Ronald R. Hagelman

First, LIMRA does a fantastic job evaluating our sales progress along all product discipline lines. For the most part our progress or retreat from a given market appears as a reasonable incremental up or down movement. The steady yearly fall over the last 17 years of individual stand-alone “traditional” LTCI has become an unfortunate fixture in the celestial sales firmament. Sales of any long term care planning solution, to include life combo and traditional, have been holding relatively steady at about a half million new buyers per year. And relatively speaking, individual LTCI has apparently bottomed out in 2019 at a little over fifty thousand new proud (and BTW extremely smart) owners of peace of mind inflation protection. We know all this only too well.

Please feel free to consider the following as just another “rant” as we absolutely must look at these numbers from a different perspective—a frequent contortion in this column. Let’s begin with what is sold versus what is simply placed. Please feel free to generalize about some very clear basics. You do get what you pay for in life. There is no free insurance. If we sell a benefit, we expect to be able to easily define and measure what it will be when it is needed most. Please hold long term care planning sales up to the light and look for transparency. Is it life insurance or health insurance both base and/or rider? If it’s a life combo is it a long term care or chronic illness ADBR. Now (drum roll ) here’s the big one: Did you pay for it? Or did it arrive at the point of sale gift wrapped in “no current premium?”

Now dear friends let’s drill down on the basics as we all know them. Long term care planning solutions come in a very few identifiable flavors and there must not be any co-mingling of structural differences.

• Traditional sales remain the shortest distance between two points. It is an individual health insurance policy. You pay for what you get, nothing else.
• Life combo is an either/or contingent benefit. It is simply a base life policy plus an option to have some level of the death benefit made available for long term care planning purposes.
• These Accelerated Death Benefit Riders are either a LTCI health IRC 7702B or an IRC 101g life chronic illness rider.
• Now you only need to add two critical ingredients and the pot is right: 1) Did anyone pay for the rider or was it “Zero Premium?”; and, 2) Did you provide for a mechanism to exceed the original death benefit…an “EOB” Extension of Benefit rider?

Now here’s the rub. The vast majority—59 percent of all sales in 2019 booked as life combo sales—were given away, not sold!

Please explain what sale you made if you did not collect a premium? What was placed was no charge until of course you actually tried to use the benefit.

Please tell me you understood that these illusive benefits may ultimately appear as questionable, maybe even re-underwritten or severely limited benefit dollars at the time of claim.

Before my “living benefit” friends get out the tar and feathers, please understand that there are reasonably good ones and those which are not so good. These distinctions are not available from LIMRA. Although wholesale distributors routinely help advisors make these very important distinctions.

• Never give away or sell a future benefit (or source of potential litigation) without reading the rider specimen language.
• Begin with a search to make sure benefits are not restricted by the requirement of a permanent disability.
• In the case of whole life base policies, look carefully at the premium and what may already be included and not appear as an extra charge.
• Many have been remodeled and updated (if filed through the IIRC) to use HIPAA look-alike claim definitions. The proverbial duck theory does prevail. These CI riders are very hard to tell apart from long term care.
• Can you tell your client exactly what they will be paid when and if they need money for care? If you cannot, you don’t want those deficiencies cleared up for you by a plaintiff’s attorney in 15 or 20 years.

Two thoughts:

1. It is so tempting to be able to say: “If you don’t use it, you didn’t pay for it.” Don’t do that—it is not true!
2. If you didn’t collect a premium you didn’t sell anything. If it was an accommodation to political correctness, an afterthought, or blatant window dressing, therefore it had little meaning and no real value to you or the customer.

Please leave these in your better than nothing bottom drawer.

I cannot resist the ultimate rhetorical question. If there is a worthwhile zero premium option, why not mandate its presence on all life sales? Problem solved, right?

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.

Several prominent scientists recently shared the 2020 Nobel Prize for Physics. They were rewarded for helping to understand the exotic and mysterious phenomena of Black Holes.

• “The general theory of relativity leads to the formation of black holes.”
• “That an invisible and extremely heavy object governs the orbits of stars at the center of the galaxy.”

Their research has helped to reveal the darkest secrets of the universe. A black hole creates a gravitational pull that will not even allow light to emerge. The frequent readers of this column already know where this is heading. My partner and I have had numerous reflective conversations concerning our occasional combat fatigue with trying to illuminate the reality of the long term care “insurance” conundrum. Maybe it’s simply our own version of PTSD from the continuing battle to protect as many as possible from the potential financial implosion caused by an extended need for care.

It seems that light cannot escape the gravity of consumer resistance. It sometimes seems no matter how we approach the sale there is lurking in the background powerful calcified negative energy denial. The problem of course is that the war must go on. The reasons for the emotional and fiscal conflagration have not been mitigated. A satisfactory insurance solution that can create sufficient critical mass to make a real difference is still somewhat illusory. Whatever momentum we may have had 15 years ago has been decimated by rate increases and carrier exits. Exactly what happens before matter falls forever back into a black hole in our own Milky Way galaxy is shrouded by a cloud of star dust we have simply not been able to penetrate. In other words, we know what happens and does not happen in terms of a cosmically permanent result. We do not know why.

We keep trying to peer through that cloud to better understand. We try what could best be construed as a process of elimination with perceived consumer awareness and preference. It must be about price. Well, not exactly. It must be about benefits. Well, not exactly. It must be about perceived value. Well, not really. It must be about consumer awareness of the risk. Yes to awareness, no to buying action. We have simply been unable to uncover and free the light of a solution from the gravity of the problem.

The uncertainty of COVID-19 should have lit a beacon in a darkened night sky. Mortality is higher than expected over all; the number I have seen is 20 percent above projected. There is no mystery as to the source nor is there any confusion as to where the virus has hit the hardest. We have witnessed a new and ominous definition of co-morbidity and mortality not present in any actuarial product design. Time to take a deep breath as well concerning the long term effects of today’s decisions. The overall impact on future product design and satisfactory sales results is a giant unknown. While our physical health remains governed by adequate safety protocols, we should recognize the potential future concerns regarding mental health as well. In a recent NAIC article the well known underwriter Hank George suggested the pricing residue of the pandemic could lead to “an unprecedented, self-imposed underwriting apocalypse.” As you can already see frequently in the press there is considerable debate on what the pre-existing condition status will be for COVID survivors.

The pandemic has changed us permanently. The economy will hopefully continue to bounce back. Our approach to the sale, the companies’ approaches to the risk, and the consumer’s willingness to take action, may return to some version of so-called normal. But it will not be the same. Not only product but sales themselves will operate on a hybrid basis—part virtual, part personal. Zoom is here to stay but, when allowed, so is a personal close with a firm handshake or a small hug. Let’s hope that the lessons exposed by the virus can also finally release some light on more Americans willing to take actions now to protect their futures.

The Crusade to avoid the now painfully obvious shortcomings of institutional care and the capricious nature of mortality must now take on a new sense of urgency. This is protection which cannot be marginalized any longer.

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.

Alright, I admit I’m confused—but dear friends I am not alone. The only significant sign of life in life insurance sales are those products that lay claim to some level of contingent long term care planning. We certainly have a plethora (I love the way that word rolls off your tongue) of product options to accomplish a reduction in long term care risk. The problem is we have made a mess of trying to differentiate between the product choices.

The current inventory of named categories may unfortunately represent nothing more than hitting the synonym button on your computer. Let’s begin by reviewing the plain vanilla definitions of the most prevalent choices:

• Combination: “A merging of different parts—where the individual elements are individually distinct.”
• Hybrid: “A thing made combining two elements.”
• Linked: “To make, form or suggest a connection.”

What should strike you is that all the visible market options of life insurance product distinctions with 7702B or 101g ADBRs and/or EOBRs fit all the definitions. Meaning whatever preconceived notions we bring to attempting to understand the various product choices just adds to the cognitive confusion.

Nomenclature then becomes a process, defined as “the devising or choosing of names,” that becomes a “system of names in a particular field.” As usual this potential for mental disarray is substantially compounded by the 80+ companies and myriad distribution marketing sources each trying to distinguish consumer product options based on need and motivation to buy. So now let’s try to glean what we can from the literature.

• Combination—appears to be the most inclusive named category creating the largest product tent from a cornucopia of “living benefits” to the weakest chronic illness rider definition. In truth any historical additional options added to a base life plan has created a combination product.
• Hybrid—seems to have the clearest definition as any describing a life plan plus a long term care 7702B health rider. This would then include life plus an ADBR 7702B long term care rider and any asset-based products with a separate extension of benefits LTCI rider. Hybrids would not include life with chronic illness ADBRs.
• Linked benefit products—again creates an all encompassing product option “catch all” with two specific subcategories: 1) Asset-based with EOBRs; and, 2) Life plus a long term care or chronic illness rider. This would then break down into three SubPhyla to include life plus LTCI and life with chronic illness, where you pay for the additional benefit cost which then creates a clear definition of benefits paid at the time of claim, and life plus chronic illness ADBR sold with no current premium utilizing the “rear end” load with the lien or discount method. Technically you could have an LTCI ADBR with no up-front premium as well. And it too would then be considered all the above as a linked, or hybrid or combo product that cost you nothing unless you actually tried to use it.

Are you adequately confused yet? Welcome to the crowd. If we have trouble talking in terms which represent common definitional ground, how many brain cells are we scrambling in our customers? Please explain how we direct traffic in a particular product direction if we are lost before we begin?

Best advice is to follow the money to keep things straight in your head.

There are basically four long term care sales planning choices. And to be perfectly clear yet again, all of them should be on tap when you begin a sales conversation.

1. Traditional stand-alone TQ individual LTCI.
2. Life with a chronic illness or LTCI ADBR that has no upfront premium cost. You pay one way or the other only at the time of claim. Forgive my impudence here but I’m not sure you can call this a sale when you gave it away.
3. Life with a chronic illness or LTCI ADBR where the customer pays for the benefit as they go—either included in the premium or as a rider option. By paying upfront they most clearly define the actual benefits that will be paid when needed.
4. Life with an extension of benefits third pool of LTCI funding leveraging risk dollars for more affluent consumers.

And I have not forgotten annuity combos or enhanced payout options. I am also not ignoring short term LTCI health products which are also gaining popularity. They are just alternate cans of worms reserved for another discussion.

Try to keep it as simple as you can. Initial long term care planning conversation will continue to begin with insurability issues and progress rapidly to an evaluation of individual needs coupled with a combination of the willingness to link appropriate action now with the ability to pay for a hybrid solution.

Other than that, I have no opinion on the subject.

We just keep poking at the mystery. Logic continues to demand of our experientially wired brains that we could and should be able to connect the most clearly perceived dots. Therefore it is impossible to not speculate that the current most visible features of this miserable pandemic should, at the least, help us better focus on our sacred mission. Unfair and premature mortality should ride like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse through all our dreams. In tandem with that nightmare hovering at the edges of our consciousness is the potential personal intensive care and iron clad isolation currently being required of far too many. I can only hope and pray that this sure and certain knowledge may finally contribute to more American consumers taking action.

There is current survey evidence that consumer awareness is on the rise. Genworth recently released the COVID 19 Consumer Sentiment Survey. Approximately one-third of those surveyed said they had already begun to take action to be better prepared. Two-thirds recognized the vulnerability of their loved ones. America and the world have all become daily caregivers of themselves and those requiring assistance. The survey confirmed this overwhelming shift in focus with one in three having become “overnight” caregivers of all those dependent on the help and support of others. We know that the cost of caregiving is a double edged sword. The problem has become all too real with one in four concerned about their financial future and half of those surveyed experiencing emotional distress.

Now, forgive me, but all the still functioning synapses of my brain would suggest that this painfully obvious revelation should certainly lead to definitive buying behaviors. Aren’t we, after all, an industry that prides itself on helping others visualize the problem, then helping determine its magnitude, leading to taking preventative measures in a timely manner to blunt the risk? This has always been our shining truth, the mantra of our mission, and it has held true—right up until we dared to challenge what in my mind represents America’s largest unprotected risk: Long term care. Long term care risk is just different.

Our industry has a couple of very illuminating longitudinal studies: The
LIMRA /Life Plans Buyer Non-Buyer Survey and LIMRA Insurance Barometer Study. The most recent 2020 evidence from the latter again illuminates our persistent conundrum: American adults understand mortality, with 54 percent owning some form of life insurance; and, Americans understand morbidity, with 85 percent owning health insurance. It is the kissing cousin risks (disability and long term care) that remain unable to connect the dots between understanding the need and taking action to deal with it.

At 61 percent perceived need vs. 18 percent ownership, long term care represents the greatest disparity between perception and reality. The acceptance and acquisition of combo policies continues to strengthen. There is an interesting subset of perceived consumer purchase reasons for the growing popularity of combo sales. There is a perception that these products allow them to make economic decisions about the protection of their resources. It alleviates a general anxiety over future expenses and specifically it prevents having to buy two policies for the same purpose.

These are certainly insightful findings. However, please again bear in mind the effect of cognitive dissonance. As we continue to try to understand perhaps the greatest mystery of our times, we must remember that there are three parts to understanding what happened during the buying process. First, what are the buying predispositions? In other words, what do consumers “say” their preferences are in order to be willing to buy? Existing surveys do help identify a perceived wish list. Second, we do have good data telling us what consumers “say” were their rationalizations for buying. But, ultimately, the critical missing piece of the puzzle is what actually happened between these two perceptions. We need to determine what actually happened to convince them to buy.

This answer must come from those successful advisors in the trenches on the front lines making it happen. We need precise laser analysis to understand the motivational forces that are actually moving us forward. It is the only way we can hope to change the persistent intransigence of The Great Disconnect.

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.

This is a time for clarity. If ever there was an opportunity to reflect on the obvious it is now. Critical baseline values, intrinsic social obligations and the meaning of cultural responsibilities to each other, in my humble opinion, have never been more important. The cry for common cause and common purpose currently haunts every American psyche. In these troubled times the disparity of understanding of what should unite our thinking and consolidate common ground is truly alarming.

Clearly identifying those common denominators of collective knowledge that bind us together is the only way we can ever move forward. It struck me that this is particularly true in our own little back eddy of long term care risk mitigation. Therefore, in no particular order of importance, I would like to try to establish a baseline of what we should all know to be Common Knowledge:

• Nobody wants to suffer the ill effects of ending life’s journey in an institutional setting. (Nursing home or prison.) No one can escape the current implications of overcrowded, underfunded, locked down institutionalized and intentionally discounted care.
• Again, the readers of this column are the original founding members of the “International Stay at Home Fraternal Order of the Sainted Caregivers of the World.”
• No one really wants to talk about the problem, but virtually everyone is aware that it exists.
• Limited market penetration has been a mirror image of limited acceptance of the insurance selling fraternity both affiliated and non-affiliated.
• “Planners” are of course the most likely to respond, but even this primary cohort of all insurance sales have to be cajoled and frankly marginally coerced to take action.
• At the heart of virtually every sale is a personal or tangential experience with the emotional and financial consequences of being unprepared. The cost of caregiving binds us all together.
• Everyone would prefer quality private care yet consumers consistently underestimate the actual cost of care and remain perpetually confused about who will pay. We all of course suspect this is simply intentional blind ignorance.
• No one disputes our known history. This is certainly not the first or probably the last time we underpriced health insurance. The burning frustration is that the largest pricing concern was how much consumers who did buy loved what they bought. The negative feelings caused by onerous rate increases has done more damage than we choose to admit.
• We have slowly but surely priced ourselves out of our market. Twenty five years ago the average assets of LTCI buyers was $40,000…it is now approaching $100,000. As average cost rose underwriting constricted and sales fell causing producers and consumers to abandon ship.
• It was always about cost to benefit. We continue to find ourselves just out of reach of the very market we need to insure, those whose fragile assets and marginal retirement strategies are most vulnerable. Individual traditional LTCI premiums are teetering on the edge of $3,000 and multi-pay combo premiums are rapidly approaching $5,000—tantalizingly just out of reach of what every consumer survey suggests is successful marketing territory.
• We know that the best way to achieve successful market penetration is to offer protection at the worksite, a market that has unfortunately and embarrassingly now dried up and blown away.
• The gravitational pull of double-dipped benefits with state supported Partnership plans might be kindly compared to a not overly embarrassing belly flop.
• Why are we surprised at growing claims? Those who do buy know there is a problem. Why can’t we accept this as adverse selection at the get go and face up to the consequences?
• We know that corporate premium deductibility will drive sales, yet currently the argument finds itself in the fine print at the back of new and improved marketing materials.
• It was always supposed to be our intention to leverage the risk of those at greatest risk, yet we find ourselves quietly justifying the importance of leveraging dollars for the wealthy.
• I’m very sorry but there is only anecdotal evidence from consumer wish lists that additional tax incentives which might allow access to tax deferred accounts will change the dynamics of the sale. We all know that there will have to be a balance of commitment to the risk from public and private sources. Eventually, one will have to lay claim to the front end of the risk and the other the surplus and excess. Frankly, whichever one prices out better politically will get to choose heads or tails.
• There is massive confusion in the combo market. Beginning with the definition of what constitutes a Hybrid product (which is currently all over the spread sheets). And…anyone who does not read carefully the specimen language of the riders at play better have a low deductible E&O policy.
• Two thirds of the affluent do not have a financial plan. How can long term care protection be a firewall around a non-existent structure?
• If you study current LIMRA combo production there are really only two visible signs of sales growth: Variable UL and SPUL. In other words, the only way to hang on a long term care/chronic illness ADBR is to dangle it as a bonus feature of a very aggressive account value projection.
• And before we all become too proud of the fact that 90-plus percent of the long term care market is combo, please note that 85 percent of those sales did not charge for the rider! So, apparently, if our mission was to reduce the net cost of the risk, the only way we can sell it is to give it away!
• Furthermore, those predominant discount or loan method riders are in truth nothing more than a convoluted life settlement—which might be the shortest distance to a fair present value anyway.
• Insurtech holds great promise of enhanced private care at home and major reductions in personal cost. Unfortunately this growing group of innovators suffer from the same shortage of funding that has plagued our cause from the beginning.

Dear friends, until we stop and take inventory of the absolute truths we have learned the hard way over the last 25-plus years, we cannot hope to build any kind of new future. We already share a common cause. If we could just convert our common knowledge into common purpose we may finally get this done!

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.

Hard to know where to start. What has been painfully obvious to us for too many years is our deep seated understanding of the meaning of “staying at home.” We have been the hard-headed advocates of the safety, security, comfort and importance to our overall well being guaranteed by the intrinsic desire to age in place. Over 80 percent of all care takes place at home. There has never been a buyer of long term care protection sold that began with a primary desire to languish in an institutional setting. This was of course most clear to those who had witnessed that possible eventuality within their own inventory of family and friends. Our problem, of course, is that consumers understand exactly what they do not want but, as we know all too well, have serious difficulty coming to grips with what they should want.

For 30 years I have had the privilege of standing with a fanatic cohort of dedicated professionals who rose each morning to help as many as possible Stay at Home. Listening to the endless monologues of talking heads evaluating the pandemic, it’s almost as if they have uncovered an underground religious cult. It is certainly safe to say that a new culturally permanent personal understanding of the good and bad of staying at home will become a measure of historical progression on a global scale.

What matters is that all our lives will be changed forever. When we again feel truly safe, the last “phase” will be a time of reflection. What did we learn? Which past expediencies are now permanent? How can we be better prepared if and when there may be a next time?

May I humbly shout from my front porch: “Lord please help us never forget who suffered the most during this crisis and still remains the most exposed to real mortal risk! We are all overburdened and spiritually anesthetized by the relentless progression of negative statistics. May we forever remember that the overwhelming majority of this mountain of death took place in institutional settings! Those most vulnerable, those already at the mercy of their often underpaid and inadequately regulated care givers have been hit the hardest. Those already, in many cases, afraid and alone have paid the highest price.

Two specific events have lodged themselves in my daily thought: 1) The Governor of New Jersey today sent in National Guard troops to shore up the spiraling conflagration taking place at nursing homes and those huddled together for the need of long term care: 2) Yesterday a panel of virus experts declared that we of course knew exactly where the greatest concentration of vulnerable populations was located and still we waited too late to focus our attention where it was needed the most. In other words, we knew exactly where we needed to be to defend those who could not defend themselves and, as these experts then brazenly admitted, we should have begun our defensive moves there. Frankly folks, after this media event I had to take a long walk in my garden. It remains my refuge when our collective failures require emergency reflection.

My ask, reflected perpetually in this column and confirmed by the continuing faith of those who read this column, is that private at-home care remains the answer. How can we not have acquired a new collective memory institutionalizing a now unforgettable and universally recognized truth? Quality private care at home must never again escape our shared cultural consciousness. That avoiding the possible horrors of an underfunded custodial health environment will never again require our need to explain why that is bad. That the comfort and strength our planet found at home will be our new global wisdom—a permanent reminder that if I must take an order let it be “Stay at Home”…and when we must, then we must be better prepared.

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.

A surprise assault on a weakened population is an equation for disaster. In our own little corner of a worldwide conflagration, our direct relationship to those most vulnerable cannot be lost on any of us. The simple truth is we have struggled valiantly to defeat or ameliorate inferior or discounted institutional care. If circumstance demands custodial assistance outside the home, we have tried to make sure there were funds available to maximize the level of care. At this moment a return to normal is a when not if. Our 20 year campaign to blunt the force of a potential catastrophic risk will surely return with a new urgent momentum, insight into the cost of physical isolation and a recognition of the health care vulnerability of those most in need of care.
How could this historical tragedy have arrived at a less opportune time? Although this column has a tendency to overuse metaphors, analogies, parables and euphemisms, it is impossible to ignore the apparent similarities between our current national health emergency and the readiness of extended care indemnification. We are unprepared.
Let’s begin with the fact that we have a highly segmented market in terms of product and solutions. There is still prevalent product misogyny. It seems too many are enamored with the mythical transactional “Easy Button.” All too often once an advisor or, for that matter, distributor becomes familiar and comfortable with a given product genre approach to the risk, that solution becomes a panacea to all requests for protection. In my humble opinion may I explain again that all the good and all the bad of all the choices demonstrates a much safer and transparent fiduciary responsibility.
To suggest there may be confusion in the field about virtually everything associated with extended care risk abatement would be a cosmic understatement. The oldest mystery is how did this progressive conversation initiate itself? Who actually called this meeting to evaluate risk and determine an appropriate response? Unfortunately we know from multiple consumer surveys it almost always begins with the consumer not the insurance advisor. What we have of course learned is that the knowledge of the need is laying there just below the surface. It is however still financially nebulous, structurally misinformed and governed by personal experience with caregiving. If a direct route to this sale were a Google Map, I would find myself perpetually lost in the middle of an obscure corn field. Maybe if we could filter the requested journey to take only main, well marked Interstate, avoid any current traffic wrecks and boondoggle projects under construction, we might be more successful.
The problem begins with genre identification. Perhaps it’s simply the mushrooming plethora of product choices. Much more likely it’s the immediate and highly negative knee jerk reaction to anything “long term care.” The market has moved on and the previously established agent base has been drastically eroded. The perfect storm of rising premiums, onerous rate increases, and restrictive underwriting has taken its toll on those willing to help.
What follows is sheer speculation. Unfortunately, there is no definitive producer sales analysis available to validate our suspicions. The following is my gut intuition and anecdotal perceptions:
Stand-alone LTCI aficionados are still correct. Directly addressing a contingent liability with a contingent solution remains good math.
Our sales to the affluent market may have held us together but concentrating our attention on those who could probably self insure if they wished is not a formula for lasting success.
Your choice of primary presumed purchase motivation can’t help but point you to a particular siloed approach.
Is the potential sale an intentional response to a family care experience opening up a new and broader horizon of possible solutions?
Is the long term care/chronic illness sale governed by a coincidental opportunity? Is this just a great bonus conversation? In other words, was there a life insurance need already on the table and what philosophy of that life transaction was at play—death benefit or internal account value performance?
Does the sale boil down to ROIs providing more powerful investment strategies?
Maybe the sale is permanently contaminated by well-known concerns and frankly indigenous to our market. LTCI has left us an unappetizing legacy…ringing in our ears should be the valid concern: “Can you actually get it issued and specifically are the premiums and benefits guaranteed?”
I have started to again carry a Rand McNally Atlas in my vehicles. Google or SIRI can never give any context or more personally pleasing options to my journey. It only takes me from one finite point to another. It excludes all esoteric or scenic alternatives.
After this temporary and historic delay in America’s future, we must be prepared to build a better focused response. The spotlight is burning brightly on America’s greatest underinsured risk. The residue of this artificially imposed sabbatical should be a better understanding of an even more visibly precarious population. We are all witnesses to a worldwide tragedy painfully exposing a vulnerable cohort based on advanced age and diminished health status. We must begin now to sort out this marketing mess and bring some order to the disarray of the past. We must finally stand ready to attack this risk with a new dedicated commitment to a much larger market. Our mantra and our mission remains constant: Those most in need now and in the future.
Other than that I have no opinion on the subject. 

The Senior housing market in terms of national ALF and NH occupancy has experienced a number of years of falling occupancy. This is a complicated market most frequently fueled by substantial yet fluctuating new construction investment. But it would be impossible to suggest it has not been a market in retreat for some time. Perhaps it’s only about following the money after all. However, I choose to believe it’s something much bigger that indeed strikes at the heart of the problem that continues to fester. The truths we carry in our hearts are that no one wants to lose control, no one wants to be institutionalized, no one in their right mind would want that control turned over to an overburdened and insufficient governmental bureaucracy and when it hits the fan everyone would rather just stay home. What we of course do want is quality care as a direct result of controlling our own claims destiny. What we all want is private care!

Unfortunately, we now live in very strange marketing and sales times. We seem to have become comfortable selling a product that few can afford. In fact those who can may best be described as those same prospective consumers who use to defiantly proclaim that they could self-insure anyway. A projected brighter future for “lazy” money, the perpetual siren’s song of enhanced ROIs and dramatic leveraging visuals seem to be the new holy trifecta. Just so there is no confusion: What I am suggesting is that we have now successfully isolated the sale to exclusively those who have absolutely no chance of running out of money and falling victim to inadequate planning. Those at greatest risk have been quietly and systematically abandoned by (fill in the blank!). Pointing fingers at this point is absurd. Circumstance becomes history. The blame game at this point is an insult to all concerned.

As has been frequently advocated in this column, we simply got fixated at doing what we have always done as insurance professionals. We measured a real and sufficiently frequent catastrophic risk and for over 20 years we attempted to do battle with that Monster. In the beginning, without sufficient experience at killing dragons, we may have overestimated the ease and prospective efficiencies of dragon slaying. The beast was larger than originally estimated, the cost of effective weapons exceeded our expectations and frankly the dragon was much harder to kill than we thought. As these inevitable realties became increasingly self-apparent, costs rose and markets retreated. Fewer dragons killed, fewer candidates as apprentice dragon slayers, and killing dragons drifted into an exclusive pastime of the landed gentry and idle rich. The pull toward the new world order was inexorable and perhaps unavoidable. The net result is a much wider market gone stale from lack of activity.

The net residue is greater risk from dragon’s breath for the majority of Americans as we have systematically and perhaps inadvertently abandoned those unable to obtain total protection from the dragon slayers guild to protect against the whims of aberrant dragon behavior. Now to the point. We must ask ourselves: Do we have any responsibility for a situation that will ultimately result in the demise of the dragon risk termination business? Must we continue to adhere to the myopic view that every dragon on the horizon must be slain? Why can’t it be enough to simply provide sufficient support to influence the behavior of the beast by enhancing your own personal resources. Must every potential attack on our homes be perceived as a conflagration of dragon fire? Fifteen years ago, when a million Americans bought dragon protection, it represented a market consisting of those who wanted to shift the risk entirely to the dragon slaying companies both for those who could afford to run out of money and those who could not. This privilege has been lost. Dragons do not scare me, but I would like to be able to just be more careful and better prepared to defend myself where they are concerned.

Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.