Presented to the Interim Committee on Auto Insurance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Presented to the Interim Committee on Auto Insurance PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 242ce1-ZDE2N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Presented to the Interim Committee on Auto Insurance

Description:

Key informants within Colorado and states where no-fault insurance ... How many auto insurers doing business in Colorado offer the Med Pay optional coverage? ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:68
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: david2455
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Presented to the Interim Committee on Auto Insurance


1
The shift from no-fault to tort auto insurance
Is the jury still out?
Presented to the Interim Committee on Auto
Insurance July 27, 2005
2
Colorado Health Institute
  • Non-profit 501(c)3 corporation
  • Independent, nonpartisan
  • Mission provide objective, non-biased
    information to inform policy decision-making
    process
  • Core activities information clearinghouse,
    policy research and analysis, information
    dissemination

3
Three key objectives
  • To suggest a policy framework by highlighting
    major findings from the 2004 CHI report (informed
    choice, adverse impacts)
  • To answer the question on the title slide
  • To suggest ways to improve the flow of data
    (i.e., information) to facilitate informed policy
    decision-making with regard to consumer and
    system impacts resulting from the shift to a tort
    auto insurance system

4
  • Three Things You Should Know . . .
  • The shift to a full tort system in Colorado will
    have differential fiscal impacts depending on the
    individual and family circumstances of
    policyholders
  • In evaluating the trade-offs associated with
    greater consumer choice, it is important to
    ensure that Coloradans have access to complete,
    accurate, and easily understood information
  • 3) With less than one full year of claims
    experience in Colorado from which to draw, the
    jurys out regarding the policy and fiscal
    impacts resulting from the shift to a tort system

5
  • Sources consulted for the policy brief
  • Insurance Research Council, a division of
    AICPCU, and other insurance industry documents
  • State insurance commissioners offices
  • Kaiser Family Foundation and US Census Bureau
  • Key informants within Colorado and states where
    no-fault insurance statutes had been repealed

6
  • Policy intent of moving to a tort system
  • To provide Coloradans more choice and increased
    flexibility to choose from a menu of coverage
    options and greater ability to manage their
    premiums.
  • Question
  • Have changes in the types of auto insurance
    policies and products marketed benefited
    consumers in the form of lower auto insurance
    premiums and out-of-pocket expenses? If so, what
    products generate the greatest savings for
    consumers?

7
  • What do we know about the savings accruing to
    Colorado drivers?
  • Questions that need answers…
  • For those consumers that are realizing cost
    savings in their auto insurance premiums, for
    what products are the greatest savings being
    realized?
  • How many auto insurers doing business in Colorado
    offer the Med Pay optional coverage? In what
    increments?
  • How many insured drivers in Colorado are opting
    for an umbrella policy? At what levels?
  • How many insured Colorado drivers are opting for
    Med Pay coverage? In what increments?
  • What is the premium differential between PIP
    coverage and comparable coverage under the new
    tort system?

8
  • For consumers to truly have the ability to make
    informed choices, it is imperative that the full
    range of information is available in an easily
    accessible format and location(s)

9
  • Consequences of the shift from no-fault to tort
  • The timeliness of payments to individuals injured
    in an auto accident and the providers who treat
    them depends on the regulatory framework of the
    system in force.
  • In general, delays in payments to medical
    providers are more common and lengthy in tort
    liability states.
  • Question
  • Have there been any documented changes in the
    quality and delivery of health care services for
    traumatic injuries resulting from auto
    accidents?

10
(No Transcript)
11
  • Consequences of the shift from no-fault to tort
    cont.
  • (2) Under the new tort system hospitals,
    particularly emergency departments and trauma
    centers have reported increased payment delays
    and administrative costs…this new cost burden
    could, over time, result in higher health
    insurance premiums and increased costs to
    Medicaid…
  • Question
  • Has there been a shift in medical and
    rehabilitation costs associated with serious auto
    injuries to health insurers, government programs,
    health care providers, employers and consumers?

12
  • Issues we suggest be monitored with regard to
    adverse impacts
  • Cost-shifting from PIP coverage to health
    insurance, government programs (Medicaid and
    CICP), health care providers, employers and
    consumers
  • Trade-offs for consumers in the form of lower
    auto premiums but for less than adequate coverage
  • Changes in treatment options and access to
    medical and rehabilitative care
  • Over- and under-insuring for medical coverage
  • Widening inequities between population groups in
    terms of adequacy of coverage and restitution for
    damages
  • Secondary impacts in excessive claims
    processing, administrative and court-related
    delays

13
Switching gears… What do the data tell us?
14
  • The regulatory landscape A national perspective
  • In the past 25 years, five states have repealed
    their no-fault laws
  • Nevada (1980)
  • Pennsylvania (repealed 1984, re-enacted 1990)
  • Georgia (1991)
  • Connecticut (1993)
  • Colorado (2003)

15
  • A Quick look at the data…
  • In 2001, among the states where no fault has been
    repealed, average premiums still vary widely and
    remain on the high side
  • Nevada - 851 (7)
  • Pennsylvania - 726 (19)
  • Georgia - 702 (22)
  • Connecticut - 912 (5)
  • (2004 Auto Outlook, Insurance Information
    Institute)

16
  • What about the states where no-fault is still in
    force?
  • These figures represent average premiums among
    no-fault states in 2001
  • Kansas - 556 compulsory (44)
  • Minnesota - 735 compulsory (17)
  • Utah - 640 compulsory (29)
  • Kentucky - 645 choice, no-fault (27)
  • Oregon - 643 add-on, compulsory (28)
  • (2004 Auto Outlook, Insurance Information
    Institute)

17
  • No-fault states tort liability thresholds (2001)
  • Kansas - 2,000
  • Minnesota - 4,000
  • Utah - 3,000
  • Kentucky - 1,000
  • Colorado - 2,500
  • (2004 Auto Outlook, Insurance Information
    Institute American Insurance Association Law
    Publications, 2004)

18
What the data tell us is that the issue is
more complex than the cost of PIP coverage or the
savings achieved from a bare bones auto policy
that may leave individuals uncovered for the
costs associated with an auto injury.
19
What can we learn from sister states? Colorado,
Kansas and Utah are contiguous states with
similar political cultures, demographics and auto
insurance laws (as of 2001)
20
Another example of data that could be
instructive, but which unfortunately tell only a
small part of the story…
21
Source Colorado Division of Insurance, 2005
22
  • The key point to be made is that we have much to
    learn to inform the policy decision-making with
    regard to our new tort system
  • Informed decision-making relies on good,
    objective information and sound unbiased analysis
  • The availability of data ranges from readily
    available to not-yet-collected
  • CHI was created to serve as an information
    clearinghouse for objective, nonpartisan
    information
  • CHI stands ready to work with the auto insurance
    industry, DOI, and health care providers to
    assemble, analyze and report data to support the
    policy decision-making process

23
  • Contact Information
  • Pamela Hanes, Ph.D.
  • President and CEO
  • Colorado Health Institute
  • 303.831.4200
  • hanesp_at_coloradohealthinstitute.org
  • www.coloradohealthinstitute.org
About PowerShow.com