European Actuarial Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 245–255 | Cite as

Risk classification in life and health insurance: extension to continuous covariates

  • Michel Denuit
  • Catherine Legrand
Notes and Notices


This short note supplements the paper by Glschössl et al. (Eur Actuar J 1:23–41, 2011) with an efficient method allowing actuaries to include continuous covariates in their life tables, such as the sum insured for instance. Compared to the classical approach based on grouped data adopted in the majority of actuarial mortality studies, individual observations recorded at the policy level are included in the Poisson regression model. The proposed procedure avoids any preliminary, subjective banding of the range of continuous covariates that may bias the resulting life tables. The approach is illustrated on a numerical example demonstrating its advantages when individual mortality data are available.


Life tables Poisson regression GLM GAM 



The authors wish to express their gratitude to the anonymous referee and the editor for useful suggestions that greatly helped to improve a previous version of this text. The present work originated from interesting discussions with Jérémy Goris, Marine Habart and Tom Popa from the Retirement and Pension Funds team of the AXA Group, based in Paris, France. The authors wish to thank the AXA team for these fruitful interactions that have inspired the present note to a large extent.


  1. 1.
    Brouhns N, Denuit M, Vermunt JK (2002) A Poisson log-bilinear approach to the construction of projected life tables. Insur Math Econ 31:373–393CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown RL, McDaid J (2003) Factors affecting retirement mortality. N Am Actuar J 7:24–43MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denuit M, Lang S (2004) Nonlife ratemaking with Bayesian GAMs. Insur Math Econ 35:627–647CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fong JH (2015) Beyond age and sex: enhancing annuity pricing. Geneva Risk Insur Rev 40:133–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glschössl S, Schoenmaekers P, Denuit M (2011) Risk classification in life insurance: methodology and case study. Eur Actuar J 1:23–41MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guibert Q, Planchet F (2014) Construction de lois d’expérience en présence d’évènements concurrents: application à l’estimation des lois d’incidence d’un contrat dépendance. Bulletin Français d’Actuariat 14:5–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haberman S, Renshaw AE (1990) Generalised linear models and excess mortality from peptic ulcers. Insur Math Econ 9:21–32MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon HS, Jones BL (2006) The impact of the determinants of mortality on life insurance and annuities. Insur Math Econ 38:271–288MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein N, Denuit M, Lang S, Kneib Th (2014) Nonlife ratemaking and risk management with Bayesian additive models for location, scale and shape. Insur Math Econ 55:225–249MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhn M, Johnson K (2013) Applied predictive modelling. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renshaw AE (1988) Modelling excess mortality using GLIM. J Inst Actuar 115:299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renshaw AE (1991) Actuarial graduation practice and generalized linear and non-linear models. J Inst Actuar 118:295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomas J, Planchet F (2014) Constructing entity specific projected mortality table: adjustment to a reference. Eur Actuar J 4:247–279MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood SN (2017) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EAJ Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Statistique, Biostatistique et Sciences ActuariellesUCLLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations