliers are removed from the experience and the credibility is reduced Outliers are left in the experience and the credibility is reduced Pooling points (e.g. floors and ceilings on the experience rate) are used and the credibility is a function of pooled claims Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Group Life of the 11 participating companies responded that outlier adjustments in LTD are up to underwriter discretion (i.e. no formal process exists for dealing with outliers). Many participants commented that outliers go both ways e.g. law firm with no LTD claims in the experience. Some participants selected more than one option. 11 companies participated. 26

28 Survey Results Responses from Regulators Regulators look for consistency in the applications of credibility from filing to filing. Significant variations can raise red flags. LTD insurers should demonstrate the predictive ability of the experience rating process, which includes credibility. The inherent volatility in LTD experience requires a very large block for the experience to be predictive. Lack of a uniform standard for applying credibility in LTD is problematic. The complement of credibility (i.e. the use of experience from other sources when the underlying experience is only partially credible) is equally as challenging to apply. 27

29 28 LTD Credibility Analysis Using Random Sampling Methods

30 LTD Credibility Analysis Using Random Sampling Methods O B J E C T I V E Test predictive quality of historical experience from groups of different sizes S E T U P Begin with large cohort of historical LTD experience Calculate probability distribution of claims Partition the experience into two periods: Period 1: 1.5 consecutive years Period 2: 1 year immediately following Period 1 R A N D O M S A M P L I N G Create artificial groups of various sizes by taking random samples from the Period 1 experience Generate 1,000 random samples of size n, for n = 2,500 5,000 7,500 etc. Calculate expected values for groups of different sizes Compare Period 2 experience to the expected values determined from Period 1 experience 29

31 LTD Credibility Analysis Using Random Sampling Methods 120% Credibility 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Classical Credibility Classical credibility curve based on 95% confidence level and 10% allowable error Experience considered fully credible at 63,046 life years of exposure Life Years Exposure 30

32 LTD Credibility Analysis Using Random Sampling Methods 120% 100% 80% Credibility 60% 40% Classical Credibility Typical industry formula assigns full credibility at 25,000 life years of exposure 20% Typical Industry Formula 0% Life Years Exposure 31

33 LTD Credibility Analysis Using Random Sampling Methods 120% Credibility 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Classical Credibility Typical Industry Formula Actual Period 2 The Period 2 experience for groups with 60,000 LYE was within 10% of the expected experience 100% of the time. The Period 2 experience for groups with 25,000 LYE was within 10% of the expected experience 62% of the time. The Period 2 experience for groups with 15,000 LYE or fewer was within 10% of the expected experience less than 50% of the time. Life Years Exposure 32