New sets of LTCI data reveal continued resistance to perceived expense

[LostDollar]

But make no mistake, the LTCi buyer today has money.

Well, at least enough to pay the premium for the product which they have chosen.

The point of the article is that people do not buy long term care insurance primarily because of the expense.

I believe that Brian posts articles, in part to elicit comment. Mr Ed commented-basically that the range of affordability for LTC products today could cover a broader range of customers than that expressed by the article.

Business model > write policies efficiently
"Expanding range of viable potential customers?" Not sure what your point is?

If the old ways of hunting by stalking (door knocking, buying leads, buying lists, telephoning) are replaced by using computer means to hunt by snaring, many tasks previously done manually can now be done with computer tools, allowing for effective and efficient need evaluation and efficient policy writing, even for lower asset base consumers.

A Seth Godin purple cow concept of the salesperson focusing directly on the consumer's need rather than a prequalifier of how many assets they have.

 

[ltcadviser]

concept of the salesperson focusing directly on the consumer's need rather than a prequalifier of how many assets they have.

We all focus on the consumer's needs. This is not about anything relating to asset prequalification. You completely miss the point. This is about who I see calling me in high volume everyday to buy policies.

 

[LostDollar]

We all focus on the consumer's needs. This is not about anything relating to asset prequalification. You completely miss the point. This is about who I see calling me in high volume everyday to buy policies.

I'm sorry, but that is a false statement. YOU have CHOSEN to make it about asset prequalification. You have expended 6 posts demeaning your most respected competitor (a 20 year veteran of the LTCi market) because he chooses to view that market differently than you do. Although there is plenty of room in the market for both points of view, you commanded your competitor to follow your approach to the market.

Better yet Scott, just target the $2 million - $5 million net worth households.

Families with $2-5 million want to avoid burdening children and family just as much as the people that have no money. They derive just as much benefit as the households with modest assets. Work with the families that have the money.

I suggest you begin a new career as a VCR salesman.

Partnership policies are just a joint marketing program between private insurance companies and the State Medicaid offices. There was a study done by CT that showed out of 50000 Partnership policies only 39 people received Medicaid benefits. People that purchase LTCi are high net worth to start with. $2 Million ++ in assets. These buyers are not interested in Medicaid planning. They are buying policies to be responsible to their families; to remain independent and to receive care at home or within private pay assisted living. Not sure why you feel State Partnership benefits within LTCI policies are a motivating factor to purchase coverage. Consumers are buying the insurance to avoid Medicaid not to ultimately apply for Medicaid. You have this all backwards, Scott.

Well, I do not receive many inquiries from people with assets less than 1 million. Most people that call me have $2-5M.


And who says a traditional ltc policy is better for a client than a hybrid? You? I would hope you would let your client decide.


I have been telling you for 4 years the market was changing. Get on the bus and grab a seat.

The market is defined by my experience.

LTCi is a high net worth product. The buyers of LTCi have 2-3-4 Million. These are the people calling me every day. And they are buying hybrids and traditional LTCi. If you are not speaking regularly to households with assets in the millions you are speaking to the wrong households. We are not in the final expense market!

 

[LostDollar]

Partnership policies are just a joint marketing program between private insurance companies and the State Medicaid offices. There was a study done by CT that showed out of 50000 Partnership policies only 39 people received Medicaid benefits.

One possible explanation could be that partnership policies are achieving a goal which one might reasonably expect the State Medicaid Offices to have for the program. The article also suggests that an average cost of care for someone over 65 is $138K. If the partnership program places more affordable LTCi policies in the $250-$600K benefit range in force than would otherwise be present, it is possible that a lot of people were not in care long enough to exhaust benefits and get to the Medicaid qualification questions. That could easily change as more of us both get older and live longer than our predecessors.

People that purchase LTCi are high net worth to start with. $2 Million ++ in assets. These buyers are not interested in Medicaid planning. They are buying policies to be responsible to their families; to remain independent and to receive care at home or within private pay assisted living. Not sure why you feel State Partnership benefits within LTCI policies are a motivating factor to purchase coverage. Consumers are buying the insurance to avoid Medicaid not to ultimately apply for Medicaid. You have this all backwards, Scott.

I think I missed the place where Mr_Ed said purchasing a partnership policy is an application for Medicaid. Medicaid planning and LTCi premium economies are financial planning considerations which would not necessarily have to lead to Medicaid applications.

I believe that Mr and Mrs Ed have a more subtle and astute approach to drawing purchasers out of the marketplace than you give them credit for.

 

[LostDollar]

One other comment I have:

I have been asked about why I post. In this thread, on this issue, there is a very simple answer. For 60 years I have been denied access to financial tools and/or information by asset based redlining. I understand about the desires to make a profit, the costs of running large consulting organizations, a lot products charging high fees, a lot of products not being useful to someone who has little money, and so on. I don't necessarily like it, but I have to accept the realities of the situations.

For this topic, in this thread, the reason I have been so persistent in my responses is that I belong to a demographic which Mr_Ed's organization indicates a willingness to serve and which advisor's organization finds to be a generally undesirable consumer. Mr Ed's posts suggest a solution to a problem which has been stressing me for over a year. While an agent is certainly entitled to express their opinion about what is a wise business practice, and what is not; I take strong exception to Mr_Ed being told again and again and again and ....
to drop my demographic because advisor believes advisor's experience says they don't buy LTCi and Mr_Ed's experience to the contrary is invalid.

 

[ltcadviser]

I am not pre-qualifying here, nor am I telling anyone to not work with everyone. Just stating my experience as to who are buying the policies. My encouragement to a fellow adviser to be OPEN to selling hybrid LTC policies need not be misconstrued as instruction to not write traditional LTC Partnership policies. Let's not get this twisted.

 

[LostDollar]

The article talks about subcategories of the group of people who do not have LTCi. I don't think it gave a general to-from age range for the overall group, or indicated what percent of the total population the group that doesn't have the LTC insurance might be.