Credit scoring use still an issue for officials, consumer groups

The recent release in late July of a long-awaited Federal Trade Commission (FTC) study on the use of credit scoring for underwriting and rating purposes did nothing to put to rest the controversy over its use by insurance companies. The study did support insurers’ contention that there is a valid connection between how well a person manages finances and how likely it is that they will be involved in an accident. However, instead of putting out the fire, it seeemd to energize some officials and consumer groups.

Consumer groups cry foul play
Consumer groups were quick to express their concerns with the results of the study. The Center for Economic Justice and other consumer groups cried foul play, saying that African American and Hispanic minorities were indeed negatively affected by the use of credit scoring, whether intentionally or not. Birny Birnbaum, executive director for the Center for Economic Justice, said that a study by the Missouri Department of Insurance found that a consumer’s race was the factor most predictive of an insurance score. And despite relying on data hand picked by insurers, the recent report by the Federal Trade Commission found that insurance scoring was a proxy for race.

“Insurance scoring represents 21st century redlining and the end of insurance as insurers develop ever more-detailed rating schemes based more on economic status, credit scores, education, occupation, prior liability limits — than the risk of loss and should be prohibited,” Birnbaum said in an opinion piece he wrote for Insurance Journal, Aug. 6, 2007.

But not all consumer advocates agree and some have even mellowed a bit on the issue.

Robert Hunter, who follows the insurance industry for the Consumer Federation of America, says the issue is far from dead. He concedes it’s less widely debated today than a few years ago when more than 40 states were debating the issue every year. That’s partly because about half of the states have adopted a 2003 model law proposed by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, or NCOIL.

The model law prohibits companies from “solely” using credit information to set rates. Proponents of stiffer legislation say the model law doesn’t do much because insurers prefer to also consider other, non-credit data anyway. The “solely” has taken the sting out for many legislators who had qualms about banning its use completely, according to Hunter.

“I think the NCOIL model really snuffed out a lot of the activity,” Hunter said. “It gave the legislators a way to look like they were doing something without offending the insurance companies.”

However, some states have added some restrictions. In Washington and most recently Delaware, insurance companies can apply credit models to only new customers.

In 2002, Maryland became the first state to ban insurance scoring for homeowners’ premiums. Hawaii doesn’t allow scoring for homeowners insurance either, and regulators in California and Massachusetts don’t let companies consider credit when setting auto insurance rates.

Win/Win Attitude
Still insurance representatives agree -state battle is less “onerous” than it used to be.

“Over the last three or four years, this issue has kind of calmed down,” said Sam Sorich, a vice president with Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, an insurer trade group. “More and more consumers now understand that their credit will be considered. There’s a growing acceptance of it. Frankly, most people are helped by the fact an insurance company is using credit.”

Some of the FTC report’s major conclusions support Sorich and other insurance representatives on the positive aspects of credit scores. Among these findings:

• Insurance scores are effective predictors of risk under automobile policies. They are predictive of the number of claims consumers file and the total cost of those claims. The use of scores is therefore likely to make the price of insurance better match the risk of loss posed by the consumer. Thus, on average, higher-risk consumers will pay higher premiums and lower-risk consumers will pay lower premiums.
• Use of credit-based insurance scores may result in benefits for consumers. For example, scores permit insurance companies to evaluate risk with greater accuracy, which may make them more willing to offer insurance to higher-risk consumers for whom they would otherwise not be able to determine an appropriate premium. Scores also may make the process of granting and pricing insurance quicker and cheaper, cost savings that may be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
• Credit-based insurance scores appear to have little effect as a “proxy” for membership in racial and ethnic groups in decisions related to insurance. The relationship between scores and claims risk remains strong when controls for race, ethnicity, and neighborhood income are included in statistical models of risk.

In spite of these conclusions, Congressional leaders want to hear the supporting theories, opinions, and critical remarks for themselves.

A Congressional hearing on the FTC study and the use of credit scores at the state level that was scheduled in July, but was cancelled by U.S. Representative Melvin L. Watt, D-N.C., chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. No alternative date has been selected to hold the hearing, but it is clear that Rep. Watts will hold the hearing and expects to hear from a wide array of interested parties.

Reports from the Associated Press contributed to this article.