Skip to main content
Log in

Cognitive abilities and long-term care insurance: evidence from European data

  • Published:
The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Long-term care (LTC) is one of the largest financial risks faced by the elderly. Yet, it remains largely uninsured. This paper explores the relationship between cognitive abilities and private voluntary or supplementary long-term care insurance (LTCI) ownership as another possible factor contributing to the small size of the market. We used data from a European panel survey, which collects detailed information on both private insurance coverage and three indicators of cognitive abilities: numeracy, verbal fluency and memory skills. We find that memory, but not numeracy or verbal fluency, has a positive and statistically significant effect on the probability of owning private LTCI above and beyond other characteristics such as general education, family, risk factors, income and wealth. Fixed effects estimates show that a one-standard deviation increase in the recall measure score is associated with a 0.5 percentage point increase in the probability of holding insurance for the baseline sample and a 1 percentage point increase among the younger cohort. The findings suggest that cognitive limitations in LTCI decision-making are likely to be linked to information processing skills and can be an important factor affecting the expansion of the market that need to be taken into consideration in policy design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source SHARE waves 57 using calibrated individual weights. People aged 5070 with no ADLs and no IADLs

Fig. 2

Source SHARE waves 5–7 using calibrated individual weights. People aged 50–70 with no ADLs and no IADLs

Fig. 3

Source SHARE waves 5–7 using calibrated individual weights. People aged 50–70 with no ADLs and no IADLs

Fig. 4

Source SHARE waves 5–7 using calibrated individual weights. People aged 50–70 with no ADLs and no IADLs

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper uses data from SHARE Waves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (DOIs: 10.6103/SHARE.w1.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w2.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w3.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w4.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w5.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w6.700, 10.6103/SHARE.w7.700), see (Börsch-Supan et al. 2013) for methodological details. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through FP5 (QLK6-CT-2001-00360), FP6 (SHARE-I3: RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE: CIT5-CT-2005-028857, SHARELIFE: CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and FP7 (SHARE-PREP: N°211909, SHARE-LEAP: N°227822, SHARE M4: N°261982). Additional funding from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01_AG09740-13S2, P01_AG005842, P01_AG08291, P30_AG12815, R21_AG025169, Y1-AG-4553-01, IAG_BSR06-11, OGHA_04-064, HHSN271201300071C) and from various national funding sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-project.org).

References

  • Agarwal, S., J.C. Driscoll, X. Gabaix, and D. Laibson. 2009. The age of reason: Financial decisions over the life cycle and implications for regulation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2009: 51–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, S., and B. Mazumder. 2013. Cognitive abilities and household financial decision making. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5 (1): 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • AXA. 2012. Dependency.

  • Banks, J. 2010. Cognitive function, financial literacy and financial outcomes at older ages: Introduction. The Economic Journal 120 (548): F357–F362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J., and Z. Oldfield. 2007. Understanding pensions: Cognitive function, numerical ability and retirement saving. Fiscal Studies 28 (2): 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D.J., S.A. Brown, and J.M. Shapiro. 2013. Who is behavioral? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association 11 (6): 1231–1255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsch-Supan, A., A. Brugiavini, H. Jurges, A. Kapteyn, J. Mackenbach, J. Siergrist, and W. Guglielmo, eds. 2008. First results from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (2004–2007). Mannheim: Research Institute for the Economics of Aging.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börsch-Supan, A., and H. Jürges. (Eds) 2005. The Survey of Health, Aging, and Retirement in Europe—methodology. Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging.

  • Börsch-Supan, A., B. Schaan, C. Hunkler, F. Malter, J. Korbmacher, S. Zuber, S. Stuck, T. Kneip, and M. Brandt. 2013. Data resource profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology 42 (4): 992–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, M., P. De Donder, C. Fluet, M. Leroux, and P. Michaud. 2019. Long-term care risk misperceptions. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 44 (2): 183–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammli-Greenberg, S., R. Waitzberg, and R. Gross. 2012. Private long-term care insurance in Israel. Smokler Center for Health Policy Research.

  • Brown, J.R., N.B. Coe, and A. Finkelstein. 2007. Medicaid crowd-out of private long-term care insurance demand: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Survey. Tax Policy and the Economy 21: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.R., and A. Finkelstein. 2009. The private market for long-term care insurance in the U.S.: A review of the evidence. The Journal of Risk and Insurance 76 (1): 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.R., and A. Finkelstein. 2008. The interaction of public and private insurance: Medicaid and the long-term care insurance market. American Economic Review 98 (3): 1083–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S., and B. Elbel. 2012. Low cognitive ability and poor skill with numbers may prevent many from enrolling in Medicare supplemental coverage. Health Affairs 31 (8): 1847–1854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A., U. Böckenholt, and J. Goodman. 2015. Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology 25 (2): 333–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christelis, D., T. Jappelli, and M. Padula. 2010. Cognitive abilities and portfolio choice. European Economic Review 54 (1): 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, N.B., M.M. Skira, and C.H. Van Houtven. 2015. Long-term care insurance: Does experience matter? Journal of Health Economics 40: 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, F., A. Llena-Nozal, J. Mercier, and F. Tjadens. 2011. Help wanted?: Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, F., and J. Mercier. 2012. Help wanted? Fair and sustainable financing of long-term care services. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 34 (2): 316–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, P.Y., D.C. Grabowski, M. Cohen, X. Shi, and D.G. Stevenson. 2016. Medical underwriting in long-term care insurance: Market conditions limit options for higher-risk consumers. Health Affairs (project Hope) 35 (8): 1494–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Font, J., and C. Courbage. 2012. Financing long-term care in Europe: Institutions, markets and models. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • Costa-Font, J., and C. Courbage. 2015. Crowding out of long-term care insurance: Evidence from European expectations data. Health Economics 24 (1): 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courbage, C., and N. Roudaut. 2008. Empirical evidence on long-term care insurance purchase in France. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 33 (4): 645–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, J., and J. Gruber. 1996. Health insurance eligibility, utilization of medical care, and child health. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (2): 431–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish Insurance Association. 2013. Health insuranceStatistics in English.

  • Davidoff, T. 2010. Home equity commitment and long-term care insurance demand. Journal of Public Economics 94 (1): 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Missier, F., T. Mäntylä, and L. Nilsson. 2015. Aging, memory, and decision making. In Aging and decision making, ed. T.M. Hess, J. Strough, and C.E. Löckenhoff, 127–148. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dohmen, T., A. Falk, D. Huffman, and U. Sunde. 2010. Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? The American Economic Review 100 (3): 1238–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FFA. 2017. Fédération Française de l’Assurance.

  • Finkelstein, A., E.F.P. Luttmer, and M.J. Notowidigdo. 2013. What good is wealth without health? The effect of health on the marginal utiltiy of consumption. Journal of the European Economic Association 11: 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, A., and K. McGarry. 2006. Multiple dimensions of private information: Evidence from the long-term care insurance market. The American Economic Review 96 (4): 938–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (4): 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goda, G.S. 2011. The impact of state tax subsidies for private long-term care insurance on coverage and Medicaid expenditures. Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 744–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golinowska, S. 2010. The long-term care system for the elderly in Poland. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.

  • Gottlieb, D., and O.S. Mitchell. 2019. Narrow framing and long-term care insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance.

  • Greve, B. 2017. The long-term care resourcing landscape. Brussels: SPRINT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S.S., and M.R. Lepper. 2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, and R.H. Thaler. 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannaki, E. 2017. The effect of parental wealth on children’s outcomes in early adulthood. The Journal of Economic Inequality 15 (3): 217–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, P., and C.M. Murtaugh. 1991. Lifetime use of nursing home care. The New England Journal of Medicine 324 (9): 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, J., and B. Lammer. 2011. Pflege: Das Vermögen im Alter schützen. Die Presse. https://www.diepresse.com/706124/pflege-das-vermogen-im-alter-schutzen.

  • Knight Frank. 2014. European healthcare: Care homes report.

  • Kunreuther, H., and M. Pauly. 2004. Neglecting disaster: Why don’t people insure against large losses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28 (1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebman, J.B., and R.J. Zeckhauser. 2004. Schmeduling. Harvard University Working Paper.

  • Little, R.E., and D.B. Rubin. 2002. Statistical analysis of missing data. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lusardi, A., and O.S. Mitchell. 2014. The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature 52 (1): 5–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics 9 (2): 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, B.E., H. Temkin-Greener, B.P. Chapman, D.C. Grabowski, and Y. Li. 2016. The impact of consumer numeracy on the purchase of long-term care insurance. Health Services Research 51 (4): 1612–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, J.M. 2001. Long-term care and nursing home coverage: Are adult children substitutes for insurance policies? Journal of Health Economics 20 (4): 527–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundlak, Y. 1978. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46 (1): 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtaugh, C.M., P. Kemper, B.C. Spillman, and B.L. Carlson. 1997. The amount, distribution, and timing of lifetime nursing home use. Medical Care 35 (3): 204–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2021. Long-term care. https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_longterm_care_insurance.htm.

  • OECD. 2015. National strategies for financial education—OECD/INFE policy handbook. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • ÖSB Consulting. 2014. Long-term care – The problem of sustainable financing. Comments Paper – Czech Republic.

  • Pauly, M.V. 1990. The rational nonpurchase of long-term-care insurance. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1): 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., J. Hibbard, P. Slovic, and N. Dieckmann. 2007. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs 26 (3): 741–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., D. Västfjäll, P. Slovic, C.K. Mertz, K. Mazzocco, and S. Dickert. 2006. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science 17 (5): 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, V.F., and C.J. Brainerd. 2007. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences 17 (2): 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, T., M.L. Graham, and P.D. Fox. 1997. The impact of policy standardization on the medigap market. Inquiry 34 (2): 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosi, A., W. Bruine de Bruin, F. Del Missier, E. Cavallini, and R. Russo. 2017. Decision-making competence in younger and older adults: Which cognitive abilities contribute to the application of decision rules? Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition 26 (2): 174–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D.B. 1987. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schut, F.T., and B. van den Berg. 2012. Long-term care insurance in the Netherlands. In Financing long-term care in Europe: Institutions, markets and models, ed. J. Costa-Font and C. Courbage, 103–124. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • SCOR Global Life. 2012. Long-term care insurance. Gilles Meyer.

  • Simon, H.A. 1978. Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review 68 (2): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaniol, J., and U.J. Bayen. 2005. Aging and conditional probability audgments: A global matching approach. Psychology and Aging 20 (1): 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trukeschitz, B., and U. Schneider. 2012. Long-term care financing in Austria. In Financing long-term care in Europe: Institutions, markets and models, ed. J. Costa-Font and C. Courbage, 187–213. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F.J.R. 2008. On the meaning of cross-cultural differences in simple cognitive measures. Educational Research and Evaluation: an International Journal on Theory and Practice 14 (3): 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J.M. 2001. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou-Richter, T., M.J. Browne, and H. Gründl. 2010. Don’t they care? Or, are they just unaware? Risk perception and the demand for long-term care insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance 77 (4): 715–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katerina Gousia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Measures of LTCI and cognitive abilities in SHARE

LTCI

The generic question on long-term care insurance is: ‘Do you have any of the following public or private long-term care insurances?’ If the question is unclear, interviewers are instructed to provide a follow-up explanation: ‘Long-term care insurance helps covering the cost of long-term care. It generally covers home care, assisted living, adult daycare, respite care, hospice care and stays in nursing homes or residential care facilities. Some of the long-term care services might be covered by your health insurance’. Respondents are provided with a list of possible answers and can report one or more of the following answer categories: ‘Public’, ‘Private mandatory’, ‘Private voluntary/supplementary’, ‘None’.

Cognitive abilities

Numeracy

SHARE includes a series of five sequential subtractions for respondents to ask. The question is as follows: ‘Now let’s try some subtraction of numbers. One hundred minus 7 equals what? And 7 from that?’. The question ‘and 7 from that?’ is repeated up to the fifth subtraction. The numeracy indicator is the sum of the correct number of subtractions.

Verbal fluency

The verbal fluency indicator is based on the following question: ‘I would like you to name as many different animals as you can think of. You have one minute to do this.’ The verbal fluency score then is the sum of acceptable animals. Any member of the animal kingdom, real or mythical is scored correct, except repetitions and proper nouns. Specifically each of the following gets credit: a species name and any accompanying breeds within the species as well as any male, female and infant names within the species.

Recall

To measure memory SHARE includes the following question: ‘Now, I am going to read a list of words from my computer screen. We have purposely made the list long so it will be difficult for anyone to recall all the words. Most people recall just a few. Please listen carefully, as the set of words cannot be repeated. When I have finished, I will ask you to recall aloud as many of the words as you can, in any order. Is this clear?’. The memory indicator is the sum of all words recalled within a minute. In waves 5, 6 and 7 respondents were randomly assigned to one of four sets of ‘ten words list learning’. A delayed recall question is also asked whereby the interviewer comes back to the recall question after a while asking respondents to list any of the words they can still remember.

Alternative numeracy measure

The SHARE survey asks the following questions that are used to construct the second numeracy index:

  1. 1.

    If the chance of getting a disease is 10% how many people out of 1000 would be expected to get the disease? Possible answers: 100; 10; 90; 900 and ‘other’.

  2. 2.

    In a sale, a shop is selling all items at half price. Before the sale a sofa costs 300 euro. How much will it cost in the sale? The possible answers: 150; 600 and ‘other’.

  3. 3.

    A second hand car dealer is selling a car for 6000 euro. This is two-thirds of what it costs new. How much did the car cost new? Possible answers: 9000; 4000; 8000; 12,000, 18,000 and ‘other’.

  4. 4.

    Let’s say you have 2000 euro in a savings account. The account earns 10% interest each year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Possible answers: 2420; 2020; 2100; 2400 and ‘other’.

The final numeracy measure is constructed as follows. If question (1) is answered wrongly then respondents are asked question (2). If it is answered correctly respondents are directed to question (3). If both questions (1) and (2) are wrong then the numeracy score is 1, which is the lowest possible. If question (1) is wrong while question (2) is correct then the score is 2. Those respondents that answer question (1) correctly are taken to questions (3) and (4). If question (3) is wrong then the score is 3. If questions (1) and (3) are correct but (4) is wrong then the score is 4. If all questions (1), (3) and (4) are correct then the score is 5, which is the highest possible score.

Appendix 2

See Table 9

Table 9 Market statistics on LTCI across countries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gousia, K. Cognitive abilities and long-term care insurance: evidence from European data. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 48, 68–101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-021-00240-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-021-00240-8

Keywords

Navigation