As someone wrote in another thread, it's that time of year (shopping for insurance).
Some risk factors that one looks at in funds are volatility, worst case (max drawdown), and tradeoffs in types of risk. Looking at insurance options now I have the feeling I'm facing the same considerations.
Volatility - some people prefer relative certainty and will pay up for that. In funds, that may mean sticking with MMFs or something close (paying with lost opportunity), or buying principal protected notes. Or it may mean sticking with bonds and/or large cap funds. Or they may be willing to live with just a limited amount of risk (say a 20/80 portfolio).
With insurance some people pay up for a plan F or G Medicare Supplemental Plan so they know virtually to the penny how much they will pay over a year. No risk, but at a cost. Similarly, people may buy platinum ACA plans that cost more up front in exchange for less variability in costs through the year (lower copays, lower max out of pocket).
Max drawdown - different insurance options may offer different limits on maximum costs. Original Medicare w/o Medigap doesn't cap expenses. Even with caps, there's another risk factor to consider - what happens if your provider goes out of network. If you've bought an HMO and you don't want to switch providers, your out of pocket expenses become uncapped. Buying a PPO for this contingency usually costs more and its caps are higher for out of network services. But at least downside is constrained.
Risk tradeoffs - In bond funds, for a given rate of return do you take more risk on the credit side or the interest rate side. Is the fund a type that has a different type of risk (e.g. securitized bonds often carry extension/prepayment risks that are not prominent in other types of bonds).
WIth insurance policies, each one seems to have at least one "gotcha". It may be an unusually high copay for inpatient hospitalization. Or an unusually high medical deductible. Or unusually high copays for therapists. Whatever. As with a mutual fund, it's up to you to guess which risk is less likely to occur and select accordingly.
I've almost surely had my head too deep into both investing and choosing insurance. It all seems to blend together. Still, I find the thought processes/analyses are not dissimilar. Risk vs reward (cost).
Comments
Medicare: I evaluated the risk and reward years ago, and in my county, a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan turned out to be a better option for us. By investing the money we save, the choice becomes even more beneficial.
Investing: We’re in a comfortable financial position, so our overall risk is very low. I can adjust anywhere from 0% to 100% in stocks or bonds, depending on market conditions. Since retiring in 2018, I’ve chosen to focus on unique bond funds to take advantage of current opportunities. This flexible approach has worked very well across different market environments.
Staying flexible, paying attention to current market conditions, and tuning out the noise are essential.
If you are flexible and willing to go to whatever providers are in an HMO network, you can save even more money to invest. Compare the PFFS plan to Humana's HMO plan H4141-017-003.
It cost $27/mo more ($324) in premiums. That's a sure cost vs. the additional $250 in glasses/contact coverage that one might or might not use. A slight to modest advantage for the HMO.
The HMO also gives $200/yr in OTC credits. And while the PFFS plan covers for dental work up to $4K instead of $2.5K, the tradeoff is an out-of-pocket cap that's $1.2K worse ($6.7K vs. $5.5K). (Since that dental insurance excludes implants, the $2.5K limit ought to be more than enough.)
So to maximize savings for additional investing, the HMO plan looks better. Not much better, but better. If you're willing to stay flexible and live with the providers the HMO offers. That's the main "cost" of the HMO.
There's a similar tradeoff between investing for total return and for income. The former maximizes return (wider pool of investments from which to choose¹). But it comes at a cost of a more variable and likely smaller cash flow (income stream). https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/best-ways-generate-income-retirement
Both HMO vs. PFFS and total return vs, income investing are balancing potentially higher rewards against greater certainty (in provider availability and cash flow, respectively).
In both choosing longer-term investments and health insurance, a person's ability to cover unexpected costs (or losses) is a major consideration. When choosing a healthcare plan, the maximum out-of-pocket is something that I look at. And our typical out-of-pocket annual expenses.
Example, I save around $2500 a year by opting for my employer's "standard" health care coverage over the "premium" policy. In a very bad year I might hit the worst case scenario of $6000 out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, the standard plan pays a little less over the year. If our health care expenses were very high, and we hit that maximum often, the premium policy would work out better. That is not the case for us, though. After 10 years of saving $2500/yr, a family would be up $25,000.
Basically, a form of "self-insuring". The same principal applies to high-deductible plans. Which are better suited for younger and healthier people.