Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Treasury won't pitch new insurance regulations: sources

by: Patrick Rucker and Kevin Drawbaugh
published: Jun 17, 2009
The U.S. Treasury Department will not propose a new regulatory framework for the insurance industry when it outlines sweeping new rules for the financial services sector, sources familiar with the plans said on Tuesday.
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said on Tuesday that the Treasury Department is not ready to weigh in on the key question of an 'optional federal charter' for insurers, said industry sources who heard him speak.

Speaking at a fundraiser hosted by the American Council of Life Insurers, Frank said that his committee would begin to debate key insurance questions around September, said the industry sources.

When the Treasury Department outlines its regulatory reform plans on Wednesday it is expected to fault the fragmented nature of insurance regulation. It may propose forming a federal clearinghouse to gather information about the sector.

The nation's 6,000 insurers are presently regulated by state and territorial governments. Congress and international industry groups have complained in the past about the absence of a central source for insurance market information.

Legislation has been introduced in Congress in recent years, but not approved, to create a federal insurance information office to provide advice and expertise to the administration and Congress and track industry developments.

At present, the insurance industry is regulated at the state level and many large insurance companies would prefer to answer to a single, federal overseer.

Many Democrats and Republicans have expressed general support for such a plan.

''Only ostriches can now deny the need for establishing a federal insurance resource center and a basic federal insurance regulatory structure,'' Rep. Paul Kanjorski said at a Tuesday hearing to discuss reform of the insurance industry.

Kanjorski, chairman of the House Financial Services panel on insurance, has introduced legislation that would create a federal insurance clearinghouse that could become a precursor to a federal charter.

(Reporting by Patrick Rucker and Kevin Drawbaugh; Editing by Andrea Ricci)


Get Updates Via Email

Get monthly updates about the debate over an Optional Federal Charter.
Sign up Today! ... Click Here
National Regulatory Modernization for Insurers FAQ's
Would the proposals create a big new bureaucracy?
Would these national regulatory proposals increase compliance costs?
Would the creation of a national regulator help incumbent companies make larger profits?
Is an Office of Insurance Information a good idea as a precursor to a national insurance market?
What would the proposed national regulators affect state regulation? What about federalism?
Will states lose tax revenue under an Optional Federal Charter?
Would insurance companies withdraw from certain parts of the country under an OFC?
Would there be a ''race to the bottom''?
Would an OFC subject insurance companies to both federal and state laws, thus increasing the overall burden of regulation?
What is really wrong with the current state system?
Will an OFC help the development of new insurance products?
Is the insurance industry unified in its support of OFC?
Would local insurance agents go out of business under an OFC?
Supporters and opponents of an OFC both cite Illinois as an example of what the market would look like under an OFC. What is the Illinois market like?
What would an OFC do for America’s international competitiveness?
Do other developed countries have something like an OFC?
Would an OFC protect consumers from insurance fraud?
Will it confuse consumers?
Do government-set rates protect consumers?
J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America has presented a range of data showing that publicly held insurance companies are relatively safe investments and have become safer in recent years. Does this prove that the insurance industry is reaping more profits than it deserves and should not be rewarded with an Optional Federal Charter?
Does a ''revolving door'' between the industry and regulators prove that the insurance industry and the state regulatory systems are corrupt or that the insurance industry ''owns'' state regulators?
Is an OFC the only way America could liberalize its insurance markets?
What are some alternatives to an OFC?
Resources

You are Visitor #2295982 Since 2007