So this is weird
Working on a new group quote, finally noticed something I suppose I've know all along, but just never 'paid any attention to.
Take a look:
[click to embiggen]
It's never really "clicked" for me until the other day that at any given age, the rates are different for employees versus spouses. That is, a male employee's rate is always different than that same age male spouse, and same for females.
Why?
After all, that person is the same risk regardless of whether he or she is the employee or the spouse. Or is he (or she)?
So I reached out to FoIB (and actuary) Gregg Fann for his insights, and he replied that it likely has to do with the "actively at work" clause in group plans. That is, dependents (spouses) aren't necessarily that healthy.
And I can see that, but it still doesn't wash, because, well, up until about age 40, the male spouse rate is actually lower than the male employee rate. And at age 35, female employees are actually more expensive than their m(presumably) stay-at-home counterparts.
I realize that in the grand scheme of things this is really not a huge deal, but it's been bugging me for a few days now: why the difference?
Any thoughts on this?
Post a Comment for "So this is weird"