Description: Discusses reserve valuation for long-term-care insurance [LTCI]. Includes the NAIC model law, federal tax issues, Valuation Actuary standards, cash-flow testing, and how a current company has gone about setting up its active and claim reserves. Session 4 of the 1991 Valuation Actuary Symposium.

Description: Discusses use of credibility theory with respect to LTCi. Considers the various credibility methods and points to resources for more in-depth investigation.

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

Description: This article discusses the mechanics of a prospective approach to calculating LTC rate increases and compares it to approaches defined by previous model regs.

Description: Panelists discuss pricing considerations on long-term care inforce contracts including: · State & NAIC regulation on premium rate changes · Challenges in implementing premium changes · Product design features like rate guarantees and limited-pay contracts From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Volume 28, No. 3, Session 6

Description: This study identifies large categories of conditions that long-term care insurance LTCI carriers previously might have avoided because of a lack of data. This study estimates claims, mortality, and lapse rates for several conditions. Many of the conditions are further analyzed into risk categories, some of which would be insurable at standard rates.

Description: How do combo products fit in the new statutory valuation framework?

Description: Diverse Risks 2016 Call for Essays

Description: Panelists discuss the various styles of underwriting being used in both the individual and the group long-term-care markets. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Vol. 25, No. 2.

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.