How AI Search Is Recommending Long-Term Care Insurance: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

New York Life holds the coverage lead in Long-Term Care Insurance as of October 2026, but the category is compressing beneath it. New York Life's valid recommendation coverage sits at 67.7% in October 2026, down 5.8 points from its 73.5% baseline in August 2026, and Mutual of Omaha sits 1.2 points behind at 66.5%. The top of this category is no longer pulling away from the field; it is being reshaped by significant declines across three brands whose August 2026 positions were considerably stronger.

Transamerica is the one brand that moved decisively upward, and against the category grain. Its valid recommendation coverage rose 16.5 points from 3.1% in August 2026 to 19.6% in October 2026, driven by a 19.7-point increase in raw mention presence (4.1% to 23.8%) and an 11.5-point rise in top-three placement (2.0% to 13.5%). It is the only brand in the tracked set classified as a significant riser this month.

The sharpest movement in October 2026 belongs to the decliners, and it is a two-month pattern rather than a single-month event. Nationwide fell 22.4 points from 75.5% coverage in August 2026 to 53.1% in October 2026. National Guardian Life fell 20.1 points from 31.6% to 11.5%. Mutual of Omaha fell 13.1 points from 79.6% to 66.5%, its second consecutive monthly decline. All three are classified as significant decliners.

Relative to September 2026, no brand registered a significant month-over-month move, and the category-level summary describes October 2026 as mixed. The larger story sits in the baseline-to-current arc: the three brands that led this category in August 2026 have each given back significant ground, while a single brand has climbed from near-absence into the middle of the field.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (533 unique questions in August 2026; 531 in September 2026; 527 in October 2026) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 141 were relevant and 659 were irrelevant in August 2026, 268 were relevant and 532 were irrelevant in September 2026, and 311 were relevant and 489 were irrelevant in October 2026. The public metrics use the 98 (August 2026), 216 (September 2026), and 260 (October 2026) observations that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

The benchmark detected 13 critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across six AI platforms in October 2026, concentrated in three tracked companies.

Transamerica

Eleven high-severity inconsistencies involve Transamerica, spanning all six platforms. The dominant conflict concerns the maximum death benefit coverage the company offers, with platforms repeatedly disagreeing on whether the ceiling is $50,000 or $100,000.

When asked "What is the best burial insurance for seniors?", Google AI Mode stated coverage caps "sometimes up to $35,000 or $50,000" while Google AI Overviews stated "level-premium plans up to $100,000." Both responses cited NerdWallet, and NerdWallet's own page, flagged on the $50,000 side, reads that coverage "typically starts at $1,000 and maxes out at $50,000 for this type of life insurance." A parallel conflict on the same question pitted Google AI Overviews' $100,000 claim against Gemini's statement of "policy limits up to $50,000 for younger seniors," with Gemini citing Northstar's listing of "Transamerica Higher coverage amounts Up to $50,000."

When asked "What company has the best burial insurance?", the disagreement repeated three ways. Google AI Overviews stated Transamerica "offers coverage caps up to $100,000" while Gemini stated "simplified issue whole life policies up to $50,000," citing Northstar and NerdWallet. The same Google AI Overviews claim conflicted with ChatGPT's statement that coverage was "potentially reaching $50,000," and again with Google AI Mode's statement that Transamerica "offers larger payout up to $50,000," in both cases the $50,000 side citing NerdWallet's page.

When asked "Who has the best funeral insurance?", the pattern continued. Google AI Mode stated Transamerica "coverage limits scale up to $50,000" while Copilot stated coverage "up to $100,000," with Copilot citing an InsuranceGeek table listing Transamerica at "$100,000." Google AI Mode's $50,000 claim then conflicted with Google AI Overviews' statement of "coverage limits up to $100,000." ChatGPT's statement that final-expense options "go up to about $50,000" conflicted with Google AI Overviews' "level-premium coverage limits up to $100,000."

When asked "What is the best final expense life insurance company?", Google AI Overviews stated Transamerica "offers larger benefit amounts up to $100,000 for ages 18 to 75," while Gemini stated "final expense policies up to $50,000" and Perplexity stated common coverage ranges "from $2,000 up to $50,000," citing Northstar and NerdWallet on the lower figure.

A separate high-severity conflict concerns age eligibility. When asked "Who has the best funeral insurance?", Google AI Overviews stated Transamerica offers coverage "up to age 75" while Copilot stated age eligibility of "18–85," with Copilot citing MoneyGeek's description of Transamerica's "broad age eligibility, covering ages 18 to 85."

Lincoln Financial

One high-severity inconsistency involves Lincoln Financial, across two platforms. When asked "Which insurance companies are mutual?", Perplexity stated that Lincoln Financial "operates as a mutual insurer (owned by policyholders)," citing Wikipedia and NerdWallet on mutual insurance. ChatGPT's response did not list Lincoln Financial among mutual insurers, naming only State Farm, Amica, New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, and MassMutual, and citing the NAIC glossary and company about-us pages.

Mutual of Omaha

One high-severity inconsistency involves Mutual of Omaha, across two platforms. When asked "Who has the best funeral insurance?", ChatGPT stated Mutual of Omaha coverage "potentially up to $50,000" while Copilot stated coverage "up to $25,000." ChatGPT cited an InsuranceGeek table listing Mutual of Omaha at "$50,000"; Copilot cited NerdWallet, MoneyGeek, and MarketWatch.

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

The qualified observation pool grew from 98 in August 2026 to 260 in October 2026, a nearly threefold expansion, with September 2026 at 216. Every brand-level percentage in this report is calculated against the current month's qualified denominator, so percentage movements should be read alongside the underlying observation counts.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share moved from 48.0% in August 2026 to 40.7% in September 2026 before recovering to 61.9% in October 2026, while the valid recommendation shortlist share held in a narrow band across all three months.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads the category in October 2026, and how narrow is the gap to second place?
• Which brands lost or gained the most across the three-month series?

A Compressed Top Tier with One Brand Climbing Through It

The October 2026 benchmark shows a top two separated by 1.2 points, and a widening separation between the brands moving up and the brands moving down. New York Life and Mutual of Omaha sit at 67.7% and 66.5% respectively, with Nationwide a further 13.4 points back at 53.1%.

No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation between September 2026 and October 2026. The category-level picture instead reflects the accumulation of smaller movements across several brands rather than a single dominant shift.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why does New York Life still lead despite giving back coverage?
• What explains Transamerica's rise and the declines at Nationwide and Mutual of Omaha?
• How did Mutual of Omaha's placement metrics move even as its coverage fell?

New York Life: Holding the Lead While Giving Back Ground

New York Life's valid recommendation coverage moved from 73.5% in August 2026 to 72.7% in September 2026 to 67.7% in October 2026, a baseline-to-current decline of 5.8 points that sits within the normal variation threshold for this brand. The more recent September-to-October move was a 5.0-point decline, also within threshold. New York Life holds the category lead not because it gained ground but because its declines were smaller than those of the brands around it.

Placement detail tells a more constructive story than coverage alone. New York Life's top-three rate rose 5.0 points from 46.9% in August 2026 to 51.9% in October 2026, and its rank-one rate rose 2.8 points from 4.1% to 6.9%, representing 18 rank-one placements in October 2026. In absolute terms the brand earned 176 valid recommendations out of 260 observations, up from 157 out of 216 in September 2026. Raw mention presence declined 8.4 points from 88.8% to 80.4%, which crosses the significance threshold even though coverage did not.

The distinction to notice: New York Life is being mentioned less often but placed higher when it appears. Presence and recommendation strength moved in opposite directions, and coverage held closer to the presence trend than to the placement trend.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt categories account for the 18 rank-one placements, and do they overlap with the prompts where Mutual of Omaha retains the highest average recommended rank in the set?

Transamerica: The Only Significant Riser in the Series

Transamerica's valid recommendation coverage moved from 3.1% in August 2026 to 17.6% in September 2026 to 19.6% in October 2026, a baseline-to-current increase of 16.5 points that is classified as significant and extends a two-month upward streak. The September-to-October increment was 2.0 points, within normal variation, meaning the significant movement occurred primarily in the first step of the arc.

Supporting metrics confirm the direction. Raw mention presence rose 19.7 points from 4.1% in August 2026 to 23.8% in October 2026. Top-three placement rose 11.5 points from 2.0% to 13.5%, a significant increase. Rank-one placement rose 1.1 points from zero to 1.1%, which is below threshold. In absolute terms, Transamerica earned 51 valid recommendations out of 260 October 2026 observations, compared with 38 out of 216 in September 2026 and 3 out of 98 in August 2026. Average recommended rank sits at 3.18.

The small-count caveat applies at the baseline: Transamerica began this series with 3 valid recommendations in August 2026, so the percentage gain is built on a very low starting point. Even at 23.8% presence, more than three-quarters of observations still do not mention the brand.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces account for Transamerica's 51 valid recommendations, and does the concentration look like a broad pattern or a surface-specific one?

Nationwide: Largest Baseline-to-Current Decline

Nationwide's valid recommendation coverage moved from 75.5% in August 2026 to 55.1% in September 2026 to 53.1% in October 2026, a baseline-to-current decline of 22.4 points classified as significant, with a two-month downward streak. The September-to-October move was 2.0 points, within normal variation, so the significant movement is concentrated in the earlier step.

Supporting metrics show significant declines on the same arc. Raw mention presence fell 29.3 points from 90.8% to 61.5%. Top-three placement fell 32.3 points from 67.3% to 35.0%. Rank-one placement moved the other way, up 3.2 points from 4.1% to 7.3%, or 19 placements in October 2026, which is below the significance threshold. Nationwide earned 138 valid recommendations out of 260 observations in October 2026, up from 119 out of 216 in September 2026.

The distinction to notice: Nationwide is being recommended in fewer observations overall while winning the first position more often within the observations where it appears. Coverage and top-three placement contracted sharply; first-choice placement did not follow.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces drove the top-three contraction, given that first-choice placements held or improved?

Mutual of Omaha: Second Consecutive Significant Decline

Mutual of Omaha's valid recommendation coverage moved from 79.6% in August 2026 to 70.4% in September 2026 to 66.5% in October 2026, a baseline-to-current decline of 13.1 points classified as significant, with a two-month downward streak. The September-to-October move was 3.9 points, within normal variation.

All three supporting placement metrics declined significantly across the baseline-to-current arc. Raw mention presence fell 22.9 points from 99.0% to 76.1%. Top-three placement fell 27.9 points from 77.5% to 49.6%. Rank-one placement fell 26.5 points from 56.1% to 29.6%, or 77 rank-one placements in October 2026, down from 63 out of 216 in September 2026 on a larger denominator. Mutual of Omaha earned 173 valid recommendations out of 260 October 2026 observations and retains the best average recommended rank in the tracked set at 2.32.

The distinction to notice: Mutual of Omaha remains the most frequent first-choice recommendation in the category even after a significant three-metric decline, and its average rank is still the strongest in the set. Coverage and first-choice frequency are different signals here, and they have moved at different magnitudes.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the rank-one losses concentrate in the same surfaces as the top-three losses, or whether first-choice strength is holding in a narrower set of prompts.

National Guardian Life: Largest Proportional Decline from a Mid-Tier Base

National Guardian Life's valid recommendation coverage moved from 31.6% in August 2026 to 15.3% in September 2026 to 11.5% in October 2026, a baseline-to-current decline of 20.1 points classified as significant, with a two-month downward streak. The September-to-October move was 3.8 points, within normal variation. The single largest monthly step was 16.3 points.

Supporting metrics declined on the same arc. Raw mention presence fell 24.2 points from 35.7% to 11.5%. Top-three placement fell 6.7 points from 10.2% to 3.5%, a significant decrease. Rank-one placement rose 0.8 points from zero to 0.8%, below threshold. The brand earned 30 valid recommendations out of 260 October 2026 observations, compared with 33 out of 216 in September 2026, and net sentiment reached 1.0 with 30 positive mentions and zero negative mentions.

The distinction to notice: coverage and raw presence both settled at exactly 11.5% in October 2026, meaning every observation that mentioned the brand also produced a valid recommendation. This is a small absolute footprint rather than a presence-to-recommendation conversion problem.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces still surface National Guardian Life at all, and whether those are concentrated in a narrow question type.

Widening Gaps Between the Riser and the Decliners

Three category-level gaps widened in every month of the series, and each pairs Transamerica against a declining brand. The Nationwide-to-Transamerica gap moved from 72.4 points in August 2026 to 33.5 points in October 2026, widening by 38.9 points. The National Guardian Life-to-Transamerica gap moved from 28.5 points to negative 8.1 points, widening by 36.6 points and inverting. The Mutual of Omaha-to-Transamerica gap moved from 76.5 points to 46.9 points, widening by 29.6 points.

This is a category observation about repositioning rather than any single brand's problem. The brand that began the series furthest behind is now moving toward the middle of the field while three brands that began ahead of it move back, and the distance between them has contracted every month.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the widening gaps are driven primarily by Transamerica's gains, by the decliners' losses, or by both moving independently in the same observations.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters do the qualified observations actually cover?
• Why can't the benchmark show how AI systems weigh pricing or head-to-head comparisons?

All 260 qualified observations in October 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, matching the pattern in August 2026 (98 observations) and September 2026 (216 observations). No qualified observations were recorded for Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison in any month of the series.

The public benchmark therefore answers the direct provider-selection question and nothing further. It does not yet show how AI systems weigh cost and value signals, nor how carriers are positioned when a buyer asks for a head-to-head comparison, because the qualified set contains no observations in those classes. The comparison-analysis and pricing-analysis responses collected in October 2026 were not validated into the qualified benchmark set.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• What is each carrier's current recommendation signal, and what diagnostic does it point to?
• Which brands need a company-level analysis to explain their coverage movement?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the CiteWorks Studio AI Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Expanded observation pool: The qualified benchmark set grew from 98 observations in August 2026 to 216 in September 2026 and 260 in October 2026. Percentage movements should be read against the changing denominator, and absolute recommendation counts are stated alongside the rates.
• Small-count movement: Genworth (2 valid recommendations in October 2026), Knights of Columbus (0), and Thrivent (18) operate on small absolute bases, where a few observations move the percentage materially. These are directional signals.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: Brand-level percentages use the qualified benchmark set, a subset of the 800 prompt-surface observations collected each month after relevance and eligibility qualification.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.
• Presence vs coverage: A brand can appear in AI responses without being recommended. Coverage measures valid recommendations specifically, and the two signals moved in opposite directions for several brands this month.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages raise questions that the benchmark alone cannot answer: Which high-intent prompts is each carrier actually winning? When a brand loses a recommendation, which competitor takes its place? What attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers?

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. Rather than reacting to percentage movements, an audit identifies the underlying drivers and the specific opportunities to improve recommendation outcomes.

Request an AI visibility audit