We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,225)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (420)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (803)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (275)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • What You Think About the Value of Life Is All Wrong

    September 25, 2018 by Allison Bell

    Three economists have come up with a reason why financial services professionals — and life insurers, and public health experts — have such a hard time helping people: how just about everyone measures the value of life is completely wrong.

    David Bauer and two colleagues make that case in a new working paper published behind a paywall on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research. A copy of the paper is available here.

    A worker paper is a draft of an academic paper that has not yet gone through a full peer review process.

    Click HERE to read the full story via ThinkAdvisor.

    Bauer and his colleagues argue in their paper that the fundamental problem with most analyses of efforts to improve people’s health, and to help people live longer, is that experts assume that everyone places roughly the same value on a year of life.

    In the real world, “we find a given mortality improvement may be worth more, not less, to patients facing shorter lives,” the economists write.

    The economists developed and tested that idea using large collections of real-world survey data that are part of the Future Elderly Model, a popular system that helps economists analyze issues that affect people over the age of 50 who have health problems.

    One thing the economists found is that, when people want to leave money to their children or others, that “bequest motive” lowers the value of a year of life before age 65 and increases the value of a year of life at older ages.

    Increased Risk of Clean Living

    The economists also found that annuitizing retirement savings, or converting savings into a stream of retirement income, raises the value of life for the elderly.

    When people buy annuities, “this should cause them to spend more on health care and invest more in healthy behaviors, which, in turn, should ultimately manifest in increased life expectancy,” the economists write.

    Insurers typically think of the “moral hazard” involved with consumers buying insurance as the risk the insureds will take foolish risks, as a result of the insureds’ awareness that the insurance will protect them against stupidity.

    For annuity issuers, the economists write, “moral hazard” translates into the annuity owners taking steps to live longer.

    The economists cite earlier studies showing that “people with more generous annuities live longer than those with less generous annuities.”

    The economists’ own analysis suggests that owning an annuity increases the value of life even when annuities are actuarially fair. Annuities have that effect “because they protect against the risk of outliving one’s wealth,” the economists write.

    Year-of-Life Pricing

    The economists say two common factors are responsible for making some years of life worth more than others: Few people know how long they will live, and many people who use annuities annuitize just part of their assets.

    If people can annuitize just part of their savings, and they are not sure how long they will live, then modeling shows that an extra year of life will be about 50% more valuable to a sick 70-year-old than it is to a healthy 70-year-old, the economists report.

    “We calculate that — holding wealth constant —  a sick individual’s willingness to pay for medical treatment is several times greater than a healthy individual’s willingness to pay for preventive care that improves preventive care by the same amount,” the economists write.

    Social Security: Wellness  Incentive Gorilla

    The economists note that Social Security and other countries’ public pension programs act like lifetime annuities.

    The fact that the programs protect people against outliving their wealthy may increase the value of post-retirement years of life enough to lead to increased spending on post-retirement public health programs, such as Medicare, the economists write.

    The economists speculate that the effect of Social Security on the value of years of post-retirement life may be one reason many countries have been spending so much more on health care.

    Why Tech Companies Might Care

    The economist say expanded use of annuities might help companies marketing life-extension technology increase sales, by easing consumer fears about outliving wealth and making years of post-retirement life more valuable.

    Originally Posted at ThinkAdvisor on September 21, 2018 by Allison Bell.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency