New MassMutual LTC

[Tothetop]

Well, they might not quit selling product.
Captive agents will still sell it. The agents might have to sell less benefit to bring the premiums down, but the captive agents will do what they have to do. Mass Mutual uses Fidelity Investments to sell its hybrid CareChoice One policy which also is not competitive. Fidelity is not allowed to sell any other LTC product. I would bet that Mass Mutual will open up access to this product to Fidelity Investments next.

So, Mass Mutual will market to Fidelity accountholders. NY Life will market to AARP members. Often, marketing wins, not pricing. Even if something is 2x more expensive.

I waited for Carechoice One to make its way to NY, as we dont have many hybrid options, and when it came in 2017 I was so disappointed. Elimination period, single premium, and the age limits just didnt make sense.

There "peculiar" inflation protection (or lack thereof) I kind of understood. It seemed they believed most people would use their benefits in their 80's so you can either get it all now (with no inflation protection) or get it later with inflation protection and continue to have your benefits increase as the policy ages.

 

[ltcadviser]

Their "peculiar" inflation protection (or lack thereof) .......

High premium, low LTC benefit, Lack of inflation protection- Mass Mutual wins a free ride on your money. Zero risk. And then they turn the sales machine over to their in-house agents and Fidelity Investments.

 

[kpbdy99]

Just like NWM & NYL, they want to sell this to their high-net worth clients, so being competitive, price-wise, isnt a priority.

 

[ltcadviser]

Just like NWM & NYL, they want to sell this to their high-net worth clients, so being competitive, price-wise, isnt a priority.

Price will never be a priority when insurance companies employ captive agents that are contracted to solely sell and market its insurance products.

Employees will sell the policies they are told to sell at any price, or they will not stay employed or make any money.

 

[David Block]

It's nice to know that the plan is pricey (up to 75% higher) but are the benefits worth the additional cost? Is there anything 'special' about the plan or is it a cookie cutter approach? Do they pay cash benefits or is it reimbursement, etc., etc.? Regardless of distribution, the plan still needs to be viable. And remember, cost is only an issue in the absence of value. So the primary question to always ask, IMHO, is are the benefits and cost on a comparable level?

 

[Mr_Ed]

It's nice to know that the plan is pricey (up to 75% higher) but are the benefits worth the additional cost? Is there anything 'special' about the plan or is it a cookie cutter approach? Do they pay cash benefits or is it reimbursement, etc., etc.? Regardless of distribution, the plan still needs to be viable. And remember, cost is only an issue in the absence of value. So the primary question to always ask, IMHO, is are the benefits and cost on a comparable level?

no

 

[ltcadviser]

It's nice to know that the plan is pricey (up to 75% higher) but are the benefits worth the additional cost? Is there anything 'special' about the plan or is it a cookie cutter approach? Do they pay cash benefits or is it reimbursement, etc., etc.? Regardless of distribution, the plan still needs to be viable. And remember, cost is only an issue in the absence of value. So the primary question to always ask, IMHO, is are the benefits and cost on a comparable level?

Ughh... no.