I live in California, it’s all a game. Ricard Lara will drag this for as long as he can because it’s politically expedient for him too. California will be in a huge mess because of bad politicians like Lara. This is why people are leaving California in record numbers.
I wonder if the CDI will continue to REQUIRE companies to sign a letter waiving the deemer date requirements the CDI is REQUIRED to follow under the law when they haven’t reviewed a filing for 60 days. Underground regulation.
We all know they aren’t going to review filings more quickly. The only change that will happen is the rate analysts will now review the entire filing before they allow the filing through intake and assign a public notice date.
A small percentage of voters know anything about the deemer date waiver. Only those that are involved on the insurance company side dealing with rate changes will have experienced these, and they show up in nearly every filing. Published for the masses is this illusion of what the regulation says in that the DOI must review and respond within 60 days. What no one voting sees is that just shy of that 60 days, the insurance company receives this lovely letter from the DOI, one which functions much like a ransom letter, that asks the company to sign a waiver of the regulated deemer date. The catch is, if the insurance company doesn’t agree to waive it, essentially opening up the timeline to infinity, then the DOI will immediately reject the rate change filing. This could be on filing that decease or increase rate for the consumers. Smoke and mirrors (aka: politics).
This action could bring back the free market which would prove to be much more efficient for the consumer in the long run. It would also reduce the bureaucracy and save the state considerable expenses in the long run and allow the governor to pick an insurance expert rather than an inexperienced politician to run the department. The elimination of the time and cost of the reviews by consumer groups (in reality trial attorneys dressed up as consumer advocates charging $600 per hour) would also save money.
The other upside would be the ability to apply modern methods of ratemaking which would more accurately match loss costs with premium costs for individual consumers.
The challenge for the industry would be to educate the consumers and the press about the upsides of this change.
I live in California, it’s all a game. Ricard Lara will drag this for as long as he can because it’s politically expedient for him too. California will be in a huge mess because of bad politicians like Lara. This is why people are leaving California in record numbers.
I wonder if the CDI will continue to REQUIRE companies to sign a letter waiving the deemer date requirements the CDI is REQUIRED to follow under the law when they haven’t reviewed a filing for 60 days. Underground regulation.
We all know they aren’t going to review filings more quickly. The only change that will happen is the rate analysts will now review the entire filing before they allow the filing through intake and assign a public notice date.
A small percentage of voters know anything about the deemer date waiver. Only those that are involved on the insurance company side dealing with rate changes will have experienced these, and they show up in nearly every filing. Published for the masses is this illusion of what the regulation says in that the DOI must review and respond within 60 days. What no one voting sees is that just shy of that 60 days, the insurance company receives this lovely letter from the DOI, one which functions much like a ransom letter, that asks the company to sign a waiver of the regulated deemer date. The catch is, if the insurance company doesn’t agree to waive it, essentially opening up the timeline to infinity, then the DOI will immediately reject the rate change filing. This could be on filing that decease or increase rate for the consumers. Smoke and mirrors (aka: politics).
The real solution is to repeal Proposition 103.
This action could bring back the free market which would prove to be much more efficient for the consumer in the long run. It would also reduce the bureaucracy and save the state considerable expenses in the long run and allow the governor to pick an insurance expert rather than an inexperienced politician to run the department. The elimination of the time and cost of the reviews by consumer groups (in reality trial attorneys dressed up as consumer advocates charging $600 per hour) would also save money.
The other upside would be the ability to apply modern methods of ratemaking which would more accurately match loss costs with premium costs for individual consumers.
The challenge for the industry would be to educate the consumers and the press about the upsides of this change.