More than half of the nation's insurance departments do not meet minimum funding standards to adequately oversee the insurance industry, according to a report by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA).
| "I agree, we are underbudgeted. It's kind of a disgrace. |
The
CFA, a consumer watchdog group, based its findings on figures submitted
to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The
survey, called 1988, 1993 and 1998 Changes In State Insurance Department Resources,
ranks states by the percentage of premium tax revenue spent on state
insurance regulation, a standard proposed in 1988 by the Consumer
Insurance Interest Group (CIIG), an organization made up of consumers,
the CFA, the Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Insurance
Consumer Organization.
To reach that standard, a state's insurance department budget must be
equal to at least 10 percent of the state tax revenues collected from
insurance premiums paid by residents. The national average for the
percentage of premium tax revenue spent on state regulation is 7.7
percent, up from 5.4 percent in 1988, according to the CFA study.
However, some states remain woefully underfunded to handle voluminous
customer inquiries and complaints, and perform market conduct
examinations, says J. Robert Hunter, the study's author.
The NAIC put a different spin on the study, viewing it as a testament
as to how far some insurance departments have come in terms of
increased budget revenues and staffing. NAIC President George Nichols
III says he welcomes the scrutiny involved in this kind of survey,
although he "might debate" Hunter's method of grading the states.
"Overall, the goal of funding insurance departments at 10 percent of
premium is simply a benchmark," Nichols says. "Each state must take
into account specific differences in the cost of regulation, directly
related to the size of their insurance market, population, and number
of domiciled carriers."
| Grade | Percentage of tax revenue used for insurance regulation | States |
| A+ | 12.1 or more | Washington, D.C., Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Wyoming |
| A- | 10.1 to 12 | Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, Virgin Islands, Vermont |
| B | 8.1 to 10 | California, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, North Dakota |
| C | 6.1 to 8 | Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin |
| D | 4.1 to 6 | Alabama,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia |
| F | under 4 | Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah |
Source: Consumer Federation of America
The study's findings come amid allegations of
racial discrimination and misleading sales practices by some of the
nation's top insurers. In a recent case, 28 companies that operate in
Georgia and Florida have been ordered to stop collecting higher
premiums from black policyholders based on their race. Georgia is
singled out in the CFA survey as one state that has "failed to maintain
sufficient resources to protect consumers."
The study reveals Georgia's insurance department staff — including
attorneys, actuaries, and market conduct examiners — dropped from 188
in 1993 to 167 in 1998. (Insure.com has learned that the number of
total Georgia insurance department staff has fallen even lower, to 127,
this year.) In addition, the survey reveals Georgia's number of market
conduct exams completed in 1988 was eight compared with 114 in 1998, a
93 percent decline.
"I agree, we are
underbudgeted," says Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine.
"It's kind of a disgrace. We're one of the fastest growing states in
the union and, in the last six years I've asked for increases, my
department's budget has shrunk each year."
Not all commissioners saw their budgets decrease between 1988 and 1998.
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Kentucky, Missouri,
Nebraska, Oregon, and Pennsylvania actually doubled the ratio of their
departmental budgets related to premium tax revenue, the survey showed.
However, some of these states, including Connecticut and Alabama,
started at such low ratios in 1988 that the increases over the decade
did not considerably raise them in the overall rankings.
Kentucky, home to NAIC President George Nichols III, is one state in
which dramatic increases occurred in the insurance department budget.
Kentucky went from a budget of less than 3.5 percent relative to
premium tax collections in 1988, to 9.43 percent in 1998, nearly
reaching the 10 percent benchmark set by CIIG and raising its ranking
from an "F" to a "B." During this time, Kentucky also doubled its
insurance department staff.
Larger budgets enable insurance departments to
hire more staff to handle consumer inquiries and conduct market exams,
according to insurance industry insiders and consumer watchdog groups.
But big budgets don't necessarily translate into aggressive insurance
company regulation. Hunter has noted a degree of coziness between many
state regulators and the insurance industry, with nearly half of state
insurance commissioners coming from or returning to the insurance
industry they oversee.
According to Hunter, "achieving the will to do what is needed to
protect consumers" and securing adequate funding are the crucial goals
for the NAIC and the states as they rethink regulation for the future.
Big budgets also do not mean well-funded and aggressive insurance
departments are always quick to catch insurance company abuses. For
example, Hunter notes that cases of alleged racial discrimination
should have been caught by commissioners much sooner in states where
they occurred and points to small supervisory budgets as likely to have
played a key role in the delay. However, many of these race-based
premiums were being collected in Florida, which has one of the nation's
best-funded insurance departments. For at least a decade, Florida has
had resources of over 12 percent of premium taxes.
No matter what their budgets may be, there's no doubt insurance
commissioners are invested with the legal authority to enforce
regulation, says Brendan Bridgeland, director of the Center for
Insurance Research, a nonprofit public advocacy group based in
Cambridge, Mass. But effective regulation really depends on who has the
reins of each department, he adds.
"Commissioners are either elected or appointed and, either way, it's
political," Bridgeland says. He adds that unless there's a public
outcry — such as the ones accompanying the Quackenbush scandal or the
race-based premiums class-action lawsuits — many regulatory issues
remain "under the radar screen."
California Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush resigned on June 28
after being accused of using millions of dollars from insurance
settlements to further his political career.