Session 5: LTD Experience Trends: 

Social Security and Private Insurance

SPEAKERS: JAY A. BARRISS; STEPHEN C. GOSS; MICHAEL STEPHENS; DAVID A. WALL

NOVEMBER 9TH 2021

MODERATOR: STEPHEN C. GOSS
Active participation in the Society of Actuaries is an important aspect of membership. While the positive contributions of professional societies and associations are well-recognized and 

encouraged, association activities are vulnerable to close antitrust scrutiny. By their very nature, associations bring together industry competitors and other market participants. 

The United States antitrust laws aim to protect consumers by preserving the free economy and prohibiting anti-competitive business practices; they promote competition. There are 

both state and federal antitrust laws, although state antitrust laws closely follow federal law. The Sherman Act, is the primary U.S. antitrust law pertaining to association activities. The 

Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination or conspiracy that places an unreasonable restraint on trade. There are, however, some activities that are illegal under all 

circumstances, such as price fixing, market allocation and collusive bidding. 

There is no safe harbor under the antitrust law for professional association activities. Therefore, association meeting participants should refrain from discussing any activity that could 

potentially be construed as having an anti-competitive effect. Discussions relating to product or service pricing, market allocations, membership restrictions, product standardization or 

other conditions on trade could arguably be perceived as a restraint on trade and may expose the SOA and its members to antitrust enforcement procedures.

While participating in all SOA in person meetings, webinars, teleconferences or side discussions, you should avoid discussing competitively sensitive information with competitors and 

follow these guidelines:

• Do not discuss prices for services or products or anything else that might affect prices

• Do not discuss what you or other entities plan to do in a particular geographic or product markets or with particular customers.

• Do notspeak on behalf of the SOA or any of its committees unless specifically authorized to do so.

• Do leave a meeting where any anticompetitive pricing or market allocation discussion occurs.

• Do alert SOA staff and/or legal counsel to any concerning discussions

• Do consult with legal counsel before raising any matter or making a statement that may involve competitively sensitive information.

Adherence to these guidelines involves not only avoidance of antitrust violations, but avoidance of behavior which might be so construed. These guidelines only provide an overview of 

prohibited activities. SOA legal counsel reviews meeting agenda and materials as deemed appropriate and any discussion that departs from the formal agenda should be scrutinized 

carefully. Antitrust compliance is everyone’s responsibility; however, please seek legal counsel if you have any questions or concerns.

SOA Antitrust Compliance Guidelines

2
Presentations are intended for educational purposes only and do not 

replace independent professional judgment. Statements of fact and 

opinions expressed are those of the participants individually and, 

unless expressly stated to the contrary, are not the opinion or position 

of the Society of Actuaries, its cosponsors or its committees. The 

Society of Actuaries does not endorse or approve, and assumes no 

responsibility for, the content, accuracy or completeness of the 

information presented. Attendees should note that the sessions are 

audio-recorded and may be published in various media, including 

print, audio and video formats without further notice.

Presentation Disclaimer

3
Agenda

• Compare Disability Experience Trends over the past decade

• Social Security DI applications, awards, and prevalence have been declining

• Private IDI experience shared in 2019 SOA session (Nashville) looked similar 

Session 093PD: Individual Disability Experience Committee Update (soa.org)

• How about Group Long Term Disability Insurance (GLTD)

• Insured groups differ, but what do the trends have in common?

• Has the nature of work, or the composition of the insured group changed?

• Have criteria for awarding benefits changed?

• Are trends over the past 10 years indicative for the future?

• Will the recent trends continue, stabilize, or reverse?

4
Social Security 

Disability 

Experience Presenters: 

Mike Stephens; ASA

Steve Goss; ASA, MAAA

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary
Recent Social Security Disability Experience

• Incidence rates averaged 5.0 per thousand from 1995 through 2020, but 4.6 

over the last 10 years, and dropped through 2019 to less than 4.0 per 

thousand ... prevalence rates have dropped as well

• The drop in incidence appears to indicate a fundamental shift

• Possibilities:

• Economy and distribution of jobs

• Demographics—diminishing share of adults under 65, reducing labor 

supply 

• Increased health care (ACA), and ADA accommodations

• Social Security criteria and determination process?

• More fundamental? Changing nature of work

6
Changing Nature 

of Work: Trends in 

Employment by 

Occupation

Employment effects in all areas in 

2020; share for management and 

professional, highly paid, 

increased (BLS cpsaat09)

Will trends of 2010-19 return, and 

continue?

Will these shifts continue with 

technology, automation, and 

increasing education levels?

Might increases in infrastructure 

spending change these trends? 

Also, changes in how job-specific 

tasks are performed

7
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Percent of Population at Ages 25+

Age Distribution of the Population Age 25+, 1940 to 2100 (2021 TR)

25-44

45-64

65-84

85+

Boomers 

become 

25-44

Boomers 

become 

45-64

Boomers 

become 

65-84

8

Changing Age 

Distribution Over 

Last 20 and Next 20 

Years Mainly Due to 

Macro Aging

Permanent level shifts in 

labor supply as a share 

of the adult population. 
9

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029

(millions)

Social Security Disabled Worker Receipts at Disability Determination 

Services by Calendar Year: Historical and Intermediate Assumptions 

for 2012 through 2021 Trustees Reports

2012TR

2017TR

2016TR

2015TR

2014TR

2013TR

2018TR 2019TR

2020TR

2021TR

Applications for 

Disability 

Benefits Remain 

Historically Low

At the peak of the last economic 

cycle in 2007, applications were 

low, but increased rapidly in the 

2008 recession from 1.5 million 

in 2007 to 1.9 million in 2010.

In 2016 through 2019, 

applications have dropped 

below the 2007 level; dropped 

further in 2020 during the 

pandemic.

For the FY 2022 Mid-Session 

Review released last month, we 

assumed 2021 applications 

would be below 1.2 million.
10

Disability 

Incidence Rate 

Also Remains 

Historically Low

DI disabled worker incidence 

rate rose sharply in the 2008 

recession, and has declined 

since the peak in 2010 to 

extraordinarily low levels in 

2016 through 2019; 

remained very low in 2020 

during the pandemic.

For the FY 2022 Mid-Session 

Review, we assumed the 

incidence rate for 2021 

would be 3.6 per thousand.
Definition of Disability

• Inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) due to a medically 

determinable impairment expected to result in death or last a continuous 

period of at least 12 months

• Includes mental and physical impairments

• SGA = $1,310 per month in 2021. Adjusted by average wages each year

• Working at or above SGA generally results in a finding of not disabled at 

application

• Post-entitlement: Periodic reviews to ensure beneficiaries still meet the definition of 

disability (based on medical improvement)

• Post-entitlement: Rules regarding working at or above SGA are different

OCACT/SSA

11
Decision Process

• Five-step sequential evaluation process

• Step 1: Working at or above SGA?

• Step 2: Impairment severe?

• Step 3: Impairment meets/equals listing of impairments?

• Severe impairments that generally preclude work: ALS, cancer, heart failure, etc.

• Step 4: Perform past relevant work?

• As performed by applicant

• Step 5: Adjust to performing other work in the national economy?

• Application can be denied at any step except 3

• Application can only be allowed (determined disabled) at steps 3 and 5

OCACT/SSA

12
Appeals Process

• For denials, there is an administrative appeals process

• Reconsideration at the DDSs

• Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

• Appeals Council

• After all appeals are exhausted, claimant can appeal to the Federal 

Court system

OCACT/SSA

13
Field Office Disability Application Experience

OCACT/SSA

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Number of receipts (in thousands)

Fiscal year

Figure 3: Disability Receipts at SSA Field Offices for Title II (Social Security)

FYs 1990-2021

All other disability receipts

Technical denial receipts

Total title II 

disability receipts

• Total volumes of numbers of 

applications have fluctuated with 

economic cycle

• The changing age/sex distribution 

of the insured population has 

also driven changes

• Technical denials are individuals 

who apply but are not insured for 

disability benefits. The increase in 

the mid 2000’s is due to changes 

in administrative procedures.

Source: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary.

14
Field Office Disability Application Experience by 

ACA Expansion Status

OCACT/SSA

Table 1.—Percentage change in disability field office receipts relative to the prior fiscal year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Title II disabled worker field office receipts (excluding technical denials)

All Title II DIBs 5.1% -1.8% -5.6% -5.2% -2.8% -6.0% -6.1% -6.3% -1.5% -6.0% -3.6% -11.7%

States not expanding 7.1% 0.4% -4.3% -5.3% -4.6% -7.2% -6.2% -5.4% -2.5% -4.3% -3.5% -8.4%

States expanding in 2014 3.8% -3.5% -6.6% -5.3% -2.0% -6.3% -7.4% -6.8% -0.8% -6.6% -4.5% -14.9%

States expanding in 2015 4.3% 1.7% -3.2% -5.2% -1.6% -8.0% -7.2% -7.5% -0.6% -7.0% 4.6% -7.8%

States expanding in 2016 11.6% -3.6% -4.9% -2.1% -2.8% -4.5% 6.0% -3.5% -6.9% -10.4% -3.0% -3.9%

States expanding in 2017 — — — — — — — — — — — —

States expanding in 2018 — — — — — — — — — — — —

States expanding in 2019 1.4% -6.5% -9.0% -6.3% -1.5% -0.9% -7.1% -6.4% -4.3% -13.3% -6.6% -4.6%

States expanding in 2020 5.6% 0.3% -2.3% -3.6% 1.3% -9.6% -4.5% -7.1% 0.0% -11.0% 10.9% -11.7%

States expanding in 2021 5.5% -1.5% -6.1% -5.2% -2.4% 3.6% 1.9% -6.9% 0.8% -3.1% -7.2% -15.5%

Source of Medicaid expansion status: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/

15
Field Office Disability Application Experience by 

Rural vs Urban

OCACT/SSA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Figure 8: DI Disabled Worker Applications

By year of application and rurality indicator

Note: 0 is the most urbanized area; 9 is the most rural 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

• Another perspective on 

geographic residence of 

applicants is urban versus 

rural.

• As expected, most 

applicants come from the 

most urban areas (~ 70%)

Source: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary.

16
DDS Disability Receipts by Age

OCACT/SSA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure 12: Percentage distribution of all OASDI disability applications by age group and fiscal year

Ages 50 and older

Ages 35-49

Ages under 35

• The age distribution of 

disability applicants has 

changed since the early 

1990’s.

• The growth in the group 

aged 50 or older is due to 

the aging of the baby 

boom generation into the 

disability-prone ages. 

Source: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary. 

Data for 2021 is preliminary as of 9/10/21.

17
DDS Disability Receipts by Impairment

OCACT/SSA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure 14: Percentage distribution of OASDI disability claims filed by major impairment category and fiscal year

UNKNOWN INFECT NEOPLA ENDOCR BLOOD ORGANIC MENTALOTHER SCHIZO

MOOD AUTISTIC CHILDHOOD DEVELOP INTELLECT NERVOUS CIRCUL RESPIR

DIGEST GENITO SKIN MUSCUL CONGEN OTHER INJURY

• The distribution of 

applications by primary 

alleged impairment has 

generally not changed 

significantly.

• The share of applications 

alleging musculoskeletal 

impairments has increased 

somewhat, largely due to 

the aging of the baby 

boom generation (the dark 

gray series).

• Mood disorders have also 

increased as a share since 

the early 1990s.

Source: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary. 

Data for 2021 is preliminary as of 9/10/21.

18
Application Receipt Rates

OCACT/SSA

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Receipts per 1,000 exposed

Calendar Year

Figure 15: OASDI Disabled Worker Initial DDS Receipt Rates

Gross Age-sex-adjusted (to year 2000 exposed population)

• The experience of 

application numbers have 

been driven mainly by 

declining rates, and not 

just the aging of the baby 

boomers into retirement 

ages.

• Rates are measured as 

applications per 1,000 

individuals exposed.

• Gross rates have been 

declining since 2010.

• Age-sex-adjusted rates 

have also been following a 

similar pattern.

Source: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary.

19
Disabled Worker Receipt Rates (at DDS) Have Been Dropping 

Since 1990 at Older Ages, and at Most Ages Lately

Figures 16a and 16b: DI Disabled Worker Receipt Rates, by sex and age group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Receipts per 1,000 exposed

Fiscal year

Male Title II Disabled Worker DDS Receipt Rates

by 5-Year Age Groups per 1,000 exposed

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

35-44

25-34

Under 25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Receipts per 1,000 exposed

Fiscal year

Female Title II Disabled Worker DDS Receipt Rates 

by 5-Year Age Groups per 1,000 exposed

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

35-44

25-34

Under 25

20
6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

Calendar Year

Disabled Worker Beneficiaries

In Current Payment Status at End of Year (in thousands)

2008 TR (no recession)

2020 TR

2021 TR

Bottom Line: 

Fewer Disabled 

Worker 

Beneficiaries

Fewer now and in near 

term based on recent 

applications and 

incidence rates. 

Increase shown by 2030 

assumes incidence rises 

back to 5.0 per 

thousand by then.

21
Group Long

-term 

Disability

Insurance 

Experience

Presenter: 

David Wall, FSA, MAAA

Willis Towers Watson
Group Long-term Disability Insurance - Introduction

• Today’s presentation includes results from the Society of Actuaries 2019 

group long-term disability (GLTD) experience study

• The 2019 SOA GLTD study is the first version of the study to collect information on 

SSDI approval status for GLTD claims. 

• Material shown today focuses on experience related to SSDI approvals and claim 

terminations • Background on the 2019 SOA GLTD study is available on the SOA’s website: 

https://www.soa.org/resources/experience-studies/2019/group-ltd-experience-study

• I will also provide a brief overview of GLTD insurance in the United States 

including:

• Benefits – overview of typical product design 

• Market size – Summary of In-force premium and covered lives in the United States

• High level trends in GLTD reported claims

23
GLTD - U.S. Market Overview

• Employees covered by 

GLTD are a subset of 

the approximately 150 

million U.S. employees 

covered by SSDI. 

• GLTD In-force premium has grown at a rate of 

approximately 2.6% 

since 2013

• Premium growth 

primarily driven by 

increases to premium 

per life

• Total covered lives have 

grown relatively slowly

* Source: Milliman 2013 through 2019 Group Disability 

Market Surveys

U.S. GLTD In-force Exposure *

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Annual 

Growth

Rate

In-force premium ($ Billions) 10.7 11.0 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.2 12.5 2.6%

Covered Lives (millions) 43.7 43.4 44.9 44.7 44.0 44.9 45.0 0.5%

Premium per Life $ 245 253 253 260 267 271 278 2.1%

24
GLTD New Reported Claims by Year

• Number of new reported claims per year* 

in the U.S. developed from the 2019 SOA 

GLTD Claim Experience Study. 

• Exposure data is not currently available 

for the SOA GLTD study, so we are not 

able to use the claim data shown here to 

develop incidence rate assumptions.

• However, we can observe that:

• Trend in the total number of new GLTD 

claims was relatively flat from 2009 to 

2017.

• The number of new GLTD claims in the 

U.S. per year is approximately 1⁄4 the 

number of new SSDI claims. (GLTD 

coverage is provided to less than 1/3 of 

all U.S. workers.) 

• GLTD claim incidence appears to be more 

stable than incidence for SSDI during the 

same period (see Slide 34 for historical 

SSDI incidence).

* Claim reported year is based on the calendar date as of the 

end of a claim’s elimination period.

Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim Experience Study

125,000

130,000

135,000

140,000

145,000

150,000

155,000

160,000

165,000

170,000

175,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GLTD New Reported Claims in United States * 

Number of Newly Reported Claims Linear (Number of Newly Reported Claims)

25
GLTD New Reported Claims by Age at Disability

• The average insured age for 

new GLTD claims in the U.S. has 

increased between 2009 and 

2017

• Due to unavailability of 

exposure data for GLTD, we 

cannot measure how much of 

this shift in age is due to 

changes in incidence rates by 

age versus aging of the insured 

population.

• The increase in average age for 

GLTD claims is consistent with 

the trend seen for new SSDI 

claims (See slide 27).

Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim Experience Study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GLTD New Claims - Proportion by Age at Disability 

04: >= 60

03: 45-59

02: 30-44

01: <30

26
GLTD New Reported Claims by Gross Monthly Benefit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GLTD New Claims - Proportion by Monthly Gross Benefit

$>4000

 $3,000-$3,999

 $2,000-$2,999

$<2000

• The distribution of gross 

benefit amount for new GLTD 

claims in the U.S. was stable 

between 2009 and 2017

• Modest increase in the 

proportion of claims with 

monthly benefit below $2000

• Gross benefit amounts shown 

are indexed to inflation

Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim Experience Study

27
GLTD Plan Designs, Impact of SSDI Offsets

The most common plan designs include:

• Replacement of 60% of salary up to a maximum amount

• Benefits payable through retirement age

• Elimination periods of 3 or 6 months 

• Definition of disability is typically less restrictive than for SSDI, and for most plans, changes from 

own occupation to any occupation after one to three years of benefits are received

• SSDI Offsets: GLTD policies typically specify that the benefits paid by the insurer will be reduced by 

the amount of SSDI benefits and other benefits received by the insured.

• Offsets have a major impact on the amount of benefits paid by GLTD insurers

• Impact very significant for claims with gross monthly benefit amounts below $2,000 (which comprise more than 

half of new GLTD claims – previous slide). 

28
SSDI Approval Status by Calendar Year

• Offsets for SSDI and other benefits 

significantly impact the level of GLTD 

benefits paid by insurers.

• Estimating the value of offsets is critical to 

estimating GLTD claim costs

• Approximately 65% of open GLTD claims 

are also approved for SSDI benefits, and 

this proportion has been stable over time.

• While the overall proportion of open 

GLTD claims that are approved for SSDI 

benefits has been stable, the probability 

of SSDI approval varies materially based 

on claim duration as well as other claim 

characteristics.

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim Experience Study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

U.S. GLTD Open Claims - Proportion by SSDI Approval Status

 Yes No

29
SSDI Approval Rates by Age at Disability

• Approval Rate defined as:

Approvals / Not Yet Approved

• Higher approval rates for 

higher ages at disability, 

especially in early durations

• By Year 4, the differences in 

approval rates by age are 

much smaller.

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim 

Experience Study

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

Monthly Approval Rate for SSDI

Claim Duration

SSDI Approval Rates by Age at Disability

 <30

 30-44

 45-59

 >= 60

30
Proportion of Claims Approved for SSDI by Age

• Proportion of claims 

approved defined as: 

Approved Claims / Open Claims

• Differences in proportion of 

claims approved decline over 

time.

• However, significant 

differences by age at 

disability remain in all claim 

durations

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim Experience Study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Claim Duration

Proportion of GLTD Claims Approved for SSDI by Age at Disability

<30

30-44

45-59

>=60

31
Proportion of Claims Approved for SSDI by State

• Differences between 

states in the proportion 

of claims approved 

decline over time

• However, CA remains 

significantly lower than 

other states over the 

first 5 years of claim 

duration

• CA is one of six states 

with a statutory 

disability plan. CA’s 

statutory benefits are 

generous compared to 

other states, and the 

existence of generous 

statutory benefits may 

have an impact on GLTD 

claim experience, 

including SSDI approval 

rates

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability 

Claim Experience Study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Claim Duration

Proportion of GLTD Claims Approved for SSDI by State of Residence

NH

FL

CT

CA

32
Proportion of Claims Approved for SSDI by Gross Benefit

• Differences by gross 

benefit amount decline 

as claims reach older 

durations.

• However, proportion of 

claims approved 

remains lower in all 

durations for claims 

with higher benefit 

amounts.

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term 

Disability Claim Experience Study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Claim Duration

Proportion of GLTD Claims Approved for SSDI by Monthly Gross Benefit

 $1,000-$1,999

$5,000-$9,999

$10,000-$19,999

33
GLTD Claim Recovery Rates and SSDI Status • Actual to expected 

recovery rates for GLTD 

claims are materially lower 

for claims that are 

approved for SSDI.

• Differences in A/E are 

greatest in first year of 

claim duration but remain 

significant in all durations.

• Expected basis is the 2008 

GLTD Experience Table

• Implications for GLTD 

reserving and pricing. 

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim 

Experience Study

 -

 2

 4

 6

 8

 10

 12

 14

 16

 18

 20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Monthly Claim Exposure 

– Millions 

Claim Recovery Rate A to E

GLTD Claim Recovery A to E by SSDI Approval Status

Not Approved - Exposure Approved - Exposure Not Approved A/E Approved A/E

34
GLTD Claim Death Rates and SSDI Status • Actual to expected death 

rates for GLTD claims are 

materially higher for claims 

that are approved for SSDI.

• Opposite of relationship for 

recovery rates

• Differences in A/E are 

consistent across all 

durations.

• Expected basis is the 2008 

GLTD Experience Table

• Implications for GLTD 

reserving and pricing. 

* Source: 2019 SOA Group Long-term Disability Claim 

Experience Study

 -

 2

 4

 6

 8

 10

 12

 14

 16

 18

 20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Monthly Claim Exposure - Millions

Claim Death Rate A to E

GLTD Claim Death A to E by SSDI Approval Status

Exposure - Approved Exposure - Not Approved A/E - Approved A/E - Not Approved

35
Conclusions

• GLTD covers approximately 45 million workers in the United States. The GLTD market is mature, and 

recent growth in covered lives has been limited

• Recent claim incidence experience for GLTD appears to be relatively stable when compared to SSDI 

• However, SSDI has a major impact on GLTD due to the impact of offsets on GLTD claim costs

• The drivers of SSDI approval rate experience for GLTD claims are complex – the results presented here provide a snapshot of 

some of the key variables to consider

• GLTD claim recovery rates are much lower for claims that have been approved for SSDI than for unapproved claims 

• Opposite is true for Death A/E 

• Pricing and Reserving Implications:

• Models and assumptions used for pricing and reserving may need to be updated to accurately estimate the impact of SSDI 

approval experience on GLTD claim costs

• SSDI approval status should be considered as a variable when developing assumptions for GLTD claim recovery and death 

rates.

36
Individual 

Disability

Insurance/IDI 

Experience

Presenter: 

Jay Barriss, FSA, MAAA

General Reinsurance – Gen Re

Chairperson of SOA 

Individual Disability Experience Committee
IDI Product Background

• IDI experience is highly concentrated in several large carriers which 

represent 85% of overall market.

• IDI contracts tend to have own occupation definition of disability 

which is much lower threshold of claim approval than SSA’s substantial 

gainful activity definition.

• IDI business is highly concentrated in white collar, and in particular , 

medical occupations.

• Most IDI policies are fully underwritten. Recent increase in worksite 

product has led to more guaranteed issue/minimal underwriting 

issues.

38
Individual Experience Committee/IDEC 

• Voluntary committee with major carriers, reinsurers and consulting 

firms represented.

• Many members have over 20 years of industry experience.

• Committee work lead to implementation of new valuation standards 

for active life and disabled life reserves. New standard is required for 

all carriers as of 2020. Table is named the 2013 IDIVT table, the 

individual disability valuation table.

• Data presented here will be experience compared to the 2013 IDIVT.

39
2013 IDIVT table background

• Based on experience from 1990 to 2007

• Retired the prior industry table, 1985 CIDA table

• Major improvements

• Moved experience from 1960-70’s to more current date

• Added medical occupation split to valuation standard

• Added key plan provisions (COLA, lifetime) to valuation standard

• Added diagnosis to DLR valuation

40
Incidence rate by year

• Overall incidence rate (bars) have decreased in recent year. 

• Rate of decay is 2.8% per annum

• Note A/E is 30 to 40% better than the 2013 IDIVT 

41
Occupation observations

• All Occupations show improvement over study period

• Important considerations

• Industry data is now 7 years old. 

• Hope to update study in 2022.

• Will improvement continue?

42
Attained Age observations

• Most ages are close to total results, 65%

• Not much experience on the upper and lower cells

• Industry struggles to connect with younger ages, <20% of exposure 

under age 40

43

3%

6%

10%

14%

19% 17%

17%

11%

3%

Exposure

Under 30 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 +
Market observations

• All markets (ERSP = Employer Sponsored) so improvement

• ERSP market is growing, and is showing most improvement

44
2022 Individual Disability Experience plans

• Release report on claim terminations

• Early duration claims close to 2013 IDIVT

• However longer durations (Years 5+), show industry experience much lower 

than 2013 IDIVT

• Consider data call to bring in more current data (we’re through 2014)

• As industry experience is so much better than current valuation 

standard, does 2013 IDIVT need an update?

45
Questions?