1987 CGD Tables

[Flying Squirrel]

I have the 1985 CIDA tables on diskette from the society for individual disability insurance. Where can I find the 1987 CGD tables for group disability insurance?

[sb_jim]

It's published in Transactions of the Society of Actuaries, Volume XXXIX, 1987, pp 393-457.

[echo]

http://www.soa.org/library/tsa/1980-89/TSA87V3913.pdf

[Flying Squirrel]

Thanks for your help. But I am new to reserving and have a few new questions regarding proper statuatory reserving. Our product is unlike the one used in the creation of the valuation tables. Our product provides benefits for disability due to accidental injury only and has a one month elim.

1) First, what is the difference between the tables in appendix D and appendix E? I know that the text says recovery rates in E are 90% of those in D, but which table is the correct one to use if I am to follow the NAIC model reg?

2) Are there other tables with elimination periods other than the published 3, 6, and 12 month periods? If not, how do I modify the published tables to get to a 0, 1, or 2 month elim period?

3) How do I get accident only incidence and recovery rates?

4) Am I stressing out over this too much? Does it really matter which table I use, and how I modify it to match our product more closely? Do I even need to modify it at all?

The experience of you veterans would be much appreciated!

[echo]

1) From what you've said, D is the basic experience table and E is the valuation table with recovery rates reduced to put in a conservative margin. For statutory reserving the valuation table should be used.

2) I do not think the 87 tables have incidence rates for other elimination periods.

3) The 87 Table does not vary incidence rate by cause (accident/sickness).

For statutory reserving, you would probably be compelled to use the 90day EP incidence rates for shorter EP's and not reduce incidence rates due to the accident only benefits. Note that this is only for calculating the statutory minimum reserve. If you beleive the reserve is inadequate you can increase it (for example fo the shorter EP's). I don't think you have the liverty to reduce the stat reserve if you think it is too high (since it covers accident and sickness).

Between the short EP's, the accident only coverage and the concern over incidence rates (which would only be needed for Active Life Reserves, not claim reserves) this sounds a lot like an individual type product where 85CIDA might be a more appropriate.

Good Luck!

[ebony]

A question concerning the 1987 GLTD Tables

When using the tables in Appendix D or E, how do you handle employee ages?

The tables provide ages 22, 27, 32, 37, 42, 47, 52, 57, and 62.

My assumption is that an empolyee's age is rounded down, for example an employee who is 26 would be valuated as a 22 yo? Is this correct?

How do you handle employees under 22? Round up to 22?

Does anyone use interpolation? If so, what type? Linear?

Thanks!

[echo]

There is a practice note that may be helpful.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/practnotes/health_group06.pdf