Don’t Underestimate Dodd-Frank’s P/C Insurance Impact

Actuarial Review March April 2016 CoverThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 introduced the most far-reaching federal regulation the property/casualty insurance industry has ever seen.

While the regulatory focus of Dodd-Frank has been on a relatively few insurers that either have subsidiary banks or are considered systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), the act is poised to affect the entire property/casualty industry, according to my recently published Actuarial Review article, Demystifying the Regulatory Web: Dodd-Frank and Its Complex Impact.

My article takes a rare, comprehensive and journalistic look into the ramifications of Dodd-Frank and the resulting regulatory web. During my research, I could not find one article that updates the multiplicity of Dodd-Frank’s impact on insurers.

As I wrote the piece, I became convinced that Dodd-Frank’s impact is greatly underestimated. (Life insurers are also affected.)

And after spending countless hours on the article, I could not put my finger on anything that substantially makes the insurance industry and its customers better off. If anything, federal regulation is onerous and hardly transparent. States, which have been regulating insurance for 150 years, have much more transparent processes as does the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

Dodd-Frank requires its brainchild, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to work with the NAIC at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors’ (IAIS). Since then, transparency has dimmed. Formerly open meetings have been closed. In one instance, a presidential appointee told a congressional subcommittee he was barred from attending an IAIS working group meeting.
_______________
“…I could not put my finger on anything
that substantially makes the insurance industry
and its customers better off.
_______________

To further complicate matters on the international stage, the Fed, FIO and the NAIC, known as “Team USA,” have different missions that sometimes conflict with one another.

The federal rule making process also lacks the kind of transparency states offer. Information access to reporters is also very limited. Federal agencies provided me with plenty of documents to wade through, but subject matter experts were not available for questioning. This disturbs me greatly.

I also wondered how the activity of one large U.S. insurer’s London-based banking subsidiary could justify Dodd-Frank’s introduction of federal insurance regulation and monitoring.

Ironically, both federal agencies depend greatly on the NAIC even as their activities seem to overlap the organization’s historic role. In some cases, the Fed and the NAIC are on separate regulatory tracks to address the same concerns.

Meanwhile, Dodd-Frank directs the FIO to look into coverage discrimination issues, which is old hat for state regulators. For example, the agency choose to evaluate auto insurance discrimination when state regulators and research organizations have been considering the claims of consumer groups for decades.

All parties say they are committed to working together, but communication has been challenging.

The FIO has the primary role of monitoring the industry and one direct regulatory role to develop international cover agreements. Through its monitoring efforts, the FIO identified new regulatory opportunities for insurers.

Meanwhile, it’s been seven years since the enactment of Dodd-Frank and the Fed still has a lot of rule making to do. Besides going through that arduous process, the Fed is also working to appreciate the deep magic of insurance. This includes the role of actuarial opinion, which is part of the special sauce that makes individual companies competitive.

State vs. Federal Regulation

Federal intervention has reintroduced the time-honored question of whether states or the federal government should regulate insurers. Labor groups have long advocated for federal regulation for workers’ compensation. There are pros and cons to both approaches. If the federal government regulates insurance, one benefit would be regulatory consistency across state lines.

Certainly the international community, including Europe, prefers the approach of central governance for the United States. This difference in regulatory approach between central authority and state authority is not merely an academic discussion. The Jeffersonian notion of states rights to prevent the oppression of centralized authority was a direct reaction to the European central authority model that goes back to at least the Roman Empire.

Based on other topics I have covered, the United States needs to be very careful with taking euro-style approaches when the downsides most likely outweigh the benefits. There are fewer insurance companies operating in Europe partly due to regulatory burden.
_______________

“The federal rule making process also lacks
the kind of transparency states offer.”
_______________

It can be argued that state-based regulation is a key reason why the United States has the largest insurance industry in the world. While imperfect, the state regulatory model allows for greater innovation and flexibility. Under a truly federal regulatory model, for example, could Texas to continue to allow employers to opt out of workers’ compensation?

By digging deeply into the details of Dodd-Frank’s implications for property/casualty insurers, my hope is the article will be informative and thought provoking.

I am grateful to the Casualty Actuarial Society for giving me the opportunity to provide a comprehensive look at Dodd-Frank. The Fed’s media staff provided very useful congressional testimony and the NAIC, the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America and the American Academy of Actuaries all provided the necessary support to complete my article.

How do you think Dodd-Frank is affecting insurers?

If you like what you see, follow me!

ACA Could Shift Millions of Dollars to Workers’ Comp, WCRI Finds

imagesIt’s been a question in CompLand ever since President Obama introduced the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2009. Would the law, enacted in 2010, lead to case shifting from health insurance to workers’ compensation?

Case shifting is nothing new. It often arises from gray area claims where the cause of injury might be related to work. An insurance entity does not want to pay bills that another should be paying so naturally, there has been effort to reduce case shifting.

But the ACA puts a new wrinkle on case shifting by encouraging Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) to adopt the age-old managed care capitated spending approach to reduce costs. Understand that this approach puts a lid on annual medical care spending per person (insured). Workers’ compensation, however, provides first dollar coverage, pays on a per-visit basis and limits medical spending by necessity.

Naturally, doctors don’t want to make less money, especially given other pressures such as reductions in Medicare payments. Critics don’t like it either, especially for workers’ compensation, because it can adversely affect quality of care and recovery, which can unnecessarily elongate payment of wage replacement benefits.

So the question is, if you were a medical provider with a “gray area” patient diagnosis, would you rather bill an Obama Care ACO or workers’ comp?

It appears that there is a greater likelihood of filing the patient’s claim under workers’ comp, according to evidence in the Workers Compensation Research Institute’s (WCRI) study, Will the Affordable Care Act Shift Claims to Workers’ Compensation Payors? As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars could be shifted to workers’ comp.

 _______________
“It appears that there is a greater likelihood of filing the patient’s claim
under workers’ comp.”
_______________

Specifically, the study found that a back injury was 30 percent more likely to be called “work-related” in a state where the patient’s group health insurance was capitated rather than fee for service, according to a WCRI news release issued today.

In fact, the study found, case shifting was “more likely in states where a higher percentage of workers were covered by capitated group health plans,” the release said. In one state where at least 22 percent of workers had capitated group health plans, the odds of a soft tissue case being work-related was 31 percent higher.

In comparison to states where capitation was less common, there was no evidence of case shifting. “It also appears that when capitation was infrequent, the providers were less aware of the financial incentives,” the release said.

I always find WCRI’s research to be top notch. If you are concerned about workers’ compensation medical spending, you should check out their site at www.wcrinet.org.

TRIA Passes, Awaits Obama’s Autograph

After a retiring Senator put the kibosh on reauthorizing the the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act as part of the Cromnibus bill last month, a new Congress reauthorized the federal terrorism coverage backstop yesterday.

The bill, which demonstrated bipartisan support by a vote of 93 to 4, now awaits President Barack Obama’s signature

The “Terrorism Risk Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 26),” the bill:

  • extends TRIA for six years;
  • incrementally raises the program’s trigger from $100 million to $200 million in total insurance losses beginning 2016;
  • increases insurer co-share from 15 to 20 percent.
  • raises the aggregate amount the insurance industry has to absorb TRIA eligibility from $27.5 billion to $37.5 billion. To put this in perspective, losses from 9/11, which is about $43 billion would qualify for TRIA. The industry would be responsible for the first $37.5 billion, leaving a balance of $ 5.5 billion for the industry to borrow and pay back.

TRIA passage was especially important for workers’ compensation insurance. Unlike other lines, workers’  compensation cannot limit coverage due to nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological, (NBCR) attacks. 

I have written several blogs concerning TRIA — especially the actuarial and workers’ compensation implications. The most blog recent can be found by clicking here. 

_______________
Like what you see? Then follow me!
_______________

 

 

 

TRIA Reauthorization Bill Dies Due to One Retiring Republican Senator

The U.S. Senate adjourned yesterday without passing the bill that would reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which is set to expire December 31st. 

In other words, TRIA will not be passed this year.

And I am shocked. The general anticipation in Comp Land was that TRIA would pass but with more financial burden on insurance companies.

TRIA is very important to the economy.  The reason for TRIA is to help businesses afford terrorism coverage after 9/11 because insurers quit offering it or it was just too expensive.

The rules are a bit different for workers’ compensation carriers. They must cover all work-related occupational illnesses, injuries and deaths and cannot make an exception for those caused by terrorism. For this reason, the risk of losing carriers or risking high premiums can cripple state economies should a terrorist attack occur.

It is unreasonable to ask insurers to foot the bill for terrorist attacks
when it is the federal government that handles risk mitigation.

How could this happen when terrorism threats seem to grow on an almost a daily basis and the current political environment seems to be more concerned with ideals rather than reality? The insurance industry says it cannot absorb another 9/11. Given the low investment income and other challenges, this is quite possible.

Passage was looking promising last week when the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to reauthorize TRIA by a vote of 417-7, reflecting amazing bipartisan support. The seven house members who voted against it were all Republicans.

Blockages this time was also due to a Republican. Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) kept the bill from passage because it lacked a provision for states to opt out of a program unrelated to TRIA. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid (D-Nev.) would not agree to add the measure, according to Politico

That’s right, TRIA did not pass due to an opt-out provision being demanded from one senator who is retiring anyway.

Since I am not a beltway insider, I don’t know where this notion came from, but I suspect it had little to do with TRIA’s merits. My guess is this has more to do with growing political tensions about states rights due to unilateral actions made by the Obama Administration. TRIA was re-authorized twice before.

Coburn might not realize a very significant fact that makes terrorism insurance different from any other. That is, insurance companies, which can encourage risk management to curtail potential losses in other lines, are dependent on government security and action to do the same. It is unreasonable to ask insurers to foot the bill for terrorist attacks when it is the federal government that handles risk mitigation. 

TRIA has had its challenges all along. Lawmakers wanted the insurance industry to carry a greater financial burden with higher deductibles. Some conservative Republicans did not like it on the principle that the government should not be expanding its reach. Others viewed it as a form of corporate welfare. Last week, the bill was pulled from cromnibus negotiations, because Republicans wanted revisions to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who had introduced the most active TRIA legislation, refused to compromise.

The concept of government-sponsored terrorism coverage and/or backstop is nothing new. Several countries, including Britian, France, Spain, The Netherlands and Germany, offer some type of terrorism backup or fund, according to a report by Willis.

As sure as the day is long, TRIA will be introduced in the next Congress. Hopefully, the new Congress will be more sensible.

To learn more, check out my Actuarial Review article by clicking here.

Like What You See?
Then Follow Me!

TRIA Re-Authorization Could Be in Jeopardy

Update 12/10/2014 5:12 p.m.: House passes TRIA by 417-7 votes. Total support from Democrats; 7 nays from Republicans. It’s off to the Senate….

With Congress having 21 days to re-authorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), passage has been stalled and removed from cromnibus budget negotiations, putting the program at risk.

Some fear the move could jeopardize TRIA re-authorization, which would adversely affect workers’ compensation and other commercial insurance.

As of yesterday afternoon, TRIA was one of the major remaining roadblocks in cromnibus negotiations, according to Politico. (For those who do not live inside-the-beltway politics, cromnibus refers to measures Congress has approved to keep the federal government funded to avoid a shutdown.)

At issue is Republicans’ desire to revise the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which created the Federal Insurance Office and financial regulations. House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) is pushing changes to Dodd-Frank, while Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who introduced the most active TRIA legislation, is resisting such changes.

In response, House Republicans created a standalone bill they hope will force the Senate’s hand by passing TRIA with their Dodd-Frank changes, according to Politico. The House Rules Committee posted TRIA bill language yesterday as well.

_______________
Some fear the move could jeopardize TRIA re-authorization,
which would adversely affect
workers’ compensation and other commercial insurance.

_______________

As I wrote about in previous blogs, without passage, workers’ compensation faces financial liabilities because it must cover work-related terrorism exposure, which could result in premium increases in states where the unthinkable occurs.

No passage will also make other types of commercial insurance, including property coverage, much more expensive and difficult to obtain. As I covered in Actuarial Review, terrorism insurance is difficult to price because there have been few terrorist events on American soil (thank God) and future terrorism treats are difficult to anticipate.

No TRIA also means no Super Bowl because game organizers will not be able to obtain affordable terrorism coverage, according to BusinessWeek. The NFL has joined with other professional sports leagues and 80 business groups nationwide to form the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) to urge Congress to reauthorize of TRIA legislation.

Not everyone is a fan of TRIA re-authorization. Conservatives view TRIA as a waste of taxpayer dollars. In a recent National Review blog, writer Mark Calabria called TRIA “no more than corporate welfare wrapped up in the flag.”

Given the growing terrorism risks due to ISIL and other terrorist organizations, passing TRIA makes total sense. My hope is enough lawmakers agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s Get TRIA Passed Before Holiday Recess

Congress has 43 days — that’s six weeks from tomorrow — to pass a re-extension to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).

If Congress does not pass the re-extension, a couple things happen.

1) Since terrorism risk is very expensive and difficult to predict, insurers will likely to raise premiums or back out of the market.

2) Workers’ compensation faces limitless liabilities because it must cover work-related terrorism exposure, which could result in premium increases in states where the unthinkable occurs.

The whole point of TRIA is ensuring that terrorism coverage is accessible and affordable by offering a federally-supported backstop.

If you have a problem with the government getting involved in offering insurance, consider that terrorism risk mitigation depends on government security efforts that insurers cannot incentivize. That makes terrorism coverage quite unique.

_______________
…if the trigger and co-share change too much,
there is the risk carriers will bail out of the market.
_______________

As I explain a past blog and my article, The TRIA Challenge,” prices could already be poised for premium increases due to recent foreign policy decisions that leave the nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Companies need terrorism coverage more than ever.

So what’s the hold up?

To oversimplify, some members of Congress would like to see the insurance industry carry more risk by raising the program “trigger,” or when TRIA can take effect, beyond the current $5 million. (The Boston Marathon Bombing did not reach the $5 million threshold so the insurance industry covered it without TRIA.)

Current legislation would also boosts insurers’ co-share, which is currently 15 percent.

That’s like your health insurance company changing its terms and expecting you to pay a higher deductible and higher co-payments.

Therefore, if the trigger and co-share change too much, there is the risk that carriers will bail out of the market.

Terrorism groups are getting bigger and stronger – and they clearly make it known that they want to attack the United States again. Businesses must be ready.

It’s really quite simple. Businesses need affordable terrorism coverage. Therefore, Congress should pass a re-extension to TRIA.

Why the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act is Necessary

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.44.33 PM 2Tommorow is the 13th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, so it is fitting take a look at why the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 needs its third re-extension.

I cover this in “The TRIA Challenge,” which was recently published in the Casualty Actuarial Society’s Actuarial Review magazine as the September/October cover story and includes a sidebar on TRIA’s impact on workers’ compensation. TRIA needs to be passed by December 31, 2104 to be extended.

I wrote my article in June — and what a difference the past few months have made in the nation’s concern regarding terrorist attacks by fundamentalist Islam groups.

As reported by The Hill, just yesterday, NBC News poll showed that 47 percent of Americans believe the U.S. is less safe than it was before September 11. That’s a huge difference from the 28 percent who felt that way last year and the two in 10 Americans who had those feelings a year after the 9/11 attacks.

Truly, the last couple months have been disturbing. Given the recent headlines about the terrorist group ISIS (called ISIL by President Obama) and the Israel’s conflict with another terror group, Hamas, and evidence of terrorists using the nation’s permeable southern border for entry, it is a wonder that more Americans are not concerned. (Or are too many Americans just not paying attention?)

_______________
For terrorism coverage, everything from U.S. foreign policy to a watchful security guard can affect the risk of terrorism attacks.
_______________

If you are interested in an explanation of TRIA or want to know the legislative progress, you will find that in my article. My piece also explores the challenge of pricing coverage with little relevant historical data (just like cyber coverage, which I cover in an upcoming article) and frightening actuarial cost estimates for a truck or nuclear bomb in Manhattan.

While there are those who want to reduce the role of government in many areas, the federal government should have a backstop for costs from unthinkable terrorist attacks. Terrorism coverage is the only coverage of which I am aware where the private insurance industry is covering risk when mitigation is mostly left up to government intelligence agencies and law enforcement. That is different from workers’ compensation, where insurers can reward safer workplace practices with the experience modifier or cyber coverage policies that require certain safeguards before selling coverage to organizations.

For terrorism coverage, everything from U.S. foreign policy to a watchful security guard can affect the risk of terrorism attacks. If the insurance industry perceives greater risk, then terrorism insurance prices can spike, and making terrorism courage available and affordable is the whole point behind TRIA. Meanwhile, legislative language has suggested an increase in insurer co-payments for TRIA, which the American Insurance Association opposes.

From an actuarial point of view, I like what Michael Angelina, the vice president of casualty for the American Academy of Actuaries, told me for the article. “If I feel the threat is more likely than prior belief, all else being equal, I am going to increase rates to account for this increase in frequency and additional uncertainty.”

Given that this week’s poll data shows that ordinary Americans feel less safe, it will be interesting to see how the actuarial community reaches its conclusions to develop future rates.

Like What You See?
Then Follow Me!

Surprise! ObamaCare Needs More of the Young and Healthy

Sometimes the news just makes me laugh.

Apparently, the young and healthy are not clamoring for ObamaCare. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported today that only one quarter of 18 to 34 year olds who need to sign up for ObamaCare are actually doing it. (To see the news release, click here.)

This 25 percent only meets 18 percent necessary to make ObamaCare work. Meanwhile, one-third of the 2.2 million who signed up are 55 to 64 years old.

In other words and to no surprise, high risk people who will cost more to cover are signing up faster than the “low risk” younger crowd. The younger generation is also smaller than this age group, which represents part of the heavily populated baby boomer generation.

From the insurance perspective, this is just another “I told you” moment. Convincing the young and healthy to buy health care coverage has always been tough. Meanwhile, the “adverse risk” group continues to grow as the American waistline expands.

­_______________
When I look back to my own experience, I know there was no way
I could have afforded the Affordable Care Act when I was 22…
_______________

Insurance experts pointed to past experience and actuarial charts to show the costs of coverage. They knew it would cost Americans more – both collectively and individually – in taxes and fees. So it is no surprise that 79 percent of the nearly 2.2 million who managed to get signed up requested financial assistance, according to the HHS news release.

I think about today’s young adults. Many are burdened with student loans that mirror the cost of a car payment. They are having a hard time finding work, even if they earn advanced degrees. They face the highest taxes in U.S. history and, without a mortgage, lack much relief from tax deductions.

When I look back to my own experience, I know there was no way I could have afforded the Affordable Care Act when I was 22 and fresh out of college. I came from a lower middle working class background. My dad loaded trucks for a living. Mom was a sales clerk at Sears. To get through college, I worked and borrowed. I was the first in my family to earn a college degree.

My first job was with the state of Ohio’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, which Thank God, provided very affordable health care. It was hard enough for me to pay the pre-25 year-old premium for car insurance or pay taxes without deductions. I was driving a beater (well, actually a cool one –a ’77 Cutlass 442 with a 350-V8 engine, but I am digressing…oh, I still miss that car!)– paying for a modest one-bedroom apartment in German Village alone with my 8 percent interest student loans and the costs of just getting started in life. I didn’t live with my parents and they really did not have money to help. In my day, successful people did not sponge off their parents or the government.

But now I laugh until I cry, realizing that the Obama behind the care never really faced the financial struggles that most of us do. And he will probably never have to get ObamaCare either.

ObamaCare is Our Own Dang Fault

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” — President John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, 1961

I have been thinking a lot about Kennedy’s admonition as Americans are waking up and smelling the ObamaCare coffee. I am wondering why are Americans so shocked.

Americans had been warned by health insurance experts. They told us such promises were impossible to achieve. The experts told us that you could not socialize medicine and extend the same level of health care for all. The resources do not exist. If nothing else, there are not enough doctors.

But you didn’t have to be a healthcare expert to know this. Even common sense would dictate that expanding healthcare coverage for more people would cost everyone more. Of course employers would rather pay a fine that is cheaper than paying ever-rising health insurance premiums. You like to save money too, don’t you?

ObamaCare would have never gotten off the ground in Kennedy’s day. Americans were still too much against anything that smacked of socialism.

But we are a different America now. Kennedy’s 1961 audience was made up mostly of those who had lived through the depression and at least one world war. If they were young enough to have no memory of such trying events, they had parents who did — and they talked about it. Such collective experience has been buried in our nation’s cemeteries.

We have forgotten that those who lived through those events sacrificed more than most of us have. My Grandmother Webbe, who was born 104 years ago, was coming of age during the depression. It left an indelible mark on her and her peers. They never took prosperity for granted. They saved everything because they never knew when a time of need would happen again.

­­_______________
Even common sense would dictate that expanding healthcare coverage
for more people would cost everyone more.
_______________

Kennedy’s statement was offered to a people who understood that individual rights meant individual responsibilities. These were a people who believed in the Judeo-Christian God to whom they were accountable. They did not see jobs as a right but a privilege they worked hard to achieve and maintain. They did not rely on government but the strength of family and community. Some people fell through the cracks, so government got involved. Some will fall through the ObamaCare cracks as well.

But the audience is different now. Our rights do not stem from a creator to whom we owe an account of our lives. That presumed creator in the Declaration of Independence’s who endowed us with rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been substituted by the government. The freedom of assembly, religion and expression now extends to the right to personal offense and lawsuits that censor Americans from speaking truth.

And we don’t ask ourselves what we can do for our country. We expect more from others than we do ourselves.

As a result, the question of what we can do for our country has been answered for us. Doing for our country means paying higher taxes and accepting a lower standard of living. These are taxes necessary to finance our high expectations from governmental programs promised by politicians to get elected.

And this is our fault. Rising health care costs is a direct result of Americans having greater expectations to live unhealthy lives without having to pay much of the health care tab.

_______________
Kennedy’s statement was offered to a people
who understood that individual rights meant individual responsibilities.
_______________

ObamaCare is also the result of a civil war taking place in this country, but of a different kind.

It is not one being fought with guns, but something less obvious and perhaps more sinister: propaganda. We are surprised by the effects of ObamaCare because we wanted to believe the promises it made to us.

Recently I gained new perspective on the War Between the States by reading the southern states’ perspective. It turns out my great, great grandfather, Henry H. Gill, fought in the civil war for the Confederacy. I felt I owed it to Henry H. Gill of the 1st Northern Virginia Infantry to see the war through his eyes.

Growing up in Cleveland, I already knew the north’s perspective. Of proud Yankee blood, I felt great that my ancestors were on the right side of history. Another ancestral line is made up of Quakers who left Virginia in 1799 to live in the slave-free Northwest Territory.

When it came to slavery, the north was right. But when it came to state’s rights, the Confederacy was right.

From their perspective, their own country went to war against them. Many Americans who are being forced into ObamaCare feel their government is imposing on them. ObamaCare won political support even though about half of Americans were against it. We are a country divided about health care.

The confederacy fought back. Most soldiers were not fighting to maintain slavery. Frankly, most of them could not afford slaves anyway.

The confederate states wanted liberty from the federal government forcing its agenda on them. This is no different than the genesis of the Declaration of Independence, which came about because Mother England was doing the same. My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary war as well.

But we are a different people now. Our expectations are different. We ask what our country to do for us instead of the other way around. Such expectancy paved the way for ObamaCare. This is our own dang fault.

This is no longer the country for which my ancestors fought. I don’t think they would have felt comfortable here anyway.

Like what you see? Then follow me!

Lipold Publishes Article in Leader’s Edge magazine

If you were up late last night wondering how insurance issues go through the legislative process, the answer is here!

Leader’s Edge gave me the privilege to provide and publish this information in the article, 2012 Washington Road Map. The article is the result of tons of research on the committees to work through and the important players that shape U.S. public policy on insurance. You will find the article on digital issue page 36.

Editor Rick Pullen also honored me by publishing a bio with a picture of me in my office on digital page 10. Here you will learn that I am a displaced Clevelander who moved to Washington, D.C. for love and I remain here for the same reason…

Leader’s Edge is an award-winning publication. Please check out the entire magazine and you will see why!

In the meantime, you can expect my weekly blog tomorrow. It covers the #3 Biggest Marketing Mistake: Wasting Too Much Time!