Skip to main content

The promise (and pitfalls) of index based insurance

Insurance in developing nations is far less broadly available than developed ones.  In addition, the risks that citizens of developing nations face, are often much more numerous and severe.  Crop-insurance is a common element of agricultural policy in the United States, but less common in Ethiopia.  As Ethiopia has a much higher percentage of their population engaged in agriculture, shocks, such as drought, crop disease, or severe weather have big impacts.

Insurance's basic principle is simple, spreading risk across a broader pool.  When harmed, you get assistance to lessen the impact, when you're not harmed, your payments cover the costs of others who are.  But deciding who is harmed is a very time consuming task.  Preventing fraud is important to staying competitive, when looking at private enterprise, and important to public trust when dealing with public programs.  But preventing fraud places burdens not only on the insurance provider, but the claimants.  Having to prove losses, is costly.  There's a risk that valid claims are denied, and even when not, there are delays and investments of time as claims are validated.  In a dire situation, those delays and investments are a heavy burden.

One innovation to insurance is index based insurance.  Index based insurance simplified the claim process by basing it upon an easily verifiable metric.  If rainfall in an area exceeds a specified amount, insurance payouts are made automatically.  Verification is simple and potentially quick, and claimants shouldn't need to be involved.  Cost of validating and preventing fraud are substantially lower.

The downside to index based insurance is that the index will imperfectly map to those impacted.  It might be fairly good, and the trade-off in terms of faster payouts can in-total be a better arrangement for claimants who otherwise might have opted for no insurance at all.  For the insurer, the reductions in program costs can make up for the unnecessary payments to those in the impacted area who happen to avoid actual damages but receive a payout due to the index.  But, for the individual who is impacted, but not covered by the index, the outcome is fairly dire, leaving a large visible hole in value of index based insurance.

It seems to me that there is a not so hard fix to this problem.  Layering traditional loss-based insurance on top of index-based insurance.  In a well designed system, loss-based claims would be dramatically lower.  If you receive a index-based payment, and suffer a loss, there's no need to file a claim.  If you receive an index-based payment, without a loss, hopefully you're good fortune will cause you to think about your neighbors.  But for the few who suffer a loss without receiving an index-based payment, filing a claim would still be an option.  With a lower number of claims, the ability to process these quickly should be more realistic.

It seems somewhat obvious, but the reason it hasn't been done yet is that index-based insurance is not broad enough yet.  It's generally fairly specific at certain indexes.  A system that accommodates this layering needs to cover a number of indexes.  One for low rainfall, one for flooding, one for low forage coverage, etc.

Once enough indexes are bundled together, the chance that a loss-based claim is necessary will have declined to a level where claim handling is no longer expensive.

Inspired by reading the Economist...


Popular posts from this blog

How to create a resilient Oil & Gas industry

Use Less As part of the current crisis, oil usage is down, and storage around the world is filling up, to the point that oil has traded at negative prices.  As a reaction, many Republican lawmakers want to bailout the oil industry, by providing free access to storage or no-collateral loans.  While it would make sense to ensure oil doesn't get dumped in the ocean, the right way to do that is by producing less oil. These proposals from the Republicans undermine the motivation for the industry to do so.  Workers are important, but they have the same access to unemployment as the other 25 million Americans who are out of work. What this crisis should illustrate is something that has been illustrated many times before, the oil industry is a fragile thing.  In the past this fragility has been demonstrated by massive spikes in prices and fears of shortage, in this case it's the inverse.  Why the fragility?  The simplest explanation is, we use too much.   In a world where oi

Commit to Long Term Testing

Expanding testing is very important now.  It's also clearly an area we were unprepared.  We should commit to having testing capacity long term, to both provide more certainty to anyone expanding testing capacity today, and to be prepared in the future. I had some thoughts about how this testing would be best structured.  It's not possible to test for an contagious disease you're not aware of, but much of the infrastructure for doing so can already be in place, ready to be adapted.  That infrastructure would roughly boil down to a) sample collection b) sample handling c) sample preparation d) sample analysis e) materials: reagents, etc. Scaling these up from scratch is quite a bit more work than adapting to a new contagion.  A commitment to having that infrastructure would have helped a lot with the current crisis. Right now, the focus is rightfully on health care workers, suspected cases and essential workers.  In terms of preparation though, in the early stages

Finding your way: Public Transit and Uber

Uber has been disruptive in many ways.  One way, which has been a great disappointment, is the effect on public transit systems.  It was once hoped that ride hailing would provide an assist to public transit, as a gateway to abandoning car ownership.  There have also been hopes that suburban commuters would use ride-hailing as their connection to public-transit which is not accessible by walking in these areas.   Multiple studies have confirmed these hopes have largely not materialized, and public-transit has been weakened . Cities have reacted, mostly by putting barriers to ride-hailing growth.  Sometimes they are collecting extra fees, sometimes placing new requirements.  But mostly these efforts don't do much to change the relationship between ride-hailing and public-transit. I work with a local group that spends time thinking about automated car policy, how to get the most good and the least bad.  We've discussed a proposal that fits ride-hailing, in the here and now,