We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Insurance Groups: NAIC Big Data Panel Proposed Charges Are Too Broad

    October 18, 2016 by Thomas Harman

    WASHINGTON – Insurance industry groups labeled as too broad a National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ panel proposal for the panel to consider additional oversight of big data use by insurers, including having the NAIC become involved in reviewing data models used in underwriting, rating and claims.

    The NAIC’s big data working group has been exploring the use of big data for claims, marketing, underwriting and pricing, as well as its potential for use in improving market regulation. Charges for the group to follow during 2017 are to be sent to the Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs Committee to consider during the NAIC Fall National Meeting in Miami this December (Best’s News Service, Aug. 26, 2016).

    The working group proposed three recommendations for its 2017 work, including having the panel recommend improvements to the regulatory framework regarding use of consumer and non-insurance data. At a minimum, the panel should consider changes to model laws and regulations, data vendor and broker regulations, regulatory reporting requirements and consumer disclosure requirements.

    It also recommended the panel propose a process for regulatory review of complex data models used in underwriting, rating and claims, with the NAIC having a means to share resources and conduct coordinated reviews of those models.

    The panel should also establish data needs and required tools for regulators to monitor the marketplace and to evaluate underwriting, rating, claims and marketing practices.

    But the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies were critical of the proposals. In a letter sent by Dave Snyder, PCI vice president, international policy, to panel chairwoman Laura Cali, Oregon’s insurance commissioner, Snyder said the proposed charges were unnecessary. “There is no documented need for dramatic change,” he wrote.

    He said the proposed charges at best “could create unnecessary and unproductive uncertainty about what are the rules and at worst could impair competition and the ability of insurers to respond to evolving challenges.”

    Snyder said the first charge “is so overly broad as to sweep in every element of regulation and even potentially abandon the fundamental anchor of cost-based pricing, thereby repudiating decades of successful regulation and the recent recommendations of the NAIC in its work on price optimization.”

    The second charge calls for “the actual creation of a new, large, costly bureaucracy at the NAIC” that would replace efficient and effective statistical agents and potentially increase consumer costs, Snyder wrote. The third charge is — like the first — too broad, Snyder said. “We have heard no justification for such a broad and sweeping overhaul of our successful regulatory system and insurance market,” he wrote.

    Instead, the working group should focus on skyrocketing underlying costs, including the dramatic increase in crashes, deaths and injuries on the nation’s highways. U.S. Department of Transportation officials recently reported motor vehicle crash fatalities jumped 10.4% during the first half of 2016 compared with the same period in 2015. In 2015, the DOT reported the largest such percentage increase since the 1960s, Snyder said.

    The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies also voiced its disapproval. Neil Alldredge, NAMIC senior vice president, state and policy affairs, told Best’s News Service the charges beg for a definition of big data and need to be narrowed. He said state insurance departments already get filings and review them and have the tools to evaluate rate filings. “There’s no doubt that as the practice [of using big data] grows and evolves over time, there may be a new regulatory framework that needs to be established, but we’d like to see regulators take a harder look at what they already have,” Alldredge said.

    He objected to having the NAIC become involved in rate review and called it a troubling concept. “It’s hard to contemplate that that would be the best answer for regulators,” he said.

    (By Thomas Harman, Washington Bureau manager, BestWeek: Tom.Harman@ambest.com)

    Originally Posted at AM Best on October 14, 2016 by Thomas Harman.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency