I don’t know how many of you are involved with the current CO anti discrimination law and the onslaught of legislation that are being introduced across the country, but on that note…how do you define anti-discrimination, especially within the confines of protected classes (age, sex, race, religion)?
Age, sex, race have apparent cost differences for all lines of businesses, and if (actaurial) rating is to reflect expected costs, ignoring these differences means cross subsidization. For certain lines, not being able to rate by protected classes seems ridiculous (eg, age for life insurance).
Montana requires unisex rates for life insurance, which seems very strange. OTOH, I believe ERISA mandates unisex rates in pension plans, even though females on overage live longer. That hasn’t cause too many problems across companies, since all most operate that way.
No, and I wasn’t intending to definitely include health insurance. I had googled it before posting (to be sure of the state, which I had thought was North Dakota before googling.) I found a google hit that cited hearings to repeal that law in March 2021, where the few speakers it mentioned were in favor of repeal, but at that time it was still law.
The CAS used to have an article on the syllabus that showed that when no one is allowed to price on sex (or race) it doesn’t cause market problems. Basically, there’s not a lot of difference in demand, so the impact evens out.
There are differences in demand by age, for life and health insurance. And i imagine young adults planning on getting pregnant are more likely to seek health insurance than young adults who don’t expect to become pregnant. Of course if you require everyone to carry health insurance, the potential distortions are mitigated.