Tag Archives: fio

Time for E-Signatures, Doc Management

If you want to know why insurance companies need electronic signatures and document management, you must first look at the regulatory landscape.

In the past 10 years, this climate has changed considerably, and most insurance companies are struggling to do one of two things to handle these changes: 1) make internal policies to comply with these changes without sacrificing profitability; and 2) find creative ways to outpace competitors looking for the same solutions to these problems.

Neither is an easy feat.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has even devoted a large portion of its industry report to addressing one of the myriad ways insurance companies are striving to transcend regulatory difficulties—through the efficiency of the internet.

This is a major reason why insurance companies need both electronic signatures and document management. Used separately, they are ineffective at delivering that the solutions insurance companies need. Together, their interplay makes navigating regulatory changes easy, especially those administered and upheld by the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and NAIC.

Understanding E-Commerce and Insurance Sales Problems

Most states in the U.S. require those applying for insurance services over the internet to complete an electronic signature, whether it is used as a standalone technology or integrates with document management technologies. Although the approach may seem like common sense, its advent does away with the use of a witness or notary and brings into question the legitimacy of signatures.

See also: The Most Valuable Document That Money Can Buy  

Despite digital signatures being more efficient (after all, if e-signatures existed in 1776, all 56 U.S. delegates could’ve signed the document on the day our nation was founded; instead, it took roughly a month to collect all the signatures), they require additional authentications. This can be automated by document management tools.

Legitimizing Electronic Insurance Applications

ACORD, the Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development, achieved this automation by making digital forms available on its domain. Application of electronic signature technology situated in document management solutions just needs to be applied during the final stages of the process.

Why the Need Is Paramount

Above all else, these are the features that create an effective interplay between document management technologies and electronic signatures.

Authentication Procedures

Inclusion of a KBA challenge question helps authenticate the digital signature process. This ensures that the party attempting to sign a document is who he or she says he or she is.

IP Address Verification

IP address verification is an extra layer that can bolster the legitimacy of a signed document if a legal dispute over its authenticity ever arises.

Form Fill Automation

There are new and exciting ways to automate the form fill process for recurring client-based and document related processes. Zonal OCR makes this possible, eliminating manual processes and reducing document workload to a bare minimum.

See also: E-Signatures: an Easy Tech Win  

Bar Code Authentication

Although a bar code authentication in an electronic signature should never be a standalone backup, it does add a layer of legitimacy. A bar code is a stamp of individuality that reveals its purpose and origins quite clearly.

Ensuring Data in Documents is Unaltered

It becomes obvious that electronic signatures are more useful if applied through document management technologies, as these technologies ensure documentation is not altered.

What’s more, the role-based user permissions of a document management system can trace who changed what within a system, ensuring that those who alter data without authorization can be held accountable for their actions.

What Will Trump Mean for State Regulation?

Insurance is regulated by states, and the states’ laws are implemented and administered by state insurance commissioners. This was affirmed in 1945 by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Under that act, states regulate the business of insurance unless the U.S. Congress decides otherwise. In the past six years, the federal government has with regularity encroached on areas previously controlled solely by state insurance commissioners, such as through the following federal actions:

  • The creation by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO)
  • Dodd-Frank’s creation of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)
  • The Affordable Care Act (ACA)
  • The Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule issued April 8, 2016

These federal encroachments have led to regulatory confusion. Although state insurance commissioners are the predominant regulator of licensed insurance carriers and producers, insurance companies that are deemed systemically important non-bank financial institutions are supervised both by the Federal Reserve and by their domestic state insurance regulators. This creates significant duplication and regulatory burden; the cost of that burden – as well as some of the confusion — is ultimately passed on to consumers. Under the ACA, for instance, state insurance regulators routinely must react to hundreds of pages of regulations that are published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Licensed insurance producers and carriers must overhaul their operations and distribution to comply with the 1,023-page DOL fiduciary rule.

See also: What Trump Means for Business  

As I see it, state legislatures have given state insurance regulators dual mandates: (1) to protect consumers from the moment of purchase through filing a claim and ultimately the payment or denial of that claim; and (2) to ensure companies are solvent and can meet their financial obligations to consumers. While insurance regulators at the state level can always improve, I do believe that collectively we do a commendable job. Insurance company failures are rare, and most states respond to consumer complaints in a very timely fashion.

Under a President Trump, I believe the role of state insurance regulators will grow as some federal regulations are eliminated. If Dodd-Frank is reviewed, the role of the FIO and even the FSOC could change. State regulators have argued tirelessly that the FIO is not a regulator and needs to stay in its lane as authorized under Dodd-Frank. State regulators are debating with the FIO the need for a covered agreement on reinsurance collateral and are worried about state law being preempted. I think that, under a Trump administration, state regulators may be listened to much more in this debate. State commissioners and the FSOC representatives with insurance experience have also worked to ensure that the FSOC recognize that insurance is not banking and that traditional insurance is not systemic to the global financial system. A Trump administration may agree with state insurance regulators on these issues and many more. Only time will tell, of course.

State insurance commissioners need to demonstrate through the execution of states’ dual mandates that we deserve the responsibility of supervising the insurance markets in our respective states and that we do it better than it could be done from the federal level. I believe the time for state insurance commissioners to shine is now, and I hope we all continue to deliver results as our roles as the regulators of insurance carriers and producers and as the protectors of consumers become increasingly important.

See also: What Trump Means for Workplace Wellness  

10 Questions on Capital Standards

PwC U.S. risk and capital management leader Henry Essert and PwC global insurance regulatory director Ed Barron recently sat down to discuss the proposed International Capital Standards (ICS) for insurers. They addressed at length what the ICS is and what it could mean to insurers. Here are their thoughts on the standard, as well as some background information on capital management and related issues in the insurance industry.

1. Why have an ICS?

The ICS is about creating a consistent capital measure across globally active insurers and is being promoted as a solution for group-wide supervisors to better manage capital allocation around an international business.

Insurers generally have developed their own capital standards, and what they have developed applies globally across groups. However, regulators need a capital measure to oversee insurers, and most of the regulatory measures are at the legal-entity level. During the last financial crisis, problems arose when parts of a troubled financial institution fell through a regulatory crack.

Even before that, many insurance regulators were concerned that they did not have a good picture of companies as a whole because capital is measured differently in different jurisdictions. This makes it hard for a supervisory college to identify where there may be shortfalls in capital.

2. Who wants it?

Primarily regulators and, by extension, policymakers and politicians/elected representatives. At the end of the 2008 crisis, many of them were concerned about avoiding or better handling any subsequent crises. This prompted politicians (via the Financial Stability Board) to direct regulators to improve the regulatory system for all of financial services, particularly as it relates to capital standards. And, while the banking industry has received the most attention, the insurance industry is part of a wider move for change in financial services; in fact, the FSB is now firmly focusing on the sector.

However, many elected officials in the U.S. are now concerned about adopting a “foreign” calculation that differs from what regulators in their jurisdiction have used. To run their business and generate a good return on capital, multinational and other groups need to have some way to measure how much capital they need in total on a consistent basis. They have devised their own ways of doing this calculation using a combination of current regulatory calculations and their own capital models (which are sometimes called economic capital models). They tend to do these calculations on their own without outside prompting and have concerns that the ICS calculation could conflict with what they are already doing. There has been extensive regulatory change in recent years, and the ICS is yet another initiative that insurers have to address – and in a very aggressive timeframe.

3. Does it reflect current practices or does it break from them?

Practices differ by country, so there is no single current practice standard to compare with, and the ICS is intended to be a truly global group measure. The current ICS proposal is not the same as any practice in any jurisdiction currently, but most people would say it is closer to European Solvency II approach than to the current U.S. practice. Accordingly, ICS (as it currently stands) would be a considerable change to the U.S. market. This is why the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) is leading a workstream on setting up a GAAP+ concept that will be more closely aligned to U.S. practice.

4. Who’s going to enforce compliance?

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) does not have any executive powers; its role is strictly to develop regulatory guidelines and best practices for national supervisors to adopt, either in whole or part. Application of the ICS is up to individual supervisors, and the question remains if they will act in many major jurisdictions. In theory, the ICS will apply (via ComFrame) to only internationally active insurance groups (IAIGs), of which there are roughly 50 worldwide. However, many observers expect that when the ICS becomes an industry standard, other companies also will use it to calculate and report their capital adequacy.

Several jurisdictions do not have an IAIG. Therefore, we assume they would not be pressured into introducing an ICS concept. However, because most jurisdictions readily adopt many IAIS principles, we would not be surprised to see some of the principles within ComFrame and the ICS “trickle down” to smaller markets, especially where there is not necessarily global activity but a high concentration of regional activity (e.g., Asia).

The reason countries tend to adopt IAIS guidelines is because, when the IMF/World Bank conducts its Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) reviews, it uses IAIS principles as the benchmark for assessing the insurance sector. Therefore, it is in many people’s interest to adopt IAIS standards to achieve strong FSAP results (which feed into sovereign rating, etc.).

5. Who at insurers will be most affected?

If the calculation is similar to others already in use, then primarily risk, actuarial, financial and compliance will be affected. If, on the other hand, the calculation is very different, then just about all functional areas could be affected because of a knock-on effect on product portfolio, pricing, investment strategy and so on. In either case, boards will need to demonstrate they understand the numbers and what they mean, particularly as they relate to
strategic decisions.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, the ICS is only part of a larger regulatory package for IAIGs called Comframe. Other aspects of Comframe, like governance, risk management policies and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) also will have an effect on many areas, regardless of where the ICS ends up.

6. How much investment/effort would implementation and compliance require?

This depends on the nature of both the calculation that is adopted and its enforcement. It is almost certain that the calculation will be complex. But, if the calculation is similar to what groups are already using, either because it is similar to the main regulatory calculation groups use or is similar to their own internal, economic capital calculation, then the investment/effort will be less significant.

More importantly, if it winds up being similar to current calculations, then the new ICS would not have a major impact on how the company’s business profitability is measured. However, if the calculation is different, implementation/compliance and business impact will be significant.

Investment and effort may not necessarily be limited to basic compliance. Insurers can look to their experience with Solvency II, which entailed more than just change to capital standards, and required significant investment in new technology, as well as potential changes to organizational structures.

7. Will product offerings change? Are there certain products that may disappear?

If calculations are different than those now in use, then, yes, there would likely be impacts on premiums for some products, and some may even become nonviable. Many life companies are concerned that if certain types of calculations (notably, market-consistent calculations) are used, then long-term savings products may be too costly to remain viable. At the least, if certain products do not disappear, then their design may need to change (which would change the balance of insurers’ product portfolios).

8. What’s been the reaction of ratings agencies and analysts?

Ratings agencies typically have their own capital calculation formula and, for the most part, at the group level. It is not clear if they will replace their own with ICS but could do so if they think the latter is a comparable or better formula.

Equity analysts typically are concerned with the ability to pay dividends or buy back stock, which happens at the parent company level. Accordingly, they typically do their analysis at the group level. They have not been a vocal part of this discussion but probably would find an ICS helpful.

In fact, most stakeholders are likely to support the concept of a global capital standard for the insurance industry, but there almost certainly will be differences of opinion about what one should look like as details are hashed out about how the standard will actually work.

9. With all this in mind, is a true ICS likely?

It’s too early to say for certain one way or the other, but even the regulators who question the necessity of an ICS seem reconciled to the notion that one should be developed. The debate now is what the one true ICS should look like, and how the calculation should be done is the main area of disagreement between and among geographies. For other aspects of the Comframe regulatory package, like governance, risk management policies and ORSA, there is significantly less disagreement.

10. What should insurers be doing now?

Building the ICS calculation formula and finalizing the rest of Comframe probably will take several years. The following are likely to be key steps in the journey:

  • In the early stages, companies will want to understand how the different, proposed ICS options may affect them, to determine which option they favor.
  • As regulators further develop the different options’ details, they will want to study how different factors in the proposed formulas will affect companies. They will ask insurers to conduct studies of these different factors for their business (i.e., field testing).
  • Once the nature of the ICS becomes clear, companies will need to implement the formula (and eventually, the rest of Comframe).
  • All stakeholders should remain aware of ICS developments to assess where there is consensus and disagreement. If there continues to be significant divergence in how required capital is calculated across regimes, and if ICS adds complexity rather than reducing it, then most insurers will need to factor these developments into how they are modernizing or plan to modernize their risk, actuarial, financial and technology platforms to operate effectively and efficiently in the new environment.
  • Insurers may need to redesign and reprice their products, as well as potentially rethink their business strategies. It is possible that they will need to divest certain businesses and add others.

What are current capitalization requirements?

Current capital requirements in the U.S. are set at a legal-entity level. There are no global requirements for a company that operates in more than one country, and calculation formulas for capital requirements typically vary in each jurisdiction. Solvency II gets close to mandating a group standard. However, it uses the concept of “equivalence” to deal with differing capital regimes between the EU and the rest of the world, rather than enforcing Solvency II capital standards on a third country. In other words, if a country outside of the EU is deemed equivalent, then the group headquartered in the EU can use the capital standard of the operation outside the EU within its group calculation on the grounds that EU regulators are comfortable with the system in that
third country.

Are those requirements adequate if there’s another market shock like 2008 or a series of catastrophic events?

During the 2008 shock, some significant companies did not have enough capital, and governments intervened. In many cases, the formulas that set the capital requirements that proved insufficient are still in use.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean current requirements would be inadequate for future shocks. There’d need to be a model to test if current requirements are adequate for a defined market shock like 2008, but we would need to define exactly what “a series of catastrophic events” means before modeling its impact.

What results in undercapitalization?

The more risky the business, the theory is that insurers will need to hold more regulatory capital against the risk. To be undercapitalized is normally a reflection of poor reserving or liquidity management.

More specifically, companies hold assets to defease their liabilities, which are calculated based on a more or less average level of claims. Additional assets are set aside (not available to pay shareholder or policyholder dividends) to pay for claims should they be higher than the average. This amount of additional assets is the regulatory required capital. If these assets set aside prove insufficient during a crisis, then undercapitalization results.

What is an adequate level of capital reserves (and, if the level varies by sector, what is the appropriate level for each)?

Figuring out the answer to this question is what the whole ICS global and country level debate is all about.

Which sector (reinsurance, P&C, life) has the biggest challenges remaining adequately capitalized?

There is no perception that this is a bigger issue for one sector compared with another. Problems have occurred in all sectors. Some future crisis events will affect all sectors, like credit risk events; others are more harmful for PC (wind storms) or life (pandemics).

Do different sectors have different standards? In other words, does life have a lower standard than P&C?

No, the same formula is used across the sectors. The formula will cover risks that are common across sectors with the same calculation. Different types of risk are covered by having different factors assigned to different exposures. Some of these will apply only to business/exposures written by life companies or PC companies.

Which are better capitalized, groups or subsidiaries (or does it vary)?

Each subsidiary typically has an amount of actual and required capital it holds on its own balance sheet. The group actual and required capital is the sum of these. Many companies hold actual capital in the subsidiaries just sufficient to cover the regulatory requirement in that subsidiary. They would hold any significant excess at the parent company. So for these types of companies, that would mean the group is better capitalized than the subsidiaries. But that is not always the case.

A group parent company typically can send capital to subsidiaries, subject to meeting its own capital requirements if it is an insurance company. However, the normal capital flow is from subsidiaries to the parent, but the flow is constrained by the subsidiaries’ own capital requirements. (Laws differ from country to country about how readily a company can move capital from one entity to another when it has a group capital position.)

Are there certain insurance lines that are difficult to adequately capitalize?

There are certain coverages for which the level of required capital is too high to make premiums affordable. Where this occurs, some form of government intervention typically occurs (e.g., flood insurance in certain areas). This is unlikely to change with or without an ICS.

However, when the objective is policyholder protection, capital is not the only tool. Better risk management is also key, with tools such as the ORSA and governance protocols being paramount. If it is hard to quantify a certain risk type, then strong risk management principles should augment the degree of policyholder protection.

The Case for Modernizing Insurance

Several drivers of change are compelling insurance companies to re-evaluate and modernize all aspects of their business model and operations. These drivers include new and rigorous expectations from regulators and standards, increasing demands for more relevant and useful information, improvements in analytics and the need for operational transformation.

The modernization creates considerable expectations for finance, risk and actuarial functions, and potentially significant impacts to business strategy, investor education, internal controls, valuation models and the processes and systems underlying each – as well as other fundamental aspects of the insurance business. Accordingly, insurers need more sophisticated financial reporting, risk management and actuarial analysis to address complex measurement and disclosure changes, regulatory requirements and market expectations.

Three key areas to look at:

Regulation and reporting

Changes in regulatory and reporting requirements will place greater demands on finance, risk and actuarial functions. Issues include:

  • Changing global and federal regulation (e.g., Federal Insurance Office, Federal Reserve oversight)
  • ComFrame, a common framework for international supervision.
  • Principle-based reserving
  • Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA), the Solvency II initiative that defines a set of processes for decision-making and strategic analysis
  • Solvency reporting measures
  • Insurance contract accounting

Information and analytics

Stakeholders are demanding more information, and boards and the C-suite need new and more relevant metrics to manage their businesses. Issues include:

  • Economic capital
  • Embedded value
  • Customer analysis and behavioral simulation
  • New product and changing underwriting parameters

Operational transformation

Those in charge of governance are demanding that the data they use to manage risk and make decisions be more reliable and economical. Issues include:

  • Updated target operating models
  • Centers of excellence
  • Enterprise risk management (ERM), model risk management and governance
  • New framework from the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO), a joint initiative of five private-sector organizations that provides thought leadership on ERM, internal controls and fraud deterrence
  • Optimization of controls, and efficiency studies

These drivers of change, which affect every facet of the business — from processes, systems and controls to employees and investor relations — have significant overlaps, and insurers cannot deal with them in isolation. To meet emerging challenges and requirements, simply adding processes or making one-off, isolated changes will not work.

Systems, data and modeling will have to improve, and the finance, actuarial and risk functions will need to work together more closely and effectively than they ever have before to meet new demands both individually and as a whole.

Moreover, all of this change is imminent: Over the next five years, leading companies will separate themselves from their competitors by fully developing and implementing consistent data, process, technology and human resource strategies that enable them to meet these new requirements and better adapt to changing market conditions.

The insurers that wind up ahead of the game will excel at creating timely, relevant and reliable management information that will provide them a strategic advantage. Legacy processes and systems will not be sufficient to address pending regulatory and reporting changes or respond to market opportunities, competitive threats, economic pressures and stakeholder expectations. Companies that do not respond effectively will struggle with sub-par operating models, higher capital costs, compliance challenges and an overall lack of competitiveness.

In subsequent articles, we will take a closer look at those leaders/business units that need to modernize.

 Eric Trowbridge, a senior manager, contributed to this article.

The FIO Report on Insurance Regulation

The December 2013 issuance of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) report, How to Modernize and Improve the System of Insurance Regulation in the United States, may in hindsight be regarded as more momentous an occasion for the industry and its regulation than the muted initial reaction might suggest. History’s verdict most likely will depend on the effectiveness of the follow-up to the report by both the executive and legislative branches, but current trends in financial services regulation may serve to increase the importance and influence over time of the FIO even in the face of inaction in Washington.

Insurance regulation has traditionally been the near-exclusive province of the states, a right jealously guarded by the states and secured by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled insurance could be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Any fear that the FIO report would call for an end to state regulation proved unfounded, but industry members might be well-advised to prepare for the eventualities that may result as the FIO uses both the soft power of the bully pulpit and the harder power of the federal government to achieve its aims. As the designated U.S. insurance representative in international forums that more and more mold financial services regulation, and as an arbiter of standards that could be imposed on the states, the FIO and this report should not be ignored.

Having met with the FIO’s leadership team, we believe there are concerns that uniformity at the state level cannot be achieved without federal involvement. We further believe the FIO plans to work to translate its potential into an actual impact in the near future, making a clear-eyed understanding of the report and what it may herald for insurers a prudent and necessary step in regulatory risk management.

The concerns

The biggest surprise about the FIO report may well have been that there were no surprises. There were no strident calls for a wholesale revamp of the regulatory system, and praise for the state regulatory system was liberally mingled among the criticisms.

The lack of any real blockbusters in the details of the FIO report may seem to lend implicit support to those who foresee a continuation of the status quo in insurance regulation. But, taken as a whole, this report and the regulatory atmosphere in which it has been released should be considered a subtle warning of changes that may yet come.

The report may quietly help to usher in an acceleration of the current evolution of insurance regulation. The result could be a regulatory climate that offers more consistency and clarity for insurers and reduces the cost of regulation. The result could also be a regulatory climate that offers more stringent regulatory requirements and increases both the cost of compliance and capital requirements. Most likely, the result could be a hybrid of both.

Either way, preparing to influence and cope with any possible changes portended in the report would be preferable to ignoring the portents.

Part of the disconnect between the short-term reception and the long-term impact of this report may be because of the implicit FIO recognition in the report of the lack of political will needed to enforce any real changes in current U.S. insurance regulation, most especially any that would require increased expenditures or personnel at the federal level. In our current economic and political environment, plugging gaps in state regulation by using measures that would require federal dollars may quite reasonably be construed to be off the table.

But the difference between identified problems and feasible solutions may offer an opportunity. States, industry and other stakeholders could act together to bring needed reform to the insurance regulatory system in a way that adds uniform national standards to regulation, reduces the possibility of regulatory arbitrage and maintains the national system of state-based regulation, all while recognizing the industry’s strengths and needs and not burdening the industry with unnecessary, onerous regulation.

There is much to praise in the current state regulatory system. A generally complimentary federal report on the insurance industry and the fiscal crisis of the past decade noted, “The effects of the financial crisis on insurers and policyholders were generally limited, with a few exceptions…The crisis had a generally minor effect on policyholders…Actions by state and federal regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), among other factors, helped limit the effects of the crisis.”

While the financial crisis demonstrated the effectiveness of the current insurance regulation in the U.S., it is also evident that, as in any enterprise, there are areas for improvement. There are niches within the industry – financial guaranty, title and mortgage insurance come to mind – where regulatory standards and practices have proven less than optimal.

There are also national concerns that affect the industry. The lack of consistent disciplinary and enforcement standards across the states for agents, brokers, insurers and reinsurers is one obvious concern. Similarly, the inconsistent use of permitted practices and other solvency-related regulatory options could lead to regulatory arbitrage. At a time when insurance regulators in the U.S. call for a level playing field with rivals internationally, these regulatory differences represent an example of possible unlevel playing fields at home that deserve regulatory attention and correction.

A Bloomberg News story in January 2014, for example, quoted one insurer as planning to switch its legal domicile from one state to another because the change would allow, according to a spokeswoman for the company, a level playing field with rivals related to reserves, accounting and reinsurance rules.

For insurers operating within the national system of state-based regulation, one would hope that that level playing field would cross domiciles, and no insurer would be disadvantaged because of its domicile in any of the 56 jurisdictions.

But perhaps one of the greatest challenges to the state-based system of regulation is the added cost of that regulation, partly engendered by duplicative requests for information and regulatory structures that have not been harmonized among states. How to respond to that may represent the biggest gap in the FIO report. It may also be the biggest opportunity for both insurers and regulators to rationalize the current regulatory system and ensure the future of state-based regulation.

Cost

The FIO report notes that the cost per dollar of premium of the state-based insurance regulatory system “is approximately 6.8 times greater for an insurer operating in the United States than for an insurer operating in the United Kingdom.” It quotes research estimating that our state-based system increases costs for property-casualty insurers by $7.2 billion annually and for life insurers by $5.7 billion annually.

According to the report, “regulation at the federal level would improve uniformity, efficiency and consistency, and it would address concerns with uniform supervision of insurance firms with national and global activities.”

Yet the report does not recommend the replacement of state-based regulation with federal regulation, but with a hybrid system of regulation that may remain primarily state-based, but does include some federal involvement.

At least one rationale for this is clearly admitted in the report. As it says, “establishing a new federal agency to regulate all or part of the $7.3 trillion insurance sector would be a significant undertaking … (that) would, of necessity, require an unequivocal commitment from the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government.”

The result of that limitation is a significant difference between diagnosis and prescription in the FIO report. Having diagnosed the cost of the state-based regulatory system as an unnecessary $13 billion burden on policyholders, the FIO's policy recommendations may possibly be characterized as, for the most part, the policy equivalent of “take two aspirin and call me in the morning.”

Still, as the Dodd-Frank Act showed, even Congress can muster the will to impose regulatory solutions if a crisis becomes acute enough and broad enough. Unlikely as that may now seem, the threat of federal radical surgery should not be what is required for states to move toward addressing the recommendations of the FIO report.

Indeed, actions of the NAIC over the past few years have addressed much of what is in the FIO report. Now the NAIC, industry and other stakeholders can take the opportunity provided by the report to work to resolve some of the issues identified in it. The possible outcome of an even greater federal reluctance to become involved in insurance regulation would only be a side benefit. The real goal should be a regulatory system that is more streamlined, less duplicative, more responsive, more cost-efficient and more supportive of innovation.

Kevin Bingham has shared this article on behalf of the authors of the white paper on which it is based: Gary Shaw, George Hanley, Howard Mills, Richard Godfrey, Steve Foster, Tim Cercelle, Andrew N. Mais and David Sherwood. They can reached through him. The white paper can be downloaded here