Areivim USA - Coronavirus

[gogreen]

Areivim is getting translated to Aravim

[AsherO]

Areivim is getting interpreted as Aravim

[Fish Tank]

I haven't visited this thread since COVID.

It looks like the recent posts from June are positive and the organization is reliable as long as the member discloses their medical history.

Do they pay out if the member has life insurance?

[AsherO]

I haven't visited this thread since COVID.

It looks like the recent posts from June are positive and the organization is reliable as long as the member discloses their medical history.

Do they pay out if the member has life insurance?

Did you see the tweets from last week?

פארשידענע אומקלארע תירוצים

doesn’t just mean preexisting medical issues.

[Fish Tank]

Did you see the tweets from last week?

No, what did I miss?

[AsherO]

No, what did I miss?

Any update on this?

I see it's now getting attention on social media:
https://twitter.com/hasidic_1/status/1740429270931964235
https://twitter.com/hasidic_1/status/1740767836212023468

[imayid2]

https://open.substack.com/pub/darchecha/p/whatever-happened-to-those-frum-life

14 years ago, smart people proved they couldn't succeed. But were they right?

Every now and then something (or someone) reminds me of some unfinished business from ancient history. This time around, it’s the years-old controversy over whether community “life insurance” collectives made any sense. When I first heard the strength of the arguments against them (as presented by R’ Yakov Horowitz and someone identifying him or herself as “OLD FRUM ACTUARY”), I assumed that groups like Areivim USA would soon fail and quietly go wherever all bad ideas go.

One issue is that the program’s existence would seem to discourage families from purchasing commercial term life insurance. Besides the fact that term life is inexpensive and reliable, it was also strongly recommended by R’ Moshe Feinstein. But the primary problem is that the math simply doesn’t add up. The system, as advertised, can’t possibly work.

But it seems that Areivim is definitely still around. And their regularly-updated website even explains how a temporary contribution increase allowed them to make it through the difficult COVID years. I can’t even find anyone on the internet with anything bad to say about them.

What do you do when “impossible” comes face-to-face with “well, it’s happening”? We’ll get to that soon. But first I should explain the “impossible” part.

The idea is for large numbers of frum families (ideally 16,500 per group) to agree to contribute as much as $42 each month for one-time $150,000 payments for each eligible child. The payments would be managed in a low-risk trust until, say, the child gets married.

Before we can properly assess whether these plans actually make sense, we’ll need to understand mortality rates in the Orthodox community. In other words, from a statistical perspective, how many Orthodox Jews do we “expect” to die each year. More specifically, since the plans cover the lives of parents of younger children, how many Orthodox Jews between the ages of 25 and 64 do we “expect” to die each year.

We won’t find exactly the numbers we’re after here, but there’s enough associated demographic data available to allow us some good estimates.

Between 2000 and 2020, New Jersey residents between 25 and 64 years old died at an average annual rate of 682 people per 100,000. In the context of a single Areivim group (16,500 members), that would translate to around 112 deaths. Assuming, on average that each of those 112 parents left four eligible orphans, there would be only $18,400 available for each child. That’s not even close to the program guarantee.

Is it possible that Orthodox Jews don’t die at the same rates? Interestingly, that does seem to be the case. The average white resident of Lakewood Township - which, as we’ve already noted, is for all intents and purposes statistically Jewish - lives until 79.49 years, compared with the 77.17 year average enjoyed by all white residents of New Jersey. Who knew that bad traffic and Thursday night cholent were good for you?

We might be able to do a better job quantifying the discrepancy between mortality rates in the frum and general populations. Averaged over 20 years or so, the crude all-causes annual death rate (per 100,000 residents) for all New Jersey residents was around 835, while the corresponding rate for Lakewood was just 694 - a difference of 17%. Which is weird. When I removed the COVID years (2020-21) where the numbers were a bit strange, the difference dropped to 14%

Now if I were to reduce the general New Jersey expected annual deaths for individuals between 25 and 64 years by the 14% “Jewish” difference, I’d get 97 expected annual deaths for each full Areivim group. That would bring the payout for each orphan up to around $21,400, which is still nowhere near the promised amount.

So why has Areivim not collapsed under the weight of bad math? How were they able to survive COVID with nothing more than a temporary contribution increase? I can imagine some or all of these factors could have played a role:

Because Areivim excludes people with pre-existing conditions, their members are going to be healthier and will therefore die at significantly lower rates.
Because Areivim doesn’t issue payouts to orphans whose families have other adequate sources of funds, a significant percentage of group members won’t be eligible for payouts.
Because group member demographics are likely skewed towards (slightly?) wealthier families (and families who are likely to have their own term insurance policies), the proportion of ineligible orphans is going to be higher.
Because Areivim cancels membership for individuals who are delinquent in their payments, the funds those members had paid until that point remain in the pot for use by everyone else.
Because Areivim encourages donations.
Perhaps most of all because Areivim was created by wealthy individuals who were alarmed by the suffering endured by uninsured families - and by how often they were approached for funds to rescue suffering orphans. It’s reasonable to expect that such wealthy people would have an interest in quietly propping up their system to ensure it doesn’t collapse (ותהא עליהם ברכות).
Organizations like Areivim deserve a lot of credit for understanding these economics and using them to craft a successful chessed movement. But I believe the public-facing message should still be focused on traditional commercial term life insurance policies.

Do you have any inside information on this trend? Please do share it.

[aygart]

https://open.substack.com/pub/darchecha/p/whatever-happened-to-those-frum-life

Because Areivim excludes people with pre-existing conditions, their members are going to be healthier and will therefore die at significantly lower rates.
Because Areivim doesn’t issue payouts to orphans whose families have other adequate sources of funds, a significant percentage of group members won’t be eligible for payouts.
Because group member demographics are likely skewed towards (slightly?) wealthier families (and families who are likely to have their own term insurance policies), the proportion of ineligible orphans is going to be higher.
Because Areivim cancels membership for individuals who are delinquent in their payments, the funds those members had paid until that point remain in the pot for use by everyone else.
Because Areivim encourages donations.
Perhaps most of all because Areivim was created by wealthy individuals who were alarmed by the suffering endured by uninsured families - and by how often they were approached for funds to rescue suffering orphans. It’s reasonable to expect that such wealthy people would have an interest in quietly propping up their system to ensure it doesn’t collapse (ותהא עליהם ברכות).

A good portion of these are at best of questionable accuracy

[avromie7]

https://open.substack.com/pub/darchecha/p/whatever-happened-to-those-frum-life

Is it possible that Orthodox Jews don’t die at the same rates? Interestingly, that does seem to be the case. The average white resident of Lakewood Township - which, as we’ve already noted, is for all intents and purposes statistically Jewish - lives until 79.49 years, compared with the 77.17 year average enjoyed by all white residents of New Jersey. Who knew that bad traffic and Thursday night cholent were good for you?

Should we tell him about Leisure Village?

[AsherO]

https://open.substack.com/pub/darchecha/p/whatever-happened-to-those-frum-life

I can’t even find anyone on the internet with anything bad to say about them.

Say what?

[yuneeq]

Funny how he applies terrible math to declare how bad the math is. One glaring mistake is to assume that the age group of Arevim members is from 25 all the way to 64 years old, and that all these members are evenly distributed. Furthermore, he groups together the mortality rate for 25 year olds with 64 year olds, when we know that deaths for this wide age group are heavily distributed at the end of the age curve. And those most likely to die probably don’t have 4 eligible children to collect for. And so on.

Aside for that, some of the facts he states are simply false, both for/against Arevim. I find that this thread is a lot more insightful.

[aygart]

Funny how he applies terrible math to declare how bad the math is. One glaring mistake is to assume that the age group of Arevim members is from 25 all the way to 64 years old, and that all these members are evenly distributed. Furthermore, he groups together the mortality rate for 25 year olds with 64 year olds, when we know that deaths for this wide age group are heavily distributed at the end of the age curve. And those most likely to die probably don’t have 4 eligible children to collect for. And so on.

Aside for that, some of the facts he states are simply false, both for/against Arevim. I find that this thread is a lot more insightful.

From looking at a couple of more posts of his, this looks like a theme.

[dovy2]

https://open.substack.com/pub/darchecha/p/whatever-happened-to-those-frum-life

being that we are already many years "into" Araivim, why not use the data from aravim themselves? wouldn't that be the most accurate?
(I understand that they might not want to disclose it, but if their number do indeed match, then they will only gain by being transparent, as people will trust them more)
disclaimer: I am a current Araivim member, AND I have term LI

[yuneeq]

being that we are already many years "into" Araivim, why not use the data from aravim themselves? wouldn't that be the most accurate?
(I understand that they might not want to disclose it, but if their number do indeed match, then they will only gain by being transparent, as people will trust them more)
disclaimer: I am a current Araivim member, AND I have term LI

Over the last 24 months Areivim billed the full amount each month. Sometimes they said that a collection would continue into the next month if there were more than 4 eligible children. Which means that there were fewer than 12 deaths per year from their eligible cohort. But this makes me question the fact that they are billing every single month, it’s very convenient that there’s always something to bill for each month. It doesn’t add up. 

And now I decided to look at the last 5 months of collections emails, here’s the amount of eligible children/spouses they were collecting for:

October - 7‬
November - 8‬
December - 6‬
January - 8‬
February - 7‬

That’s a problem. The $42 is only meant to cover 4 orphans/spouses per month. Instead of a max of 20 people that can be covered during those 5 months, Areivim is purporting to cover 36, almost double the amount. The only way this can make sense is if the cohort is 1.8x larger than originally intended and would be at 25,714 people, or if Areivim is not paying out these members in full.

I am having serious doubts about them and would cancel if I cannot get clarity on this.

[aygart]

Over the last 24 months Areivim billed the full amount each month. Sometimes they said that a collection would continue into the next month if there were more than 4 eligible children. Which means that there were fewer than 12 deaths per year from their eligible cohort. But this makes me question the fact that they are billing every single month, it’s very convenient that there’s always something to bill for each month. It doesn’t add up. 

And now I decided to look at the last 5 months of collections emails, here’s the amount of eligible children/spouses they were collecting for:

October - 7‬
November - 8‬
December - 6‬
January - 8‬
February - 7‬

That’s a problem. The $42 is only meant to cover 4 orphans/spouses per month. Instead of a max of 20 people that can be covered during those 5 months, Areivim is purporting to cover 36, almost double the amount. The only way this can make sense is if the cohort is 1.8x larger than originally intended and would be at 25,714 people, or if Areivim is not paying out these members in full.

I am having serious doubts about them and would cancel if I cannot get clarity on this.

It can be larger families than intended.

[yuneeq]

It can be larger families than intended.

October was 3 deaths - 4 + 2 + 1 = 7. The last 2 didn’t mention the spouse getting covered.
December was 2 deaths - 5 + 1, again the 2nd one the spouse wasn’t covered.

Odd that there are so many spouses that aren’t covered. Regardless, the results cannot be sustained.

[dovy2]

Over the last 24 months Areivim billed the full amount each month. Sometimes they said that a collection would continue into the next month if there were more than 4 eligible children. Which means that there were fewer than 12 deaths per year from their eligible cohort. But this makes me question the fact that they are billing every single month, it’s very convenient that there’s always something to bill for each month. It doesn’t add up. 

And now I decided to look at the last 5 months of collections emails, here’s the amount of eligible children/spouses they were collecting for:

October - 7‬
November - 8‬
December - 6‬
January - 8‬
February - 7‬

That’s a problem. The $42 is only meant to cover 4 orphans/spouses per month. Instead of a max of 20 people that can be covered during those 5 months, Areivim is purporting to cover 36, almost double the amount. The only way this can make sense is if the cohort is 1.8x larger than originally intended and would be at 25,714 people, or if Areivim is not paying out these members in full.

I am having serious doubts about them and would cancel if I cannot get clarity on this.

Do we know for sure that they are making cohorts? maybe they only have 1 large pool? and that's why they keep pushing for more memberships

[yuneeq]

Do we know for sure that they are making cohorts? maybe they only have 1 large pool? and that's why they keep pushing for more memberships

From the FAQ, it sounds like one cohort with a goal 15,000 and more if possible.
"Although group size is not guaranteed, Areivim USA aims to keep the group size at 15,000 or more."

October was 3 deaths - 4 + 2 + 1 = 7. The last 2 didn’t mention the spouse getting covered.
December was 2 deaths - 5 + 1, again the 2nd one the spouse wasn’t covered.

Odd that there are so many spouses that aren’t covered. Regardless, the results cannot be sustained.

So this answers it, spouses are only covered when there's 3+ orphans.
"An additional fund of up to $150,000 will be raised for the surviving parent of three or more unmarried orphans, to help cover the cost of raising a large family alone."

And regarding payment amounts, Areivim gives "up to" $150,00 per orphan, but in reality they are just splitting the payments between them and since there are more than 4 orphans per month each one is receiving far less.

"Here's How Areivim USA Works
Community members sign up to join Areivim USA.

In the event of the death of an Areivim USA member r"l, all members in the group contribute towards a fund of up to $150,000 per orphan. The amount of the fund is divided between the members in the group."

[AsherO]

Do we know for sure that they are making cohorts? maybe they only have 1 large pool? and that's why they keep pushing for more memberships

Cohorts don’t make sense when it’s continuous enrollment, you’ll almost never have full cohorts.

[AsherO]

From the FAQ, it sounds like one cohort with a goal 15,000 and more if possible.
"Although group size is not guaranteed, Areivim USA aims to keep the group size at 15,000 or more."

So this answers it, spouses are only covered when there's 3+ orphans.
"An additional fund of up to $150,000 will be raised for the surviving parent of three or more unmarried orphans, to help cover the cost of raising a large family alone."

And regarding payment amounts, Areivim gives "up to" $150,00 per orphan, but in reality they are just splitting the payments between them and since there are more than 4 orphans per month each one is receiving far less.

"Here's How Areivim USA Works
Community members sign up to join Areivim USA.

In the event of the death of an Areivim USA member r"l, all members in the group contribute towards a fund of up to $150,000 per orphan. The amount of the fund is divided between the members in the group."

What does this even mean? A family of 10 would get the same amount as a family of 3, but the (multiples of?) $150k is split more ways?