3 ms·
Several years ago, I looked this up. The LTC payout ratio for men was ~.8 and for women was 1.05. The average was close to 1.0 since more women had LTC insuranc
by 1123581321 9y ago
Several years ago, I looked this up. The LTC payout ratio for men was ~.8 and for women was 1.05. The average was close to 1.0 since more women had LTC insurance. So, it’s possible that LTC provides too little coverage, but that’d mean it is also underpriced.
- tzakrajs 9y agoDon't women also live an extra 10% on average too?
- 1123581321 9y agoYes, and the propensity for men to die suddenly a little younger explains why the gap in payout ratio is larger than the lifespan difference.
- hickeygareth 9y agoWhy do you think it may be underpriced? A policy with a payout ratio of 1.0 can still be highly profitable for an insurer.
- 1123581321 9y agoNot highly profitable without assuming too much risk, but yes, 1.0 is profitable. But let’s say the LTC underwriters can pay out 10% more and stay in business. That would mean that in The OP’s “scam” scenario situation, instead of getting, say, $100,000 in benefits over two years, they could get $110,000. However, the inflamed wording suggests OP wants a lot more than his relative is getting, not a little bit more, like $300,000 over four years. That wouldn’t be possible to do in aggregate without charging a higher premium.