Group Retrospective Rating Plan – State of Washington Industrial Insurance Fund CANW March 22, 2013 Bill Vasek, FCAS Russell Frank, FCAS, MAAA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CAS Seminar on Ratemaking Introduction to Ratemaking Relativities March 13-14, 2006 Salt Lake City Marriott Salt Lake City, Utah Presented by: Brian M.
Advertisements

Shifts in the Marketplace Workers Compensation Residual Markets CARe Presentation Jon Hale, FCAS Travelers P&C September 17, 2003 New York City, NY.
Assignment Nine Actuarial Operations.
Rate Filing Best Practices Alaska Sarah McNair-Grove, FCAS, MAAA Actuary Alaska Division of Insurance.
2006 Retiree MIP Overview October 2006 Rajiv Nundy & Kent Humphries HR Compensation Management.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Chapter 7 Financial Operations of Insurers.
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Chapter 7 Financial Operations of Insurers.
1 Math 479 / 568 Casualty Actuarial Mathematics Fall 2014 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Rick Gorvett Session 11: Individual Risk.
ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RETROSPECTIVE RATING PROGRAM.
Cost Accounting Standards Accounting 6310 Richard McDermott, Ph.D.
Federal Crop Insurance Ratemaking and Profitability Projections October 25, 2010 Richard Bill, FCAS, MAAA R. A. Bill Consulting
15-1 Individual Tax Consequences of Investment Activity  Timing issues in income recognition  Expenses related to investment activity  Tax basis of.
© Copyright 2014 National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. All Rights Reserved.© Copyright 2015 National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc.
De-Mystifying Reinsurance Pricing STRIMA Conference Baton Rouge, LA September 26, 2006 Presented by Michael Petrocik, FCAS, MAAA Chief Actuarial Officer.
Pricing ACC Work Cover Tim Spicer Stephen Jeffery Gavin Pearce.
Senate Bill No. 863 Cost Monitoring – Current Update W o r k e r s’ C o m p e n s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e R a t i n g B u r e a u o f C a l i f o r.
Strengthening Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation System Group Rating/Experience Rating – Actuarial Perspective Jeffery W. Scholl, FCAS, MAAA William Hansen,
THE EFFECTS OF MAJOR REFORMS ON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RATES IN CALIFORNIA DWC Educational Conference March 2 and March 7 th, 2006 Gregory Trout, MPA Bickmore.
LARGE PROGRAMS VS. SMALL PROGRAMS ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM STRUCTURES WC FEASIBILITY STUDY Controlling Workers Compensation Costs for State Agencies, Colleges,
ACE Tempest Re Numerical Examples – Adjustable Features Jeanne Lee Ying.
Incorporating Catastrophe Models in Property Ratemaking Prop-8 Jeffrey F. McCarty, FCAS, MAAA State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 2000 Seminar on Ratemaking.
CCO Quality Pool Methodology February 7, 2014 Lori Coyner, Accountability and Quality Director 1.
Risk Financing The Principles of Utilizing Insurance Resources Peter Wang
CAMAR FALL 2012 MEETING Workers Compensation Update: A Little Information About a Lot of Topics Tim Wisecarver, Presenter October 10,
Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Pricing Considerations Prepared By: Brian Z. Brown, F.C.A.S., M.A.A.A. Lori E. Stoeberl, A.C.A.S., M.A.A.A. SESSION:
Midland National Life ® Insurance Company North American Company for Life and Health Insurance ® Sammons ® Corporate Markets Group Sammons Securities Company.
The Ins & Outs Of Self-Insurance Southwest Actuarial Forum December 4, 2007 Ed Costner, ACAS, MAAA Casualty Actuarial Consultants, Inc.
Insurance Applications of Bivariate Distributions David L. Homer & David R. Clark CAS Annual Meeting November 2003.
The E-Mod multiplier increases or decreases the amount of premium to be paid during each policy period. What is an Experience Modifier? The Experience.
Workers Compensation Update Recent reforms and notable issues for reinsurers Gerald T. Yeung May 2007.
 2012 NCCI Holdings, Inc. WC-5 Just How Credible Is That Employer? Proposed Experience Rating Plan Changes CAS RPM Seminar Philadelphia, PA March 21,
 2007 National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 1 “Forecasting Workers Compensation Severities And Frequency Using The Kalman.
The New NCCI Hazard Groups Greg Engl, PhD, FCAS, MAAA National Council on Compensation Insurance CASE Fall Meeting September 13, 2006.
Karen Bender Milwaukee Florida Health Insurance Plan High Risk Pool October 2006 Mercer Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting, Inc.
© 2005 Towers Perrin March 10, 2005 Ann M. Conway, FCAS, MAAA Call 3 Ratemaking for Captives & Alternative Market Vehicles.
Pricing Excess Workers Compensation 2003 CAS Ratemaking Seminar Session REI-5 By Natalie J. Rekittke, FCAS, MAAA Midwest Employers Casualty Company.
Issues in California Workers Compensation Michele Bernal, FCAS VP & Actuary, American Re 6/15/00.
Risk Charges. Risk Management Services Claims Management Investigation Claim payments Mediation Litigation Risk Control Consultations Risk.
Strengthening Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation System.
Workers Compensation Update Karen Ayres, FCAS, MAAA NCCI Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 12, 2005.
Midwest Actuarial Forum THE WHY, WHO, WHAT, and HOW of the WCRA September 18, 2015.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education. All rights reserved FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF PRIVATE INSURERS Chapter 26.
Output of the U.S. Financial Sector: Measuring the services of banks andinsurance companies Brian C. Moyer Deputy Chief National Income and Wealth Division.
 2005 NCCI Holdings, Inc. Workers Compensation State of the Line 2006 CAS Ratemaking Seminar Jeff Eddinger, FCAS, MAAA Practice Leader & Senior Actuary.
Chapter 7 Financial Operations of Insurers. Copyright ©2014 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.7-2 Agenda Property and Casualty Insurers Life.
Loss Rating Models: Value Proposition? Brian Ingle, FCAS, MAAA WC-4 Perspectives on Pricing Large Accounts 2006 CAS Ratemaking Seminar Salt Lake City,
Paul Budde, Ph. D., ACAS, MAAA Senior Vice President Using Catastrophe Models for Pricing: The Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund CAS Special Interest.
PRESENTED BY IOWA MUNICIPALITIES WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION.
Strengthening Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation System.
Medical Professional Liability Ratemaking Hospitals / Self-Insurance March 12, 2004.
September 13, 1999 Joanne M. Ottone, FCAS, MAAA Workers Compensation Reserve Issues in Selected States Nevada.
WC - Excess Pricing A National Accounts (Primary) Perspective Steve Basson The Travelers.
CONTROLLING COSTS Choosing the Right Insurance Program Kevin D. Smith, CPCU, ARM Vice President Workers’ Compensation.
California Housing Workers’ Compensation Authority State of the JPA At a Glance California Housing Workers’ Compensation Authority State of the JPA At.
Capital Modeling for Benefit Pools: A Case Study How Much is Enough (for us)?
CHWCA Financial Overview DIVIDEND CALCULATION CHWCA’s Financial Stability Plan provides for an ultra-conservative approach to the declaration of.
CHWCA Presentation May 1, Background LAWCX is a self-insured Joint Powers Authority providing excess workers’ compensation coverage California.
New Member Orientation. OKOSIF NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION Agenda Introductions (5 minutes) OKOSIF History ( 5 minutes) What is a Self-insured Workers Compensation.
Financial Operations of Private Insurers
Low Cost, Multiple Plan Sponsor, Pooled Risk Health Insurance Captive
2000 CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR
CASUALTY ACTUARIAL SOCIETY RATEMAKING SEMINAR March 11 – 12, 2004
Risk Charges.
Cost of Capital Issues April 16, 2002 John J. Kollar.
Managing Underwriting Risk & Capital
SCORE Funding Calculations
Small Cities Organized Risk Effort (SCORE) Target Funding Benchmarks
Small Cities Organized Risk Effort (SCORE) Target Funding Benchmarks
SCORE Funding Calculations
Components of Insurance Premiums, 2011–2013
Presentation transcript:

Group Retrospective Rating Plan – State of Washington Industrial Insurance Fund CANW March 22, 2013 Bill Vasek, FCAS Russell Frank, FCAS, MAAA

2 Agenda  Introduction to retrospective rating  30+ year history: group retrospective rating of workers’ compensation insurance  Features unique to Washington State  Nine Washington State Hazard groups  Washington State Insurance Charges

3 Introduction to retrospective rating  Individual (and grouped) risk rating  Risks are self-rated retrospectively  Premiums are limited for unexpected large single and aggregated claim costs  Minimums to help offset insurance charges  Retrospective premium = Sum of charges for:  Actual limited losses  Administrative expenses  Net Loss limitation insurance  Refund = Standard premium – Retrospective premium  Annual premium evaluation until finaled

4 History in Washington State  State fund for workers’ compensation created in 1911  Legislature gave the State fund authority for WC rating systems in 1971 (previously done by legislature)  Group: self-insurance, dividend, or retrospective rating plan?  Retrospective rating program began in 1981 –Groups rated as a single entity –Tables based on published NCCI table M  Targeting of overall refunds began in 1985  Medical aid rating began in 1987  Interest added to overall refunds in 1995  Hazard groups introduced in 2011 –Tables based on WA data

5 Groups rated as a single entity  One method –Each member of a business group would get rated individually –Entire group rated by a single insurer –Each member of this group would then receive a refund check or additional premium assessment  Method used in Washington State –All participating members grouped as one entity –The business association gets the refund check or additional premium assessment –Business association has the responsibility of distributing refunds or additional premium assessment to the participating members –All business association members need not participate

6 Targeted annual net refund  Net Refund = Refund – Additional premiums  Total annual net refund of the program based on percentage loss ratio differences between the aggregates of Retro participants and those not enrolled in Retro  Think of targeted annual net refund as a dividend pool  Refund/additional premiums are distributed to participants based on their relative performance  Accomplished via a factor to losses and insurance charges  This targeting results in somewhat stable total net refunds  Projected future annual refund built into the manual premium rates

7 Plan participation and average refund Participation since 1996 has been close to 45% of total standard premiums Net refunds have ranged from 14% to 31% since 1985 $648 Million of standard premiums for 2010 enrollments

8 Other unique features  Third annual adjustment is final  $1.5 Million minimum size for new groups  Three final additional assessments and you’re out  Hazard group assignment based on an index

9 Hazard Index = 4,895,290 / 5,736,000 =.853 Assigned Hazard Group = 5 Example of Hazard Group Assignment

10 Hazard Groups  Excess loss factor at $250,000 selected as basic hazard index  Washington risk classification system does not follow the NCCI –Need to develop hazard group assignments from scratch, with reference to NCCI and California only as a check on reasonableness  Nine Hazard Groups –More hazard groups reduce the jump at the boundary

11 Assigning Risk Classes to Hazard Groups  Based on excess loss factor (ELF) at $250K –Frequency and severity by claim type, credibility  ELF as complement of credibility based on Serious ratio (serious pure premium / total pure premium)  Credibility weight based on expected loss size

12 ELF calculation for classes

13 Division into Hazard Groups  Risk classes were ordered by selected ELF, and divided into 9 Hazard Groups of approximately equal size. Examples:

14 Average ELF at $250K by Hazard Group

15 Other major 2011 revisions made when Hazard Groups were introduced  New Table of Insurance Charges –Based on Washington experience –New size group structure  New plan choices –Several single loss limits, including unlimited –Maximum and minimum loss ratios

16 Construction of Insurance Charge Table  Use Fourier transform (Heckman-Meyers algorithm) to construct aggregate distribution –Fitted severity distributions by claim type for each hazard group –Coherent set of negative binomial parameters for claim frequency by size and hazard group  “Overlap” eliminated by creating these tables separately by single loss limit (see Gillam, The 1999 Table of Insurance Charges, CAS Proceedings, 1999)

17 No More “Ruinous Tide of Paper”  No longer any penalty for large number of tables. Separate charge and savings tables by –Hazard group –Single loss limit  Published tables give final charges using –LAE = 7.0% of loss –Other Admin expense = 4.8% of premium  Excel tool: search for “retro premium calculator” on L&I’s web site and un-hide sheets

18 Questions?