No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
The objects of this paper are (1) to set out for members of the profession some account of the further investigations that have been made into the statistics that formed the basis of the A1924–29 Table; (2) to correct certain errors that have been discovered; (3) to explain the possible weaknesses in the statistics; (4) to discuss the variations in mortality shown by individual offices; and (5) to give some idea of the range in mortality above and below the combined result of all the offices.
In an endeavour to fulfil those objects—
(1) There are made available in the appendices the various enquiries which, subsequent to the publication of the A1924–29 Table, were made of the contributing offices;
(2) The net alterations in the total deaths as a result of these enquiries are detailed, including the two major errors already known;
(3) The various factors calling for care and attention are examined;
(4) The variations in mortality shown by individual offices are set out in tabular form without disclosing their identity;
(5) Light and heavy mortality tables are produced with certain monetary functions by what are termed light and heavy mortality in comparison with the standard A1924–29, these light and heavy mortality tables being made up from certain combinations of offices at either extreme of the tabulated list.
The comforting conclusion is reached that the Al924–29 Table is a satisfactory representation of the type of mortality revealed by most of the offices, and may be used, for practical purposes by the large majority.
A final word is given in explanation of the census method, having in mind the importance of including all data which should properly be returned, particularly in the case of early deaths.
Thus, it is laid down that a death should not be omitted if the life, had it survived, would have been included amongst the “in force” to which the deaths are related; and there follows the golden rule: “A death must be included at a duration if, had a ‘census’ (or enumeration of the policies in force) been taken the moment before death, the case would have been counted as in force at that duration.”
page 319 note * Not “always” because the proportion of cases in a particular office may be less than the proportion in the offices as a whole.
page 324 note * This group included the office to which reference was made on p. xviii in the introduction to Monetary Tables, Al924–29, vol. i. The returns being made as “non-medical,” the office does not appear in a list relating to medically examined lives.
page 325 note * For rates of mortality see Appendix V, Table J.
page 326 note * Certain other tables were prepared for the Joint Committee: e.g. based on offices with a lighter mortality than 5% less than A1924–29, on offices with a heavier mortality than 5% greater than A1924–29, etc., but none of them seems to call for reproduction in this paper.
page 329 note * Record of the American Institute of Actuaries, vol. xxiii. pt. 1, p. 64.
page 347 note * R. L1. Gwilt, “Notes on the Census Method of obtaining Rates of Mortality among Assured Lives,” T.F.A., xi. p. 105.