The publisher of this remaining bastion of free insurance speech and introspective dialogue has suggested privately in the past that this “Commentary” column may, at times, resemble a monthly “rant” on those long term care insurance issues which hopefully concern us all. Every one of us that is still engaged in the on-going struggle to deflect what, for the majority of American families, will constitute a crippling blow of strategically unprepared and unanticipated caregiving chaos must feel the same frustration with current events. This column is clearly guilty of repeatedly discussing and evaluating every industry or governmental attempt to analyze existing sales and project innovative ideas that might improve future market performance. Is there really anyone left out there who does not understand what is wrong with our market and therefore does not intuitively know exactly what needs to be done?
Who among you does not know that we have isolated our efforts by exclusively selling expensive co-insurance policies to only the most affluent American consumers? According to the 2012 U.S. Census, Genworth Policyholder Analysis: nine percent of American households represent 66 percent of current sales. Is there anyone left who does not understand that, as premiums have risen, sales have fallen dramatically? Is there anyone politically naïve enough to think that the middle class in America is not in trouble—being ignored or passed over for wage improvements, victimized by inflation in consumer goods, drastically restricted in new home ownership and virtually ignored by any attempt of the insurance industry’s to leverage a known risk for far too many?
It seems every time we ask ourselves why we cannot adequately penetrate this market and speculate what needs to be done to move forward, the answers seem to mock us as they echo back to us over and over. “We need smaller, simpler, faster, cheaper, less underwriting restrictive, guaranteed premiums that do not manifest the possibility of complete irrelevance.” What did I miss?
My fellow travelers, we now live in a Brave New World of alternative chronic risk solutions. Unfortunately it often looks more like a three ring circus. We have stand-alone sales in the center ring. Think of these as the elephants who never forget, have a small inventory of recognizable tricks yet remain historically popular with the circus owners and the ticket paying public. In the left ring we have the new and exotic ”combo’s”, dressed in more flamboyant costumes and entertaining us with spell binding contortions and new feats of legerdemain. In the ring to your immediate right resides the Shetland ponies and dwarf clowns flying under the HIPAA regulatory radar as proponents of short term care policies. Unfortunately a circus implies purpose and intent. I would like to believe it’s merely a way of giving the public the type of spectacle they want. Maybe the market demand has created something more than mere spectacle. Maybe what’s true is that without three rings no one will attend the performance. There are no easy answers. Selecting which ring in which you believe you have the greatest affinity or comfort by choosing to love only elephants, acrobats or ponies and clowns, remains the surest formula for myopic implosion. We must all expand our vision to accommodate diversity and innovation. Bravely mix and match your attempts to alleviate risk. The more diverse the choices in your inventory of attractions, the greater the opportunity for creative and meaningful solutions for your customers.
Hoping to have everyone’s attention by now and while you are dreaming of organ music, monkeys and cotton candy, something very important needs to be said: “What if what is needed is not just new, cheaper premium, more streamlined underwriting or easier to understand product? What if it is not about substance but form? What if what we really need now is new, untainted, unjaded sales talent offering creative multiple flexible solutions? What is the reason for going to the circus in the first place? Was it to simply always anticipate what was to be expected and familiar, or was it to openly marvel at what was new and creatively possible?
Other than that I have no opinion on the subject.
