Regulators want to know everything they can about insurers that are trying to increase long-term care insurance (LTCI) prices, and insurers want the regulators to keep much of that information private.
The confidentiality battle is flaring up at the Long-Term Care Pricing Subgroup, part of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), as the subgroup drafts a revision of the NAIC’s Long-Term Care Guidance Manual.
Insurers have been asking for many LTCI rate increases in recent years, and the NAIC changed its pricing regulations in August 2014. The revised regulations call for insurers to provide much more information from actuaries about how insurers have set the prices for new and in-force policies, and much more information about the reasons for any rate increases requested.
The pricing subgroup has developed a template LTCI insurers could use to provide the information. The subgroup recently posted a draft on its section of the NAIC website. Comments are due March 24.
William Weller, a representative of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and Steve Clayburn, a representative for the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), have asked the subgroup members to encourage states to have experienced people who understand how difficult understanding morbidity data can be look at the data; minimize how many different regulators ask for the data; ask only for data that will help consumers; and give insurers clear-cut protection for confidential data.
If a regulator does not want to treat what the insurance company thinks of as confidential information as a trade secret, or has no authority to protect the information, “the company should not be expected to complete the template,” Weller and Clayburn write in a comment letter.
In that situation, a company might show its data to a regulatory actuary without leaving the data with the actuary, or the state could have an independent actuary that can protect trade secrets review the data, the commenters say.
In the latest manual draft, subgroup members have suggested that regulators should be mindful of state laws governing confidentiality and public information. A company should clearly mark any information regarded as confidential, and a state should be mindful of state confidentiality laws, “to assure that the protections they afford are extended to a company marking information as protected,” according to the draft.