I wish to analyse the Eldershield premium that is being charged now for people who reaches the entry age. Please send the following infomation to me:
a) starting age
b) amount of annual or single premium
c) duration of premium payment
d) benefit covered by Eldershield.
If you have received the offer for the Eldershield supplement from the insurer, you can send the same details for my analysis.
I recently received the auto-inclusion offer from Ntuc (yeah, turning 40!).
ReplyDeletea) starting age is 40yo.
b) annual premium = $174.96
c) premium term is until 65yo i.e. 25 yrs.
d) $400/mth up to 72 mths (6 yrs) upon certification by appointed doctors that you cannot do 3 out of 6 Activities Of Daily Living.
Notes:-
1) The above is for the standard MOH/CPF devised Eldershield. Premiums & T&C are the same whether from Ntuc, GE or Aviva.
2) I believe women pay higher premium.
3) All the 3 companies are promoting their additional riders to increase the monthly payouts and/or the duration of the payouts etc. I think GE is also marketing a version that pays out when kenna 2 out of 6 ADLs.
4) For a person to meet the 3 out of 6 ADLs, he/she is most likely in a completely immobile state (e.g. like Mrs LKY) or vegetative state (e.g. coma), and quite likely not to live beyond 5 years. Of course got 5%-10% exception cases.
5) If you can move your hands and carry a cup, you will be considered able to feed yourself, "wash" yourself (using wet cloth), and dress yourself (using velcro-type clothing if necessary), even if you're paralysed from waist-down. If you are on wheelchair and able to move yourself (even if electric wheelchair with joystick control), then you're still considered "mobile".
6) When I was working in Ntuc a couple of years back, the claims dept refused to answer simple questions such as what is the claims payout ratio, what is the median payout duration, what is the median age of eldershield claims. From their refusal to reveal, I suspect that it is very difficult to claim, and even if can claim, don't think many policyholders live long to "enjoy" the 6 yrs of payouts anyway.
it seems that the payout ratio has improved from 50% under the previous scheme to 65%. It is still quite profitable for the insurance company.
ReplyDeleteI analysed the single premium paid by my wife for the Eldershield when it was launched. It did not give value to the consumer. The accumulated premium to age 80 (assumign 4% interest) is the same as the amount that is expected to be paid under a claim. Only 50% is expected to make a claim.
ReplyDeleteFor the other 50%, the accumulated premium is profit to the insurance company (NTUC Income). I was in charge at that time, so I bought the insurance out of loyalty.
Anyway, I did not analyse the figures at that time, as the claim experience was still unclear.
I analysed the single premium paid by my wife for the Eldershield when it was launched. It did not give value to the consumer. The accumulated premium to age 80 (assumign 4% interest) is the same as the amount that is expected to be paid under a claim. Only 50% is expected to make a claim.
ReplyDeleteFor the other 50%, the accumulated premium is profit to the insurance company (NTUC Income). I was in charge at that time, so I bought the insurance out of loyalty.
Anyway, I did not analyse the figures at that time, as the claim experience was still unclear.
When Eldershield was introduced, I was directly involved in marketing it. The database was randomly split half/half between NTUC Income and GE. Suddenly the agents have a good excuse to call.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't inherently commissionable but I recall later due to agent protests of doing free work, I think S$20 or S$30 flat were offered per case closed by NTUC Income agents. It doesn't affect the premium at all as if the client voluntarily signs up. I don't know about GE.
I told agents in my team not to view it free work or cheap work, use it as an opportunity to open more doors and prospect for more clients whom may need other policies. However, looking through the Edldershield policy document, I didn't think it attractive or even helpful at all.
My mom did sign up, funded through my sis' CPF anyway. If it was cash, I don't think they'd be bothered, and I wouldn even advise them not to sign up.
I know this post is old, but I was just enrolled into Great Eastern's Eldershield without my explicit consent. I am a Singaporean who works abroad. I have no use for their services, and my company provides a much better benefit than what they are offering. All in all, I am annoyed by their auto-enrollment. When I asked for a refund, they refused. Why is that acceptable in Singapore? Taking money from someone without their explicit consent is considered theft and fraud in some cultures. How can the government allow these kind of practices continue?
ReplyDeleteAs one of your commentor mentioned, most people did not realize that their funds are being withdrawn or too lazy to cancel the policy. I would not have known if my parents had not informed me of a payment letter sent to an address I do not live at anymore.
This practice is not constitutional. Perhaps what we need is a class-action lawsuit against them. Who's in?