Company Assessment Contact Information Updates Requested!
NOLHGA is preparing to launch AssessConnect, a secure assessment management system developed for state guaranty association and member company use. AssessConnect will be a “one stop shop” for those guaranty associations that choose to use it to manage member contacts and process assessments pursuant to state-specific laws and requirements.
To support this first phase of AssessConnect, NOLHGA is creating an actively managed centralized database for company contacts and entity information by NAIC number and group. Companies can update their contact information directly in AssessConnect, and this information will be made available to all participating NOLHGA members. The previous NOLHGA contact update form that companies may have used will be discontinued, and the link will be redirected to AssessConnect.
Companies can go to www.assessconnect.com and update their contact information at any time by entering their company email address. No password is needed. A secure link will be sent to the entered email address allowing the individual to view, add, or delete contacts associated with that company domain.
Here are a few tips for companies updating their contact information:
- If you are unable to login to www.assessconnect.com, you may need to get the URL approved by your company’s IT administrators so that your company’s firewall doesn’t block access.
- NOLHGA encourages companies to use shared mailboxes for all assessment communications whenever possible to avoid any messages getting lost.
- AssessConnect requires that there be at least one contact for (1) assessment notices; (2) tax notices; and (3) state Board communications such as proxy notices. That contact can be the same person/mailbox for all three categories, or multiple contacts may be listed.
- When a contact is added or deleted, it will be tracked and validated by email notice. If you do not see the notice in your In Box, please check your SPAM folder.
- If there are any issues logging into the system or questions about adding and deleting contacts, please email [email protected].
As we continue to add capabilities to AssessConnect, our goal is to offer a needed service to state guaranty associations and to create a streamlined assessment processing experience for companies. While companies will initially only be able to update their contact information, they will ultimately be able to run reports, receive notices, view invoices, and process payments via AssessConnect for any participating state associations.
NOLHGA will share more information on AssessConnect functionalities as they are developed, but in the meantime, please feel free to reach out to NOLHGA Chief of Staff Jenn Webb with any questions.
Staff Contact - Jennifer WebbNAIC Updates
The agenda for the Receivership and Insolvency (E) Task Force’s first 2025 call included an international update from Bob Wake (ME), who represents the NAIC on the IAIS Resolution Working Group. NAIC staff Jane Koenigsman was also scheduled to provide an update on receivership matters.
On February 21, 2025, the Life Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Working Group exposed the following items for a 30-day comment period ending March 23:
- Item 2024-21-L, which updates the RBC instructions and blanks to incorporate changes adopted by the Statutory Accounting Principles Working Group related to tax credits. The proposal addresses structural and instructional changes and does not propose a potential factor change.
- Item 2024-24-L, which incorporates changes resulting from the principles-based bond project. Attachment Five of the meeting materials contains a table with NAIC staff’s response to each interested party comment on the prior proposal. Given the number of changes resulting from this proposal, the working group will hold a call following the Spring National Meeting to discuss the proposal.
- Item 2025-01-L, which updates RBC instructions and blanks to allow for direct pulls of information between the annual statement and the new general interrogatory related to mortality risk.
- Item 2025-02-L, which seeks to clarify an ambiguous asset concentration charge for fixed income assets on Schedule BA. The ACLI is sponsoring this proposal, which stems from the principles-based bond project.
The Risk-Focused Surveillance Working Group adopted proposed revisions to the NAIC Accreditation Program’s Review Team Guidelines, Financial Analysis Handbook (FAH), and the Financial Condition Examiners Handbook (FCEH) related to a department’s use of contractor(s) to support financial analysis. These changes are in response to a referral from the Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Committee, which recognized that more states were turning to independent contractors to assist in the completion of financial analysis of insurers.
In response to interested party comments, the working group adopted guardrail language related to conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and security and data governance. Interested parties voiced support for the new language, suggesting a clarification that any non-public or proprietary information or data to which the contractor gains access during financial analysis/examination work on behalf of the department should not be utilized for any other purpose. The changes now go to the groups with jurisdiction over the Review Team Guidelines, FAH, and FCEH for approval.
The working group also established a drafting group to address issues related to the fairness and reasonableness of attorney-in-fact fees being charged to newly formed reciprocals—the result of which may apply more broadly (e.g., to MGAs). The working group received a referral from the Chief Financial Regulator Forum highlighting the difficulty in making the fairness/reasonableness determination when certain services are based on a percentage of gross written premiums. The referral also recognizes that by basing management service fees on a percentage of premium volume, there is the potential incentive for the attorney-in-fact to increase its fee revenue by underpricing or accepting risk that may be above its typical underwriting guidelines.
The Senior Issues Task Force is preparing for a busy year with several items on the docket, primarily related to long-term care (LTC) and Medigap. LTC issues include:
- The task force will update the 2017 LTC Federal Policy Options (a carryover from the now-disbanded LTC Insurance Task Force).
- The task force intends to discuss the LTC Partnership Program (another carryover item from the LTC Insurance Task Force). Chrystal Bartuska (Vice Chair - ND) said the department has received inquiries about how to incorporate life insurance and annuity hybrid products with LTC riders and other LTC features into the partnership program. The task force will discuss this issue in more detail at a future meeting to determine whether it makes sense to advocate for changes at the federal level.
- The Center for Insurance Policy and Research (CIPR) will soon release a report on Reduced Benefit Options (RBOs) that will reportedly touch on the NAIC’s RBO Checklist (amended in 2023). Brenda Cude (consumer representative) suggested the task force review the report once released.
- For the first 100% of cumulative rate increases, Missouri supports 0% policyholder cost-sharing instead of the 5% in the alternative proposal.
- Missouri supports an additional 95% haircut layer at a cumulative rate increase level of 1000%. Missouri’s rationale for this proposed change is that it better contains cumulative rate increases at a blended increase of around 4000%, when the increase is more impactful on higher attained age policyholders.
International Developments
On February 28, 2025, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) held a public background call on the development of ComFrame material for insurance capital standard (ICS) supervisory reporting and public disclosure requirements. The IAIS will conduct various ICS implementation projects in 2025 and 2026, beginning with the development of new ICS-related ComFrame standards. Here are the key takeaways from the call:
Development of New ICS-Related Standards: New ICS-related ComFrame standards related to Insurance Core Principles (ICPs) 9 (Supervisory Review and Reporting) and 20 (Public Disclosure) will be developed this year. It’s expected that the public disclosure requirements will be a subset of the supervisory reporting requirements. The IAIS is contemplating a number of factors:
- What elements should be reported and the level of granularity
- Common elements between supervisory reporting and public disclosure
- What belongs in standards versus guidance
- Whether there’s a need for separate supporting material for supervisors
- How to achieve a balance between quantitative and qualitative elements
- How elements should be assessed in the context of the Aggregation Method (AM)
Potential Targeted Data Collection: Romain Paserot (IAIS Deputy Secretary General and Head of Capital and Solvency) reiterated the potential for a very targeted data collection on the composition of internationally active insurance group (IAIG) asset portfolios, which would be asked of the volunteer groups as a last resort if sufficient information cannot be gathered through other means.
ICS Implementation Assessment Methodology: The ICS Implementation Assessment Methodology will not be subject to a formal public consultation. However, there will be opportunities for stakeholder engagement at the Global Seminar as well as additional webinars on the topic.
In other IAIS news:
- FinTech Forum: The monitoring workstream of the FinTech Forum will consider the impact of FinTech on the insurance sector, including changes to distribution and business models, availability of insurance, and regulatory issues.
- Leadership Updates: Seána Cunningham (Ireland) has been appointed as a member of the Executive Committee, and Lezanne Botha (FSCA, South Africa) is the new Chair of the Governance Working Group.
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) convened in London on February 27 for its 2025 Annual Conference. The sessions focused on issues including artificial intelligence, UK regulatory reforms, and protection gaps:
- Artificial Intelligence: Dr. Stephanie Hare (a broadcaster and author focused on technology, politics, and history) provided a keynote address in which she underscored AI’s transformative potential in the insurance sector, particularly in risk assessment, fraud detection, and cybersecurity. Hare highlighted how AI can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns and predict potential fraud cases with greater accuracy, but also identified risks associated with AI, including the practical and ethical concerns from deregulation aimed at gaining a competitive edge and the negative environmental impacts due to high energy consumption. Hare asserted that AI safety versus AI opportunity has been pushed as a “false conflict” and touted the financial commitments by EU entities over the next five years to maintain global competitiveness without forgoing safety and regulation, as is the strategy for some other jurisdictions.
- UK Regulatory Reforms: Throughout the conference, speakers emphasized the need for reducing regulatory burdens and improving efficiency to foster growth and competitiveness. Some speakers advocated for the number of physical pages of regulations to be drastically cut (forcing regulations to be streamlined), while others emphasized that confidence in the effectiveness of regulation is more important than the need to simply reduce or remove regulations. The importance of aligning regulatory goals with consumer protection—to create a more competitive market while maintaining trust and safety—was highlighted. Specifically, Solvency UK was also touted for reducing capital requirements, allowing insurers to reinvest the extra funds into the community to promote economic and social benefits. Collaboration between regulators and the industry was seen as essential, with over 80% of survey respondents in attendance believing that the most effective measures to make the UK more competitive were “better and earlier engagement with industry” and “review FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] requirements.”
- Closing the Protection Gap: The impact of socioeconomic factors on insurance affordability and access was a key focus, as affordability and accessibility of insurance products were highlighted as significant challenges for the industry. Recent statistics indicated that financial pressures led to one-third of respondents unselecting or down-grading insurance. Several innovative approaches to risk assessment to make insurance more inclusive were discussed, including using AI generative technology to make websites more adaptive to different consumers and reducing retirement insecurity by equalizing wages and focusing on individual pension planning for men and women alike.
Privacy Updates
A collection of health care and hospital associations sent a joint letter to the Trump Administration advocating against a proposed update to the HIPAA Security Rule aimed at improving security measures around electronic health information. The letter argues that the update has an unreasonable implementation time frame and would hurt the development of new technologies.
In state news, comprehensive privacy bills were introduced in Arkansas, Maine, New Mexico, and New York:
- Arkansas (SB 258): The Arkansas Digital Responsibility, Safety, and Trust Act would apply to persons who (1) conduct business in Arkansas or produce a product or service consumed by Arkansas residents, (2) process or engage in the sale of personal data, and (3) are not a small business as defined by the United States Small Business Administration. Financial institutions and data subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA); covered entities and business associates governed by the privacy, security, and breach notification rules under HIPAA; protected health information under HIPAA; and health records are exempt, except as required under Section 4-120-601 (relating to the development of AI systems).
- Maine (LD 595): The bill “proposes to further update certain consumer privacy laws in response to recent developments in federal and state consumer privacy laws.” The full text of the bill is not available.
- New Mexico (SB 420): The Community Privacy and Safety Act would apply to covered entities, defined as “a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, affiliate, or other legal entity that: (1) is organized or operated for the profit or financial benefit of the entity’s shareholders or other owners; (2) offers online features, products or services to consumers in New Mexico; and (3) alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of: (a) collecting personal data directly from consumers; (b) using personal data for targeted advertising; or (c) engaging in the brokerage of personal data.” Covered entities that are in compliance with federal privacy laws and federal information security laws are deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the act with respect to the data subject to such laws. There are no general exceptions for entities or data subject to the GLBA or HIPAA.
- New York (S 5156): The It’s Your Data Act would apply to a business, defined as “a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or other legal entity that is organized or operated for the profit or financial benefit of its shareholders or other owners, that collects consumers’ personal information, or on the behalf of which such information is collected and that alone, or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of consumers’ personal information, that does business in the state of New York, and that satisfies one or more of the following thresholds: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of fifty million dollars…; (2) alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or discloses for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of [50,000] consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives [50%] or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.” The act does not apply to (1) protected health information collected by a covered entity or business associate subject to HIPAA; and (2) personal information collected, processed, sold, or disclosed pursuant to the GLBA.