Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:42:27.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of model uncertainty on the pricing of critical illness insurance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2014

Erengul (Ozkok) Dodd ,
George Streftaris ,
Howard R. Waters  and
Andrew D. Stott
Erengul (Ozkok) Dodd*
Affiliation:
Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute and Mathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
George Streftaris
Affiliation:
Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Howard R. Waters
Affiliation:
Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Andrew D. Stott
Affiliation:
Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Erengul Dodd, Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute and Mathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. Tel: 0044 238059 3679; E-mail: E.Dodd@soton.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we calculate and compare diagnosis and net premium rates for critical illness insurance using different models for the claim delay distribution (CDD). The choice of CDD affects the diagnosis rates and hence the net premium rates in two ways: through the estimation of missing dates of diagnosis and through the adjustment of the exposure to allow for claims diagnosed but not settled in the observation period. We consider two CDDs: a three-parameter Burr distribution and a lognormal distribution. Our conclusion, based on a single, but extensive, data set, is that net premium rates are not significantly affected by the choice of CDD.

Keywords

Critical illness insuranceClaim delay distributionStatistical modellingDiagnosis ratesPricing

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 108 - 133
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

CMI (2008). A new methodology for analysing CMI critical illness experience, Continuous Mortality Investigation Committee Working Paper No. 33, The Faculty of Actuaries and Institute of Actuaries.Google Scholar
CMI (2010). CMI critical illness diagnosis rates for accelerated business, 1999-2004, Continuous Mortality Investigation Committee Working Paper No. 43, The Faculty of Actuaries and Institute of Actuaries.Google Scholar
CMI (2011 a). CMI critical illness diagnosis rates for accelerated business, 2003-2006, Continuous Mortality Investigation Committee Working Paper No. 50, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.Google Scholar
CMI (2011 b). Cause-specific CMI critical illness diagnosis rates for accelerated business, 2003-2006, Continuous Mortality Investigation Committee Working Paper No. 52, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.Google Scholar
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Ozkok, E., Streftaris, G., Waters, H.R. & Wilkie, A.D. (2012). Bayesian modelling of the time delay between diagnosis and settlement for critical illness insurance using a Burr generalised-linear-type model. Insurance:Mathematics and Economics, 50, 266–279.Google Scholar
Ozkok, E., Streftaris, G., Waters, H.R. & Wilkie, A.D. (2014 a). Modelling critical illness claim diagnosis rates I: methodology. The Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 5, 439–457.Google Scholar
Ozkok, E., Streftaris, G., Waters, H.R. & Wilkie, A.D. (2014 b). Modelling critical illness claim diagnosis rates II: results. The Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 5, 458–482.Google Scholar