Attorney General Issues Report on Managed Competition

Posted on December 30, 2009

On December 23, 2009, Attorney General Martha Coakley issued a report on the status of insurance deregulation.

According to the report, “the results over the first year have been, at best, mixed. While prices have dropped overall, consumers are currently paying more than they would have had the market not been deregulated. A variety of new insurance companies have entered the market, but most of the new entrants have not offered lower rates overall. Moreover, the new insurers have not caused incumbent carriers to lower statewide prices (indeed, in 2009, many insurers began increasing statewide prices).”

The AG’s report was critical of managed competition, citing several troubling developments during the first year of deregulation including the following excerpts from the report’s Executive Summary:

Many consumers paid higher prices while companies increased profit targets in the rates.
- Insurance companies began managed competition by raising their base rates by up to 10%, resulting in excessive rates in an environment where insurer losses have, on average, decreased over the past several years. If drivers are not chosen by insurers for preferential discounts, they will pay these increased rates.
- The number of rating factors that rely on characteristics other than driving has increased; insurers now charge consumers based on factors such as prior limits of coverage, payment history, and the purchase of homeowners insurance. Many such discounts or rating factors may be proxies for banned factors, such as income and homeownership.
- Insurance companies have significantly increased their underwriting profit adjustment provisions and shareholder returns loaded in their rates. In 2008, the Commissioner accepted target returns in the insurer rate filings that were over 150% of the 2007 regulated value for some
  insurers.
- It appears that Hispanics and low income consumers (those earning under $25,000) have been especially disadvantaged by deregulation; a larger proportion of these groups have received rate increases, and fewer have received decreases. Elderly consumers and urban drivers may also ultimately pay increased prices, regardless of driving record.
Company prices and rating behavior have become less transparent.
- Deregulation has produced more secrecy and less transparency. Insurers have omitted data and information from their public filings; as a result, the filed rates are unsupported, and it is impossible to adequately assess their accuracy.
- Many companies have refused to make public key rating information; it is impossible to determine how an individual consumer’s rate is calculated or whether individuals? rates are accurate or fair.
- The insurers and their rating organization, the Automobile Insurers Bureau, have refused to make public data on claims, premiums, and expenses necessary to determine whether statewide rates are fair and not excessive.
Consumers do not have easy access to accurate price information.
- There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverages are available.
- Some consumers have not been offered all discounts to which they are entitled, have had difficulty obtaining quotes from agents, and have received different quotes from different agents for the same insurers.
- It appears that only a small percentage of consumers switched carriers to take advantage of lower prices (or for any other reason) in 2008.
- The Division of Insurance’s website, ostensibly designed to help consumers to “shop around,” gives unhelpful and misleading insurance information and steers consumers in many instances to more expensive insurance companies.
Consumer protections have weakened.
- The Commissioner adopted an order to eliminate the Board of Appeal, which provides an impartial forum for consumers to appeal insurers’ fault determinations; the Legislature subsequently passed a law keeping the Board permanently in place.
- Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be nonrenewed or denied coverage.
- Consumers refused coverage are randomly assigned to an insurer in the residual market; agents report that many such consumers fail to receive appropriate discounts.
- Insurers have created new policy provisions and rules that eliminate consumer protections. Some insurers increase prices for not-at-fault accidents, charge for excluded drivers or drivers who already have their own insurance policies, and have adopted problematic provisions related to cancellation, down payment, deductibles, installments, and rating factors. Many consumers are unaware of these changes.
Significant barriers to competition still exist.
- Many companies charge “short rate” penalties when consumers switch companies during the policy year, limiting customers’ ability to switch carriers except around the renewal date. Moreover, loyalty discounts may also deter consumers from switching to a better priced carrier
  every year.
- Many companies offer insurance agents significant bonuses for bringing in specific kinds of customers. Certain agents, as a result, may have an incentive to recommend the policy that offers the most lucrative commissions.
- Most Massachusetts consumers purchase insurance through an independent agent, yet most agents typically cannot or do not provide price quotes for more than a couple of carriers.
- Some insurers have been allowed special deals from Commissioner Burnes, creating an uneven playing field in the marketplace. These special arrangements, such as permitting new entrants to avoid residual market costs for two years, harm other insurers, and harm competition.

The AG’s Executive Summary concluded with a discussion of the road ahead for managed competition including the following recommendations:

The Road Ahead
Implementation of a truly competitive system has the potential to lower prices for all consumers. Unfortunately, the current experiment in deregulation has thus far not achieved this goal. Instead, managed competition has caused many drivers to be overcharged, and has led to fewer consumer protections. For reform to work, true consumer protections need to be developed, and regulators must ensure that rates are transparent and not excessive.

It is possible to design an effective managed competitive system that meets these goals. Such a system would:

Provide consumers with the necessary tools to “shop around.” To benefit from a competitive market, consumers must obtain price quotations from a wide range of companies in order to find the best price for their needs. A central web portal would allow consumers to input their information once and obtain comparative quotes from any or all insurers.
Ensure that underwriting and rating are not unfairly discriminatory. Insurers should not use proxies for prohibited rating factors or refuse to offer insurance to good drivers.
Strengthen consumer protections. While Commissioner Burnes promulgated regulations and bulletins dealing with managed competition, none of these provisions deal with consumer protection issues such as marketing and unfair practices. Advertising, pricing, and claim practices should be fair and
consistent.
Remove impediments to competition. Currently, numerous barriers to competition exist, including inadequate information, non-standardization of policies, and short rate penalties. These barriers should be removed.
Provide for rigorous review of proposed rates. Insurers now file rates with little or no supporting information or documentation for important rating elements. Rate support should be carefully scrutinized, and inappropriate costs should not be passed on to consumers. Insurance premiums should not be based on inflated projections that overcharge Massachusetts drivers.

To protect consumers, it is important to address the issues outlined above and discussed in this report. While deregulation may ultimately offer advantages to consumers, reforms are needed to increase price transparency, create easy access to accurate and complete information, ensure fair prices, and provide adequate consumer protections. Without these features, insurers and not consumers will benefit from deregulation, and many Massachusetts drivers will continue to overpay for their automobile insurance.

The Attorney General’s Office represents consumers in matters related to insurance. Under managed competition, the Attorney General has reviewed filed rates and called for rate hearings before the Division of Insurance, demanding the rejection of discriminatory and excessive rates; urged the Commissioner to require full and complete filings; provided testimony before the Legislature and Division of Insurance recommending stronger consumer protections; and brought cases against insurance companies that sought to take advantage of Massachusetts consumers. However, while advocacy and enforcement proceedings do help, the market also needs fair and firm rules that create bright-line boundaries for insurer behavior, a level playing field, and strong consumer protections.

Therefore, the Attorney General’s Office intends to promulgate consumer protection regulations under her G.L. Chapter 93A Consumer Protection regulatory authority. In addition, for issues that are not best suited for regulation, the Attorney General’s Office plans to work with the Legislature to explore potential solutions to these problems.

We have posted the AG’s 55 page report and 5 page executive summary on our website. Click here (massagent.com/info/AGReport.pdf) to read and/or download the entire report.

Filed Under Newsletter | Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.