Análisis de la relación entre el riesgo tipo de Interés y riesgo de longevidad

La entrada en vigor de la Directiva de Solvencia II, implanta medidas con la intención de que las entidades aseguradoras valoren de la forma más precisa los riesgos a los que están expuestas. Esto tiene lugar con el objetivo de garantizar la solvencia de las compañías aseguradoras y proteger a los asegurados, mediante la asignación de un papel muy relevante al análisis de los diferentes riesgos que se pueden encontrar en el mundo de los seguros. Así que, se analiza el Riesgo de Tipo de Interés y el Riesgo de Longevidad, para posteriormente estudiar, mediante un caso práctico, la existencia de relación entre ambos riesgos. A consecuencia de la pandemia ocasionada a raíz del virus de la COVID-19, se ha realizado el estudio del Riesgo de Mortalidad y, finalmente, el análisis de la relación de este riesgo frente al Riesgo de Tipo de Interés.The entry into force of the II Solvency Directive, introduces measures with the intention for the insurance companies to assess, by the most accurate way, the risks they are exposed to. This takes place with the aim of guaranteeing the solvency of the insurance companies and protecting the policy holders, assigning a very relevant role to the analysis of different risks that can be found in the insurance world. The relationsship between interest rate risk and Longenvity risk is analised through the quantification of the impact of longevity shocks on the liability duration of a portfolio of life insurance policies As a result of the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus, the Mortality Risk study has been carried out and, finally, the analysis of the relation between this risk and the Interest Rate Risk.Máster Universitario en Ciencias Actuariales y Financieras (M124

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries