De-risking long-term care insurance

  • Valeria D’Amato
  • Susanna Levantesi
  • Massimiliano MenziettiEmail author


In this paper, we propose a de-risking strategy model for LTC insurers facing with longevity and disability risks, by constructing hedge positions with vanilla disability swaps and options. We rely on long-term care insurance in a multiple state framework. The optimal hedge level for each de-risking strategies is computed, respectively, by minimizing the total cost of the de-risking strategy under the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) constraint on the total unfunded liabilities and minimizing the CVaR under a total cost constraint. A numerical application is performed, and the results suggest that a de-risking strategy based on disability derivatives can be a viable solution to reduce the portfolio riskiness of LTC insurers.


Long-term care insurance De-risking Disability risk Conditional VaR minimization 



This study was not funded by any profit or non-profit organization.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) (2017) Long-term support and services. Public Policy Institute, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouhns N, Denuit M, Van Keilegom I (2005) Bootstrapping the Poisson log-bilinear model for mortality forecasting. Scand Actuar J 3:212–224MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucher-Koenen T, Schultz J, Spinder M (2017) Long term care insurance across Europe. In: Borsch-Supan A, Kneip T, Litwin H, Myck M, Weber G (eds) Ageing in Europe supporting policies for an inclusive society. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin, pp 353–368Google Scholar
  4. Cairns AJG, Blake D, Dowd K (2006) A two-factor model for stochastic mortality with parameter uncertainty: theory and calibration. J Risk Insur 73:687–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns AJG, Blake D, Dowd K, Coughlan GD, Epstein D, Ong A, Balevich I (2009) A quantitative comparison of stochastic mortality models using data from England and Wales and the United States. N Am Actuar J 13(1):1–35MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns AJG, Blake D, Dowd K, Coughlan GD, Epstein D, Khalaf-Allah M (2011) Mortality density forecasts: an analysis of six stochastic mortality models. Insur Math Econ 48:355–367MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox SH, Lin Y (2007) Natural hedging of life and annuity mortality risks. N Am Actuar J 11:1–15MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox SH, Lin Y, Shi T (2018) Pension risk management with funding and buyout options. Insur Math Econ 78:183–200MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Amato V, Di Lorenzo E, Haberman S, Sagoo P, Sibillo M (2018) De-risking strategy: longevity spread buy-in. Insur Math Econ 79:124–136MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2018) The 2018 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU Members States (2016–2070). European Economy, Institutional Paper 79Google Scholar
  11. Gori C (2019) Changing long-term care provision at the local level in times of austerity—a qualitative study. Ageing Soc 39:2059–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haberman S, Pitacco E (1999) Actuarial models for disability insurance. Chapman and Hall, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsieh M, Wang JL, Chiu Y, Chen Y (2018) Valuation of variable long-term care annuities with guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits: a variance reduction approach. Insur Math Econ 78:246–254MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levantesi S, Menzietti M (2012) Managing longevity and disability risks in life annuities with long term care. Insur Math Econ 50:391–401MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levantesi S, Menzietti M (2018) Natural hedging in long term care insurance. ASTIN Bull 48(1):233–274MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin Y, Tan KS, Tian R, Yu J (2014) Downside risk management of a defined benefit plan considering longevity basis risk. N Am Actuar J 18(1):68–86MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin Y, MacMinn RD, Tian R (2015) De-risking defined benefit plans. Insur Math Econ 63:52–65MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin Y, Shi T, Arik A (2017) Pricing buy-ins and buy-outs. J Risk Insur 84:367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maegebier A, Gatzert N (2014) The impact of disability insurance on a portfolio of life insurances. Friedrich-Alexander-University Working paperGoogle Scholar
  20. NAIC (2016) The state of long-term care insurance: the market, challenges and future innovations. NAIC Report, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Pavolini E, Ranci C, Lamura G (2017) Long-term care in Italy. In: Greeve B (ed) Long-term care for the elderly in Europe. Routledge, New York, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  22. Shane MK, Cox LA (2009) Issuance decisions and strategic focus: the case of long-term care insurance. J Risk Insur 76(1):87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shao A, Chen H, Sherris M (2019) To borrow or insure? Long term care costs and the impact of housing. Insur Math Econ 85:15–34MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wu S, Bateman H, Stevens R, Thorp S (2019) Flexible long-term care insurance: an experimental study of demand. Cepar, SydneyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SalernoFiscianoItaly
  2. 2.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.University of CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations