As the pandemic spread, images of nursing homes and assisted care facilities flooded the media. The sick and elderly were particularly vulnerable to this deadly virus and so many families were cut off from their parents and grandparents in the hopes of protecting them from exposure to COVID-19.
With this in mind, LIMRA surveyed more than 2,000 Americans to determine if the pandemic has shifted their thoughts about long-term care and insurance.
In January 2021, more than a quarter of Americans (26%) said it was very likely they would consider a life combination product (a life insurance policy with a long-term care insurance component) if they were shopping for life insurance. This is 50% higher than in 2019. Overall 6 in 10 consumers said it is at least somewhat likely they would consider a life combination product if shopping for life insurance (see chart below).
While Millennials expressed the most interest in life combination products—35% said it was extremely likely they would consider life combination products—Baby Boomers are decidedly less enthusiastic. Just 17% say it was extremely likely they would consider these products and nearly a third said it was not likely at all.
“Baby Boomers, who are approaching or in retirement, may not feel the need for life insurance or may mistakenly believe Medicare will cover LTC expenses,” said Karen Terry, senior research director. “Younger individuals, however, may find life combination products appealing because they mitigate the financial risk of dying unexpectedly and the costs of long-term care.”
The top five reasons people give for considering a combination life insurance product include:
- Concern that LTC costs may deplete or exceed my savings: 35%
- It is a more economical use of my current assets: 33%
- Benefits will be paid even if I don’t incur LTC expenses: 29%
- LTC insurance (on its own) is too expensive: 26%
- I can’t afford two separate (life and LTC) policies – 25%
The study found consumers facing high levels of stress as caregivers for adult relatives and/or children showed the greatest interest in life combination products. More than a third (36%) of caregivers with high stress levels said they were very likely to consider buying a life combination product, compared with just 21% of those who said they had low stress levels.
“These consumers recognize better than anyone the demands of providing care for aging parents or other relatives with declining health,” noted Terry. “Their experiences as caregivers make life combination products, which offer financial protection against their own long-term care needs, that much more attractive.”
Consumers are attracted to life combinations products for a number of reasons. From a product design standpoint, consumers place the greatest value on having the option to receive care at home or a facility. The study found 6 in 10 consumers would prefer to receive long-term care at home (unconditionally or until they have to move to a facility). This preference increases among older consumers.
Life combination products offer consumers the ability to address multiple financial risks they face as they age. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, someone turning 65 today has almost a 70% chance of needing some type of LTC services and support in their remaining years. Life combination products can cover the costs of LTC so that a family’s savings and financial security are not put in jeopardy. It’s just another way life insurance protects a family’s financial future.
LIMRA is leading the Help Protect Our Families campaign, an industrywide effort to raise awareness about the importance of life insurance and help carriers and distributors address the growing coverage gap in the United States.
I participate in a few consumer forums (mostly about Medicare) but someone asked about these combo plans.
I call them Swiss Army Knife because they are supposed to cover almost anything. My impression is they don't really live up to the hype, but I am not an LTC guy so I really don't know.
Someone (agent) mentioned the underwriting is more lax vs a straight LTC policy, so a person could be declined for LTC insurance but approved for a combo plan.
True or false?
It is my perception that the policy language in a combo plan might be more strict vs a straight LTC policy. In other words, the LTC policy might honor a claim that is denied by a combo plan.
Is the LTC benefit baked into the policy or added as a rider? Does the normal 2 yr contestable period for life also track the LTC benefit?
I probably have more questions but this is a start.
Bob,
Underwriting can be easier, can be harder. Depends on the specific applicant’s health history and the specific underwriter.
The benefit triggers are the same with all policies, traditional and hybrid, that adhere to IRC 7702(b)
There is a 2 year period to contest a claim.
The riders are:
Acceleration of Death Benefit
Extension of Benefit
Inflation Protection
There are some very good policies available today.
And THIS is why I leave this arena to folks like you.
Thanks, Jack!
Bob, generally speaking, the hybrid products are the wave of the future in LTC protection. As Jack pointed out, benefit triggers are the same if the policy falls under 7702(b).
But understand that there are different "combo plans" out there.
Some are designed to mimic traditional LTCI coverage as much as possible, such as LFGs MoneyGuard. The underwriting on these is very similar to traditional LTCI. Its essentially a UL chassis, but the benefits are focused on LTC and provide a seperate benefit pool for the LTC benefits. The focus is not the DB/CV.
Then there are Life Policies that are a life policy first, and LTC protection second. Some of these fall under 7702, others do not. Some of these use a separate benefit pool, others use the DB. Some of these charge extra for the LTC/Chronic Rider, others do not.
The main danger is if the impairments are required to be "permanent" or not. Most LTC claims are not for the rest of ones life, especially initial claims. But many non 7702 policies require the impairment to be permanent for the rest of their life, per doctors expectations. That provision excludes many possible LTC claims.
All 7702 policies do not require the impairments to be permanent. But with the others you have to read the details. More and more life carriers are removing the requirement of permanent impairment. But most non 7702 policies still require it.
So if you give just 1 piece of advice to people considering this, tell them to make sure permanent impairment is not required for claims to be paid.
i hear a lot of agents & even wholesalers use this swiss army knife terminology & many times the agent & client dont realize that the more they use 1 of the tools on the swiss army knife, they are also wearing down or eliminating the other tools in the swiss army knife. I hear agents sometime say you can use your hybrid accelerated death benefit for LTC costs & for death benefit & for supplemental retirement. That really isnt an accurate depiction as it is more fair to say "or" not "and". If I take distributions in my 60s to supplement retirement, I am also reducing the not only the cash value but also the death benefit & the Accelerated Death benefit for Chronic Illness. It wont be there for "LTC type expenses" if I have emptied the benefit from over using the other tools in the swiss army knife.
Thanks for the info.
Years ago I wrote life insurance, annuities and DI but that was not my primary focus. As each of these lines became more complicated I realized there was a need for me to decide what I wanted to be when I grew up. Those 3 lines, and later the LTC market, are (to me at least) extremely complicated. An agent can quickly find themselves in over their head and make a big mess of it.
When someone asks for a life insurance quote, I will only quote term, standard rates. No funny stuff. No guessing if the person is preferred, super-preferred or immortal.
Perhaps that is why I have not taken an application in probably a dozen years.
When CI policies first came on the scene most were in fact term life insurance with a CI rider.
And most, or at least the ones I saw, were garbage. Lot's of weasel language that would allow them to deny a claim. If they did pay a claim the DB was reduced by an equal amount.
If the policy covered heart, cancer, stroke and you had a "qualifying" stroke the claim was paid (lump sum) and the CI rider was terminated.
I really saw a need for CI but most were life policies that COULD result in the claim benefit being taxable. One carrier (Omaha??) had a true CI plan on a health insurance chassis. Great product (at least I thought so) but it was hard to compete with CI on a life chassis because the MOO premium was so much higher.
Underwriting was challenging including having the agent collect a specimen at POS.
Thanks @Allen Trent , @scagnt83 and @ltcadviser for your input. Just a few reasons why this forum is such a great resource for agents who are not afraid to ask and willing to learn from the masters.
Bob,
LTC is so easy. In comparison, Medicare supplement and Medicare advantage plans, that stuff is complicated
MA plans are complicated and a PITA. That's why I stick with Medigap, the simple stuff.
Most of my sales have a short gestation period, 60 days or less and most are not underwritten. Low . . . hanging . . . fruit . . .
Plus I don't have a $50,000 website like you do . . .
But thanks for all the feedback!
LTC is short gestation and low hanging fruit too.
Interest in combo products is spiking in a large part because a ton of life agents would much rather sell them than to deal with real LTC insurance, so that's all they're presenting. The 7702b products are the best hybrids, and for the most part are good products, if more expensive than traditional LTC. The 101g plans – the chronic illness accelerated benefit plans – are inferior. The unfortunate part is that most consumers who wind up buying a hybrid plan aren't being educated about the LTC Partnership, and don't understand how the accelerated benefit plans actually work at claim time. In many cases they're paying more for inferior coverage.
agree on most everything you said. only item i wonder about is the blanket statement that 7702b are for sure better than 101g.
dont 7702b plans require you to 1st accelerate your life insurance death benefit before gaining access to the extension of LTC benefits? for most nursing home stays or needs for care, most are short term. wouldnt a 4% 101g plan have more benefit per month than most 7702b for those shorter needs. wouldnt 7702b only play out better for the longer stays of more than 2 years or so when a person would ever get into the extension of benefits of the 7702g?
I am more of a novice on this topic, but the way I understood the Extension of benefits plans, they are only for sure superior if the person has longer than average claim need.
Well, remember we are doing long term care planning here. Not short term care planning or average stay in a nursing home care planning. 🙂
True. Fair enough & great point. My only thought is many dont offer as much monthly benefit that the 4% ADB CIA does in some cases.
I still wonder if stand alone LTC & separate no lapse UL/IUL life insurance policy can work in some of those situations for similar premiums
Similar premiums today, yes. Similar premiums 10-20 years from now, no.
I think we are at a point in history that the premium difference is about the same, possibly even skewed higher for the traditional route.
Its hard to compare the two options though, because of the guaranteed utilization of the hybrid solution. Most people dont mind paying extra if they are guaranteed to utilize the benefits at some point, especially if it provides a cash value or return of premium. Its a mindset of dollars being used vs. dollars being spent.
Yup, that makes sense. I struggle with the extension of benefit hybrid compared to Acceleration of death benefit only. Saw a client recently considering the 2 options. The face on the ADB CIA was $250k with 4% monthly, so it could kick out $10k for 25 months. the extension of benefit product was $4167 per month for 6 years on like a $100k face policy with added $200k of LTC dollars after 100k exhausted.
Considering the extension of benefit required the death benefit to be accelerated 1st before getting access to the bucket of LTC dollars, after 25 months, the extension of benefit policy would have only paid out $100k & another 3 years to get to a total of $250k .
It just didnt seem to add much in total potential claim for the same dollars of premium for a total potential of $300k of claim dollars compare to $250k. Possibly, the rep did something wrong in their illustrations & the extension of benefit product should have provided more per month.
Companies are charging 25-33% in top of the GUL premium for the 4% ADB rider. If I am paying $10000 a year in premium for x amount of death benefit that my estate owns, do I really want or need to pay 30% more premium for simply the right to accelerate the death benefit before death. The net amount at risk is still the same with or without the ADB rider and it is a decreasing net amount at risk the longer I live. My estate will get the death benefit when I die. I would definitely rather buy a living benefit policy with extension of benefits rider AND 5% compound inflation protection on the pool. The compound inflation factors are the key to the hybrids, especially when you get 5% compound. Now I own an increasing benefit policy to keep up with rising health care costs.
Do communicate that in those terms to a client?
I agree 100% and have made that point to both advisors and clients and I normally get blank stares/silence.
It's like they don't understand that LTC is about asset protection and a GUL, accelerated or not, is essentially a wash at the start that only gets worse.
Yes, I told a guy yesterday to not buy the LTC Rider with Nationwide for a $1,000,000 15 Pay GUL. He was shocked when he saw how much the GUL premium got reduced once I removed the LTC Rider. He could buy so much more LTC benefits in a separate policy with the freed up premium in addition to the million dollar policy he wanted.
Imo, it is not an apples to apples comparison. Also, paying for a Rider on a life policy is quickly becoming an antiquated thing.
A better comparison would be a Chronic Rider that does not require permanent impairment, and does not add extra cost, or significant extra cost. Ameritas/AIG/NA/etc.
But even doing an apples to apples comparison with Riders is close to impossible now. Some act exactly the same, but most have their own unique pros/cons. Especially when you are comparing a WL rider vs. GUL rider vs. IUL rider.
You can make product to product comparisons (exact carrier/product vs carrier/product). But blanket statements about suitability of hybrid vs. Rider will almost never be an accurate statement.
—-
A lot depends on the expected LTC need and likelihood of utilization, and the clients objectives.
Jack approaches this as "Long Term Care Planning". But many clients and advisors approach it as "asset protection".
The goals of the two approaches are different. Just like the goals of a hybridLTC vs. Life/w Rider are different. If your sole focus is LTC benefits, you will always look at the Rider solution in a negative way. But if your focus is on comprehensive asset protection that is situation specific, then you start to see uses for the Riders in many situations.
LTC Benefit:
The hybrid policy will always pay more LTC benefits per dollar of premium.
Death Benefit:
The Rider policy will pay 3x-5x more in Death Benefit if LTC Rider is not used.
The hybrid policy is essentially a return of premium death benefit.
Cash Value:
Hybrid policy is essentially a return of premium CV.
A WL/Rider can provide 2%-4% growth of premiums paid. Same with IUL/Rider.
So if a client feels they are likely to use LTC benefits, a hybrid policy is most often best.
If a client is uncertain about the likelihood of using LTC benefits, then a Rider can often be a good fit as it provides better alternative options if LTC benefits are not used.
Some are. Others put it on the policy for free now.
Then the GUL might be very overpriced, as many have become in this interest rate environment.
When I first started selling these policies, I thought they were great, but once I realized just how much the other purported benefits were being reduced, when used, I dropped them like like a pair of handcuffs.
If somebody wants an LTC or a DI policy, that's what they're going to get from me. I'll leave the combo products to the Car Salesmen of the life insurance world.
No one is a car salesman. The market has already moved and spoken, Bill.
You do you.
You will have a line out your door shorter than the line outside the Betamax salesman’s door.
:laugh:
BUMP
BUMP
Who are the GUL and Term combo players in the middle family market?
GrassyAss in advance
Who are the GUL and Term combo players in the middle family market?
GrassyAss in advance
For GUL: Nationwide, AIG, Pru, Lincoln, and most of the usual suspects.
Nationwide seems to be a "go to" both because of their pricing and the structure of their rider.
For GUL: Nationwide, AIG, Pru, Lincoln, and most of the usual suspects.
Nationwide seems to be a "go to" both because of their pricing and the structure of their rider.
Ameritas has Chronic with no permanent requirement on their Term and WL. The WL can compete with most any GUL. No extra charge for the Rider, only available down to T4. 50% of DB for Chronic, 25% for Critical, 90% for Terminal.
Ameritas has Chronic with no permanent requirement on their Term and WL. The WL can compete with most any GUL. No extra charge for the Rider, only available down to T4. 50% of DB for Chronic, 25% for Critical, 90% for Terminal.
LFG has one that does not require permanent impairment? Or did you mean MG?
LFG has one that does not require permanent impairment? Or did you mean MG?
Heard Nationwide is one of few that offers ADB CIA on their 2nd to die
Heard Nationwide is one of few that offers ADB CIA on their 2nd to die
Forgot to mention Guardian WL and Mass WL. Guardian has a lower priced option than Mass does. Guardian also offers a SWL w/ LTC Rider.
Forgot to mention Guardian WL and Mass WL. Guardian has a lower priced option than Mass does. Guardian also offers a SWL w/ LTC Rider.
I
I think it's really important to distinguish between REAL LTC hybrids – those with TQ LTC riders – and the CI/AB riders. Huge difference. A lot of agents are selling teh CI/AB riders and presenting them AS LTC riders. That's a problem. The REAL LTC hybrids are excellent products, the CI/AB riders are a swamp. I've used them, but ONLY when medical underwriting forces me into one to get some kind of solution for LTC expenses.
See that alot too. Gut tells me the true LTC extension is better than ADB CIA. However, then when I actually see the illustration & definition of the products, sometimes I think the ADB CIA is better in the majority of actual average stay of needing care.
IE. Securecare from Minnesota Life or the 2%/ 4% ADB CIA on their no lapse protection IUL. The Secure care requires you to empty your own death benefit first before getting access to the LTC extension bucket of Money. Plus, the monthly check available for claim is much lower compared to 4% of face on the ADB CIA. Lastly, if not used at all, the no lapse IUL had a better face amount.
Last one I saw seemed to look like a claim period of less than 4 years was better from ADB CIA. Stays longer than that were better on true LTC extension of benefit, but client would have more out of pocket each month for the shorter claim needs of 2 yrs or less.
I get that the extension of benefit could provide a slightly higher total claim payout for those with much longer than average need, but it seemed to come at a price of getting less money each month in the 2-4 year range.
The extension bucket of money will never even come into play for most people that don't require care for more than 3 years & then the extension bucket of money is still spread over another 3-4 years. From stats, aren't an extremely small number of care needs more than 4 years? At that point, why not just go with stand alone LTC, not a hybrid?
Am I understanding this correctly or am i missing something in the definition of the claim that differs between the product versionsh. Thanks for any corrections to my understanding
Yes, that's really what I was referring to, the life products with the Cr/Ci riders. I had a case recently where the guy didn't realize he had exhausted his benefits, and had very little life insurance left and due to his health will never qualify for life or ltc again.
He had no idea, the policy was sold to him as a life with ltc..not true.
I guess it really depends upon your focus. Are you selling life insurance, and bringing LTC into the discussion, or looking for true LTC protection, and using life insurance to get there? I confess, first of all, that I'm an LTC nerd, not a life insurance agent. IULs scare me. But, just for the hell of it, I went and ran a Securian Eclipse Protector II IUL with a $200K, level DB and a 4% LTC rider, 55-year old male, non-tobacco rates. Annual premium, $3,845. IF this guy triggers the CI benefit next year, he can draw $8K per month. In 30 years, when he's 85, he can draw $8K per month. Every penny paid for LTC reduces the DB, just like with a true hybrid. (maybe you can run that IUL with an increasing DB, but I couldn't figure out how.)
Same client, with Nationwide CareMatters II, same premium, payable to age 100, starts with $2,551 per month for LTC and $91,842 in his benefit pool. But at 85, he has $11,026 per month, and a benefit pool of $417K. If he dies at 85, without ever using LTC, the DB is $119K. So, I suppose if this guy goes on LTC claim early, the IUL wins in the sense that the monthly amount is higher, but at age 79, the monthly benefit on the hybrid surpasses that on the CI rider, and at 71 the benefit pool surpasses the $200K on the IUL.
So, the true LTC hybrid sucks as life insurance, on that I think we can agree. But from the standpoint of an LTC nerd, the true hybrid works better for real LTC protection. If my client has no NEED for a big DB (which will be reduced by the LTC benefits paid by either product, anyway) then my focus is on the best LTC protection in the time frame when the claim is most likely.
Great stuff. BTW, making am IUL an increasing death benefit won't impact as the ADB CIA is chosen at issue as a fixed amount as you may be choosing the rider to be less than 100% of life face amount. Plus, every claim distribution for ADB CIA decreases both the face amount & CV anyway.
I assume you have the inflation option on that Nationwide illustration. I don't recall if I ran that before on the Securecare I originally looked. When I lookedd at 58 year old female on 100k face, Securecare premium was $3325 a year for the base life, $1225 for Acceleration LTC & $900 for extension of benefit for total prem per year of $5400 & only locked in $4167 monthly claim amount for 6 years regardless of when they go on claim.
Protector IUL 300k face & 300k ADB CIA 4% is $5338 a yr. So, client could take $0 to $12k per month on claim. But for comparison to match Securecare of $4167 month, $300k would last exact same 72 months. Plus, it would give the flexibility of taking more & has way more options to pre pay to satisfy the no lapse guarantee or drop lump sums in rather than paying the fixed amount you chose at issue with Securecare
Maybe this is a bad example & true hybrids like Nationwide are superior. I just haven't dug in enough & can't get my mind around the example above. My gut tells me the true TQ hybrid is better because it is more of a true LTC
Thank you for all the info you gave
I recently spoke with a client who dropped his wife's traditional LTC policy and said he bought a life policy with LTC benefits…as did not want the premiums to be spent for nothing.. When he told me what he was paying for the $300K policy, it sounded too cheap to me, so I asked him to find his policy and let me know what he bought…as he no idea off hand, but it was sold to him by a "friend".
A few weeks later, when he had Mutual of Omaha send hom a copy of his policy…since he could not even find what he bought….it turned out to be an IUL that was only guaranteed to age 85, with free accelerated terminal and chronic illness riders.. The MoO product literature says since most people die before age 85, that it made sense to not provide longer guarantees, or it would be too expensive. The true LTC rider was not even added to the policy, just some convoluted language that says a lump sun percentage of the death benfit would be paid early if some criteria was met.
Anyway, the client had no idea that the policy could easily run out of gas at age 85. The traditonal LTC policy they dropped was about half the annual premium of the Mutual IUL….and at age 85 would have provided as much or more LTC benefit…and of course if she did not need care until age 93,would still be there. Of course the IUL was illustrated with 6% growth every year to hopefully keep it going.
Anyway, not sure if the agent that sold it to them is still a friend. Guess its better than nothing
Wow, that is disgusting & potentially against the law if it didn't follow the replacement laws in the state. Most of those free accelerated riders only allow a couple of claim submissions, not monthly & several don't even state what the cost will be to obtain the acceleration. $50k claim may reduce face by $55k or $60k, but not spelled out in the rider, so carrier can charge what they want.
If she has her policy, the application should be in back if the policy & might show whether intended to be replacement
Why didn't agent just sell a new no lapse UL or IUL for the difference in premium & keep the LTC active.
My money is on agent ignorance & maybe an upline that only cares about sales no matter the cost, etc
The client obviously did not know what they were getting…..and it was a trusted "friend" as the agent. They likely would not have paid the higher premium it was guaranteed to age 95+. I am wondering how Mutuial of Omaha packages the product with the "most people die before 85…so this makes sense" approach.
Here is the paragraph out of their Life Protection Advantage IUL brochuire:
When clients are looking for death benefit protection, they
want a policy that can last a lifetime. But, a fully-guaranteed
policy can be expensive. With Life Protection Advantage,
when the client pays the long-term no-lapse protection
premium, they receive a meaningful guarantee period at a
competitive price.
For most clients who are age 60 and under at issue and are
of average health, the no-lapse protection period will last up
to – or even beyond – their life expectancy. (Source: Social
Security Administration, Estimates from the 2016 Trustees
Report.)
Sad, but it happens….and only the good die young!!! :biggrin:
Want to make money, but you're not sure where to start? Do not worry we are ready to help you.
And you are not alone. More than a quarter (45%) of people worldwide earn additional income from surveys (JetBlue) daily for a total of $500. Finish our survey and win a $500 JetBlue gift card now! .
By rounding up 25 legitimate ways to make money — at home or out and about — and listing each option based on how quickly you can get started and get paid. While most people prefer fast money.
bit.ly/3J5mDNs
Want to make money, but you're not sure where to start? Do not worry we are ready to help you.
And you are not alone. More than a quarter (45%) of people worldwide earn additional income from surveys (JetBlue) daily for a total of $500. Finish our survey and win a $500 JetBlue gift card now! .
By rounding up 25 legitimate ways to make money — at home or out and about — and listing each option based on how quickly you can get started and get paid. While most people prefer fast money.
visit >> bit.ly/3J5mDNs
Terrible for a product needing & wanting LTC type protection. I honestly hate all those no lapse for shorter than 100/120. It is really just a level term.
Is there a chance the client can bump the premium to get a longer no lapse guarantee.
I educated them on what they bought…..the rest is up to them and their "friend":)
Its a UL…so by definition you can adjust the premium. I am just not an IUL fan, and the often inflated promises that they show.
No, not all no lapse products can have more premium paid to extend the guarantee. Some have the more limited no lapse like age 85 as max while others do have age 120. Way to sneaky, have literally seen agents replace no lapse to age 120 with no lapse to 85 saying "why pay the extra when unlikely to ever need it". Same was said in the 80s on UL when sold to only fund to age 65 cause why would you need it after. We know how that has turned out for most
Welcome to the murky John Hancock marketing waters.
The main issue in the comparison is not just the Level DB vs. increasing Benefit Pool. But also the gigantic difference in CV & DB. One option puts your $100k premium to sleep for life. The other option lets you make a 2%-5% gain on your $100k. One option gives you return of premium at death. The other gives you 2x premium or more at death. Big differences there in the overall financial picture of a client.
Traditional LTC sales agents have a habit of looking mainly just at the LTC benefit. But clients are looking at the whole picture… which LTC sales agents are finding out now that hybrids are the main option left in the market. (many LTC specialists shunned hybrids at first until the market forced them into the product)
I will not argue that a true Hybrid LTC is better for just LTC protection. For those over the age of 65, its often the better fit if UW allows. But the advantages of the Life Policy w/ Rider resonate with clients.
Now it does cost more to get the same amount of LTC coverage…. but for someone with serious assets, thats often not an issue if the funds are actually earning interest.
And to get technical here for a second, most Hybrids are nothing but a UL Policy with a Long Term Care Rider as a standard part of the Base Contract. At their core, they are essentially the same thing, just different flavors.
There is also a growing niche that the Life w/ Rider fits imo: people who want a DB but dont need a DB. People who want to leave a little something to their kids, but want even more to not burden them with LTC expenses. Life Policy w/ Rider does exactly that. If they dont have a major need to care, their kids get a nice size death benefit. If they do need care, the kids will not be burdened (or not as much).
Its all about the clients priorities really once each product is fully understood. But the life / rider side takes a lot more to fully understand. The variance in the riders, much less the underlying life policy, make it a complicated market.
Um, sorry, no. When I – as a traditional LTC nerd – talk with potential clients I don't go in pushing any product, I look at their overall financial & family circumstances, goals, experience, health, etc., and make a recommendation based on all of those things. Sometimes it's traditional LTC, sometimes it's a hybrid, sometimes it's a hybrid for the wife and traditional for the husband. When it's appropriate, I'll educate my clients on both options, and let them decide which is best for them. When you throw in the Partnership, and the costs, and shared care, etc., about 75% of my clients – most of whom are not hugely wealthy but have anywhere from $400K to $1.5M in investable assets – choose traditional. I guess I should also note that the vast majority of my clients come to me on referral from their fee-only planners or an attorney, specifically to tackle the LTC need.
Yet in your comparison of the products, you left out 2 of the main benefit the Life Policy w/ Rider provides….
I never said you or any other agent go in pitching a specific product. I said traditional LTC agents are looking at the comparison of the two products through a LTC lens and not through a total financial picture lens. The benefits of a life policy w/ Rider incorporates the larger financial picture into consideration.
The advisors who send you LTC referrals dont know what the LIfe Policy w/ Rider can provide. However, they are likely not looking to learn either and just want the most LTC benefit per premium dollar. So I can understand why your business falls the way it does. But I was speaking to the comparison of the two products, not your use of either one.