Older News and
commentary about developments affecting Workers' Compensation
insurance, and the commercial insurance market.
by Edward J. Priz,
CPCU, APA
President, Advanced Insurance Management
LLC
New York Says 'No' to WC Rate
Hikes
July 19,
2006--New York Insurance Superintendent Howard Mills has
denied insurers' request for a 7.5% rate increase, an increase that
the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board had calculated was
warranted based on reported claims data. Mills has stated that
he feels the insurance industry's anti-fraud efforts in New York
have been "anemic", and that the requested rate hike was not
justified.
New York has been experiencing overall rate
increases for the past several years, and so pressure has been
building as the various players in the Workers' Comp tug-of-war
(labor, business, medical providers, and insurers) struggle to
resolve their competing interests.
Balancing those interests is usually not easy.
If insurers feel that rates are inadequate, they always have the
option to reduce their underwriting of voluntary market business in
a particular state, putting pressure on assigned risk programs or,
in the case of New York, the State Fund. And that can have
unpleasant consequences for employers that are just as painful as
rate increases.
Buffett
(Warren, not Jimmy) Buys 2 Workers' Comp Companies
July 19,
2006--Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway operation has
announced it is acquiring a pair of California Workers' Compensation
companies: American All-Risk Insurance Services (AARIS) and American
Commercial Claim Administrators (ACCA). These two companies had
been part of Acacia Pacific Holdings, which will continue to operate
separately.
This purchase is being hailed in the press as
evidence that Mr. Buffett (AKA the Wizard of Omaha for his investing
acumen) is betting that California Workers' Comp will be a
profitable line of business now that significant reforms have been
enacted to hold down claims costs.
The press releases note that AARIS and ACCA
will continue to be managed by Rob Darby, who has run them since
2005. But if Mr. Buffett wants to maintain his reputation as a
straight-shooter, he might want to take a closer look at how AARIS
operates, at least in some aspects of its business. We here at
AIM have had recent dealings with AARIS, and found one aspect of
their way of doing business to be troubling and questionable.
When we contacted AARIS to point out some
errors in the Workers' Compensation audit for a client, AARIS
personnel refused to let us talk to the audit manager--refused to
even divulge his or her name. They repeatedly insisted we
would have to talk to the agent about any audit questions.
Worse, they gave the same brush-off to the policyholder, when he
contacted AARIS. Imagine, a Workers' Comp carrier who refuses
to let the policyholder talk to the audit manager about how audited
premiums were calculated! It's unheard of, and in our view
utterly improper and unethical. AARIS gave the policyholder
the same line of B.S. they had given A.I.M.--that they would have to
bring any questions about the audit to the agent who had written the
policy.
The problem with that is that agents don't have
any authority to do anything about an audit. And when we got
the agent to agree that she could do nothing about the audit, we
returned to AARIS, threatening to take the matter to the California
Department of Insurance. Only then were we able to even talk
to the audit manager.
Refusing to allow policyholders access to company
personnel to discuss how an audit was performed is not common
industry practice. It deprives policyholders of the ability to
work out problems with audits with the company personnel who have
authority to actually correct any mistakes in the audit. In
our view, it is the ultimate in insurance company disrespect for
their customer.
Mr. Buffett has earned a legendary status as an
investor and, more recently, as a philanthropist. But he might
want to have a little talk with the people over at AARIS about how
they handle customers who need to discuss their Workers' Comp
audits. The current company policy of giving policyholders the
silent treatment simply isn't good business.
More States Announce WC Refunds
Over NCCI Rate Miscalculation
June 30, 2006--Virginia
has just announced that employers in that state will receive over
$1,000,000 in refunds of Workers' Compensation premium overcharges
that resulted from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI)
having miscalculated Workers' Comp rates for the past few years.
A computer error on the part of NCCI caused payroll information for
a number of classifications to not be counted when NCCI made rate
calculations. It appears that this computer error has affected
rates in every state where NCCI provides rates (36 states
currently.)
A few weeks ago, AIM helped
bring this story to light, when we reported that several states had
announced retroactive rate reductions, going back to 2003.
Further investigation revealed that the problem was widespread, with
some states requiring retroactive refunds, while other states had
opted to adjust future rates to make up for the NCCI error.
This story has become an area of
contention in South Carolina in particular, where NCCI and the
state's insurance department have been pushing for significant rate
increases that are opposed by some business and consumer groups.
It turns out that in an April hearing, NCCI and South Carolina
insurance regulators had told a judge that there was no reason to
question NCCI's ratemaking methodology or expertise, even though
this major error by NCCI was known at that time. Opponents of
the rate increase are now requesting that rate hearings be reopened
in light of this new information. South Carolina is one of the
states that opted to not require retroactive refunds to correct for
the NCCI errors, and that decision is also now
coming under fire by business groups and South Carolina's
Department of Consumer Affairs.
What's Good For
The Goose--or, Why No Prosecutions of Insurance Executives for
Fraud?
June
21, 2006---There's a very
interesting news item in yesterday's online edition of
The National Underwriter, where Senator Arlen Spector
raises a question that's been on my mind lately: why were there no
criminal prosecutions of insurance company executives who for years
cheated states out of legally required assessments by reporting
Workers' Compensation premiums as other kinds of insurance. In
recent years, the insurance industry has successfully pushed for
increased criminal prosecutions of employers who (in the view of
insurers) deliberately and fraudulently lowered Workers' Comp
premiums by giving false information about payrolls or working
conditions. But when insurance companies engage in massive
fraud of their own (as was apparently done over the misreporting of
WC premium as other insurance) the insurance companies just pay some
fines and expect everyone to forgive and forget.
Senator Spector reportedly
argues that if the states aren't going to pursue criminal
prosecutions in such cases, then the feds should step in. And
he's proposing that the federal government enact legislation to
enable them to do just that.
Although it was AIG that
reached a very large and very public settlement with New York
Attorney General Elliot Spitzer over this misreporting of WC
premiums, AIG was far from the only insurer to engage in this fraud.
But because many states' regulation of insurance companies is
hobbled by (intentional) lack of funding and manpower, the insurance
industry has gotten accustomed to being able to get away with the
very kinds of misbehavior it decries in claimants and policyholders.
Perhaps the situation has
finally gotten so rank, so abusive, that the federal authorities
will have no choice but to step in. The lackluster regulation
currently being performed by many state regulators may leave them
little choice.
NCCI Adjusting
Some Rates Retroactively
June 15, 2006--The
National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) does the
behind-the-scenes actuarial work that goes into Workers' Comp rates
used in many (but not all) states. In an unusual move, NCCI
has been retroactively revising the rates used for a number of
classifications in some states.
Last June, Maine
announced that a number of classifications were having their NCCI-calculated
rates retroactively revised downwards, effective back to 2003.
Now Illinois and Missouri have made similar announcements, although affecting
different classification codes. And it appears that these
retroactive rate reductions will not be happening in just Illinois,
Missouri,
and Maine, but that similar revisions are in the works for other
states as well.
At the moment,
details about this are a little hard to come by. Insurance
regulators and NCCI seem to be playing this matter close to their
respective vests. We'll update information on this developing
story as we can unearth it.
WC Market Finally
Softening
June 14,
2006--A recent
survey of the national market for Workers' Compensation
insurance has found that conditions are finally softening, after
years of hard market conditions. Market conditions for other
lines of commercial insurance had softened earlier, but it was only
in the last quarter of 2005 that Workers' Comp renewals appear to
have softened generally. Of course, this comes after very
large premium increases experienced by many employers since late
2001 and early 2002, so any softening of prices only represents a
ratcheting down by insurers from premiums that were at historic
highs. Still, any relief has to be good news to employers,
many of whom have been pushed to the brink in recent years by the
skyrocketing cost of their Workers' Comp coverage.
It's not only market
conditions that are contributing to this reversal, it's also that a
number of states have enacted changes in their benefits structures
that have yielded decreases in manual rates (California is a notable
example.)
Ohio Comp Official Pleads Guilty
June 2, 2006--It
hasn't been a good week for Terence Gasper, the former head of
Ohio's monopoly state fund for Workers' Compensation coverage.
In fact, the past couple of months have probably been pretty crappy.
He's just pled guilty to state fraud charges over his mismanagement
of the fund (he's the genius who directed the fund to invest
in a "rare coins" fund operated by Republican fellow-traveler Tom
Noe (who has also been convicted in the scheme). It turns out
that Mr. Gasper was up for sale, at least according to published
reports of his plea deal, accepting all kinds of bribes in return
for investing the fund's money in various and sundry places.
Other published
reports indicate that the Feds plan to press charges against Mr.
Gasper next week over his management of the Ohio fund.
In spite of all the
various drawbacks and problems with private insurance for Workers'
Compensation insurance, this scandal makes insurance companies look
like saints in comparison (and that's not easy to do.) This
case makes a powerful argument that mixing politics with Workers'
Compensation coverage is a recipe for disaster. It makes one
wonder of Ohio's long history of relying on a monopoly state fund
might finally be seriously reconsidered.
California Insurer Lowering WC
Rates
June 2, 2006--A
day after California's Insurance Commissioner called for insurers to
reduce Workers' Comp rates by just over 16%, the largest WC insurer,
State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) announced rate reductions
of 10%. This should certainly be welcomed by California
employers--at least those who haven't closed their doors or fled the
state over the skyrocketing costs of California Workers' Comp in
recent years.
SCIF and other carriers have indeed
been ratcheting rates downwards in recent years, but only after
employers saw their premiums explode (and their choice of insurers
implode) after a poorly-executed deregulation of WC insurance a
decade ago.
California to Require Workers' Comp
For All Roofers
May 26,
2006--California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has
signed new legislation requiring all roofers in the state of
California to carry Workers' Compensation insurance.
Previously many roofers claimed exemption from the requirement to
carry Workers' Comp, because California (like many states) exempted
sole proprietors and partners from the requirement of carrying
Workers' Compensation insurance. Critics have long claimed
that many contractors improperly claimed such exemptions, avoiding
premiums that were legitimately owed. The new legislation
requires that all roofers in California be able to prove valid
Workers' Compensation coverage, or else have their roofing licenses
revoked.
Sponsors of the new law claim that abuses of the
old exemptions were widespread, placing roofers who followed the
rules at a competitive disadvantage and placing workers at risk.
Spitzer Now Taking Aim at Liberty
Mutual
May 8, 2006--New
York state Attorney General Elliott Spitzer is now
filing complaints against Liberty Mutual, the
largest writer of Workers' Compensation insurance in the U.S.
Spitzer has already successfully obtained significant settlements
from such insurance luminaries as Marsh & Mclennan, AIG, Zurich
Insurance, and ACE, over allegations of bid-rigging and other
improprieties. But Liberty says they are going to fight rather
than settle with Mr. Spitzer.
The New York AG charges that
Liberty provided deliberately poor quotes to Marsh in order to help
Marsh steer business to other insurers that paid so-called
"contingent commissions" to Marsh.
Insurance Company Says Cash Paid to
Worker Not "Wages"
May 2,
2006--Just when I thought I had heard it all, along
comes a news report that seems to document an insurance company
living down to the worst expectations of industry critics.
According to a news item in the
St. Petersburg Times, St. Paul Travelers insurance is paying
medical benefits but not indemnity for lost wages for Alfonso
Escobar, because Escobar was paid cash by his employer.
Escobar survived a three-story fall while installing drywall in
Florida, but is now discovering that while St. Paul Travelers is one
of the largest insurance companies in the world, it isn't above
trying to weasel out of its obligations to an injured worker.
Now, when it comes time to counting "remuneration"
for calculating premiums, you can bet your life that St. Paul
Travelers counts cash payments to workers. But when it comes
to paying out benefits to some guy who's foolish enough to actually
work for a living (as opposed to being an insurance company
executive) there apparently is no argument too low, too unseemly,
too hypocritical, for St. Paul Travelers to resist in order to save
a little money.
Former
Rhode Island State Fund Hit by Scandal
April 14, 2006--Beacon
Mutual is an insurance company that was formed out of the former
Rhode Island State Compensation Insurance Fund, a Workers' Comp
state fund that competed with insurers. It got morphed into a
private insurance company back in the mid-1990's. Now R.I.
Governor Carcieri is
demanding
the resignation of Beacon's president and vice president for
underwriting, as well as the resignation of all board members
serving since the company's inception. It's being reported
that Beacon gave illegal price breaks to some employers (including
one owned by a former board chairman) at the expense of other
insureds.
The
governor is also demanding that Beacon cooperate with a
forensic audit by regulators.
UPDATE--04/20/06--GOVERNOR
CARCIERI HAS PREVAILED--BEACON'S PRESIDENT AND VP LET GO BY;
GOVERNOR THEN REMOVES 2 DIRECTORS AFTER BOARD FAILS TO ACT.
Beacon
Mutual is currently the largest writer of Workers' Compensation
insurance in the state of Rhode island.
NCCI
& Insurers Sneak One Past Everyone
March 1, 2006--AIM
has learned that the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI)
and the Workers' Compensation insurance industry managed to sneak
one past everyone a few years ago, in a subtle but important change
in the language of the experience rating manual that governs
calculation of experience modification factors in most states.
Experience modification
factors are supposed to be calculated based, in part, on prior
years' audited payroll and classifications. And so if a
classification code is changed from one policy to the next, the new
policy's experience modifier is supposed to be revised so that the
modifier uses the same classification as is used on the policy to
compute manual premium. In other words, there has always been
a reciprocal relationship between the classification used on the
policy and the experience modifier.
A more expensive
classification will usually produce a lower modifier (all other
things being equal). That's because the modifier uses Expected
Loss Ratio (ELR) factors that vary from class to class, just like
the rates on the policy do. A more expensive class also has a
higher ELR, and this makes the modifier lower. (See our
explanation of experience rating for more
detail.)
But a few years ago, NCCI
introduced a subtle change in the language of their Experience
Rating Manual. Where once the manual said that modifiers
"shall" be revised when classifications are changed, the manual now
reads that modifiers "may" be revised when the classification is
changed.
And recently, NCCI has
begun revealing the importance of that word change.
AIM has just learned that
NCCI is now interpreting the new manual rule so that a policyholder
has to get the written permission from their insurance company
before NCCI will revise a modifier to be consistent with a change in
classification. In effect, this gives the insurance company a
veto over a policyholder getting the modifier revised.
In the past, this author
has occasionally been criticized by some folks at NCCI for being (in
their view) overly critical of NCCI. And certainly there are
many fine, ethical, and expert people working at NCCI. I've
been privileged to know some of them over the years, and I can
personally attest to their integrity and fairness. But this
latest change in experience mod rules exemplifies the
institutional mindset that makes NCCI so problematic in the
eyes of outsiders: there appears to be bias in favor of insurance
companies over policyholders inherent in their rulemaking.
NCCI manual rules are
subject to the review and approval of the insurance regulators in
each state. Concerned employers should express their views on
this change in NCCI rules to the insurance regulators in their
particular states. We list a directory of state insurance
regulators here, for those inclined to
express themselves. In the meantime, AIM is also communicating
with insurance regulators and business organizations that may have
an interest in this development.
West Virginia Looking for $1.89 Million
from Employers
February 28, 2006--According to
a
report in the Insurance Journal, West Virginia's new private
insurer, Brickstreet Mutual, has more than $1,890,000 in outstanding
Workers' Comp premium charges it is seeking to collect from
employers. West Virginia has just transitioned away from a
monopoly state fund for Workers' Compensation, transforming the
former state fund into Brickstreet Mutual. That insurer is
still the only source for Workers' Comp in the state, as insurance
competition isn't scheduled to be introduced until some time in the
future. But at the moment, it appears that some 1,794 WV
employers have some unpleasant bills in the mail.
As
always, we would suggest that employers review those bills
carefully, Whenever Workers' Comp insurers are pushing to get
money in the door, mistakes sometimes get made in the details.
Some of that $1,890,000 in additional premium that's being sought
might be based on errors in classification, experience rating, or
payroll audits. That's been our experience, anyway, through
more than twenty years of reviewing audit bills from insurers.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify."
California Unveils New Website to Fight
WC Fraud
February 2, 2006--California's
Department of Insurance has announced a new feature of their
website that highlights recent
convictions for Workers' Compensation fraud. This is in
response to recent legislation in California. The site lists
information about those recently convicted in California for
Workers' Compensation fraud. This is an area of prosecution
that is being increasingly targeted by many states, not just
California. Employers generally support such efforts, as
fraudulent claim activity is a particularly galling source of
increased Workers' Comp costs for employers. But the recent
increase in law enforcement attention to this area doesn't just
focus on workers---many employers are also being accused of
fraudulently decreasing their Workers' Comp premiums, or of not
having Workers' Comp at all when they are actually required to have
it. So more than ever, employers have to make sure they are
not trying reducing their Workers' Comp costs in a manner that could
open them up to charges of fraud.
This
can be a tricky area for employers, as there is always considerable
pressure to try to hold down the cost of Workers' Compensation
coverage. Helping employers reduce such costs legitimately
is one of the primary services that Advanced Insurance Management
provides, through our
CompControlSM
review.
A Brave
New World for West Virginia
December 30, 2005--Employers
in West Virginia are about to enter what is, for them, a brave new
world: private insurance for Workers' Compensation. For as
long as this writer has been involved with Workers' Compensation
(almost thirty years now) West Virginia was part of the litany that
insurance people memorized regarding the six states that maintained
"monopoly" state funds for Workers' Comp. Nevada left the clan
a year or two ago, and now West Virginia is following suit.
With the New Year, West
Virginia's former Workers' Compensation Commission (their state
fund) will morph into BrickStreet Mutual Insurance company, an
employer owned mutual insurance company that will initially continue
to have a monopoly on writing Workers' Comp in the state. Then
in 2008, full competition will be allowed, with other insurers being
allowed to write Workers' Compensation insurance.
Employers have
high hopes
that these changes will resolve longstanding problems with West
Virginia's Workers' Comp system. The new monopoly insurer (for
the next two years, at any rate) has information available about the
new system at
www.brickstreet.com.
Bankruptcy
& Workers' Comp Premiums
December 2, 2005--There's
a dispute going on in the federal courts over whether or not unpaid
Workers' Compensation insurance premiums should be given priority in
bankruptcy proceedings as "contributions to an employee benefit
plan." The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to decide whether
or not unpaid Workers' Comp insurance premiums constitute
contributions to an employee benefit plan, and thus should be given
priority or not. In the past, unpaid WC premiums were not held
to be such contributions, but recent appeals court rulings
have held otherwise, and so now the issue will be decided by the
Supremes.
It seems to this observer
that the earlier court rulings made more sense--that payments to a
Workers' Compensation insurer aren't really contributions to an
employee benefit plan, as that term is generally understood.
Granting this new status to unpaid Workers' Comp premiums doesn't
really benefit employees, the way that contributions to health and
pension plans do. Instead, this new interpretation really only
directly benefits insurance companies, who are responsible for
paying claims under a policy whether or not all the premium has been
paid to them. More detailed information can be found
here.
The Supreme Court should
be resolving the issue sometime in the first part of 2006.
Missouri
WC 'Reforms' Challenged
December 1, 2005--Missouri's
new Worker's Compensation law is being challenged in court by labor
groups as going too far in limiting workers' rights to compensation
for workplace injury. The new law took effect August 28 of
this year, and makes a number of changes related to what constitutes
compensable workplace injury. The goal was to reduce
Missouri's Workers' Compensation costs for employers, but a number
of groups representing workers claim that the new law goes too far
in limiting the right of a worker to be compensated for workplace
injury. The new law makes it more difficult to establish than
an injury or illness is work related, and also reduces the
compensation payable to workers who fail to wear safety equipment or
follow safety guidelines. More details about the dispute can
be found
here.
Workers Comp is always a bit of a political
football, with competing interests pushing their agendas thru state
legislatures. The entire concept of Workers' Compensation is a
compromise intended to make sure injured workers are taken care of
while limiting liabilities of employers to manageable levels.
Finding the right balance isn't always easy--but getting a decent
and workable balance is critical. Only time (and the courts)
will tell if this new Missouri effort has gone too far in one
direction and lost that crucial balance.
Major South Carolina Work Comp Insurer To Stop
Writing New Policies
November 21, 2005--Companion
Property and Casualty has announced that it plans to stop writing
new Workers' Compensation policies in South Carolina in the next
month. Companion is one of the largest writers of Workers'
Comp insurance in South Carolina, and this decision will likely
produce some significant difficulties for employers there.
According to the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce,
the insurer is seeking higher rates in the state, along with changes
in the state's insurance laws.
Something curious seems to be brewing down in SC. Earlier this
month, the South Carolina Department of Insurance fired a long-time
employee who was considered a rate expert, after he criticized the
latest proposal for higher Workers' Comp rates. Employers
there might want to watch the situation very closely, as it sounds
as if powerful pressure is being applied to increase Workers'
Compensation rates in their state.
South Carolina Insurance Regulators
Fire Expert Who Criticized NCCI
November 10, 2005--According
to a
report on the AP, the South Carolina Department of Insurance has
fired their own in-house expert on rates and risks after he was
critical of how NCCI (The National Council on Compensation
Insurance, an insurance industry rating bureau) developed rating
information used to set Workers' Comp insurance rates in South
Carolina.
I'm sure employers in South Carolina
are relieved that NCCI has been protected from criticism over their
ratemaking expertise. After all, one can't have the department
of insurance getting too independent, can one?
Oregon Woman Fights Farmers
Insurance & Wins
October 20,
2005--Ethel Adams has
finally gotten Farmers Insurance to pay for injuries she suffered in
a terrible auto accident. And it only took newspaper articles,
outraged citizens contacting regulators and legislators, and an
order from the Insurance Commissioner to get Farmers to reconsider
their earlier denial of coverage.
You see, Ethel Adams was severely
injured when an angry driver rammed his pickup truck into his
girlfriend's car, which then rammed Ms. Adams' vehicle. Until
all the publicity, Farmers had denied coverage by claiming that
because the action by the angry boyfriend was deliberate, the
incident couldn't be considered an accident, and thus Farmers'
didn't have to pay.
Ms. Adams didn't file a complaint
with her state's insurance commissioner, but lot of other people
did, once they read about the story. Lots of people also let
Farmers' know they would be moving their own coverage away from
Farmers', as they didn't want to do business with such an insurer.
And ultimately, insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler ordered
Farmers' to pay up.
This story not only illustrates
how wrong-headed insurance companies can sometimes be, it also
demonstrates how important it is to have effective insurance
regulation. A point that appears to be lost on Illinois
Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is in the process of dismantling
insurance regulation in Illinois (see story of September 29, further
below).
Ms. Adams can be grateful, I
suppose, that she lived in Oregon and not Illinois.
Cleanup of Kentucky Workers Comp Mess Proposed
October 6, 2005--The Kentucky Office of Insurance reports than an
agreement has been reached to bail out the AIK workers compensation
fund. This was a group self insurance fund that was widely
marketed to Kentucky employers as an alternative to traditional
insurance policies, an alternative that offered lower rates and
premiums. Many employers who participated, however, are only
now learning to their regret just how high the ultimate cost of this
program truly was.
Like many group self-insurance
programs, the rates charged participating employers were
unrealistically low, and the program ultimately couldn't pay all the
claims of participating employers. The fund is now no longer
taking on new employers, and is struggling to pay off the claims
it's already responsible for.
As many employers elsewhere have also
learned about these group self-insurance programs, participants can
be held liable for the overall deficit of the group. Employers
in Kentucky who participated in the AIK program are now being asked
to pay large assessments to cover the costs of winding down the
program.
Group self-insurance programs seemed
like a viable alternative to traditional Workers' Compensation
insurance, but so many of them have met fates like that of the AIK
program that one has to wonder if the rate reductions offered are
ever worth the risks inherent in these programs. So many of
these group self insurance programs have failed and left
participants with costly assessments that any employer would be well
advised to think long and hard before jumping at the lower rates and
premiums offered by such programs. The history of these funds
is that many of them have been poorly run and regulated.
Worse, they were often marketed to unsophisticated employers as
being the same as "regular" Workers' Compensation insurance
coverage, without having the potential pitfalls adequately
explained. Only in the wake of failed self-insurance programs
have many employers learned of the risk they were taking by
participating.
Spitzer Strikes Again
September 29, 2005--New
York Attorney General
Elliott Spitzer has now
broadened his
investigation of St.
Paul Travelers
insurance.
Reportedly, Mr. Spitzer
has issued additional
subpoenas, seeking
information about the
reporting of Workers'
Compensation premiums.
This is after earlier
reports that AIG
deliberately misreported
millions of dollars of
Workers' Compensation
insurance premiums as
being for other kinds of
insurance, to avoid
paying assessments to
various states that are
levied on Workers'
Compensation insurance
premiums.
Apparently, Mr.
Spitzer suspects this
devious practice was not
confined solely to AIG.
Illinois Governor
Hobbling
Insurance Regulators
September 29, 2005--In
light of the above item,
and earlier reports of
widespread abuses by
broker and insurers, one
would think that it
would be self-evident
that it's a really bad
idea to cripple your
state's insurance
regulators. But
Illinois governor Rod
Blagojevich instead has
been busy making sure
that Illinois insurance
regulators can't
effectively provide
oversight and consumer
protection to citizens
and employers in his
state.
According to sources
within the Illinois
Division of Insurance
(it used to be the
Department of Insurance
before Blagojevich
turned it into a
division of the
Department of
Professional Regulation)
not only have their
finances been diverted
to other uses, now their
consumer protection
operations are being
dismantled.
The plan is to remove
the specialized consumer
complaints handling
function from the
experienced people at
the insurance division
(those that are left,
anyway) and combine them
into a "call center"
that handles all
complaints under the
jurisdiction of the
Department of
Professional Regulation.
"Our teeth are being
pulled," a highly placed
source at the Division
of Insurance told A.I.M.
"Our consumer complaints
people investigate
complaints and, when
warranted, serve as an
advocate for
policyholders to correct
abuses by insurers and
brokers. This
won't happen anymore
under the changes being
implemented by the
governor."
Even before this
latest change, Illinois
insurance regulators had
seen their regulatory
efforts curtailed by
budget cuts and staff
reductions. Now a
bad situation is about
to get even worse.
It makes one wonder just
how much did the
insurance industry have
to contribute to Mr.
Blagojevich's campaign
coffers to get this
'reform' governor to
reform insurance
regulation out of
existence in Illinois.
Whatever the cost, it
would appear they're
getting their money's
worth.
Scandal After Scandal at
AIG
August 2, 2005--There
has been an astonishing
string of scandals
associated with American
International Group,
better known as AIG
Insurance. The
latest: a group of 18
reinsurers has sued AIG,
claiming that there was
a scheme on the part of
AIG to collect some $73
million in "grossly
inflated" workers
compensation claims and
other reinsured claims.
And there is the
devastating article in
the current
Fortune
magazine, detailing how
AIG allegedly defrauded
states of millions of
dollars by
mischaracterizing
Workers' Compensation
premiums as other lines
of insurance. The
article further states
that former AIG chief
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg
knew of this scheme and
allowed it to take
place. The article
says that AIG's general
counsel resigned after
only eight months on the
job when Greenberg
declined to take action
after the matter was
formally brought to his
attention.
And of course, AIG has
been in the thick of the
recent scandal over
"finite reinsurance",
and has had to restate
earnings for the past
five years to the tune
of $3.9 billion.
AIG was also involved in
the earlier "contingent
commissions" scandal
unearthed by New York
attorney general Elliot
Spitzer. And years
before Mr. Spitzer came
along, AIG had been
involved in a major
scandal involving
improper reinsurance
arrangements with a
Bermuda reinsurance
company set up and
controlled by AIG, but
never acknowledged or
reported to be an
affiliated company.
The Fortune
article alleges that Mr.
Greenberg sent out
private investigators to
talk to neighbors of
some of the insurance
regulators who had dared
to dig into this
improper arrangement, in
an apparent attempt at
intimidation.
By
many accounts, Greenberg
was an imperious and
arrogant tycoon, who
encouraged the view that
it was his "genius" that
enabled AIG to
outperform other
insurers during the
decades of his control.
It would now appear that
there was something at
work here in addition to
Greenberg's
obvious business talent.
Greenberg could be an
overbearing tyrant to
work for, according to
many accounts, but also
could exhibit intense
loyalty to employees
above and beyond the
call of duty. He
reportedly spent
$1,000,000 to save an
AIG executive from an
Iranian prison after
Khomeini's regime had
taken over. A
veteran of D-Day,
Greenberg brought a
similar toughness and
ruthlessness to his
management of AIG,
overwhelming state
insurance regulators
with the Byzantine
complexity of his
empire.
Many years ago, this
writer had occasion to
work at an insurance
brokerage where the
principal refused to
place business with AIG.
It was his personal
opinion that AIG
couldn't be relied upon
as a trustworthy
partner, and he refused
to place business there.
I've never had any
personal experience with
anything improper done
by AIG, but I always
respected the wisdom and
acumen of that
individual I worked for.
It would appear, based
on the past year's news
reports about AIG's
inner workings, that his
reservations about AIG
were not completely
unfounded.
The lesson to be gleaned
from this and other
insurance scandals, for
those not in denial
about the insurance
industry, is that much
more vigilant oversight
and regulation is
obviously needed.
Whether that oversight
is provided by state or
federal regulators, or
some partnership of the
two, it seems clear to
this writer that the
current system has
allowed some large
insurers and brokers to
take unfair and improper
advantage of
policyholders. It
should be clear by now
that these are not
isolated incidents, but
symptoms of a systemic
problem.
Ohio Workers' Comp Fund
Scandal Still Growing
June 27, 2005--It
looks like the folks who
run Ohio's monopolistic
state fund for Workers
Compensation have even
more explaining to do
than earlier thought.
Not only did they invest
money in some cockamamie
"rare coin fund" run by
some political crony,
(and who now cannot even
find all the coins Ohio
had purchased with their
money) but they also
made apparently
injudicious investments
in hedge funds and
venture capital funds,
and have lost money in
the process.
Keep in mind, the Ohio
Workers Comp fund is
playing with the money
that is supposed to pay
injured and disabled
workers. Also keep
in mind that in Ohio,
employers can't choose
between competing
private insurers but
instead are obligated to
get their coverage from
the fund operated by the
state of Ohio.
Private insurers, for
all their faults and
follies, would not have
been able to make such
speculative investments,
as they are subject to
regulatory oversight.
The oversight of Ohio's
Workers' Comp fund has
been, in contrast,
apparently less than
vigilant.
The good news for
employers out of all
this mess is that it
might be the final straw
that ends the monopoly
status of the Ohio
Workers Compensation
fund. Only
time will tell, of
course, but the abuses
being reported in the
Ohio press are pretty
alarming, and the
combined pressure from
political opponents and
outraged employers and
workers might just be
enough to force some
changes in the Buckeye
State.
Feds Pushing Hard to
Take Over Insurance
Regulation
June 20, 2005--But
it may not be such a great
idea for Workers'
Compensation insurance.
Because the proposed
federal regulation would
exempt insurers from
state rate regulation.
And many states have
important regulations
that limit the ability
of insurers to increase.
Giving insurers the
option of being
chartered federally
could be a swell thing
for the insurance
industry--but terrible
for insurance consumers,
including employers who
have to purchase
Workers' Comp and other
commercial lines of
insurance.
The National Association
of Insurance
Commissioners
isn't wild about the
idea, understandably.
Of course, the problem
with state regulation
has always been that
some states do a much
better job than other
states in this regard.
And the idea that
insurance shouldn't be
regulated as interstate
commerce is difficult to
defend on purely
theoretical terms.
But the history of
federal regulation of
many industries does not
necessarily inspire
confidence that the Feds
can or will do a better
job than most states do.
And they quite likely
will do worse than many
states do.
State insurance
regulators need to do a
better job in many
cases--that's been
clearly demonstrated by
recent scandals in the
insurance industry.
But federal regulation
just might result in
insurers being more free
to charge "what the
market will bear" than
ever, and that prospect
has to be chilling to
any employer. Bad
as the "hard market" has
been, it could be much,
much worse if insurers
get to avoid existing
state regulations.
Maine Announces
Retroactive Rate
Reductions for Some
Classifications
June 1, 2005--the
state of Maine has
announced that rates for
29 Workers' Compensation
classifications are
being retroactively
reduced. An error
by NCCI in calculating
rates for these
classifications resulted
in rates higher than
they should have been
for the years 2003
through 2005. A
list of the affected
classifications is
available
here.
Spitzer a "Corporate
Terrorist", Says
Insurance Lobbyist
June 1, 2005--Ernie
Csiszar, president and
chief executive officer
of the Property Casualty
Insurers Association of
America, has compared
crusading New York
Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer to both Eugene
McCarthy and to
terrorists. Csizar
has called Spitzer a
"corporate terrorist"
who uses McCarthy-like
tactics against the
insurance industry.
While acknowledging that
Spitzer has found
practices in the
insurance industry that
are "despicable",
Csiszar feels that
Spitzer has his own
conflicts of interest,
due to Spitzer's
announced candidacy for
governor of New York.
Let's see--if Spitzer is
a corporate terrorist,
does that make the
insurance industry a
corporate mafia?
Or maybe corporate
Nazis? Here's a
modest proposal--how
about we try to avoid
violent metaphors to
decry business behavior we don't
like? Terrorists
murder innocent men,
women, and children.
They fly airplanes full
of terrified people into
buildings full of other
innocent people.
Mr. Csiszar may not like
the efforts of Mr.
Spitzer to clean up the
insurance industry, or
Mr. Spitzer's methods,
but calling him a
"corporate terrorist" is
an obscene blurring of
important distinctions.
There's a bumper sticker
that Mr. Csiszar might
want to keep in mind
before making any more
public pronouncements:
"Engage brain before
operating mouth".
More Scandals With
Brokers
June 1, 2005--In
spite of the above
story, new charges
against important
elements of the
insurance industry
continue to be made.
West Virginia Attorney
General Darrell V.
McGraw has filed suit
against Acordia Inc.
alleging that this
broker violated state
antitrust and consumer
laws by accepting
contingent commissions
from insurers in return
for directing business
to them.
And just last week, Hilb
Rogal & Harris, another
well known broker,
announced that its
president had resigned
after questionable
payments were reported
to have been made to one
of their offices.
Workers' Comp Fraud--At
the Ohio State Fund?
May 31, 2005--In the
midst of ongoing
attention by insurers,
regulators, and
legislators over
Workers' Compensation
fraud by some workers
and employers, this
latest item is a sad
reminder of just how
pervasive the problem
can be. But this
latest news item
involves allegations of
fraud not by workers or
employers, but by some
of the people who run
(or ran, to be more
accurate) Ohio's
monopoly state fund for
Workers' Compensation.
James Conrad has just
resigned as head of
Ohio's Workers'
Compensation bureau in
the wake of a scandal
involving missing rare
coins that were
purchased as an
investment by the state
fund. According to
published reports, about
$10 million out of a
total $55 million in
rare coins have turned
up missing. This
begs the question of
what in the world the
Ohio state fund was
doing investing in rare
coins.
Of course, it turns out
there's a political
connection. The
coin dealer, Tom Noe, is
reported to have strong
connections to the
Republican party, which
controls Ohio politics.
In the wonderful world
of Workers Compensation,
with so much money being
fought over by so many
people, it's
sometimes amazing that
the system works at all.
Civil Complaint
Reportedly Being Filed
Against AIG
May 26, 2005--According
to a published report in
the
Wall Street Journal,
New York authorities are
set to file a civil
complaint against
American International
Group (AIG) and several
former top executives,
including Maurice (Hank)
Greenberg.
According to the report,
the complaint alleges
that AIG improperly
inflated its earnings
and duped regulators and
investors.
AIG has had to delay
reporting its annual
results three times so
far this year, as it
works to resolve
accounting techniques
that have recently come
to light. And of
course, it was only a
few months ago that Mr.
Greenberg was forced out
at AIG, in what were
reported to be not very
friendly circumstances.
The ongoing revelations
concerning wrongdoing at
some of the nation's
largest insurance firms
appear to be far from
over, as new details
emerge on a daily or
weekly basis.
Texas Nearing Reform of
Workers' Comp System
May 25, 2005--The
Texas legislature
appears close to
establishing significant
changes to that state's
Worker's Compensation
system. The most
notable change would be
to create medical
provider networks that
would prevent
employees from selecting
their own medical
providers. The
reforms would also
replace the Texas
Workers' Compensation
Commission with a
special division of the
Texas Department of
Insurance. The
intent is to restrain
the rising cost of
Workers' Compensation
insurance for Texas
employers by using
cost-control techniques
similar to those used by
HMO and PPO plans for
health insurance.
Gallagher Pays $$ to
Settle With State
Regulators
May 23, 2005--Arthur
J. Gallagher & Co. has
reached a $27 million
settlement with Illinois
regulators to end
investigations into
business practices on
the part of the
insurance broker.
The settlement with the
Illinois Attorney
General and the Illinois
Division of Insurance
will see a $27 million
dollar fund created for
U.S. clients of
Gallagher, to refund
money for policies
placed between 2002 and
2004. The business
practices in question
involved the acceptance
of "contingent
commissions" from
insurers to steer
business to them.
Gallagher thus joins the
ranks of other major
insurance firms such as
Aon, Marsh & McClennan,
and Willis, who have had
to make major financial
settlements after they
were investigated over
business practices tied
to contingent
commissions. In
addition to the
financial settlement,
Gallagher has agreed to
discontinue accepting
contingent commissions
and to disclose all
compensation to clients.
Allstate Exiting Florida
Commercial Property
Insurance Market
May 23, 2005--Allstate
Insurance has decided to
discontinue writing
commercial property
insurance in the state
of Florida, after
weathering last year's
spate of hurricanes.
Allstate has filed a
plan with state
insurance regulators to
phase out its commercial
property business, and
to increase personal
property insurance rates
in the state.
AIG May Face Criminal
Charges
May 23, 2005--American
International Group has
been reeling for months
with civil litigation
and regulatory
disapproval for various
alleged acts of
wrongdoing. Now it
is reported that New
York Attorney General
Elliot Spitzer is
presenting evidence to a
grand jury for possible
indictments on criminal
charges against some
current or former AIG
personnel.
The Hits Just Keep On
Coming for AIG
April 28, 2005--The
latest news in what seems to
be the ongoing tale of
alleged wrongdoing by AIG
insurance is that New York's
crusading Attorney General
Elliot Spitzer is
investigating whether the
insurer deliberately and
improperly reported Workers'
Compensation premiums as
being General Liability
premiums instead. This
would have enabled AIG to
avoid paying tens of
millions of dollars in
assessments to various
states' Workers'
Compensation systems.
According to news reports,
internal memos and emails at
AIG alerted management to
the practice being improper,
but nonetheless it went on
for years before being
discontinued.
It's
funny--the insurance
industry gets extremely
worked up about insurance
fraud--they spend a lot of
time, money, and effort with
things like Special
Investigative Units to try
to catch policyholders they
think are defrauding them.
And certainly that effort is
warranted. But all these
recent revelations about the
behind-the-scenes fraudulent
activity by some major
insurers and brokers makes
it clear that what is also
needed is an SIU that
protects the rest of us from
fraud by the insurance
industry.
Of
course, we have the
redoubtable Mr. Spitzer.
But what will we do when
he's elected governor? If
we have to rely on the same
old under funded and
understaffed state insurance
regulatory system, the same
system that didn't notice
all the things Mr. Spitzer
has been uncovering, we may
all have to watch our
pockets.
Dinosaurs, Meteors, and
the Insurance Industry
April 1, 2005--In
spite of the dateline to the
left, this item isn't
intended as an April Fool's
gag. The sudden and
ignominious end of Hank
Greenberg's reign at AIG
strikes me as being the
latest and loudest sign that
a real sea change may be
underway in the insurance
industry. For those not
following insurance news
closely the last month, Mr.
Greenberg has just seen his
nearly 40 year control over
AIG evaporate in a matter of
weeks. This isn't just any
insurance executive we're
talking about here--Mr....
Greenberg had built up AIG
from being something of an
obscure backwater operation
into what many people
regarded as the preeminent
business insurance company
of our times.
The Wall
Street Journal has provided
a fascinating
reconstruction
of the demise of this
Property & Casualty
potentate, with many
fascinating details of Mr.
Greenberg's autocratic
leadership style. But I
think this may be far more
than just another story of a
corporate leader with
delusions of grandeur--I
think it just might be more
like the dinosaurs seeing
the flash of the meteor
impact and lifting up their
heads to say "What...?"
The old easy days of
insurers dealing with
relatively feeble state
insurance regulators may be
ending. Elliot Spitzer has
started this revolution with
his uncovering of unethical
behavior on the part of
major insurance brokers and
carriers, and the recent
changes in corporate
governance regulations are
fueling the fire. I don't
think anyone can predict
where things will end up,
except to say that things
may be very different in ten
years. It may well be that
The federal government will
have a lot more to say
about insurance oversight,
and even if state regulators
get to keep their authority
they will be operating in a
new environment, an
environment of stricter
standards and oversight.
State insurance regulators
are already finding that if
they're asleep at the
switch, there are other
folks out there ready and
able to step in and address
the problems of an industry
that has gotten accustomed
to having its own way.
Insolvent
Insurers Still Costing
Employers
March 16, 2005-- The
Colorado Insurance Guarantee
Association has begun
billing large employers to
make up shortfalls from
Workers' Comp insurers that
went insolvent in recent
years. It's also being
reported that the New York
fund that pays workers when
insurance companies go bust
is itself insolvent. So New
York employers may also be
facing additional levies to
make up the shortfall.
Guarantee
Funds in many other states
are under severe stress from
insurer insolvencies in
recent years, so no matter
where your business is
located you may soon be
hearing from the Ghost of
Carriers Past, demanding
cash.
California Court Rules
that CA State Fund Must
Insure PEO's
March 9, 2005-- A
Sacramento County court has
held that the California
State Compensation Insurance
Fund must insure
Professional Employee
Leasing companies (PEO's)
with single policies. PEO's,
also known as Employee
Leasing companies, had been
caught in the legal battles
between the CA Dept. of
Insurance and the State
Fund. The Department had
ordered the Fund to insure
PEO's but the Fund had
resisted. The Fund had
insisted on writing separate
policies for each client
company of a PEO.
( see
earlier story dated January
19.)
This battle may not be over,
however, as the Fund is
considering an appeal. They
are also reportedly seeking
a rule change that would
require separate policies
for clients of PEO's.
NAIC Starts Online
Broker Fraud Report
System
January 28, 2005--The
National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
has begun an online system
where insurance consumers
can anonymously report
instances of insurance
broker fraud. This is part
of NAIC's response to the
abuses uncovered by New York
Attorney General Elliott
Spitzer. (See earlier
stories by scrolling down.)
The online fraud reporting
system can be found at
NAIC's website at
www.naic.org.
California State Fund
Fighting Insuring PEO's
January 19, 2005--The
California State
Compensation Insurance Fund,
also known as SCIF, is
waging a legal battle
against providing Workers'
Compensation coverage for
PEO-type employers. A PEO
(Professional Employer
Organization) provides what
is known as employee leasing
services. These services
typically include covering
the leased employees for
Workers' Compensation.
SCIF is
arguing in court that it
should not have to issue
policies in the name of
PEO's. Instead, SCIF wants
to force the client
companies of those PEO's to
insure the workers under the
name of the client company.
SCIF not only competes with
private insurers for
California Workers' Comp
business, it acts as the
insurer of last resort in
California, in place of the
Assigned Risk plans used in
many other states.
The
California Department of
Insurance had earlier
ordered SCIF to issue a
policy to a PEO. SCIF is
now appealing that order in
court. This, of course, is
only the latest in a series
of legal skirmishes between
the California State Fund
and Insurance Commissioner
John Garamendi.
PEO type
policyholders have long been
something of a problem area
for the Workers'
Compensation insurance
industry, as a single PEO
can be insuring workers in
dozens or even hundreds of
different workplaces. The
standard Workers'
Compensation insurance
policy was never designed to
address such
multiple-employer
situations. Not only can it
be challenging to determine
proper classifications when
a policy covers multiple
client employers at various
locations, but serious
issues can arise regarding
proper experience rating as
well.
PEO's
usually rely on being able
to obtain lower Workers'
Compensation pricing for
their clients as an
essential part of their
business model. Thus SCIF's
challenge, if successful,
could have a significant
impact on PEO's in
California.
Hard Market for Workers'
Comp Pricing Easing
January 11, 2005--It's
becoming clear from reports
in the insurance trade
publications (as well as our
own observations of clients'
policies) that the hard
market for Workers' Comp
pricing has been easing in
recent months. Of course,
"easing" is a relative
term. Generally speaking,
prices are still higher for
employers than they were
before September 11, 2001.
So while policyholders are
still being gouged, they're
not being gouged as
outrageously as in the
recent past. That's
probably of some comfort to
those who have to pay the
bills for Workers'
Compensation insurance, but
I'm not sure exactly how
much comfort.
In a
related note, a California
legislator has just
introduced legislation to
bring back regulation of
Workers' Compensation rates
in the Golden State.
Employers in California know
all too well how that
state's deregulation of
Workers' Compensation rates
has produced disastrous
results for policyholders.
The hard market has been
devastating for employers
all over the country, but
California has probably been
hit harder than any other
jurisdiction in the U.S.
The
loosening of Workers' Comp
rate regulation in most
states has, in this writer's
humble opinion, been a major
factor in the extreme roller
coaster rate ride that
employers have had to endure
over the past decade.
Initially, insurers were
encouraged to cut premiums
lower than was prudent, in a
mad dash for market share.
Then the predictable
aftermath hit, and the
surviving insurers were able
to sock employers with
jarringly-higher premiums.
If insurance regulators were
willing and able to do their
jobs, such extremes of
market pricing and
dislocation could be
avoided. There was a reason
why earlier generations of
regulators and lawmakers set
controls over Workers'
Compensation
rates--stability and
predictability of insurance
costs is a valuable and
useful thing for
businesses. Creating
laissez-faire insurance
regulation would not appear
to serve the public interest
in the long run, based on
what we've seen over the
past ten years. But we
typically get the best
government money can buy,
and the insurance industry
has a lot of money. At
least, that's how it looks
from my perspective.
October 22, 2004--On
October 14, New York
Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer filed
suit
against the world’s largest
insurance broker, Marsh &
McLennan, charging them with
a price-fixing and kickback
scheme against a variety of
clients. And the insurance
industry may never be the
same. At the heart of the
accusations is the
long-established practice of
agents and brokers to
receive “contingent
commissions” from insurers.
These represent what Mr.
Spitzer’s office views as
the “kickback” part of the
scheme.
Contingent commissions are
contractual arrangements
between insurance agencies
and insurers that pay the
agency additional
commissions if certain
overall volume goals are
achieved, or if certain
profitability goals are
attained, on the book of
business placed with the
insurer by that agent.
What can go wrong with
these arrangements is that
insurance agents (even the
world’s largest, according
to Mr. Spitzer) can put
their own interests ahead of
those of the client. In
other words, you don’t get
your client the best
insurance deal possible, but
rather the insurance that
gets your agency the best
deal from the insurance
company.
Attorney General Spitzer
alleges that Marsh went so
far as to routinely get
deliberately inflated
proposals from insurers to
lend credence to their
representations to clients
that they had competitively
shopped the
account and gotten the best
deal possible. For their
part of the scheme, two
executives from AIG and one
from ACE have pleaded guilty
already and are cooperating.
The contingent commissions
that are such a prominent
part of Mr. Spitzer’s case
are extremely widespread in
the insurance industry. If
your company’s Workers’
Compensation insurance is
written outside of Assigned
Risk plans or a State Fund,
you may have been affected
by contingent commissions as
well. This means your
insurance agent may have
sold you the plan that’s
best for him, not what’s
best for you.
What steps can a company
take to make sure they
aren’t victimized by such
practices on future
renewals?
First,
demand a full written
accounting from your
insurance agent/broker of
all commissions from your
account, including
contingent commissions and
any other compensation they
receive for placing your
insurance business. A
number of state insurance
regulators have already
announced they are taking
steps to outlaw these
arrangements, and some large
brokers have now renounced
the use of these contingent
commissions, but to be sure
insurance buyers should
insist on full disclosure.
Second,
use quotes from other agents
and direct writing companies
to keep everyone honest. Do
not rely on one agent or
broker to obtain
“competitive” quotes from
other insurers. More than
ever, insurance buyers need
to keep in mind the proverb
that President Reagan once
cited: “Trust, but verify.”
Finally,
insurance buyers may want to
ask all agents and brokers
working on their account to
provide a written guarantee
that the quotes provided
represent the best
combinations of price and
coverage that the broker was
able to negotiate on behalf
of the insured, without
regard for commission
income.
You may get some resistance
from your broker on some of
these points—but this will
surely change over the
course of the next year as
the fallout from the Spitzer
initiative continues, and
regulators belatedly tighten
up on their oversight of
brokers and carriers.
It’s a sad commentary on the
state of insurance
regulation that this
outrageous abuse of the
insurance system had to be
uncovered by the Attorney
General of New York and not
by insurance regulators.
This whole unfolding scandal
has served as a long-overdue
wake-up call for regulators,
and it now seems likely that
there will be far-reaching
reforms enacted in the
future. Incredibly, this
issue wasn’t even on
regulators’ radar screens
until Mr. Spitzer turned his
attention to the problem.
It makes one wonder how many
other hidden problems have
been overlooked by insurance
regulators.
One can be sure of only
one thing at this point in
this scandal: “This is all
far, far from over,” as
someone once said in a
movie.
NCCI To Revamp
Classification System
September 24, 2004...The
National Council on
Compensation Insurance (NCCI)
is planning to perform a
large-scale review and
revision of its
classification system for
Workers' Compensation
insurance in 2005. This
review is planned to be the
most comprehensive revision
to their classification
rules in years. Ultimately,
significant changes will
likely be made to existing
classifications, along with
some new classes being
created and some old ones
dropped. Industry groups
that have particular
questions or criticisms of
how the NCCI has classified
their members might be well
advised to contact NCCI and
try to involved early in any
class changes that may apply
to them. Too often, we
fear, the loudest voice NCCI
hears is that of insurance
companies, and not that of
affected industry groups.
|