The COVID-19 pandemic has initiated or accelerated significant changes in the insurance sector, including remote customer service, along with changes to risk management processes and the insurance offer. In the post-pandemic environment, these may increase development opportunities and improve the market competitiveness of insurers. The aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for life insurers operating in Poland. To examine the direct responses of life insurance markets to the COVID-19 pandemic, an analysis is conducted of the life insurance sector in Poland and the whole of Europe, based on the most up-to-date data available. Next, the implications of the pandemic for life insurers' technical operations and financial sustainability are examined. The article also discusses the main challenges to the further development of life insurance businesses in the context of long-term post-pandemic effects.
Part I - Market Picture and Development Challenges -- European Life Insurance Market – Analysis of Current Situation and Development Prospects -- Social Determinants of Life Insurance in the European Union -- The Challenges Faced by Life Insurance Companies in the Baltic States -- The Turkish Life Insurance Market – An Evaluation of the Current Situation and Future Challenges -- The Role Played by EIOPA in the Developments in the Insurance Sector European Consumer Protection Model -- A New Model of Investment Life Insurance Distribution in the Context of Consumer Protection EU Policy -- Analysis of Capital Requirements in Life Insurance Sector under Solvency II Regime – Evidence from Poland -- Part II - Innovations and Risk Analysis -- Longevity-Linked Annuities: How to Preserve Value Creation Against Longevity Risk -- Modelling the Life Expectancy of Elderly People for Life Insurance and Pension Systems -- The Challenges for Life Insurance Underwriting Caused by Changes in Demography and Digitalisation -- Innovation in Life Insurance: the Economic Landscape and the Insurance Distribution Directive -- Internet of Things (IoT): Considerations for Life Insurers -- Discussion of Reducing the Risk of Cancer in Life and Health Insurance.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
One of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic is the relationship between social distancing measures and increased use of the Internet, electronic services, and digital devices. How does digital inequality in the context of social distancing affect the COVID-19 pandemic? In this article, we assessed the impact of existing digital inequality as the cause of the changing number of cases of COVID-19 in the EU. We assessed the relationship between the increase in COVID-19 cases between the first and second waves in 2020 and the presence of digital inequality in Internet use and digital skills across sociodemographic factors: gender, age, education, generation, marital status, and place of residence. We applied the ordinary least squares method to data from the 2019 Eurobarometer survey, which reveals the digital maturity of EU citizens, and from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control in 2020, which tracks COVID-19 cases. We found that the strongest relationship between the number of COVID-19 cases and digital inequality is related to Internet use rather than digital skills. The digital divide by age, between generations, and the geographic digital divide in Internet use show a strong positive relationship with the changing incidence of COVID-19 cases. The gender digital gap shows a negative relationship for both Internet use and digital skills, indicating the social role of women in households in the pandemic, caring for children and the elderly. A negative relation was also found in digital inequality by marital status for digital skills, which reflects preferences regarding living alone during the pandemic. These findings prove the importance of universal access to the Internet for older people and those living in rural areas. The results can contribute to policies aimed at reducing digital inequalities in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.