• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

April 2022 Q1 (v)

Dane

Member
Hi All,

I did the above question and part of the answer isn’t clicking for me. The question asks what a group insurer should consider when calculating the premium to charge an employer in the following year (premiums annually reviewable). The economic environment is bad and the employer is expecting there to be many redundancies. The product is Critical illness.

“ The insurer will need to account for adverse selection in redundancy.
i.e. younger/healthier people more likely to be kept on”

If younger/healthier workers get kept on , how would that be adverse selection? Isn’t that the opposite?

I understand for IP and PMI there can be adverse selection as job security reduces people are more likely to claim but didn’t think this would apply to CI. You either have a CI or you don’t. I can’t imagine people not claiming on a CI because they’re employed.

Am I missing something?
Cheers,
D
 
Hi All,

I did the above question and part of the answer isn’t clicking for me. The question asks what a group insurer should consider when calculating the premium to charge an employer in the following year (premiums annually reviewable). The economic environment is bad and the employer is expecting there to be many redundancies. The product is Critical illness.

“ The insurer will need to account for adverse selection in redundancy.
i.e. younger/healthier people more likely to be kept on”

If younger/healthier workers get kept on , how would that be adverse selection? Isn’t that the opposite?

I understand for IP and PMI there can be adverse selection as job security reduces people are more likely to claim but didn’t think this would apply to CI. You either have a CI or you don’t. I can’t imagine people not claiming on a CI because they’re employed.

Am I missing something?
Cheers,
D
Hi Dane

You are correct in your thinking. The use of the word "adverse" is a typo. The examiners meant that the redundancies were selective in that healthy people with lower claim rates would be kept on.

Best wishes

Mark
 
Back
Top