US and France Project on Long Term Care · Context of this Joint SOA IA Project US and France represent the 2 largest Long Term Care Insurance markets in the world Each of these 2

US and France Project on Long Term Care

Les enjeux de l’assurance dépendance USA versus France

Institut des Actuaires

Society Of Actuaries

Paris, November 5th 2015

Speakers

Khedija Abdelmoula, IA; Actuaris [email protected]

Vincent Bodnar, ASA, MAAA; LTC Group (absent) [email protected]

Jean-Pierre Decourcelle, IA; Prévoir [email protected]

Vincent Dupourqué; Robosoft [email protected]

Robert Eaton, FSA, MAAA; Milliman [email protected]

Néfissa Sator, IA, CERA, MAAA; Forsides [email protected]

Introduction

Néfissa Sator SVP USA Forsides

Context of this Joint SOA IA Project

US and France represent the 2 largest Long Term Care Insurance markets in the world

Each of these 2 countries are looking for financing solutions to this risk, actuaries are looking for approaches

to model the risks, product innovations

Characteristics of the US market

Deeper and more widespread experience

Important and varied market

Data available

Experience with working in a multi-jurisdiction environment

Players reduce their offers or leave the market

Characteristics of the French market

A national program covers Long Term Care but is facing rapidly rising costs

More advanced on Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

An academic approach more closely linked to universities and scientific research

Moving toward a multinational environment, under the supervision of the European Insurance and

Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)

Objectives & Implementation

Knowledge sharing

Offer to the Long Term Care actuarial profession of the two most important markets, the US and

France, the advantage of the experience and knowledge of each other’s market

Cross leveraging the respective aptitudes by sharing the best practices and improving of each market’s

own experience, as well as globally

Phase 1 / comparative study of the 2 markets, including

Product types (individual/group, hybrids), regulation, market data

About 10-15 participants (complete list will be available in the IA 100% actuaires fascicule )

Phase 2 / targeted sub-groups

Pricing

Reserving

Risk management

About 4-6 participants in each sub-group (complete list will be available in the IA 100% actuaires

fascicule )

Calendar & Deliverables

Deliverables

Recorded meeting sessions (SOA)

An Excel pricing model in development (IA/SOA)

Newsletter in SOA LTCI Section

Many information shared and stored on a specific SharePoint (SOA)

Austin SOA annual conference 2015 (IA/SOA)

100% Actuaries IA annual conference 2015 (IA/SOA)

July 2014 June 2014 Sept 2014 Oct 2014 … … Dec 2014 Jan 2015…

Feasibility

Study

Kick off

Workshops, Phase 1

Sub-groups, Phase 2

Austin & Paris

conferences

…Sept 2015

IA

Oct/ Nov 2015

Description of the LTCI US Market

Robert Eaton Consulting Actuary Milliman

SOA Long Term Care Section Council

Source 1999 – 2015 Broker World Surveys

$0M

$200M

$400M

$600M

$800M

$1,000M

$1,200M

$1,400M

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Calendar Year

New Annual Premium Issued

Early success in the US LTC market faced challenges in the 2000s

New regulatory requirements for conservative pricing

Carrier exits resulting from emerging experience

Shrinking distribution focused on LTC

Transformation of target market as “Baby Boomers” aged into it

Sales Volumes

Compression: top 10 carriers went from 66% to 89% of sales

7 of the 10 top carriers have since dropped out

2001 Sales 2014 Sales

Source 2002 and 2015 Broker World Surveys

Company Premium Share

GE Capital $243M 23%

Bankers L&C $83M 8%

John Hancock $74M 7%

C.N.A. $61M 6%

UNUM $55M 5%

Penn Treaty $47M 5%

Allianz $42M 4%

IDS $28M 3%

Fortis $26M 3%

Life Investors $26M 3%

Top 10 $684M 66%

Others $349M 34%

Total $1,033M 100%

Company Premium Share

Genworth* $90M 28%

Northwestern $57M 18%

Mutual of Omaha $32M 10%

John Hancock $31M 10%

Transamerica** $16M 5%

MedAmerica $15M 5%

New York Life $12M 4%

MassMutual $11M 3%

Bankers L&C $10M 3%

State Farm $10M 3%

Top 10 $284M 89%

Others $36M 11%

Total $320M 100% *Genworth is a former division of GE Capital

**excluding single premium sales

Leading Carriers…Then and Now

In-force Metrics

In-force premiums and covered lives have leveled off

Incurred claims are steadily increasing as blocks age

Source NAIC Long-term Care Experience Exhibits

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Mil

lio

ns

Calendar Year

Covered lives $Earned premium $Incurred claims

Growth of LTC Combo Products

Combo products comprised of new life insurance premium issued in

(steady rate since 2012)

100,000 policies

and $2.4 bn issued in 2014

Compared to 130,000 policies

and $320m in the stand-alone

LTC market

Carriers are

entering the combo

LTC market as

opposed to continued

exits in the stand-alone

LTC market

12% 2014

LTC Combo Versus Traditional Growth

Premiums for combo products have overtaken stand-alone LTC

Important to note that a significant portion of combo premiums in 2010-2012 are single premiums

Sources: 2001-20015 Broker World Surveys and LIMRA’s Individual Life Combo Products Annual Reviews

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

$M

illi

on

s

Calendar Year

New Premium Sales

Stand-alone LTC Combo LTC

Pricing Assumptions and Methodologies in US Versus France

Khedija Abdelmoula Manager Actuaris



Exploring differences and common points in US and French LTC pricing

Product Considerations

Company Considerations

Methodology

Agenda

Eligibility & Benefit Triggers


France US

2 types of products that cover either total LTC or partial

LTC+total LTC

Previously separate policies related to the site of care

2 eligibility schemes for physical assessment: ADL or GIR

Benefit trigger is higher

ADL

Benefit trigger is lower

Cognitive impairment assessed through several tests such as MMS

test (mini mental score)

Cognitive Impairment test

The PH state is irreversible Eligibility reassessment at least once per year

Benefit Design & Structure

Benefit Period


France US

Annuity/lump sum Indemnity or Reimbursement for expenses

Annuity ranging from 300 € to 2 500 € per month

Average 600 € per month Lump sum= 10* monthly annuity

$6,000 per month (or $200 per day)

France US

Lifetime 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 years, or Lifetime (rarely offered)

Elimination Period

Waiting Period


France US

1 year for physical disease 3 years for cognitive disease

None

France US

90 days 0, 30, 60, 90, 180, 365 days

Inflation Protection


France US

– Indexed or discretionary compounding increase of benefits

due to biometric losses

– Proportional increase of premium and benefits

Options for: – None

– Option offered every X years (e.g. each 3 years) to increase benefit

(and premium), without underwriting

– Automatic 3% compounding increasing benefit

– Automatic 5% simple increasing benefit

– Automatic 5% compounding benefit

– Automatic CPI-indexed compounding benefit


Assumptions France US

Morbidity Company or reinsurer historical experience

Company or industry historical experience

Morbidity improvement

Not assumed Rarely assumed

Mortality Company or reinsurer historical experience

1994 Group Annuity Mortality Basic Table, sex-distinct, mortality improvements using Scale AA (some carriers use the 2000 Individual Annuity Mortality Basic table with or without improvement)

Claim termination (continuance)

Company or reinsurer historical experience

Company or industry-wide experience

Voluntary lapse No lapse or 2% before 8 years then around 4%

0.5% - 1.0%

Investment returns

0.5%-1.05% 3.5% - 5.0%

Underwriting


France US

- Underwriting can be achieved through an individual policy with

medical screening

- For group policies no medical screening just medical questionnaire with sometimes request for additional

information

- Possibility to reject or accept in line with usual conditions or to accept with

higher premium if aggravated risk

- An application is filled out by each applicant

- The company will obtain additional

risk information through medical examination, lab work, medical

records, pharmacy database searches, cognitive test, and face-

to-face assessments

- Applicants are grouped into risk classes (preferred class, standard

class, etc)

Marketing: commissions & distribution channels

Internal rate of return

Reinsurance

Risk appetite

Future premium rate schedule changes


Pricing Methodology

Premium Structure

France US

Premiums may vary by: ‒ Issue age

‒ LTC benefit amount ‒ Underwriting risk class

‒ Gender discrimination not allowed

Premiums may vary by: ‒ Issue age ‒ Gender

‒ Elimination period ‒ LTC daily/monthly benefit amount

‒ Benefit period / policy limit ‒ Inflation option

‒ Underwriting risk class

Pricing Methodology

French pricing flow chart

Pricing Methodology

US Pricing flow chart

Primary Differences between France and USA

Levels of dependence (Fr: partial and full)

Sites of care (US: models capture ALF, HH, SNF)

Utilization (US: reimbursement-based)

Claim continuance (Fr: annuity)

Incidence rate (lower in FR: eligibility & waiting period)

Model platform (spreadsheet, actuarial valuation)

Pricing Methodology

Reserving Methodologies in US Versus France

Jean-Pierre Decourcelle Chief Actuary Prévoir



French and US environnement – Garanties, pricing et reserving

Reserve assumption comparison – Active Life mortality rates

– Incidence rates

– Continuance rates

Reserves evolution, US and FR – Claim reserve

– Premium Reserve

Agenda

Environment 1/3

Long Term Care Insurance guaranties

Two main types of benefits:

1. Reimbursement of expenditures with a daily maximum: (>90 % of the market)

2. Indemnity: Daily cash benefits contingent on occurrence of expenditure (<5% of the market)

Contrary to France, there are few contracts with Non-forfeiture benefits (<5% of the market)

Benefit duration: used to be lifetime, now limited to 2-5 years with an average of 3.8 years

Waiting Period: generally no Waiting Period in US contracts

Environment 2/3

Pricing

Leveled premium, hence need for Active Life Reserve

Medical selection

– Preferred rates: 10-15% discount from standard rates. About 40% of contracts

– Standard rates: About 50% of contracts

– Substandard rates: 150-300% of standard rates. About 10% of contracts

Premium Increases

– When unfavorable experience emerges

– Insurers request pre-approval from States to implement

– Demonstration of deteriorating lifetime loss ratio

– Typically the full request is not granted

Environment 3/3

Active Life Reserve and Gross Premium Reserve

Active Life Reserve (ALR)

– Assumptions cannot be modified during the lifetime of the contract

– This reserve corresponds to the Provision pour Risques Croissants (PRC) in France

Gross Premium Reserve (GPR)

– GPR is a facultative calculation based on current assumptions and actual policy parameters

– It is used to validate ALR levels.

Environment 1/3

Benefits

Two types of Cash benefits

1. Monthly lifetime annuity (determined at issue and usually not increased)

2. Lump sum

Waiting Period

– 0 if dependence caused by an accident

– 1 year if by a non-cognitive cause

– 3 years if by a cognitive cause

Elimination Period: usually 90 days

Payments after consolidation (dependency is permanent)

Environment 2/3

Pricing

Mainly leveled premium for individual contracts which imply the calculation of a premium reserve

Medical selection

– Standard premium for a "normal" risk

– Substandard premium, always higher than the standard premium for more risky people

Environment 3/3

Reserving

Premium reserve : « Provision pour Risques Croissants » (PRC) is calculated using pricing assumptions but can be changed when:

– Interest rates differ from pricing assumptions

– Updating claim assumption (incidence or continuance)

– The French regulator ACPR* can require an insurer to raise the reserves

The insurer has the possibility to raise premium paid by the policyholder to compensate for the cost of raising reserves

* Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution

Reserving

Five main types of reserving

1. Statutory reserving required by the juridiction (state)

– Active Life Reserve

– Claim Reserve

2. Risk Capital requirement

3. Accounting standards for public company accounting (IFRS, USGAAP standards)

4. Tax reserves

5. Additional reserves as established by management

This presentation focuses on statutory Active Life Reserves without expenses

Assumption Source

Lapse rates

Regulatory maximum Interest rates

Mortality rates (qax)

Gender

Set by the insurer.

Incidence rates (ix)

Continuance (qix)

Utilization Reimbursement level set by the insurer

Premium Pre approval of each state regulator

US Reserve Assumptions

US regulators leave claim assumptions to the discretion of the insurer but require

preapproval of the policy before it can be introduced in its state

French Reserve Assumptions

Assumption source

Lapses rates PRC is calculated without lapses

Interest Rates

Based on pricing assumptions but based on insurer’s experience.

Life Table (qax)

Gender distribution

Incidence rates (ix)

Claim continuance (qix)

Benefits Fixed annuity

In France most of the assumptions are left to insurer’s judgment but the regulator

may conduct audits and require increased reserving

Comparison of ALR/PRC assumptions 1/3

The US regulatory table is the US 94 GAM (Group Annuity Mortality) and a French table is

based on the insurer’s experience

Here qax based on a gender distribution of 70% Female and 30 % Male

French mortality rates are much lower

Mortality rates for Active Lives (qax)

Illustration of French and US mortality rates

qax France example

qax USA : GAM 94


Dependency Incidence rates by attained age

Incidence rates in France are lower than in the US

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

Illustration of incidence rates France and USA

ix France example

ix USA : 1985 National Nursing Home

Survey


Termination rates in the first two years are much higher in the US

Continuance rates are always higher in France

Claim continuance* for a claim starting at age 85

*Termination rates in France are based on mortality, in the US termination rates are also based on recoveries.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

years

US and French claim continuance age 85

US li85,n (NNHS 85)

French li85,n

Claim reserve

Claim reserves for claim starting at age 70 and 85

The significant difference in the continuance is reflected in the value of

the claim Provision

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

70 85

Cla

im r

eserve v

alu

e

Claim stating age

US and French Claim Reserve

French Claim Reserve

French Claim Reserve with US

financial rates (4%)

US Claim Reserve

PRC Evolution: Claim Assumptions

For a 60 year old Issue Age, PRC evolves the following way by substituting US

assumptions (mortality rate)

PRC decreases when introducing US assumptions

-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Prem

ium

Reserve v

alu

e

projection years

Evolution of French Reserve

PRC (example)

PRC with US Active lifes Mortality

rates (qxa)



assumptions (mortality rate + incidence)


-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Prem

ium

Reserve v

alu

e

projection years


PRC (example)

PRC with US Active lifes Mortality

rates (qxa) and Incidence rates



assumptions (mortality rate + incidence + continuance)


-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Prem

ium

Reserve v

alu

e

projection years


PRC (example)

PRC with US biometrics

assumptions


For a 60 year old Issue Age PRC, evolves the following way by substituting US

assumptions mortality rate + incidence + continuance + lapse + interest rate)


-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Prem

ium

Reserve v

alu

e

projection years


PRC with US Biometrics

assumptions + lapses and US

interests rates = ALR

PRC (example)

Assumption Old policies New policies

Interest rates 4 % 3,5%

Incidence rates (ix) 1985 NNHS 66% * 1985 NNHS

Continuance (qix) 1985 NNHS 2 x 1985 NNHS

US Reserve Assumptions review

For new policies US ALR assumptions have changed, making the ALR much more prudential

Assumptions for lapse and mortality rates (qax) are usually the same

ALR Evolution: parameters review on new policies

For a 60 year old Issue Age, ALR evolves the following way by changing the

assumptions

ALR value change a lot and is now higher than PRC

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Reserve v

alu

e

projection years

Evolution of US Reserves for new policies

ALR For new

policies

PRC example

ALR

Risk Monitoring and Solvency Regime in US versus France




State of Risk Monitoring in U.S.

Risk monitoring has been a weakness in the U.S.

Continued problems with reserve adjustments

Unforeseen emerging trends:

– Low interest rates

– Very low lapse rates

– Decreasing mortality rates

– Shift in care delivery: more appealing facilities means healthier people are triggering policies earlier and living on benefit longer

Poor forecasting models and experience monitoring processes

– Result of using simplified models

– Only recent movement to first-principles approaches

Poor Forecasting Techniques

Actual vs. model comparisons often done in aggregate

– Without looking at calendar year fit, can conclude that experience is favourable

View by calendar year can change a conclusion

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000Actual vs. Model Average Claim Cost

Actual Model with Current Assumptions

IN FORCE MANAGEMENT

Aggregate historical actual to model experience: 80%

Recent trend indicates a different slope

2013 actual experience is 115% of model

Common Flaws in Forecasting Techniques

“Left-over” pricing errors sustained in projection models:

– Perpetual marital salvage

– Disconnects with basis used to develop claim costs • Derived from total lives exposure, yet applied to active lives only

Poor deployment of first principles projections

– Assumptions not properly developed

– Lack of checking for reasonableness upon aggregation

Over-dependence on average industry claim costs

– Each company’s experience differs slightly, both absolutely and in shape due to difference in benefit plans, underwriting, claim adjudication and distribution

– Aggregate “calibration” factors do not compensate for these differences

– Many blocks have enough credibility to develop core assumptions

IN FORCE MANAGEMENT

Common Flaws in Monitoring Processes

Disabled life reserve is not regularly tested for adequacy

– No robust monitoring or adjustment process

– Deficient reserve masks deteriorating claims experience

Lack of monitoring of key morbidity items by component:

– Incidence by level of care

– Claim termination rates by level of care

– Utilization

Poor monitoring of “savings” initiatives

Infrequent experience studies

– Every three years is not frequent enough

– Required corrections can be dramatic

IN FORCE MANAGEMENT

SOA Intercompany Study

Purpose

– Compile morbidity data for the U.S. LTC industry

– Validate all data before using

– Provide aggregate database to the industry

– Create tables that fit the experience using predictive modeling

Overview of the data

– 22 companies provided data

– Exposure period is 2000-2011

– Three components: incidence rates, claim termination rates, benefit utilization rates


Claim incidence rates

– 15 million life years and 200,000 claims

– Rates were created on active and total live bases

– Rates vary by age, gender, marital status, policy duration

Claim termination rates

– 4 million months of disabled exposure

– Rates vary by age at disability, site of care, claim duration, diagnosis

Daily benefit utilization

– $7 billion of claims paid

– Factors vary by site of care, maximum benefit, age


Published aggregate databases

– Separate pivot tables for each morbidity component

– Users can summarize or look as granularly as desired

Published experience tables

– Generalized Linear Models were used for each morbidity component

– All available characteristics considered

– Resulting tables have a “base” rate, to which factors are applied for several policyholder and policy characteristics

– The models fit the aggregate experience very well

– Good for benchmarking; regulators are considering using it as a standard valuation table for reserving

Solvency II Increases Capital Requirement

Solvency II does not provide explicit technical specification for LTC

Stress tests not calibrated for LTC

No correlation between longevity and disability risks

Very few Entity Specific Standard Formulas or Internal models yet developed and implemented

This results in a much higher capital requirement

A study on one of the largest portfolio in the market shows that

Solvency II Capital = 12 x Solvency I Capital

An internal model would lead to a better appreciation of the LTCI risks under Solvency II and lower the solvency capital requirement

– Only few players, especially largest reinsurers players, are able to develop an internal model approach

ERM process is critical to produce solvent & profitable business

Solvency I & II & RBC Comparison

(*) Limitations: based on 1 study + publications but does not take into account internal model results

Formulas for LTCI RBC in year t Formulas for LTCI Solvency 1 in year t Formulas for LTCI Solvency 2 in year t

15.4% of premiums up to $50 MM18% of premiums up to $10 MM

Max reinsurance 50%

4.6% of premiums over $50 MM16% of premiums over $10 MM

Max reinsurance 50%

Adjusted LTC Claims = (LRt-1 + LRt) / 2 * premiumt

Adjusted LTC Claims = (sum Paid Claimst-2,t-1,t +

sum Change IBNRt-2,t-1,t) / 3

38.5% of adj. claims up to $35 MM 26% of adj. claims up to $7 MM

12.3% of adj. claims over $35 MM 23% of adj. claims over $7 MM

RBC = premium component + claims

component average of last 2 years

S1 = max(premium component, adjusted

claims component)

SCR = (Asset - Liabilities)central - (Asset -

Liabilities)chocs

Difficulty to implement very low very low very high

Risk monitoring no incentive no incentive strong incentive

Required capital 100% up to 350% if large player 3500% at least ! (*)

Comments- Based on the premium for the first 10 years

- No ALR, not prospective

- Based on the premium for the first 10 years

- No ALR, not prospective

- Based on the risks but calibrations not

adjusted to this risk category

- ALR, prospective, economic approach

- ALM model need, economic balance sheet

approach

- Cash flows of future premiums - future claims -

future expenses

- Reinsurance fully taken into account

- Central scenario (BE assumptions) + chocs

given by regulators

- Diversification effects

Robotic at the Service of Elderly People

Vincent Dupourqué Robosoft

Kompaï, my robot companion

November 5th, 2015 strictly confidential - for internal use only - Do not distribute without prior authorization – ROBOSOFT 2015

59

Latest news : WIC, Sept 17th 2015

More about this event : http://is.gd/kKHnaf

strictly confidential - for internal use only - Do not distribute without prior authorization – ROBOSOFT

2015

http://is.gd/kKHnaf

http://is.gd/kKHnaf

http://is.gd/kKHnaf

http://is.gd/kKHnaf

http://is.gd/kKHnaf

60

Kompaï-2, available Q2 2016

strictly confidential - for internal use only - Do not distribute

without prior authorisation - robosoft 2014

61

Passengers in our driverless vehicles

Designed, manufactured and sold

INRIA

Some Figures about ROBOSOFT

1985

1.000

3.000.000


2015

62

Transport • Driverless shuttles

• Container carriers

Markets

Cleanliness • Glass roof cleaning

• Floor cleaning

Healthcare • Robot companion

Defense/Sécurity • UGV

• Surveillance


2015

63

Problem

Improve the level of comfort and independence of frail or vulnerable people at home or in institutions

For whom?

• frail or vulnerable people, whatever their age

• Professional and family caregivers (health and social stakeholders) in their support of vulnerable people

Where? In institutions (hospitals or care homes), elderly homes or at home

How? By compensating for temporary or chronic vulnerabilities (hospitalization or convalescence), loss of autonomy due to disability, loss of dependence due to age.


2015

64

- Remote operation - Configuration - Questionnaires - Data log

Connection of KompaÏ/Lokarria to the ecosystem


2015

SOCIAL HEALTHCARE

SECURITY

ROBOTICS

HOME

65

Interiale’s conclusions

• Very strong acceptance by « members » (customers), they all accept the idea of such a companion robot at home

• It is a very good tool to keep frail people at home, helping to compensate loss of autonomy by reducing risks

• Improves the social link

• Reduces feeling of loneliness

• Increase security

• Bring help in the daily living tasks

• Log information for physicians, to anticipate risks (including health risks)

• They are ready to buy robots to investigate deeper, providing the robot has reached an acceptable level of industrialization and reliability


2015

66

What Kompaï brings to insurers


2015

Kompai

Risks management

-Prevention

-Accompaniment

-Security

Expenses control

-Provide services instead of cash

Health management

-Remote surveillance

-Tele-health

-Tele-consultation

Data management

-Acquisition and processing

67

http://is.gd/9FGDng

[email protected]

KompaïTheRobot http://is.gd/nBHVf6

#Kompai_Robot https://twitter.com/kompai_robot


2015

http://is.gd/9FGDng

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://is.gd/nBHVf6

https://twitter.com/kompai_robot

Conclusion and next steps


So, France versus US ?

France uses indemnity, US reimbursement

In France, once on claim, don’t leave

Lower need for claim management

France has more flexible pricing and reserving system

France more heavily reinsured, specially for smaller companies

In US, mostly formulaic controls

Statutory reserves

RBC

Additional actuarial reserves

ORSA is coming to US

Linked with Solvency II if a company has a European parent

Via economic capital ?

Both France and US recognize lack of knowledge up front

Needs for risk monitoring improvement

Both France and US are innovating, trends for combo products

Next steps

Austin poll

Should there be a Long Term Car specific actuarial methodology ?

If Yes, should or could the research be done jointly with other countries ?

Possible orientations

Pursuing exchanges, conference calls (e.g. reinsurance )

Pursuing conferences and publications (l’Actuariel, SOA Newsletter …)

Joint research ?

Book/manual ?

Others ?

1 2 3 4

79%

7%4%

11%

1 2 3 4

56%

7%4%

33%

1. YES

2. NO

3. DO NOT KNOW

4. NO OPINION

1. COULD

2. SHOULD

3. DO NOT KNOW

4. NO OPINION

Thank you for your attention !

Questions ?

Documents

US and France Project on Long Term Care · Context of this Joint SOA IA Project US and France represent the 2 largest Long Term Care Insurance markets in the world Each of these 2