Description: Runoff LTC blocks present a wide range of business risks. Outsourcing certain tasks to third parties can help mitigate these risks.

Description: For establishing the ongoing adequacy of claim reserves for blocks of long-term care insurance, retro testing is a blunt tool, the results of which are not conclusive. Claim reserve retro tests should be reviewed by claim duration, include the impact of interest consistently, and include updated assumptions that can have an impact on claim termination rates or other factors. The new NAIC LTC Experience Reporting Forms estimated to arrive for reporting year 2008 will help modernize LTCI retro tests, providing additional accuracy and standardization. Actuaries should not wait for these forms, but rather ensure that any claim reserve analysis moves beyond a basic calendar year retro test.

Description: Medical management programs have traditionally addressed more acute and short-term issues with chronic disease. As LTC becomes an important product in the insurance industry, including disease management is likely to be valuable for reducing costs and prolonging the healthy, premium-paying portion of a claimant's life.

Description: Third article in a series on how to use predictive analytics to improve the development of long-term care projection assumptions.

Description: State regulators' review of predominant LTC Risks after review of year-end AG51 reports.

Description: Pitfalls with long-term care experience studies and tips for dealing with them.

Description: Professional and regulatory considerations in long term care insurance pricing and product features, including items from ASOP No. 18. From Long Term Care Newsletter, September 1999, Issue No. 1.

Description: Second article in a series on how to use predictive analytics to improve the development of long-term care projection assumptions.

Description: Today, a plethora of tools and approaches exist to develop lifetime projections of long-term care (LTC) business. Within these tools lie two distinct approaches to project mortality; namely, by using assumptions that are applied: (1) to an all-lives exposure base, or (2) separately for disabled- versus active-lives exposure bases. Using disabled versus active mortality allows for more granular modeling of the two different cohorts that exhibit dramatically different mortality. And so, when using an all-lives mortality assumption, is the projection missing important details about the appropriate mortality level? This article seeks to not only answer this question, but also answer how a “traditional” all-lives mortality assumption can be impacted when you introduce a combination of the two modeling techniques into the development of a mortality assumption. To answer these questions, we examined the experience and results developed from one c ompany as an illustrative case study.

Description: Following up on recent articles on claim reserves and retrospective testing, this article examines some data quality and methodology issues related to calculating LTCI claim reserves.