Announcement: Access the latest SOA updates on COVID-19 at

Due to unusually high email volume in Customer Service, you may experience a longer response time than usual. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Application of Enterprise Risk Management to Long-Term Care at the Country/Government Levels

Background and Purpose

There has been significant discussion about the natural fit for actuaries in the growing area of enterprise risk management (ERM). Although there is considerable literature on the benefits of ERM, it is typically targeted at large, global corporations in the financial sector—that is, insurance and banking. The CIA Research Executive Committee (REC) in conjunction with the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS)/Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA)/Society of Actuaries (SOA) Joint Risk Management Section (JRMS) is seeking research proposals that will serve the public interest by demonstrating how the practice of ERM at a country/government level can be extended beyond its traditional applications in the financial sector.

Research Objective

The REC and the JRMS are seeking proposals on the application of ERM to the decision-making for the design, supply, and sustainable funding of a long-term care (LTC) program that will meet the needs of Canadians. Examples of research topics are shown below and are not meant to be the only ones that would be considered under this RFP. The description of each of the topics has deliberately been written to be brief and open-ended in order to give researchers sufficient latitude in the development of proposals. Proposals should explicitly describe how the results of the research will be expected to serve the general public using ERM techniques. While the proposals need to demonstrate that the expected work will not duplicate existing materials, they could pull together some existing work and information in ways not done before.

Potential proposals could focus on:

  • The Canadian environment
  • Suggested framework(s) for the use of ERM in private,  publicly funded or a combination for the Long Term Care (LTC) needs of Canadians.
  • A definition of LTC for the study (e.g. what is included: nursing homes, at-home care, senior daycare, etc.).
  • Inventory of potential risk categories that should be considered for LTC.
  • Interaction between the federal and provincial government levels including how ERM might provide a holistic approach to risk management by interacting with other silo risk functions currently in place. However, it should demonstrate ERM as a useful tool in government decision making.
  • How the application of ERM methodology can be used to develop a LTC risk culture, in both the government and the public.
  • Identification of appropriate methods for ERM LTC risk assessment.
  • Identification of possible LTC risk metrics.
  • Proposal of a LTC risk dashboard.
  • Risk mitigation techniques that can be integrated into an ERM framework and applied on a provincial or federal level (for certain risks identified).
  • The potential role of a LTC network that integrates efficiently with existing government programs to address risks that might be best managed at a country level starting with Canada.

The research should provide a framework that other countries can use to advance their own LTC risk management. Proposals should focus on LTC in Canada and the application of ERM within it, showing how ERM can be used as a method to help in future decision-making.

Such an ERM methodology should highlight the fact that risk categories and considerations that apply to one country may not necessary fit another. Countries at different stages of their development face substantially different LTC risks from economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, technological, and other categories.

Preference will be given to proposals in which relevant actuarial skills are explicitly highlighted by the proposed research such as those that allow actuaries to identify, quantify, and model risks, as well as to evaluate risk mitigation options. Proposals that include explicit quantitative elements are also preferred. For example, a proposal that focuses on evaluating the efficacy of LTC risk management should include a quantitative methodology adjusted for qualitative considerations for this evaluation. Proposals focusing on a framework for a LTC risk management function should specifically include quantitative tools/elements of the framework.


To facilitate the evaluation of proposals, the following information should be submitted:

  • Résumés of the researcher(s), including any graduate student(s) expected to participate, indicating how their background, education, and experience bear on their qualifications to undertake the research. If more than one researcher is involved, a single individual should be designated as the lead researcher and primary contact. The person submitting the proposal must be authorized to speak on behalf of all the researchers as well as for the firm or institution on whose behalf the proposal is submitted.
  • An outline of the approach to be used (e.g., literature search, model, etc.), emphasizing issues that require special consideration. Details should be given regarding the techniques to be used, collateral material to be consulted, and possible limitations of the analysis.
  • A description of the expected deliverables and any supporting data, tools, or other resources.
  • Cost estimates for the research, including computer time, salaries, report preparation, material costs, etc. Such estimates can be in the form of hourly rates, but in such cases, time estimates should also be included. Cost estimates should specify which currency they are given in. Any guarantees as to total cost should be given and will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. While cost will be a factor in the evaluation of the proposal, it will not necessarily be the decisive factor.
  • A schedule for completion of the research, identifying key dates or time frames for research completion and report submissions. The REC and JRMS are interested in completing this project in a timely manner. Suggestions in the proposal for ensuring timely delivery, such as fee adjustments, are encouraged. Other related factors that give evidence of a proposer's capabilities to perform in a superior fashion should be detailed. 

Selection Process

  • The REC and JRMS will appoint a project oversight group (POG) to oversee the project. The POG is responsible for evaluating any research proposals received based on the established criteria of the Research Executive Committee and the priorities indicated by the REC and the JRMS, and deciding whether to approve and proceed with any particular proposal.
  • For approved projects, the POG will work closely with the accepted bidder to ensure the execution and oversight of the project is aligned with the project objectives and that research papers are reviewed and published in accordance with the established guidelines. In working towards these goals, the POG may seek input from other knowledgeable individuals or committees.
  • The POG will also be responsible for ensuring that conflicts of interest do not arise during the course of the research project so that the public’s interest is first and foremost. 


Any questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Jill Knudsen, member of the Research Executive Committee at

Notification of Intent to Submit Proposal

If you intend to submit a proposal, please e-mail written notification by August 4, 2017 to Jan Schuh at  

Submission of Proposal

Please e-mail a copy of the proposal to Jan Schuh, SOA Sr, Research Administrator, at

Proposals must be received no later than August 18, 2017. It is anticipated that all proposers will be informed of the status of their proposal by September 15, 2017.

Note: Proposals are considered confidential and proprietary. 


  • The REC and the JRMS reserve the right not to award a contract for this research. Reasons for not awarding a contract could include, but are not limited to, a lack of acceptable proposals or a finding that insufficient funds are available.
  • The REC and the JRMS reserve the right to redirect the project as is deemed advisable.
  • The REC and the JRMS plan to hold the copyright to the research and to publish the results with appropriate credit given to the researcher(s).
  • The REC and the JRMS may choose to seek public exposure or media attention for the research.
  • By submitting a proposal, you agree to cooperate with the sponsoring organizations in publicizing or promoting the research and responding to media requests. The REC and the JRMS may also choose to market and promote the research to members, candidates, and other interested parties.
  • You agree to perform promotional communication requested by the REC and the JRMS, which may include, but is not limited to, leading a webcast on the research, presenting the research at a meeting, and/or writing an article on the research for a newsletter. 

Sample Literature Review

World Health Organization, Financing long-term care programmes in health systems: With a situation assessment in selected high-, middle- and low-income countries

© OECD 2011, Help Wanted? Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care, Chapter 8 Private Long-term Care Insurance: A Niche or a “Big Tent”?

2014 Long Term Care General Liability and Professional Liability Actuarial Analysis, November 2014

Past Present Future Private Long-Term Care Insurance, Contingencies 2015

CLHIA, Long-Term Care Publications

CLHIA, A Guide to Long-Term Care

CIHI’s Provisional Analytical Plan, 2015 to 2017: Overview of Indicator Development and New Reports

Enterprise Risk Management Framework, North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN, Tim Berry, Ontario Local Health Integration Network, 2010

An Overview of Long-Term Care in Canada and Selected Provinces and Territories, Women and Health Care Reform, Albert Banerjee, 2007 

WHO World Report on Ageing and Health, 2015

Funding Long-Term care in Canada: Who is Responsible for What?, R. Deber, A. Laporte, 2016,

C.D. Howe Institute publications