"We are focused on the outcome. In the Assembly, this bill has been passed three years in a row. The bill has to be effective, but it doesn't have to be our way or the highway," said Mr. Grannis, who is the chief sponsor of the Assembly's bill.

The Assembly bill 4807, Mr. Grannis explained, increases penalties for rip-off artists who stage accidents and providers who put in phony medical bills, and authorizes the use of wiretaps in investigating these crimes.

He also explained the bill closes loopholes and bans unscrupulous medical providers from billing under the state's no-fault law. The bill also requires medical providers to disclose ties to so-called "medical mills," provides more timely access to accident reports, and allows whistleblowers to be rewarded for tips resulting in successful prosecutions.

On the Senate side, two bills dealing with insurance fraud were passed this month: S.B. 683, which deals with no-fault insurance fraud; and S.B. 555, which would make it a felony to act as a "runner"--acting to procure clients for attorneys or healthcare providers with the intent of defrauding an insurer.

The bills introduced by the two sides have a number of provisions in common, but the biggest difference is the proposal by the Assembly to create a Special Office of Insurance Consumer Advocate, which would be independent of the state's insurance department.

The budget for the Consumer Advocate office would be around half-a-million dollars per year, which would be "a drop in the bucket," Mr. Grannis said.

Mr. Grannis had argued earlier that while the Senate bills primarily focus on the insurance industry's agenda, the Assembly's bill also boosts the oversight of the industry to address complaints about insurers' abusive claims settlement practices.

"This new office would focus solely on consumer protection. The reason the insurance companies are opposing this is because they don't want to rock the boat. Things are going fine for them with just the insurance department," he argued.

But Mr. Grannis also told National Underwriter that he is willing to work with the Senate on this issue as well to reach a compromise bill.

The American Insurance Association in Washington, D.C. has been particularly critical of the Assembly's proposal for the special office, calling it "a new bureaucracy" that would not work.

The Office of Public Insurance Consumer Advocate, AIA argued, would create an expensive, duplicative and unnecessary new bureaucracy. Gary Henning, AIA assistant vice president for the northeast region, said the way to reduce the cost of auto insurance in New York is to eliminate fraud, abuse and over-utilization in the no-fault system. "Creating a new bureaucracy would cost insurers, motorists and taxpayers money," Mr. Henning argued.

"We would very much hope that the New York State Senate and the Assembly will pass a meaningful reform," added Michael Moran, spokesperson for the AIA, who declined to speculate further on the likelihood of a compromise bill.

"I don't know what kind of compromise they could have, though. I can tell you that the New York insurance department already provides some of the strongest oversight in the country," Mr. Moran said.