Longevity - If the genes fit...

This may explain the anomalous gender difference for birds.
Male mortality also exceeds female mortality across all major causes of death. Chart 4 is for all ages combined, but even when the data is analysed by age, the ratios exceed 100% for most age groups, other than for female ­neoplasms (cancers) at some ages.

Two interesting studies were conducted into smaller groups where the roles of males and females are very similar so that behavioural differences are minimal.

These were by Madigan (1957) in the USA, in respect of teaching Catholic brothers and sisters, and by Leviatan and Cohen (1985) in respect of kibbutz members in Israel.

Both studies found gender mortality differentials among these groups to be similar to those of the general population.

A detailed statistical analysis of the factors contributing to gender mortality differentials was conducted by Rogers et al (2010), based on a population sample for which a large range of both behavioural and biological and medical risk-factor levels had been collected.

This concluded that behavioural and socio-economic factors were important individually, but that taken together, the behavioural factors were roughly self-cancelling.

SEX SELLS – OR DOES IT?

To summarise, the female mortality advantage is nearly universal, applying across time, territory, age, species and cause of death.

Controlled population studies and the Rogers statistical analysis indicate that, even when behavioural differences are adjusted for, the female advantage roughly remains in place.

All these facts suggest that biological differences play a major part.

On the other hand, the fact that different territories exhibit differing gender differentials and that risk-taking behaviours vary between the genders suggest that behavioural factors must also play a part. 

It is interesting to speculate whether, for an insured group priced separately for smoking habit, the residual gender differential may be very largely biological as the smoker premium adjustments probably cover a range of adverse behaviours apart from smoking.

The industry is faced with the inevitability of genderless pricing after 21 December next year.

So, is there other information we can collect from the client which could replace the gender factor and allow us to continue to price with today’s precision? The answer is probably no.

It will certainly not be legitimate to use client information – which is simply a proxy to gender – such as using the client’s occupation as a disguise to gender rating (for instance, all lorry drivers being awarded current male rates).

More sophisticated medical underwriting will also fall short of providing the insights into the client’s ­chromosomal and hormonal structures, which the gender factor provides implicitly.

The industry will survive – and even thrive – based on balanced marketing and careful monitoring of the business gender mix.  

Eli Friedwald is head of research at RGA