> From: Liam M. McFarlane <LiamM@Dion-Durrell.com>
> To: 'Lawn,Yin' <Yin.Lawn@cna.com> email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Disabled live mortality
> Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:28 PM
> HIV cut down on Magic's sex life no doubt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawn,Yin [mailto:Yin.Lawn@cna.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:56 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Disabled live mortality
> Regarding Regina's question on disability live mortality, I used to work
> a life company pricing disability insurance.
> What we did then was to separate disability into different types and
> i.e. permanent total, temporary total, lose of limbs, type of
> diseases...etc, then modify the normal life mortality table based on our
> Generally speaking, what we found out was that for the most part,
> rates worsen when one has a disability claim. In other words, arguments
> favor higher mortality rates seem to dominate the arguments favor low
> mortality rate. HIV, for example, has a 100% mortality rate after 25 - 30
> years of infection(this is back in the early 90s). This will certainly
> increase the mortality rate for most people if the disability is due to
> Note: Definition of "disability" for the life side might be different
> the casualty side. Hence the experience from the life side might not be
> applicable to the casualty side. For example, some might argue that HIV
> infection should not be considered as a "disability." However, in some
> disability insurance, definition is triggered as long as the claimant can
> not perform his/her own occupation due to the disease regardless he/she
> the ability or not. Magic Johnson, for example, would probably be
> as "disable" in that case.
> rom: Regina Berens <ReginaBerens@worldnet.att.net>
> To: List Casnet <email@example.com>
> Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 7:07 AM
> Subject: Disabled Lives mortality
> > Gary Blumsohn's recent Proceedings paper (which can be downloaded from
> > CAS Web site) got me started thinking again about what mortality rates
> > appropriate for long-term disability claims. I've worked with OD
> > the past, which is an area where little is published- most disabled
> > tables are based on disabilities from accidents.
> > Some arguments in favor of assuming higher mortality (Blumsohn points
> > that using the 1990 ordinary mortality table, in effect, does this
> > mortality has improved in the last decade):
> > 1. General health may be adversely affected by whatever caused the
> > disability.
> > 2. Side effects of medications, etc. needed to stabilize condition.
> > Arguments in favor of lower mortality:
> > 1. Regular medical care.
> > 2. Less high-risk behavior.
> > Or does it depend upon circumstances? There's some evidence that for
> > Occupational Disease claimants, mortality is higher for those who
> > the disease early and lower for those who develop it late. It also
> > depends, of course, on the nature of the disability. Blumsohn also
> > up the interesting point that Robin Gillam, who did study disabled
> > mortality, did not dollar-weight claims, and that the more expensive
> > may have higher mortality because they are more severe.
> > There are high stakes in this for casualty actuaries- particularly in
> > areas of Workers' Comp. and unlimited PIP claims. I'd be interested to
> > hear what other actuaries think.
> > Regina Berens
> > Scruggs Consulting
> Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
> Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
> or leave casnet to unsubscribe.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to email@example.com
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.