How long has the investigation been running?
A sub-committee of the CMI was set up in 1970 to investigate sickness rates under permanent health insurance policies. The first data collected and analysed was for the years 1972 and 1973 with the results being published in CMI Report 2.
Since then, the CMI has collected income protection data for each year for both group and individual business. However, data for years prior to 1975 was found to be unreliable (see CMI Report 7).
How do you collect/analyse data?
We collect census data, ie, in force data at 1st January each year and claims for which at least one payment has been made during the investigation year, from insurance companies, termed contributing offices. The data is in a per policy format. The full format is specified in the coding guide. More information about data submissions and for access to the latest coding guide is available on the CMI data page. The analysis methodology is described in detail in CMI Report 12 and CMI Report 15.
Who should I send data to or ask about the income protection investigation?
For all investigations the CMI use group email addresses in order to manage communications. Any general enquiries about the CMI should be directed to email@example.com. For correspondence about the income protection investigation, or to submit data, use firstname.lastname@example.org. Should you want speak to someone directly, please call the CMI on 020 7776 3820.
How are duplicate policies in the data allowed for?
Individuals may have more than one IP policy leading to multiple policy records that will all have the same claim experience. Inclusion of these duplicates increases the variance of the number of claims (see CMI Report 7). Duplicate claim records are identified as far as possible by matching records by the following data fields:
- Record year
- Age definition
- Deferred period
- Birth month and year
- Date of sickness (day, month and year)
These identified duplicates are removed in analyses of claim termination experience. It is not possible to identify duplicates in the in force data due to the lack of fields capable of differentiating between different policies. Therefore, in analyses of claims inceptions, duplicates are not removed in order to maintain consistency between the claims and in force datasets. The variance is adjusted as described in CMI Report 7.
What are the differences between aggregate, standard and standard* experiences?
The total collected data is referred to as the aggregate data. The data should not include medically substandard lives. Historically such lives have been requested to be excluded from data submissions. However, more recent versions of the coding guide, from version 3.0 onwards, request that these are included and identified as medically substandard.
The main analysis from the 1975-78 quadrennium was carried out on a subset of the aggregate data known as the standard data. This consists of UK policies with no special benefit types (e.g. lump sums), no identifiable underwriting exclusions and no occupational rating. The occupational rating field within the data has been used from the start of the investigation and has two values, rated or not rated. Records where the occupational rating is unknown are excluded from the data (see CMI Report 7).
To make use of the occupational class information, collected with effect from 1991, a new subset of the Aggregate data was defined and named the standard* data. This uses the same criteria as the Standard data but ignores the contents of the occupational rating field. It therefore represents a larger subset than the Standard data (the Standard data is itself a subset of the standard* data), and consists of UK policies with no special benefit types and no identifiable underwriting exclusions (see CMI Report 18).
What is the comparison basis used in the reports?
The actual claims experience is compared against that expected using the graduated rates for the standard male lives experience on individual IP policies for 1975-78. These graduations were presented in CMI Report 12 and are referred to as SM1975-78.
Although the methodology used in these comparisons are largely as set out in CMI Report 12, there have been a few revisions made which are set out in CMI Report 15. The most important of these changes concerns the treatment of non-reported claims in the analysis of claim inception experience.
If you have any questions about the CMI please email
Filter or search events
Delivered by the IFRS 17 Contractual Service Margin working party.
The Certified Actuarial Analyst (CAA) qualification has rapidly established itself as adding real value, to insurers and consultancies, and to the clients of consultancies, around the World. CAAs work alongside actuaries and actuarial students, as well as other financial services professionals, in an increasingly broad range of roles and fields.
This session is a repeat of the one earlier today at 09:30
Many individuals and institutions have a long-term focus, and invest funds for the benefit of future generations. Their strategy should reflect their long horizon. University endowments are one of the oldest classes of institutional investor, and I will present the first study of the management of these endowments over the very long term.
This year's GIRO has been re-designed as a virtual conference to offer members and non-members the opportunity to get up to date content from leading experts in the general insurance field via online webinars. All sessions will be recorded and made available to purchase and re-watch post-event on the IFoA's GI Online Learning Resource area.
This year's Life Conference has been re-designed as a virtual conference to offer members and non-members the opportunity to get up to date content from leading experts in the life insurance field via online webinars. All sessions will be recorded and made available to purchase and re-watch post-event on the IFoA's website.
This webinar will provide an update on the emerging thinking around future regulation of DB schemes:
The webinar will discuss the challenges and opportunities schemes face in evaluating end game options, choosing a target state and understanding the impact this strategic decision could have on member outcomes long after the “end state” is reached. Adolfo, Kevin and Rhian bring over 60 years of experience in the industry and a variety of perspectives as scheme actuary, covenant adviser, trustee, de-risking adviser and insurer.
Cash-flow driven investing is a game-changer for DB pension funds navigating their end-game. Suitable for sponsors who want to reduce risks on their balance sheets. And for trustees, it shifts the focus to providing greater certainty of returns, managing funding level volatility and ensuring they have enough income to pay cash-flow requirements.
Patrick Kennedy, Partner at Gateley Legal and Founding Director of Entrust (a leading professional pensions trustee company), will be delivering an update on the latest legal developments during the course of 2020. With both a pensions legal perspective and over 25 years of trustee service, Patrick will seek to highlight how the letter of the law has continued to evolve against the backdrop of a difficult and challenging year
The talk will provide an understanding of the priorities and relationships between deficit reduction contributions, in the context of wider scheme funding, and different types of value outflow from the employer based on the working party’s recently published report.