Already have an account?  Log In
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Insurance regulatory reform is now or never, former New York commissioner says

by: Bob Graham
published: Oct 14, 2008
If the federal government is going to take over insurance regulation, it has to happen in the next year, says a former insurance commissioner from New York.
''If we don’t address the problems now, with all that’s going on,'' said Howard D. Mills III, a former New York insurance commissioner who now is chief advisor of the insurance industry group at Deloitte & Touche USA, ''when will we do it?''
Howard D. Mills III, who served as New York's superintendent of insurance from 2005 to 2007, said federal regulation of insurance, as described in U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's blueprint for reform, released in April, is more heavily supported now than ever. Because it is wrapped in with the regulatory reform of banking and financial service companies, it's passage is likely in the next Congress.

If approved, he said insurance regulatory reform would help in areas where state-based regulation cannot: speed to market for new insurance products and the globalization of insurance.

Where a state-based system has performed ''as well as expected'' is in consumer protection and solvency, the latter best demonstrated because American International Group's insurance operations were not at issue in its recent federal bailout, Mills said.

''Still, there are inadequacies within the state-based system because the 50 state insurance commissioners are not unified,'' he said. Mills said part of the problem is that state insurance commissioners average about 18 months on the job; each change delays the process of unifying state regulations. Also, each state commissioner is beholden to his state elected officials and its consumers, making the likelihood of passage of uniform regulations small. So far 31 states have joined the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' product registration compact, which requires passage of similar laws for product registration

The Office of Insurance Information, one of the proposals of Paulson and Congress, is garnering support in parts of the industry. The office would provide information to Congress on insurance activity.

Another measure, the creation of the optional federal charter, continues to draw wide support from many in the life insurance industry, but not as much from the property/casualty arena.

Mills said the power of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, an organization representing independent agents, cannot be overlooked in the debate.

''The Big I has a powerful presence in every state capital,'' said Mills, who served in the New York State Assembly from 1998 to 2004. ''You know the power of the Big I and independent agents. It's a very powerful lobby.''

The Big I wants to ''protect the status quo,'' and so the group's support of reform efforts is not likely, Mills said.


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 #2237509 Since 2007