How do Adult Protective Statutes Relate to Older Americans Seeking Insurance Advice?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.115.14569Keywords:
insurance, financial advice, consumer protection, elder abuse, regulationAbstract
In the United States, no two states are completely alike in how they govern their citizenry or regulate commerce within their borders. These differences may be used to examine the effects of various laws by contrasting the differences in the way each state attempts to resolve a perceived problem and the resulting outcome. The following paper examines the relationship between consumer behavior and statutory solutions enacted to combat the problems of elder abuse, specifically financial exploitation. The statutory solutions are Adult Protective (AP) statutes. This paper focuses on AP statutes and their relationship to insurance advice seeking by older Americans. This paper finds that in under some circumstances insurance advice seeking behavior is related to the ways in which a state chooses to protect its elderly citizens from unscrupulous acts of persons or businesses. This article may serve as an opportunity for ethical professionals in financial services to understand how greater levels of regulation can result in opportunities for growth.
References
Bauer, R. (1960). Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 3, 13–19.
Bear, S. (2018). Protect Vulnerable Adults from Financial Exploitation. Estate Planning, 45(2), 21–28.
Brenan, M. (2017, December 26). Nurses Keep Healthy Lead as Most Honest, Ethical Profession. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/224639/nurses-keep-healthy-lead-honest-ethicalprofession.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles.
Chang, M. L. (2005). With a Little Help from My Friends (and My Financial Planner). Social Forces, 83(4), 1469–1497.
Darby, M., & Karni, E. (1973). Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. The Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.
Deliema, M., Yon, Y., & Wilber, K. H. (2014). Tricks of the Trade: Motivating Sales Agents to Con Older Adults. The Gerontologist, 56(2), 335–344.
Deliema, M. (2017). Elder Fraud and Financial Exploitation: Application of Routine Activity Theory. The Gerontologist, 58(4), 706–718.
Elmerick, S., Montalto, C., & Fox, J. (2002). Use of Financial Planners by US Households. Financial Service Review, 11(3), 217–231.
Fisk, G. (1973). Systems Perspective on Automobile and Appliance Warranty Problems. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 7(1), 37–55.
Gabbot, M. (1991). The Role of Product Cues in Assessing Risk in Second-Hand Markets. European Journal of Marketing, 25(9), 38–50.
Hannah, S. (2011). The demand for Financial Services. Journal of Personal Finance, 36–62.
Holton, R. (1969). Business and Government. Daedalus, 98(1), 41–59.
Jackson, S. L. (2015). The vexing problem of defining financial exploitation. Journal of Financial Crime, 22(1), 63–78.
Leland, L. (1979). Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing: A Theory of Minimum Quality Standards. The Journal of Political Economy, 87(6), (1328-1346).
Liebenberg, A. P., Carson, J. M., & Dumm, R. E. (2012). A Dynamic Analysis of the Demand for Life Insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79(3), 619–644.
Magnusson, P., 2006. “New Head of the SEC: Swindlers Besieged Christopher Cox’s Parents. Now, as SEC Chairman, He’s Fighting Back.” AARP Bulletin 47(2): 31−34.
Robb, C., Babiarz, P., & Woodyard, A. (2012). The demand for financial professionals' advice: the role of financial knowledge, satisfaction, and confidence. Financial Services Review, 21, 291–305.
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61.
Roush, R., Moye, J., Mills, W., Kunik, M., Wilson, N., Taffet, G., & Naik, A. (2012). Why Clinicians Need to Know About the Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation Program. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 36(2), 94–97.
Senior Financial Exploitation Study (Rep.). (2012). Washington, D.C.: Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.
Stiegel, L. (2012). An Overview of Elder Financial Exploitation. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 36(2), 73–80.
Stigler, G. (1961). The Economics of Information. The Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213-225. True Link Report on Elder Abuse (Rep.). (2015). San Francisco, CA: True Link. Tables Table I.a: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent and Independent Variables Unit of Observation: Analysis Sample Respondent (17,515)
Mean Std.Err. Insurance Advice 0.335 0.0036 Protected Class Narrow 0.587 0.0037 Neutral 0.142 0.0026 Broad 0.271 0.0034 Financial Exploitation 0.335 0.0036 Narrow Neutral 0.351 0.0036 Broad 0.314 0.0035 Gender Female 0.529 0.0038 Married 0.639 0.0036 Single 0.079 0.0020 Separated 0.014 0.0009 Divorced 0.163 0.0028 Widowed/Widower 0.105 0.0014 Did not Comlete HS 0.033 0.0013 Some College 0.348 0.0036 Bachelor’s Degree 0.193 0.0030 Graduate Degree 0.179 0.0029 White 0.860 0.0026 Less than $15,000 0.079 0.0020 $100,000 to $ 149,999 0.119 0.0025 $150,000 or More 0.074 0.0020 Age 60 – 65 0.529 0.0038 >65 0.471 0.0038 1 In 1,000s of 2012 dollars Table I.b: Marginal Effects – Financial Exploitation N = 17,515 Insurance Advice Breadth of Protection (Narrow Omitted)
Neutral 0.025*** 0.0088 Broad 0.024*** 0.0091 Female (Male Omitted) 0.047*** 0.0074 (Married Omitted) Single - 0.034** 0.0143 Separated - 0.042 0.0309 Divorced - 0.027** 0.0108 Widowed/Widower - 0.002 0.0130 (Did not Complete HS Omitted) Some College 0.111*** 0.0225 Bachelor’s Degree 0.120*** 0.0226 Post Bachelor’s Degree 0.146*** 0.0259 (White Omitted) (Less than $15,000 Omitted) $100,000 to $ 149,999 0.187*** 0.0209 $150,000 or more 0.214*** 0.0230 Age (60 - 65 Omitted) > 65 - 0.020*** 0.0075 - The analysis in this table incorporates the weights provided by the NFCS * Represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of .1 to .05 ** represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of .05 to .01 *** represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than .01 Table I.c: Marginal Effects – Protected Class N = 17,515 Insurance Advice Breadth of Protection (Narrow Omitted) Neutral - 0.007 0.0106 Broad - 0.003 0.0084 Female (Male Omitted) 0.047*** 0.0074 (Married Omitted) Single - 0.035** 0.0143 Separated - 0.041 0.0309 Divorced - 0.027** 0.0108 Widowed/Widower - 0.002 0.0130 (Did not Complete HS Omitted) Some College 0.111*** 0.0226 Bachelor’s Degree 0.120*** 0.0251 Post Bachelor’s Degree 0.146*** 0.0259 (White Omitted) (Less than $15,000 Omitted) $100,000 to $ 149,999 0.189*** 0.0209 $150,000 or more 0.216*** 0.0230 Age (60 - 65 Omitted) > 65 - 0.020*** 0.0075 - The analysis in this table incorporates the weights provided by the NFCS * Represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of .1 to .05 ** represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of .05 to .01 *** represents a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than .01
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Benjamin Steele Campbell, Charlene Kalenkoski, Mitzi Lauderdale
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
