费率调整策略及经验

MILLIMAN LONG-TERM CARE RATE INCREASE SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 1: Executive Summary

• Survey Overview:

  • Third survey on LTC premium rate increases, following 2016 and 2021 surveys.
  • 17 companies participated, representing $7 billion in earned premium.
  • Survey findings provide insights into common practices and trends in LTC rate increase filings.

• Participation Summary:

  • 16 companies filed at least one rate increase since 2021 Survey.
  • 37 rate increase filings representing over 1,000 submissions were detailed.
  • Most companies hold a premium deficiency reserve or additional asset adequacy reserve.

• Rate Increase Environment Changes:

  • NAIC MSA Framework adopted to improve uniformity and timeliness of rate increase approvals.
  • COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in submission or implementation of rate increases for some companies.

• Key Findings:

  • Rate Increase Approvals: 73% of submissions received full or partial approval, with an average increase of 28%.
  • Jurisdictions: Alaska, Missouri, Puerto Rico, Wisconsin, and Wyoming had high approval levels.
  • Difficult Jurisdictions: California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas were noted as most challenging.
  • Policyholder Options: Companies offered reduced benefit options, cash buyouts, coinsurance, landing spots, and contingent benefits.
  • Rate Increase Drivers: Higher claim incidence, longer claim continuance, lower voluntary lapse rates, and improved active life mortality were common reasons.
  • Rate Increase Requests: Minimum average request was 2%, with an average request of 56%.
  • Multiyear Increases: 41% of companies requested phased-in increases.
  • Rate Guarantees: Florida, Idaho, and New Mexico required rate guarantees.
  • Varied Increases: 75% of filings included varied increases.
  • Recouping Past Losses: Lifetime loss ratio and Prospective Present Value analysis were common methods.
  • Rate Stability: 90% of companies had submissions subject to rate stability regulation.
  • Projection Assumptions: 75% of companies used the same assumptions as in cash flow testing.

Section 2: Rate Increase Filing Outcomes

• Approval Process: Average approval time was six months, with variations across jurisdictions.
• Phased-In Increases: Some jurisdictions required phased-in increases.
• Rate Guarantees: Some jurisdictions required rate guarantees.
• Rate Exclusions: Certain policies were excluded from rate increases in some jurisdictions.
• Disapprovals: Political caps and non-actuarial reasons were common reasons for disapprovals.
• Department Meetings: Some companies held meetings with departments to discuss rate increases.
• Rate Stability Approvals: Most submissions were subject to rate stability regulation.
• Policyholder Options: Companies offered reduced benefits, cash buyouts, coinsurance, landing spots, and contingent benefits.
• Policyholder Notification: Notification periods varied by jurisdiction.

Section 3: Approach to Filing a Rate Increase

• Rate Increase Filing History: Most companies pursued rate actions annually or continuously.
• Mitigating Need for Rate Increase: Some companies used wellness initiatives.
• Approach to Determining Rate Increase: Factors included actuarial justification, recouping past losses, non-actuarial considerations, and experience pooling.
• Internal and External Resources: Companies used various resources, including consultants and reinsurers.
• Rate Increase Strategy: Companies requested a variety of rate increases, including phased-in increases, actuarially equivalent follow-up requests, and varied increases.
• Rate Stability Requests: Most submissions were subject to rate stability regulation.

Section 4: Assumptions and Projections

• Projection Assumptions: Assumptions were considered best-estimate and did not include a provision for adverse deviation.
• COVID-19: Some filings excluded COVID-19 experience, while others included it.
• Improvement: Future mortality and morbidity improvements were included in some filings.
• Rate Filing vs. Cash Flow Testing: Most companies used the same assumptions in rate filings as in cash flow testing.
• Policyholder Behavior: Shock lapse assumptions, CBUL elections, and RBO elections were modeled in various ways.
• Modeling: Various projection systems were used, including Milliman Integrate, GGY Axis, Prophet, consultant models, and Polysystems.

Section 5: Appendices

• Information about Milliman and contact details provided.