General Insurance Deductible Ratemaking

Insurance claims have deductibles, which must be considered when pricing for insurance premium. The deductible may cause censoring and truncation to the insurance claims. However, modeling the unobserved response variable using maximum likelihood in this setting may be a challenge in practice. For this reason, a practitioner may perform a regression using the observed response, in order to calculate the deductible rates using the regression coefficients. A natural question is how well this approach performs, and how it compares to the theoretically correct approach to rating the deductibles. Also, a practitioner would be interested in a systematic review of the approaches to modeling the deductible rates. In this article, an overview of deductible ratemaking is provided, and the pros and cons of two deductible ratemaking approaches are compared: the regression approach and the maximum likelihood approach. The regression approach turns out to have an advantage in predicting aggregate claims, whereas the maximum likelihood approach has an advantage when calculating theoretically correct relativities for deductible levels beyond those observed by empirical data. For demonstration, loss models are fit to the Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund data, and examples are provided for the ratemaking of per-loss deductibles offered by the fund. The article discovers that the regression approach is actually a single-parameter approximation to the true relativity curve. A comparison of selected models from the generalized beta family discovers that the usage of long-tail severity distributions may improve the deductible rating, while advanced frequency models such as 01-inflated models may have limited advantages due to estimation issues under censoring and truncation. In addition, in this article, models for specific peril types are combined to improve the ratemaking.