After getting 5, 5, then 4 on specialty, I’m feeling good about this attempt after throwing myself 95% into notecard memorization. But this exam never fails to surprise me so who freaking knows. Trying to do algebra in excel is not fun.
Also, I must have missed the memo that GoActuary was where all the G&H folks migrated.
i think the exam window is closed now. can I start bitching yet?
As someone that skimped out on ASOP memorization, this was a brutal sitting.
Also, I should have done that weird algebra problem sooner. That broke my brain 2 hours into the exam.
Yeah dude no kidding… ASOPs out the whazoo. It is so dumb that those area on the exam imo…
I also thought that algebra problem at the end was a doozy. It probably took me like 25 mins, but I did end up getting reasonable answers (I think). I think the most annoying part is that it is SOOO hard to show work for algebra. Like, how am I supposed to get partial credit when there are like 30 steps to the problem and I can’t tell you what Im doing without literally typing out “A/B = C=D^2”. Add to that the fact that there were exponents all over and my “work showing” looked freaking ridiculous and incomplete.
Can we discuss specifics on this yet or what?
general rule is day after exam, so we are fine now.
I did a bunch of algebra in exel, but then got some unreasonable answer I think… Like 50% RBC for the equity one and 250% for the bond one.
I was just pissed that of all the ways they could ask you to show understanding of a RBC math problem, they asked that quesiton…
I wanted to re-do it, but no time. had to just leave it and move on.
I had something around that area too - I was worried that my RBC was too low for the equities. I had between 35 and 50% I think. Got a similar figure for the bond piece. I think our answers make sense given the really high factor for the equities RBC. If nothing else, I justified my (potentially wrong) answers haha, so hopefully that’s good for a couple of pity points if we ended up being super wrong.
woah, maybe I did do that right.
and I think you could get some points for knowing it was mandatory action level even if the % was wrong.
I know I botched the algebra, but got similar answers, and justified just using the shorthand since H1 was the dominant factor in the calc and am hoping that the interpretation of results is useful for good partial credit… Was surprised at the lack of math in general.
+1 on no math questions?
there was only 1 other calc problem. And I think (hope) it was a relatively simple HCC addition problem. like literally just add up the numbers? felt way to simple when i was doing it.
I effectively solved for for the change in h1 and then applied the inverse of that ratio to the RBC. but the h1 change ratio was like 1000%.
Side note, the Prometric employees at my center did a great job and I told them as much after my exam. The guy at the front desk then launched into how he’s worked there for 3 years, raised the google review rating by a full star since he started and hadn’t received a single raise. Felt bad for him because he does his job really well and has surprisingly good recall of returning test takers.
my prometric did not do so well… I think they scheduled too many tests for the same time. I got there 20 min early and there were 20 people waiting to get checked in. i ended up starting my test 40 min after scheduled. they were trying, but they could only do one person at a time and it took a while.
I did the same thing here. Definitely got messy, but I felt that my answers at least were on the right track. Thinking about it now I think I forgot to mention the Mandatory Control Level in my answer fml. Easy freaking points and I rushed past them, classic. I certainly brought it up in part 2 of that problem, so hopefully that’s enough.
I was fortunately prepared for all the ASOP stuff. That calc problem (thankfully I had time) took me forever to end up with something coherent but I too got around the 30-40% on the equity and 250% on the bond. I’m hoping to go 3-3 with these upper level exams and I’ve already completed all the modules and DMAC so here’s to hoping I’m at the very end!
Same here trainheavy, best of luck! I’m at the point where if my answers weren’t good enough for at least a 6 I really don’t know what more the SOA wants from me.
Approximately how many points was your RBC question (including related descriptions and recommendations)?
GH exam writers were really into RBC, they even put 4 points of it on the FVC exam. (it’s very briefly mentioned on a textbook page that is on the syllabus for FVC)
other questions i can recall:
open ended question on DM savings estimate: didnt really ask for anything specific. I wrote about the actuarial adjusted control method, P scoring, risk adj, threw in a bunch of points on equivenelence and observable variables.
open ended question on paliative care: very confused what they were looking for. I wrote a description of the program and said something about ‘agree that results should lower cost and increase quality’. Kind a of lazy question that asked “did you read the new section?”
few points on propensity scores.
few points on grouper models
did they really ask about the ACA risk pools? Of the 100 lists on ACA risk adj, I didnt see that one coming.
ERM question from one of the dumb ERM chapters. I think they made it simple enough. Gave 5 points and said critique them.
ASOP city. oof. my fault for not hammering ASOPs more. ouch. almost an unreasonable amount of ASOP stuff.
something about duration impact for partial year enrollees.
rest is a blur.
This is what I did too. I showed the normal formula but said since the biggest contributing factor by far is H1 I’m going to use the back of the napkin approach. Don’t remember exactly what my %s were but it was below 70% for equities in mandatory control and above 200% for bonds so no changes needed
Good list. I think I was actually most confused on that first open ended question, it looked like they asked basically the same thing in 2 subquestions. I think the specific wording was like - how to measure the impact of care management. I didn’t know if they wanted us to explain how to measure total impact (ROI, average savings etc) or how we practically measure specific impact on individuals (p scoring, pre/post, participating/non) but maybe they were even asking for something else…
On palliative care I think they were looking for some of the pretty specific critiques that were mentioned in the material. It was just based on one MA plan in one location, it had extremely low participation, results were different from another study that had been conducted, and impact was viewed retrospectively (membership was assigned prospectively though).
Grouper model question seemed too simple, I feel like I had to have missed something there but just added up the factors. Maybe we werent supposed to include demographic factors in the retro calc? But question was based on ACA which does include demo factors so I wasnt sure.
I think the ACA risk pool question was looking for stuff from the new material - Creating stability in unstable times.
ASOP questions were also a bit of a question mark, I tried spitting out general ASOP considerations regardless of the question, not sure if I really gave what they were looking for on consistency.
good point on the retro calc not using A/S factors. I think you are right. I missed that.
Palliative care question, I think I missed that. I studied what the programs were and how to implement them. I did not memorize the study results…
ACA risk pool Im still unsure of. I rattled off the old fashined list of items from years ago… I thought the new material was on how they needed to change risk adjustment… shit. really 2nd guessing myself here.
Seconding the stable ACA Risk Pool question was from the RA stability article. Pretty sure there’s a MATE notecard on it.