Proposal for a comprehensive retirement insurance solution (CRIS) to mitigate retirement risk based on theory of change
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2024.2.1008Keywords:
modular insurance, life insurance, tontine, long-term care insurance, public-private partnershipAbstract
The aim of the paper is to propose a new comprehensive retirement insurance solution (CRIS) that, by offering appropriate modules, can be flexibly adapted to customers’ needs during the accumulation of funds and entitlements and during retirement. Technically, the product is life-insurance-based and includes insurance for sickness and incapacity, long-term care (LTC), work activation expenses, hospital stays, and tontine and Luxembourg policies. Due to consumers’ changing expectations and needs, the technical dimension of this solution is based on a three-layer insurance product in which individual parts of the protection are supplemented by several additional benefits (types of assistance) that improve the quality of life of insurance participants and allow the ongoing use of the product.
Downloads
References
1. Amaglobeli, M. D., Chai, H., Dabla-Norris, M. E., Dybczak, M. K., Soto, M., & Tieman, F. (2019). The future of saving: The role of pension system design in an aging world. International Monetary Fund.
View in Google Scholar
2. Antolin, P., Schich, S., & Yermo, J. (2011). The economic impact of protracted low interest rates on pension funds and insurance companies. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 1, 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1787/fmt-2011-5kg55qw0m56l
View in Google Scholar
3. Antolin, P., & Stewart, F. (2009). Private pensions and policy responses to the financial and economic crisis. OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions, 36. https://doi.org/10.1787/224386871887
View in Google Scholar
4. Ayuso, M., Bravo, J. M., Holzmann, R., & Palmer, E. (2021). Automatic indexation of the pension age to life expectancy: When policy design matters. Risks, 9(5), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9050096
View in Google Scholar
5. Beer, C., & Gnan, E. 2015. Implications of ultra-low interest rates for financial institutions’ asset liability management—a policy-oriented overview. Monetary Policy and the Economy, 2(Q2), 15–53.
View in Google Scholar
6. Benish, A., Haber, H., & Eliahou, R. (2016). The regulatory welfare state in pension markets: Mitigating high charges for low-income savers in the United Kingdom and Israel. Journal of Social Policy, 46(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279416000593
View in Google Scholar
7. Bernard, C., Cui, Z., & Vanduffel, S. (2016). Impact of flexible periodic premiums on variable annuity guarantees. North American Actuarial Journal, 21(1), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.2016.1209119
View in Google Scholar
8. Bickerdyke, I., Dolamore, R., Monday, I., & Preston, R. (2002). Supplier induced demand for medical services. Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra.
View in Google Scholar
9. Bielawska, K., & Kozłowski, A. (2024). A proposal for retirement risk measurement based on subjective assessment of income: An empirical study. Social Indicators Research, 172, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03295-3
View in Google Scholar
10. Bielawska, K., & Łyskawa, K. (2019). Wykorzystanie produktów ubezpieczeniowych i inwestycyjnych przez obecnych emerytów – wyniki badań. In I. Kwiecień & P. Kowalczyk-Rólczyńska (Eds.), Ubezpieczenia: wyzwania rynku (pp. 11–24). C.H. Beck.
View in Google Scholar
13. Böheim, R., & Leoni, T. (2017). Sickness and disability policies: Reform paths in OECD countries between 1990 and 2014. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12295
View in Google Scholar
14. Brest, P. (2010). The power of theories of change: Stanford social innovation review. Springer.
View in Google Scholar
16. Brown, J. R., Kapteyn, A., Luttmer, E. F. P., & Mitchell, O. S. (2017). Cognitive constraints on valuing annuities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 15(2), 429–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvw009
View in Google Scholar
17. Brown, J. R., Mitchell, O. S., Poterba, J. M., & Warshawsky, M. J. (2001). The role of annuity markets in financing retirement. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6007.001.0001
View in Google Scholar
18. Burns, L. R., & Pauly, M. V. (2018). Transformation of the health care industry: Curb your enthusiasm? The Milbank Quarterly, 96(1), 57–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12312
View in Google Scholar
19. Butler, M. (2016). Insights from Switzerland’s pension system. In O. S. Mitchell & R.
View in Google Scholar
20. C. Shea (Eds.), Reimagining pensions: The next 40 years (pp. 247–273). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755449.003.0013
View in Google Scholar
21. Carlson, R. C. (2016). The new rules of retirement: Strategies for a secure future. John Wiley & Sons.
View in Google Scholar
22. Chen, A., & Rach, M. (2022). A note on financial fairness in tontines with mixed cohorts. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4009770
View in Google Scholar
23. Chen, L., & Xu, X. (2020). Effect evaluation of the Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) system on the health care of the elderly: A review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 13, 863–875. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s270454
View in Google Scholar
24. Cohen, M., Feder, J., & Favreault, M. (2018). A new public-private partnership: Catastrophic public and front-end private LTC insurance. Urban Institute and LTSS Center @uMass Boston. https://www.umb.edu/media/umassboston/contentassets/gerontologyinstitute/Public-Catastrophic-Insurance-Paper-for-Bipartisan-Policy-Center-1-25-2018.pdf
View in Google Scholar
26. Connolly, M. R., & Seymour, E. (2015). Why theories of change matter. WCER Working Paper, 2015-2. https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2015_02.pdf
View in Google Scholar
27. Cowdell, F. (2010). The care of older people with dementia in acute hospitals. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 5(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-3743.2010.00208.x
View in Google Scholar
28. Crawford, R., & O’Dea, C. (2020). Household portfolios and financial preparedness for retirement. Quantitative Economics, 11(2), 637–670. https://doi.org/10.3982/qe725
View in Google Scholar
29. Denuit, M., Lucas, N., & Pitacco, E. (2019). Pricing and reserving in LTC insurance. In E. Dupourqué, F. Planchet, & N. Sator (Eds.), Actuarial aspects of long term care (pp. 129–158). Springer.
View in Google Scholar
32. Dhillon, L., & Vaca, S. (2018). Refining theories of change. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 14(30), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i30.496
View in Google Scholar
33. Dörbecker, R., & Böhmann, T. (2013). The concept and effects of service modularity—a literature review. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2013.22
View in Google Scholar
34. Dror, D. M., & Preker, A. S. (Eds.). 2002. Social reinsurance: A new approach to sustainable community health financing. World Bank Publications.
View in Google Scholar
35. Fávaro-Moreira, N. C., Krausch-Hofmann, S., Matthys, C., Vereecken, C., Vanhauwaert, E., Declercq, A., Bekkering, G. E., & Duyck, J. (2016). Risk factors for malnutrition in older adults: A systematic review of the literature based on longitudinal data. Advances in Nutrition, 7(3), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.011254
View in Google Scholar
36. Felfernig, A., Isak, K., Kreutler, G., Kruggel, T., & Teppan, E. (2006). Knowledge representations for the interactive selling of financial services. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 5(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-006-0042-9
View in Google Scholar
38. Gatzert, N., Huber, C., & Schmeiser, H. (2011). On the valuation of investment guarantees in unit-linked life insurance: A customer perspective. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice, 36(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2010.35
View in Google Scholar
39. Gelder, S., & Johnson, D. (1997). Long-term care insurance: A market update. Health Insurance Association of America.
View in Google Scholar
40. Greenwood, R. M., & Vissing-Jorgensen, A. (2018). The impact of pensions and insurance on global yield curves. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper, 18–109. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3196068
View in Google Scholar
41. Gupta, A. (2012). Unit Linked Insurance Products (ULIPs)—insurance or investment? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.276
View in Google Scholar
42. Hagemejer, K. (2018). The adequacy of reformed pension systems. Social Insurance. Theory and Practice, 136(1), 21–47.
View in Google Scholar
44. Hieber, P., & Lucas, N. (2022). Modern life-care tontines. ASTIN Bulletin, 52(2), 563– 589. https://doi.org/10.1017/asb.2022.6
View in Google Scholar
45. Huebner, S. S., & Black, K. (1982). Life insurance (10th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
View in Google Scholar
46. Hurwitz, A., & Mitchell, O. (2022). Financial regret at older ages and longevity awareness. NBER Working Paper, 30696. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30696
View in Google Scholar
47. James, E., & Vittas, D. (2000). Annuity markets in comparative perspective: Do consumers get their money’s worth? Policy Research Working Papers 2493. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2493
View in Google Scholar
48. Kemayou, L., Guebou Tadjuidje, F. & Madiba, M. (2011). Tontine et banque en contexte camerounais. La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 3–4(249–250), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.3917/rsg.249.163
View in Google Scholar
49. King, J. (2021). Expanding theory-based evaluation: Incorporating value creation in a theory of change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 89, 101963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101963
View in Google Scholar
50. Kofoworola, O., Dodd, N., Boyano, A., Konstantas, A., Wolf, O., Alessia, L., & Ossola, E. (2019). Development of EU ecolabel criteria for retail financial products. European Commission Joint Research Center.
View in Google Scholar
51. Lambregts, T. R., & Schut, F. T. (2020). Displaced, disliked and misunderstood: A systematic review of the reasons for low uptake of long-term care insurance and life annuities. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 17, 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2020.100236
View in Google Scholar
52. Łyskawa, K. (2004). Starość a ryzyko emerytalne w systemie zabezpieczenia emerytalnego. In H. Worach-Kordus (Ed.), Ubezpieczenia społeczne i na życie. Stan i perspektywy (pp. 29–50). Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi.
View in Google Scholar
53. Mahayni, A., & Muck, M. (2017). The benefit of life insurance contracts with capped index participation when stock prices are subject to jump risk. Review of Derivatives Research, 20(3), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-017-9131-9
View in Google Scholar
54. Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.2.142
View in Google Scholar
55. Milevsky, M. A. (2006). The calculus of retirement income: Financial models for pension annuities and life insurance. Cambridge University Press.
View in Google Scholar
56. Milevsky, M. A., & Salisbury, T. S. (2015). Optimal retirement income tontines. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2015.05.002
View in Google Scholar
57. Mitchell, O. S., & Utkus, S. P. (2012). Lessons from behavioral finance for retirement plan design. In O. S. Mitchell and S. P. Utkus (Eds.), Pension design and structure: New lessons from behavioural finance. Oxford University Press.
View in Google Scholar
58. Myles, J. (2002). A new social contract for the elderly? In G. Esping-Andersen (Ed.), Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 130–172). https://doi.org/10.1093/0199256438.003.0005
View in Google Scholar
59. Nguyen, H. T., Nguyen, H., Nguyen, N. D., & Phan, A. (2018). Determinants of customer satisfaction and loyalty in Vietnamese life-insurance setting. Sustainability, 10(4), 1151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041151
View in Google Scholar
60. Nurittamont, W. (2021). Enhancing the factors’ influence on purchasing decision of endowment insurance: Case of testing mediate and moderate variables. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(7), 1–11.
View in Google Scholar
61. Rajasekhar, D., Kesavan, S., & Manjula, R. (2017). Are our contributory pension schemes failing the poor? Economic and Political Weekly, 52(27), 77–85.
View in Google Scholar
62. Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What’s the difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3
View in Google Scholar
63. Ribeiro, P. C. C., Almada, D. S. Q., Souto, J. F., & Lourenço, R. A. (2018). Permanência no mercado de trabalho e satisfação com a vida na velhice. Ciência and Saúde Coletiva, 23, 2683–2692. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018238.20452016
View in Google Scholar
Rokas, I., & Siafarika, A. (2019). The notion of insurance-based investment products. In P. Marano & I. Rokas (Eds.), Distribution of insurance-based investment products: The EU regulation and the liabilities (pp. 3–25). Springer.
View in Google Scholar
65. Schmidt-Jochmann, C., & Gröbner, M. (2012). Aufbau und Betrieb von shared service centers–eine Versicherungsperspektive. Controlling and Management, 56(3), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1365/s12176-012-0644-7
View in Google Scholar
66. Skipper, H. D., & Black, K. (2000). Life and health insurance (12th ed.). Prentice Hall. Sohn, H. (2016). Racial and ethnic disparities in health insurance coverage: Dynamics of gaining and losing coverage over the life-course. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9416-y
View in Google Scholar
68. Stolze, M., Field, S., & Kleijer, P. (2000). Combining configuration and evaluation mechanisms to support the selection of modular insurance products. 8th European Conference on Information Systems, 858–865.
View in Google Scholar
69. Super N., Burstein A., Davis J., & Servat C. (2022). Innovative strategies to finance and deliver long-term care. In O. S. Mitchell (Ed.), New models for managing lon- gevity risk (pp. 122–149). Oxford University Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192859808.003.0008
View in Google Scholar
70. Szczepański, M., Ratajczak-Leszczyńska, J., Bielawska, K., Rutecka-Góra, J., & Pieńkowska-Kamieniecka, S. (2022). Poland: A pension system under constant (re)construction. In J. Kolaczkowski, M. Maher, Y. Stevens, & J. M. Werbrouck (Eds.), The evolution of supplementary pensions: 25 years of pension reform (pp. 229–256). Edward Elgar Publishing.
View in Google Scholar
71. Turner, J. A. (2010). Pension policy: The search for better solutions. WE Upjohn Institute. Wang, H., Switlick, K., Ortiz, C., Zurita, B., & Connor, C. (2012). Health insurance hand-book: How to make it work (vol. 219). World Bank Publications.
View in Google Scholar
73. Wettstein, G., Munnell, A., Hou, W., & Gok, N. (2021). The value of annuities. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3797822
View in Google Scholar
74. Valentin, E. K. (2001). Swot analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501891
View in Google Scholar
76. Yu, J., Qiu, Y., & He, Z. (2018). Is universal and uniform health insurance better for China? Evidence from the perspective of supply-induced demand. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 15(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133118000385
View in Google Scholar
77. Zelizer, V. A. R. (2017). Morals and markets. The development of life insurance in the United States. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/zeli18334
View in Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Zhang, W., Wang, C., Tao, W., Dou, Q., & Yang, Y. (2018). Sarcopenia as a predictor of hospitalization among older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0878-0
View in Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kamila Bielawska, Krzysztof Łyskawa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
