Larger Income, Longer Life

[Take 2]

CBO confirms a conclusion made by life actuaries decades ago.

CBO Finds Growing Link Between Longevity And Income BY ALLISON BELL NU Online News Service, Sept. 5, 2007, 7:38 p.m. EDT
... men ages 35 to 49 in the bottom fifth of individual lifetime earnings were about 8.4 times more likely to die in a given year than men in that age range in the top income group, Cristia writes.

The mortality differential for bottom earners and top earners increased from 5.9 for the 1983-1997 period, Cristia writes.

The differential for top earning and bottom earning women increased to 4.8 for the 1998-2003 period, from 1.8 for the 1983-1997 period, Cristia writes.
...
Cristia’s tables also show big mortality gaps between men in the top lifetime income quintile and the second quintile.
...The Cristia mortality study is on the Web here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/85xx/doc8582/2007-11.pdf

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenew...fe%20Insurance

[Double High C]

What a shockeroo!

[omegakain]

Shouldn't this go in the obvious studies thread?

[kazh]

More like an actuarial sighting -- of a non-actuary.

[E]

This just in: women live longer than men too.

[omegakain]

Ice is frozen water. More details to follow...

[kazh]

Kansas recently suggested that lower rates for larger policies might be unfairly discriminatory. It came up in reviewing SoA's preferred mortality. Policy size for higher income level might help refute that.

[Double High C]

Originally Posted by kazh

Kansas recently suggested that lower rates for larger policies might be unfairly discriminatory.

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale given by Kansas?

[A Student]

Originally Posted by kazh

Kansas recently suggested that lower rates for larger policies might be unfairly discriminatory. It came up in reviewing SoA's preferred mortality. Policy size for higher income level might help refute that.

Are they okay with a flat per policy fee?

[kazh]

Kansas actuary (whose boss is NAIC president-elect) just brought it up as a concern with the proposed preferred mortality table developed by the SoA for reserves, didn't elaborate. Didn't even say whether Kansas is doing anything or intending to take a firm position, including on filing (which would be tough, since life rates are exempt from regulatory review). I don't think the position has any merit, hope it goes nowhere, as rating differently for larger sizes (as representing different risk classes) is well-established and not unfairly discriminatory.