Insurance regulators offer new explanation for disappeared pet insurance law; consumer rep dings regulators on transparency
There is still no explanation for the abrupt removal of the Pet Insurance Model Law from the agenda of the final regulators’ association meeting of 2021 during which state insurance regulators were expected to vote on and adopt the law. Although we still don’t know why the law has been delayed indefinitely, we now have an explanation for why the Pet Insurance Working Group is not on the 2022 Agenda and, thus, technically no longer exists even though it was not completed. According to NAIC (the umbrella organization for state insurance regulators) representative Kay Noonan, the reason the Working Group isn’t on any agenda is because regulators assumed it would be put up for vote and completed, thus conceding that the removal of the Model from the meeting was entirely unexpected and abrupt.
Similarly, when Plenary adopted the collected charges the Membership thought the Model was done. Under NAIC process, Working Groups sunset at the end of the year if charges aren’t adopted for the upcoming year. ..
We will be working with that leadership to set up a process for either reappointing the WG or setting up another mechanism to schedule a public meeting to talk about the remaining issues, release any new draft for comment if necessary, and consider input from consumer and industry stakeholders. I would suggest following the C Committee page for an announcement on that in the near term.
Still, matter-of-factly, in Ms. Noonan’s answer to TCR (in full below), there remains no meaningful explanation for why the law was removed; only that the reason the working group is not part of the parent committee is because nobody expected the law to be removed.
The Center for Economic Justice’s Birny Birnbaum (CEJ) served as a consumer liaison on the late Pet Insurance Working Group and pressed NAIC’s Kay Noonan for information. The email exchange shows, importantly, that Ms. Noonan and, presumably others within the NAIC, appeared to be confused, even flat-footed by Mr. Birnbaum’s description of the Meeting Minutes in an email to Ms. Noonan as “terse.”
Mr. Birnbaum called Ms. Noonan’s attention to transparency challenges for regulators. “There are issues of transparency if private discussions can result in an agenda item being puled without public explanation. It’s been over a month since that meeting and we have no public disclosure of the specific issue of concern, the offending language or who raised it,” Mr. Birnbaum wrote.
“The reason that isn’t in the minutes,” Ms. Noonan said by email, “is because it wasn’t discussed at the meeting. I am sharing with you what I know. Mr. Birnbaum, who provided The Canine Review with his email exchanges with Ms. Noonan through January 24 wishes to underscore that Ms. Noonan “has always been forthcoming” and that her position as general counsel for the NAIC is not “to track this or force the regulators to be more transparent. She deserves appreciation.”
Understood and appreciated. There are issues of transparency if private discussions can result in an agenda item being pulled without public explanation. It’s been over a month since that meeting and we have no public disclosure of the specific issue of concern, the offending language or who raised it.
January 24, 2022 via Erica Chester:
Hello Emily,
Following is a response from Kay Noonan. Thank you.
Emily-
Erica forwarded your inquiry to me and I’m happy to provide you with the status on the pet insurance model. Fine with me to attribute the answers to me. I am not sure how long you have been engaged with the NAIC process so I will give you the basics on how the NAIC Committee process works as well as the specifics as they apply to the pet insurance model.
First, the Pet Insurance Working Group is not in the 2022 charges because the C Committee thought the work was done at the time it adopted its charges on Dec, 15. Similarly, when Plenary adopted the collected charges the Membership thought the Model was done. Under NAIC process, Working Groups sunset at the end of the year if charges aren’t adopted for the upcoming year. When the Model was pulled from consideration at Plenary that meant we need to look at the process for considering the remaining issues and getting it back in front of Plenary. Which leads us to:
Second, on timing of another meeting. Committee, Task Force and Working Group leadership changes year to year. And it takes some time to get those assignments complete. Also there were several national and religious holidays that took place between the National Meeting and today. You may have seen that new Committee leadership was announced last week. C Committee has a new Chair as does the Producer Licensing Task Force. We will be working with that leadership to set up a process for either reappointing the WG or setting up another mechanism to schedule a public meeting to talk about the remaining issues, release any new draft for comment if necessary, and consider input from consumer and industry stakeholders. I would suggest following the C Committee page for an announcement on that in the near term.
We are just following our process which is aimed at getting things done in a responsive, reportable and repeatable manner.
Footnotes
- The National Association of Insurance Commissioners “provides expertise, data, and analysis for insurance commissioners to effectively regulate the industry and protect consumers,” the NAIC’s website says. Put simply, it is the umbrella organization for state insurance regulators, “governed by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories to coordinate regulation of multistate insurers.”