Munich RE’s retro study compares EHR data to traditional fluids in fully underwritten scenarios and concludes, “Why not try EHR first?”
In this white paper, Munich RE had underwriters review 350 cases based on application data, exams, and labs (aka “fluids”). Then the same cases were reevaluated on the basis of application and EHR data.
Munich RE found:
- Versus fluids, EHRs resulted in net savings of $304 per policy. That improvement is complemented by significant savings in time in time and cost, and underwriter touch times.
- The use of EHR resulted in an overall mortality savings of 8%.
- Decision rates were slightly higher for disclosures + EHR (75%) vs. disclosures + fluids (72%).
- Tobacco misrepresentation rates were also similar, with EHR identifying two cases, and fluids—long thought of as the gold standard for nicotine detection—identifying three cases.
- The use of EHR data resulted in more-adverse decisions in 34 cases but there were 30 cases in which the use of EHR resulted in less-adverse decisions.
- EHRs revealed impairments of concern that were not reported by applicants or detected by insurance exams or labs, including:
- Diabetes
- Mental health and nervous system disorders
- Cardiovascular conditions
- Respiratory conditions
- Other endocrine disorders
- Changes in build or weight
- Substance use and alcohol dependence
“We feel that in some cases, we can get to fully underwritten mortality or even better mortality by getting an EHR… Plus, they’re much faster and less invasive than insurance labs and exams, so why not try an EHR first?”
Dave Goehrke
Head of Underwriting Risk Management and Pricing Support
Munich RE Life US
Munich RE’s research shows that EHR offers meaningful protective value. It may result in a different mix of issued policies but can provide a faster, less-costly process that can easily be integrated within existing underwriting workflows.
Read the full white paper here.
