Hi Lynn
I understand why the North American method gives a higher cost due to those in good health not subsidising those in poor health. However what I do not understand on this question, is that we work out the take up rate for the N.A method so that the mortality after they take up the option would be equal to Ultimate mortality, so x% have better than ultimate, (1-x)% have worse than ulitmate, but overall they have ulitmate (i.e 100% will have ulitmate - which is the same assumption as post option in the conventional world).
So why do we get a higher cost under the N.A method when we've made up the take up rate to be equivalent to everyone having ulitmate mortality? I was expecting the costs to be the same because we calculated the take up rate this way.
Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2010