Medical
  • Research and White Papers
  • June 2026

Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Life Insurance Risk

By
  • Dr. Peter Farvolden
Skip to Authors and Experts
Little girl playing with toy blocks
In Brief
As recognition of neurodevelopmental conditions expands across adulthood, life insurers need a more nuanced understanding of how these traits interact with health, behavior, and environment over time. This article, from RGA's ReFlections newsletter, probes how a balanced view can improve both underwriting decisions and claims outcomes in a complex and evolving risk landscape.

Key takeaways

  • Neurodevelopmental conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder are common, heterogeneous, and increasingly recognized across the lifespan, with implications for morbidity and mortality.
  • Risk assessment is best informed by functional status, comorbidity, and behavioral factors, rather than diagnosis alone.
  • Incorporating a neurodiversity-informed perspective supports more accurate, equitable underwriting and more effective claims management.

 

Historically framed as childhood-onset disorders characterized by deficits in cognition, behavior, or social functioning, these conditions are now understood as persistent neurobiological variations with diverse clinical trajectories.1

In parallel, the concept of neurodiversity has reframed these conditions as part of the natural variation in human cognition. For insurers, this perspective does not diminish risk considerations but emphasizes that outcomes are shaped by the interaction between neurobiological traits, comorbid conditions, and environmental context.2

From a risk perspective, NDDs are less important as discrete diagnoses than as indicators of broader behavioral, psychiatric, and medical profiles.

Overview of neurodevelopmental disorders

NDDs encompass a group of conditions with onset in early development, affecting cognitive, behavioral, and social functioning. Common conditions include attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, specific learning disorder, and Tourette syndrome.2

Prevalence estimates suggest that up to one in seven individuals may be neurodivergent.2 These conditions frequently co-occur and exist along a spectrum of severity and functional impact.

It is clinically useful to distinguish between traits and disorders. Functional impairment can emerge when traits interact with comorbidity, environmental demands, and/or insufficient supports.

The long-term course and trajectory of NDDs are highly variable. While some individuals experience an attenuation of symptoms, others demonstrate persistence into adulthood. Key prognostic factors include symptom severity, cognitive and adaptive functioning, comorbid psychiatric conditions, and environmental supports and early intervention.3

Comorbidity as a risk amplifier

Comorbidity is a central driver of risk. Common co-occurring conditions include major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, substance use disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.4 Additional associations include conditions such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and irritable bowel syndrome, suggesting broader multisystem complexity in some individuals.5

Man rowing in lake
Explore ReFlections, the industry's premier medical underwriting publication, to learn more about key medical issues impacting the insurance industry.

Adult outcomes and functional implications

NDDs frequently persist into adulthood, although the presentation evolves. Many individuals learn to compensate effectively, while others experience a variety of ongoing functional challenges. Observed patterns may include educational attainment below expected levels, employment variability or underemployment, and increased absenteeism.3 At the same time, strengths such as creativity, adaptability, and high engagement in dynamic environments are common and increasingly recognized. Mental health and behavioral factors, including substance use, sleep disruption, and impulsivity, remain key contributors to long-term outcomes.3,4

Mortality and morbidity considerations

Individuals with ADHD show elevated mortality risk, with life expectancy reductions of approximately six to nine years in some cohorts.6,7 Excess mortality appears largely driven by modifiable factors, including accidental injury, substance use, cardiovascular risk, and suicide. The risk of accidental death is approximately two-fold higher, reflecting inattention, impulsivity, and comorbid conditions.6

Emerging evidence also suggests increased cardiovascular risk (HR ~1.5-1.7), although causality remains uncertain and under investigation.8 Risk does not arise from ADHD itself, but from the cascade of downstream effects, many of which are modifiable and responsive to intervention. Table 1 illustrates a simplified pathway linking neurodevelopmental traits to insurance-relevant outcomes.

 

Neurodiversity, risk and underwriting: Moving beyond diagnosis

The neurodiversity framework emphasizes variation, rather than deficit. For insurers, this supports a more nuanced interpretation of risk.2

Diagnosis alone has limited predictive value. We know that risk assessment is better informed by functional and behavioral indicators. Rising diagnosis rates reflect increased awareness and broader criteria, but that also introduces greater heterogeneity and reinforces the need for individualized assessment. Table 2 summarizes key domains relevant to underwriting risk stratification.

 

Implications for claims management

Functional assessment, intervention and support

NDDs often present as non-visible conditions. A functional assessment should focus on attention and executive functioning, emotional regulation, task completion, and fit with occupational demands.

Effective strategies for intervention and support may include psychological interventions (e.g., CBT-based approaches, coaching), pharmacological treatment, workplace accommodations, and management of comorbid conditions.4,9 The appropriateness, intensity, and cadence of intervention will vary by individual, influenced by case-specific factors and the interplay of comorbid conditions. Table 3 outlines a practical framework for functional assessment in claims adjudication. This framework supports a shift from diagnosis-based adjudication to functional capacity-based evaluation, improving consistency in claims duration and return-to-work decision-making.

 

Complexity and uncertainty

Overlap with mood and anxiety disorders may complicate diagnosis and treatment, underscoring the importance of careful clinical assessment.1 Current key gaps in understanding and areas for further research include the long-term cardiovascular and cancer risk,5 impact of early intervention on lifetime outcomes, role of digital interventions, and interactions with the social determinants of health.3,8

Conclusion

Neurodevelopmental disorders are increasingly relevant to life insurers, not as isolated diagnoses but as markers of broader risk profiles. A nuanced approach – integrating clinical understanding with a neurodiversity-informed perspective – supports improved risk selection, more effective claims management, and alignment with evolving clinical and societal perspectives. Moving toward function-based assessment allows insurers to better capture both risk and resilience, enhancing decision-making in an increasingly complex landscape.


More Like This...

Meet the Authors & Experts

Dr. Peter Farvolden
Author
Dr. Peter Farvolden

Mental Health Consultant, Global Medical

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed., text rev. Washington (DC): APA; 2022.
  2. Doyle N. Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. Br Med Bull. 2020;135(1):108-125.
  3. Franke B, Michelini G, Asherson P, et al. Live fast, die young? A review of ADHD lifespan outcomes. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;28(10):1059-1088.
  4. Faraone SV, Banaschewski T, Coghill D, et al. The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement. World Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):244-274.
  5. Instanes JT, Klungsøyr K, Halmøy A, et al. Adult ADHD and comorbid somatic disease. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:551.
  6. Dalsgaard S, Ostergaard SD, Leckman JF, et al. Mortality in ADHD. Lancet. 2015;385:2190-6.
  7. Hargitai LD, Hartman CA, et al. Adult ADHD and mortality. Br J Psychiatry. 2025.
  8. Sun S, Kuja-Halkola R, Faraone SV, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk of cardiovascular diseases. JAMA Psychiatry. 2024;81(2):178-187.
  9. Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for ADHD. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(9):727-738.