Without taking a stance one way or the other, insurance regulation is done at a state level. I think if anything it’s a way for direct writers to trim their workforce presence in some states.
Maybe I am missing something but how is this lowering compliance costs for producers as is the claim? It seems to me that while it may simplify the compliance process by going through one program, it doesn’t really change the costs associated with compliance to each state. And even adds the cost to run the NARAB program to the producer’s membership fees… Sounds like it will cost producers more just to go through a federal compliance exchange of sorts correct?
I read this article the same way – it could cost more because you have to join the org. Potentially it could be in a better format than NIPR as in click the states you need to be licensed, pay each state’s fee in a single transaction?
All I’m reading is a “new” federal version of SIRCON or SBS. Still paying transaction fees (in the form of organization ‘dues’), still paying state licensing fees, still have to have support staff to track resident licensing, CE, renewals, etc. This is so far on the other side of the fence from what National Producer Licensing originally looked like…
OK, I’ll say it. This is a dumb idea. It creates a bureaucracy where none is needed and provides services that duplicates current methodologies for multi-state compliance(which EBIX runs) in place. This NARAB entity becomes the defacto voice of the broker in an environment where brokers act locally rather than nationally. Thus usurping current PAC’s and associations that do a better job of keeping their ear to the ground for agent issues. How will NAHU or NALU interact with this entity that isn’t elected from the base, but appointed by government officials. I see nothing but cronyism and additional costs and regulations in the spirit of ‘compliance’ handed down on a pre-emptive basis to quell any political concerns regarding agent responsibility. One litmus test we should all run is: “Does this reduce our E&O or add to our exposure?” I apologize to those who’ve worked so hard for this, but I just don’t see the wound this is going to band-aid or the wrong that this is going to right.
Having done producer licensing for a large agency I cna see exactly how this would save money. The amount of time it takes to verify license statuses and performing renewals is massive. To be able to have all states set on basically an autorenewal and invoicing basis would be wonderful. Additionally there are some states that have arduous non-res processes which cna make it quite time consuming to license in the. AR in particular can take a bit to get licenses to go through in and FL requires that producers be fingerprinted again which has to be processed before an application can go through.
All of these things take time and money. Producers with background issues can have variable amounts of time spent on them at the states to perform new background investigations. Whereas with this the background investigation is done once and then producers are good to go.
What’s wrong with a National Producer License? Would seem to support less governmental interference by having one single process.
Without taking a stance one way or the other, insurance regulation is done at a state level. I think if anything it’s a way for direct writers to trim their workforce presence in some states.
Maybe I am missing something but how is this lowering compliance costs for producers as is the claim? It seems to me that while it may simplify the compliance process by going through one program, it doesn’t really change the costs associated with compliance to each state. And even adds the cost to run the NARAB program to the producer’s membership fees… Sounds like it will cost producers more just to go through a federal compliance exchange of sorts correct?
I read this article the same way – it could cost more because you have to join the org. Potentially it could be in a better format than NIPR as in click the states you need to be licensed, pay each state’s fee in a single transaction?
All I’m reading is a “new” federal version of SIRCON or SBS. Still paying transaction fees (in the form of organization ‘dues’), still paying state licensing fees, still have to have support staff to track resident licensing, CE, renewals, etc. This is so far on the other side of the fence from what National Producer Licensing originally looked like…
OK, I’ll say it. This is a dumb idea. It creates a bureaucracy where none is needed and provides services that duplicates current methodologies for multi-state compliance(which EBIX runs) in place. This NARAB entity becomes the defacto voice of the broker in an environment where brokers act locally rather than nationally. Thus usurping current PAC’s and associations that do a better job of keeping their ear to the ground for agent issues. How will NAHU or NALU interact with this entity that isn’t elected from the base, but appointed by government officials. I see nothing but cronyism and additional costs and regulations in the spirit of ‘compliance’ handed down on a pre-emptive basis to quell any political concerns regarding agent responsibility. One litmus test we should all run is: “Does this reduce our E&O or add to our exposure?” I apologize to those who’ve worked so hard for this, but I just don’t see the wound this is going to band-aid or the wrong that this is going to right.
Where do we sign up? Nothing I have read provides a phone number or website to utilize NARAB II.
Where do we sign up? Nothing I have read provides a phone number or website.
Having done producer licensing for a large agency I cna see exactly how this would save money. The amount of time it takes to verify license statuses and performing renewals is massive. To be able to have all states set on basically an autorenewal and invoicing basis would be wonderful. Additionally there are some states that have arduous non-res processes which cna make it quite time consuming to license in the. AR in particular can take a bit to get licenses to go through in and FL requires that producers be fingerprinted again which has to be processed before an application can go through.
All of these things take time and money. Producers with background issues can have variable amounts of time spent on them at the states to perform new background investigations. Whereas with this the background investigation is done once and then producers are good to go.