�����о����ٷ�

The Working Group requests comments on the Minnesota Approach with adjustments to haircut percentages and cumulative rate increase ranges of the cost-sharing formula as shown in Proposal A and Proposal B below as candidates for a Single LTCI Multistate Rate Review Approach. The adjustments are intended to address the “85/25/400” issue as discussed at the Working Group’s Aug. 12 meeting.

��LTCAWG Proposals A & B.pdf

The Minnesota Approach, including the current cost-sharing formula, is described here: /sites/default/files/documents/ltci-msa-framework.pdf

Please provide comments to eking@naic.org by Friday, Sept. 27.

_____________________________________________________________________

��

The Working Group requests comments on the Minnesota Approach with adjustments to haircut percentages or cumulative rate increase ranges of the cost-sharing formula as a candidate for a Single LTCI Multistate Rate Review Approach. The adjustments are intended to increase cost-sharing burden for the company where cumulative rate increases are very high (which tends to be the case for higher-age policyholders, higher-duration policies) and potentially decrease cost-sharing burden for the company for lower-duration policies.

The Minnesota Approach, including the current cost-sharing formula, is described here: /sites/default/files/documents/ltci-msa-framework.pdf

Please provide comments to eking@naic.org by Thursday, Aug. 1.

_______________________________________________________

To: Long-Term Care Actuarial (B) Working Group Members, Interested Regulators, and Interested Parties

Potential upcoming focus points for discussion on a single actuarial approach to multi-state long-term care rate increase reviews include:

• Can adjustments to the Minnesota cost-sharing formula result, generally, in older age / higher duration / higher past rate increase policyholders having their future rate increases be more limited than under the current approach?��
• Would such an adjusted Minnesota approach align with key principles (either developed by ACLI / AHIP or others that may be important to regulators and interested parties) such that it could be considered a candidate for the single actuarial approach?
• Should interest rate history and expectations be a part of a single actuarial approach like it is with the Minnesota approach?