Filing Gets Up To Speed
Insurance Networking News, March 2005
"The NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) needs to focus on the bread-and-butter issues of regulatory reform," says Lenore Marema, vice president of industry and regulatory affairs for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), Des Plaines, Ill. Chief among those issues is speed to market.
Advertisement
That's the free market philosophy behind the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency (SMART) Act, which U.S. Rep. Mike Oxley (R, Ohio) and U.S. Rep. Richard Baker (R, La.) proposed in September. Unlike the optional federal charter option, which has been debated for several years and is supported by the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), SMART would not establish a federal insurance regulator. Instead, the legislation attempts to improve speed to market for insurers by pre-empting state rating laws, creating "nationwide competitive insurance pricing" (see "Reps Propose SMART Reforms," right).
That approach is more appealing to many opponents of a federal regulator, but many insurers remain leery of Congressional involvement. "When you look at what happened when the federal government got involved with TRIA (the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act), you have to wonder if the devil you know isn't better than the devil you may be getting," says one regional director of the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals (AICP) who declined to be identified. "Sure. I want rate reform, but I don't know if it can be mandated," he says. "And, if it were mandated, I don't know what the repercussions would be." Other federally mandated laws, such as the Risk Retention Act, only created an additional reporting burden and expense for insurers, he notes.
Because of the industry's skepticism toward Congressional action, it's not surprising that reaction (at press time) to the proposed SMART bill was mixed.
- The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA) supported the bill.
- The National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) had not issued a blanket endorsement, but was pleased that the bill did not call for an optional federal charter or regulator.
- The National Association of Mutual Insurance Cos. (NAMIC) is interested in eliminating price controls, but had not endorsed the bill.
- The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) did not support the bill because it could undermine the role of state legislatures and state insurance commissioners.
- And, the NAIC was carefully reviewing the SMART Act and preparing its comments for Congress.
It's too early for the NAIC to state any position on SMART, said Jim Poolman, North Dakota insurance commissioner at a speed-to-market seminar hosted in January by PCI, the NAIC and InSystems Corp., Markam, Ont. "But I can say the NAIC certainly appreciates that Congress is holding our feet to the fire to move forward with insurance regulatory reform."
NAIC's plan
In fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prompted the NAIC five years ago to hasten its regulatory reform efforts. As a result, in 2000, the organization issued its "Statement of Intent: The Future of Insurance Regulation." In 2003, it reinforced that commitment with its "Insurance Regulatory Modernization Plan." Then, in 2004, the NAIC issued its "Framework for a National System of State-Based Insurance Regulation."
The NAIC plans to improve speed to market by further developing and promoting its System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing (SERFF), which was designed in the late 1990s to streamline insurers' rate and form filing with the states. The NAIC blueprint also includes development and implementation of an interstate compact for uniform national product standards and a central point of filing.
For more information on related topics, visit the following channels:
