Advertisement

Unisex Insurance Pricing: Consumers’ Perception and Market Implications

  • Hato Schmeiser
  • Tina Störmer
  • Joël Wagner

Abstract

The main reason for different insurance premiums and benefits is the use of different statistically proven risk factors in actuarial calculations for individuals. Basing its ruling on European Union Directive 2004/113/EC, the European Court of Justice on 1 March 2011 concluded that any gen der-based discrimination is prohibited, so gender equality in the European Union (EU) must be ensured from 21 December 2012. Until then, gender-specific premium differentiation was allowed in most EU Member States for risks that are strongly linked to gender. We discuss the relevance of price differentiation criteria from the point of view of insurers, regulators and ethicists, and reflect on the degree of acceptance of such price differentiation by consumers, which is assessed empirically through an international consumer survey conducted in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland. The perception of risk factors and of effective gender-related price differences is considered with respect to motor, annuity, term life and health insurance. Finally, we discuss possible consequences of the new regulation for the insurance industry.

Keywords

European Union Life Insurance Adverse Selection Private Health Insurance Price Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbring, J.H., Heckman, J.J., Chiappori, P.-A. and Pinquet, J. (2003) ‘Adverse selection and moral hazard in insurance: Can dynamic data help to distinguish?’ Journal of the European Economic Association 1(2–3): 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. (1970) ‘The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism’, The Quarterly J ournal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K.J. (1963) ‘Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care’, The American Economic Review 53(5): 941–973.Google Scholar
  4. Arvidsson, S. (2010) ‘Essays on asymmetric information in the automobile insurance market’, Ph.D. thesis, Örebro University.Google Scholar
  5. Association of British Insurers (ABI) (2010) The Use of Gender in Insurance Pricing: Analysing the Impact of a Potential Ban on the Use of Gender as a Rating Factor, ABI Research Paper No. 24, London: Association of British Insurers.Google Scholar
  6. Benston, G.J. (1982) ‘The economics of gender discrimination in employee fringe benefits: Manhart revisited’, The University of Chicago Law Review 49(2): 489–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benston, G.J. (1983) ‘Discrimination and economic efficiency in employee fringe benefits: A clarification of issues and a response to professors Brilmayer, Laycock, and Sullivan’, The University of Chicago Law Review 50(1): 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borch, K. (1984) ‘Equilibrium premiums in an insurance market’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 51(3): 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borenstein, S. (1989) ‘The economics of costly risk sorting in competitive insurance markets’, International Review of Law and Economics 9(1): 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brilmayer, L., Hekeler, R.W., Laycock, D. and Sullivan, T.A. (1980) ‘Sex discrimination in employer-sponsored insurance plans: A legal and demographic analysis’, The University of Chicago Law Review 47(3): 505–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brilmayer, L., Laycock, D. and Sullivan, T.A. (1983) ‘The efficient use of group averages as nondiscrimination: A re joinder to professor Benston’, The University of Chicao Law Review 50(1): 222–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Britz, G. (2008) Einzelfallgerechtigkeit versus Generalisierung: Verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen statistischer Di skriminierung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, R.L. (1995) ‘Recent Canadian human rights decisions having an impact on gender-based risk classification systems’, Journal of Actuarial Practice 3(1): 171–191.Google Scholar
  14. Burri, S. and Prechal, S. (2010) EU Gender Equality Law: Update, 2010, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, from http://www.ec.europa.eu /justice/gender-equality/files/dgjustice_eugenderequalitylaw_update_2010_fi nal24february2011_en.pdf. Google Scholar
  15. Buzzacchi, L. and Valletti, T. (2005) ‘Strategic price discrimination in compulsory insurance markets’, The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review 30(1): 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) (2008) Human Rights in Housing in Canada: An Advocate’s Gui de, p. 9, from http://www.equalityrights.org /cher/National%20Guide%20English%20Final.pdf. Google Scholar
  17. Chiappori, P.-A. and Salanie, B. (2000) ‘Testing for asymmetric information in insurance markets’, Journal of Political Economy 108(1): 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christiansen, H. (1983) ‘Equality and equilibrium: Weaknesses of the overlap argument for unisex pension plans’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 50(4): 670–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Civic Consulting (2010a) Study on the Use of Age, Disability, Sex, Religion or Belief, Racial or Ethnic Origin and Sexual Orientation in Financial Services, in Particular in the Insurance and Banking Sectors, Part I: Main Rep ort, Technical Report, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Civic Consulting (2010b) Study on the Use of Age, Disability, Sex, Religion or Belief, Racial or Ethnic Origin and Sexual Orientation in Financial Services, in Particular in the Insurance and Banking Sectors, Part II: Country Reports, Technical Report, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Civic Consulting (2010c) Study on the Use of Age, Disability, Sex, Religion or Belief, Racial or Ethnic Origin and Sexual Orientation in Financial Services, in Particular in the Insurance and Banking Sectors, Part III: Annexes, Technical Report, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, A. and Siegelman, P. (2009) Testing for adverse selection in insurance markets, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 15586, Cambridge: NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Commission of the EC (2003) Proposal for a Council Directive Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment between Women and Men in the Access to and Supply of Goods and Services, EUR-Lex 5200 3PC0657.Google Scholar
  24. Commission of the EC (2008) Renewed Social Agenda: Opportunities, Access and Solidarity in 21st Century Europe, EUR-Lex 52008DC0412.Google Scholar
  25. Council of the EC (1975) ‘Council Directive 75/117/EEC’, Official Journal of the European Communities L45: 19–20.Google Scholar
  26. Council of the EU (2000a) ‘Council Directive 2000/43/EC’, Official Journal of the European Communities L180: 22–26.Google Scholar
  27. Council of the EU (2000b) ‘Council Directive 2000/78/EC’, Official Journal of the European Communities L303: 16–22.Google Scholar
  28. Council of the EU (2004) ‘Council Directive 2004/113/EC’, Official Journal of European Communities L373: 37–43.Google Scholar
  29. Crocker, K. and Snow, A. (1986) ‘The efficiency effects of categorical discrimination in the insurance industry’, Journal of Political Economy 94(2): 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Curry, C. and O’Connell, A. (2004) An analysis of unisex annuity rates, equal opportunities, Commission Working Paper No. 16.Google Scholar
  31. Dawkins, R. (2011) Gender and Insurance Pricing, from http://www.europe-economics.com /blogpost/6/gender-and insurance-pricing.htm. Google Scholar
  32. Deutsche Rück (2011) ‘Unisex: Absicherung von Schwankungen im Geschlechtermix’, Daten.Fakten.Meinungen., No. 2/11, Düsseldorf: Deutsche Rückversicherung AG.Google Scholar
  33. Ebner, M.D. (2010) Preispolitik in der Kompositversicherung. Karlsruhe: Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft.Google Scholar
  34. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. European Commission (2012) ‘Guidelines on the application of Council Directive 2004/113/EC to insurance, in the light of the judgement the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-236/09 (Test-Achats)’, Official Journal of the European Union C11: 1–11.Google Scholar
  36. European Court of Justice (ECJ) (2011) Judgement of the Court, Case C-236/09.Google Scholar
  37. Farny, D. (2011) Versicherungsbetriebslehre, 5th edition, Karlsruhe: Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft.Google Scholar
  38. Finkelstein, A., Poterba, J. and Rothschild, C. (2009) ‘Redistribution by insurance market regulation: Analyzing a ban on gender-based retirement annuities’, Journal of Financial Economics 91(1): 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ford, J. and Reifner, U. (1992) Banking for People: Social Banking and New Poverty Consumer Debts and Unemployment in Europe-National Reports, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Gatzert, N., Hoermann, G. and Schmeiser, H. (2012) ‘Optimal risk classification with an application to substandard annuities’, North American Actuarial Journal 16(4): 462–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. German Federal Insurance Supervisory Office (1995) BAV Rundschreiben 6/95: Motor Vehicle Insurance—Discrimination Against Foreigners.Google Scholar
  42. Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Européen (2011) Use of Age and Disability as Rating Factors in Insurance: Why Are They Used and What Would Be the Implications of Restricting Their Use?, position paper, December.Google Scholar
  43. Hedges, B. (1977) ‘Gender discrimination in pension plans: Comment’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 44(1): 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hemenway, D. (1990) ‘Propitious selection’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 105(4): 1063–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hickman, J. (1983) ‘Pensions and sex’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 50(4): 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Homburg, C. and Koschate, N. (2005) ‘Behavioral pricing—Forschung im Überblick, Teil 1: Grundlagen, Preisinformationsaufnahme und Preisinformationsbeurteilung’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 75(4):383–423.Google Scholar
  47. Homburg, C., Koschate, N. and Hoyer, W.D. (2005) ‘Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay’, Journal of Marketing 69(2): 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hoy, M. (1982) ‘Categorizing risks in the insurance industry’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 97(2): 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jannott, E. (1994) Der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung in der Versicherungswirtschaft, in U. Hübner (ed.) Recht und Ökonomie der Versicherung: Festschrift für Egon Lorenz, Karlsruhe: Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft, pp. 341–362.Google Scholar
  50. Kelly, M. and Nielson, N. (2006) ‘Age as a variable in insurance pricing and risk classification’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and In surance—Issues and Practice 31(2): 212–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kimball, S.L. (1979) ‘Reverse sex discrimination: Manhart’, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1979(1): 85–139.Google Scholar
  52. Kimball, S.L. (1980) ‘Reprise on Manhart’, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1980(4): 915–920.Google Scholar
  53. Kokott, J. (2010) Opinion of Advocate General Kokott. Case C-236/09. Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others.Google Scholar
  54. Koller, P. (2001) Theorie des Rechts: Eine Einführung, 2nd edition, Wien: Bohlau Verlag.Google Scholar
  55. Laycock, D. and Sullivan, T.A. (1981) ‘Sex discirmination as “actuarial equality”: A rejoinder to Kimball’, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 6(1): 221–228.Google Scholar
  56. Martin, G. (1977) ‘Gender discrimination in pension plans: Author’s reply’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 44(1): 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin, G. (1979) ‘Gender discrimination in pension plans revisited: The results of court ordered implementation’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 46(4): 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meyer-Kahlen, W. (1988) Bonus-/Malus-System, in D. Farny, E. Helten, P. Koch and R. Schmidt (eds) Handwörterbuch der Versicherung HdV, Karlsruhe: Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft, pp. 91–97.Google Scholar
  59. Myers, R. (1977) ‘Gender discrimination in pension plans: Further comment’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 44 (1): 144–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nova Scotia Insurance Review Board (2004) A Study Into the Use of Gender as a Rating Factor in Automobile Insurance in Nov a Scotia, Province of Nova Scotia.Google Scholar
  61. Owiwo (2011) Der Einfluss der Europäischen Union auf die Finanzierung der Gesundheitsversorgung in den Mitgliedstaaten, Technical Report November, Otto-Wolff-Institut fürWirtschaftsordnung (owiwo), Köln.Google Scholar
  62. Oxera (2011) The Impact of a Ban on the Use of Gender in Insurance, Oxford: Oxera Consulting.Google Scholar
  63. Pärli, K. (2011) Verbot geschlechtsspezifischer Prämien bei Versicherungsverträgen: Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes vom 1. März 2011, Rs C-236/09(Vorabentscheidungsverfahren), HAVE/REAS, 2:153–159.Google Scholar
  64. Pinsent Masons LLP (2011) Gender Discrimination and Insurance, from http://www.out-law.com /page-9368. Google Scholar
  65. Rees, R. and Wambach, A. (2008) ‘The microeconomics of insurance’, Microeconomics of Insurance, Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics 4(1–2): 1–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Riedel, O. (2006) ‘Unisex tariffs in health insurance’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 31(2): 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rothschild, M. and Stiglitz, J. (1976) ‘Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 90(4): 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schiek, D. (2000) Differenzierte Gerechtigkeit: Diskriminierungsschutz und Vertragsrecht, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  69. Schmidt, C. (1989) Die Frauenprämie in der privaten Krankenversicherung im Lichte des Gleichbehandlungs-grundsatzes, Ph.D. thesis, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  70. Shavell, S. (1979) ‘On moral hazard and insurance’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 93(4): 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Society of Actuaries in Ireland (2004) The Draft EU Directive on Equal Insurance Premiums for Men and Women, Society of Actuaries in Ireland, Dublin.Google Scholar
  72. Thiery, Y. and Van Schoubroeck, C. (2006) ‘Fairness and equality in insurance classification’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 31(2): 190–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thomas, R.G. (2007) ‘Some novel perspectives on risk classification’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 32(1): 105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tobler, C. (2005) Indirect Discrimination: A Case Study Into the Development of the Legal Concept of Indirect Discrimination Under EC Law, Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  75. U.S. Supreme Court (1978) City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702.Google Scholar
  76. U.S. Supreme Court (1983) Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans et al. v. Norris, 46 3 U.S. 1073.Google Scholar
  77. Wallace, F.K. (1984) ‘Unisex automobile rating: The Michigan experience’, Journal of Insurance Regulation 3(2): 127–139.Google Scholar
  78. Wang, S.S. (2000) ‘A class of distortion operations for pricing financial and insurance risks’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 67(1): 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hato Schmeiser
    • 1
  • Tina Störmer
    • 1
  • Joël Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Insurance EconomicsUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations