Underwriting Rate Classes
Companies typically offer three non-tobacco and two tobacco standard or better underwriting rate classes through their AU workflow. The number of non-tobacco rate classes ranged from a low of one to a high of six. For tobacco rate classes, the number ranged from a low of zero to a high of four.
Communication to Clients
The majority of companies communicate back to clients regarding underwriting decisions made through their AU workflow. About one-third of companies reported providing a specific reason to clients regarding the underwriting decision made through their AU workflow. The remaining provide a broad reason or no reason at all. Eighty-six percent of companies reported there is no difference in communication back to clients for fully underwritten applications versus accelerated underwriting applications.
Sources of Underwriting Evidence
Carriers were asked how often they use various sources of underwriting evidence. The most used tools in AU workflows are: MIB reports (incld. codes/EHR, IAI), motor vehicle reports (MVRs), prescription (Rx) database rules/models, and electronic applications. The top tools which are not currently used, but most often considered include behavioral science data, data extraction tools (e.g., NL, NLP, AI), electronic health records, and medical claims data.
Pre-and Post-Issue Controls
About two-thirds of companies (65%) use rescission activity as a control measure throughout their AU workflow. Other common controls in place include random holdouts (53%), post-issue APS (49%), post-issue auditing (44%), and post-issue agent monitoring (42%).