I think it's great that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners pays the expenses of some consumer advocates to attend their meetings, thereby assuring that the average buyer's perspective is taken into account when formulating regulatory policy. However, I also think such funded-reps should be required to fully disclose the sources of all their financing, with no exceptions, to reveal any potential conflicts of interest.
My suggestion is not original, but was prompted by a similar call made this week by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies in a letter to the NAIC. (Click here for the full story.)
NAMIC suggests that new disclosure requirements being considered by the regulator group be expanded to include any form of financial assistance received from any entity with an interest in insurance oversight.
The current proposal–coming before the NAICs Executive Committee this weekend–would require funded consumer reps to only disclose compensation from entities directly regulated by state insurance regulators.
That is not sufficient, as Robert Detlefsen, NAMIC's vice president of public policy, pointed out in his letter. There are many entities not regulated by insurance departments that nevertheless have a considerable financial interest in insurance regulation, he noted–citing trial attorneys, realtors, homebuilders, automakers, banks and lending facilities, rating agencies, and risk modeling firms.
NAMIC believes that the potential for a conflict of interest would be every bit as great if an NAIC consumer representative accepted funding from one of these entities as it would be if he or she received funds from a state-regulated insurance entity or insurance trade association, Mr. Detlefsen added.
Therefore, NAMIC suggests that funded consumer reps be required to disclose any form of financial assistance received from any entity that is known to have, or could reasonably be expected to have, a material interest in insurance regulation, including third-party nonprofit groups.
I heartily second the motion. If a consumer rep has nothing to hide or be shy about explaining, why not disclose all relevant funding sources?
Taking their logic a step further, NAMIC went on to urge that all funding disclosures be made public to enhance the transparency of the Consumer Participation Program.
Again, why not? I am in favor of full disclosure all around, whether in terms of producer compensation, incentive travel offered by carriers to top distributors, or consumer advocates getting a free ride to the NAIC meetings–essentially on the insurance industry's dime. (Where do you think the NAIC's budget comes from?)
Supposedly, NAMIC's letter was the only comment on this proposal that NAIC received, which is disappointing. I wish the entire industry had stood together on this.
Did some of the associations fear antagonizing an already ornery consumer advocate community? Or did they simply think it was a waste of time pushing for any further disclosure?
What do you folks make of all this?
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
