In the past five years, Authority members have incurred eighteen claims in excess of one million dollars. In addition, a significant burden has been placed on the Authority’s financial resources due to increasing excess insurance costs, the low interest rate environment, and growing long-term receivables resulting from the “rolling retro.”
In the fall of 2008, the Executive Committee established an ad hoc committee of managers and finance officers to study the Authority’s funding and allocation formulas and to provide recommendations designed to safeguard the financial integrity of the Authority and protect the members.
As a result of the ad hoc committee’s extensive study and deliberation, the Authority will be implementing an updated funding model beginning with the 2010-11 coverage period. The new funding model will reflect many of the positive elements of the prior model, and it will eliminate some of its unnecessary complexities. This document provides a brief overview of the changes in the form of FAQs.
 |
1. Please summarize the proposed changes.
|
| |
There are several main components to the changes:
- Each new coverage period will be funded through annual contributions. The annual contributions will be funded at the 75% confidence level to assure that the funds collected each year are adequate to pay all losses and expenses related to that year.
- Each member’s annual contribution will be based on a formula that reflects that member’s exposures and loss experience, relative to the others in the pool. Importantly, a credibility weighting factor is being introduced, based on member size, to assure rough equity among members over the long run. Smaller members’ exposure (payroll) will be more heavily weighted, while larger members’ experience (losses) will receive more weight.
- The rolling retrospective receivables (owed to the Authority by members) will be suspended for the next several years as the annual contribution grows to a fully adequate level.
- Once the annual contribution reaches full funding for the then-current year – which is estimated to take three years – the collection of prior years’ retrospective payments will be re-instituted, with the total receivable from members expected to be paid off in the ensuing eight to ten years.
|
|
2. What is credibility weighting?
|
| |
Credibility weighting is a well-tested industry standard used to avoid adverse selection. More specifically, it is a method used in the formula to determine how much weight should be given to a member’s experience (losses) vs. their exposure (payroll). The historical losses of a small agency are not a statistically reliable (credible) indication of that agency’s future losses. The new formula recognizes this by assigning various credibility weightings to each member based on the size of their payroll. The minimum weight is 20%, the maximum is 80%. The smallest member’s losses will weigh 20% and their payroll 80%. Conversely, the largest member’s losses will weigh 80%, and their payroll 20%. All other members will slide on the scale between 20% and 80%, based on the size of their payroll.
The outcome will be that smaller members will have an annual contribution that is less loss-sensitive, while larger members will have an annual contribution that is more loss-sensitive. The use of credibility weighting is considered to be a best practice among public entity risk pools. It is anticipated that allocating costs among members in this way will make the annual contribution a more accurate estimate of the ultimate losses for each member within the coverage period.
|
|
3. What is an off-balance factor?
|
| |
An off-balance factor is a factor applied to an individual contribution amount to equitably adjust each individual amount in such a way that an overall desired contribution is achieved.
By using an off-balance factor, we are able to ensure that no other aspect of the calculation results in changing the total amount collected. For example, if the funding requirement is $47 million yet after we run the calculation it results in the collection of $46 million, then the off-balance factor would be applied to adjust the annual contribution amount of individual members up 2% so that an additional $1 million is collected, and the full $47 million funding requirement is achieved.
|
|
4. What factors are used in the current formula?
|
| |
Both pooled programs use experience (losses) and exposure (payroll) factors in the cost allocation formulas as well as a funding target determined by the actuary’s estimate of funding needs. That funding target is allocated to members based on a percentage of their experience and exposure relative to the pool. Since the Authority’s inception, simple weightings of both have been used to balance the factors.
The funding mechanism includes a prospective calculation (used to determine each member’s primary deposit) and a retrospective calculation (used to collect additional amounts required and reallocate costs among the members). Police and non-police exposures (Liability Program), and public safety and non-public safety exposures (Workers’ Compensation Program) are separated in the retrospective calculation. A separate workers’ compensation excess pool deposit of .05% of payroll is also collected. Property damage only claims under $2,000 are excluded from the experience factors in the Liability Program.
|
|
5. What factors will be used in the formula that will be implemented in July 2010?
|
| |
The new formula continues to use experience (losses) and exposure (payroll) to determine each agency’s annual contribution. Experience factors include losses from $0 - $30,000 and losses from $30,000 - $750,000. Weights given to experience and exposure are more fully detailed in an earlier answer. Funding estimates are calculated separately for police and non-police exposures (Liability Program), and public safety and non-public safety exposures (Workers’ Compensation Program). The workers’ compensation excess pool deposit will be incorporated into the new funding estimate (and no longer invoiced separately). Smaller claims will no longer have a disproportionate impact on the formula. Therefore property damage only claims under $2,000 will be included in the experience factors in the Liability Program because the multiplier effect in the previous formula has been eliminated. Once the annual contribution is being funded at the 75% confidence level, the need for retrospective calculations will be eliminated for future coverage periods.
|
|
6. What is included in the annual contribution formula?
|
| |
The annual contribution formula includes the following: the actuary’s estimate of the ultimate claim costs, excess and reinsurance premiums, corridor/reinsurance self-funding (if applicable), expenses associated with the third party administrators, and Authority operating expenses.
|
|
7. What is the cost impact going to be?
|
| |
The liability formula changes are being implemented in order to manage the average increase to a level not to exceed 10% in any one year during the transition period. The formula review ad hoc committee has modeled the implementation such that annual cost increases are anticipated to be at or below the rate of the pool's payroll inflation. Of course, for any individual member, the actual annual charge will vary based on exposures, experience, and retrospective adjustments due to prior years.
|
|
8. Without the retrospective adjustments, how will I know that my agency’s annual contribution is fair?
|
| |
In order to ensure the financial integrity of the Authority and improve annual budgetary stability for members, the new formulas reflect a philosophy of “rough equity in the long run.” The Authority has worked with actuaries and pooling experts to design an approach which will reward good risk management practices, penalize bad risk management practices, and achieve rough equity, as this is in the long term best interest of all of the members. The Executive Committee has adopted this approach, based on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, and believes it is both fair and consistent with the Authority’s member-focused philosophy.
|
|
9. It appears the Authority has plenty of net assets. Why does the Authority need more money?
|
| |
Much of the Authority’s net assets are currently in the form of receivables from members, and the receivables are growing. The new annual contribution formula will stop their growth by adequately funding each coverage period in advance as originally intended. The goal is to maintain net assets as outlined in the Net Asset and Refund to Members Policies.
|
|
10. What is the Authority’s cash position?
|
| |
The growth in member contributions in recent years has not matched the increase in claims and other expenses. From a long-term perspective the overall cash position has been declining; however the Authority’s cash position should be sufficient to support the proposed temporary suspension of retrospective deposits when coupled with the average annual increase of 10% in annual contributions.
|
|
11. Will there be retrospective calculations in the future?
|
| |
Yes and no.
- Coverage periods between 1978-1979 and 2009-2010 will continue to have a retrospective calculation performed until all claims are closed in each coverage period.
- A retrospective calculation will also be performed on the coverage periods during the transition period designed to fully fund the pool. A three-year transition is estimated and would thus include the 2010-2011 through 2012-2013 coverage periods.
- Once the annual contribution reaches full funding at the 75% confidence level, the retrospective calculation will no longer be necessary on future coverage periods.
|
|
12. What is the anticipated repayment schedule for the outstanding retrospective deposits receivable, and how long does the Authority intend to suspend the retrospective deposits?
|
| |
The plan is to suspend invoicing of the receivables during the transition period, which is anticipated to be three years, and then have the members repay them over the next eight to ten years. The repayment schedule could lengthen or shorten, however, depending on how losses develop. The actual retrospective deposits receivable will be recalculated annually, so each member will know exactly how their respective obligation is changing.
|
|
13. Do you intend to freeze the retrospective refunds due to some members?
|
| |
No. Refunds due will be paid to members in July for the coverage periods through 2008-2009. Refunds will be distributed based upon the net outstanding retrospective adjustment of each member. The formula review ad hoc committee recommended the decision to provide refunds be made annually in conjunction with the retrospective calculations, and that the amount of the refund also be determined annually.
|
|
14. My agency is able to pay its outstanding retrospective contribution now. May we pay it now rather than waiting?
|
| |
Yes. Your agency can pre-pay the receivable owed at any time, which could provide an advantage in your budgetary process. The Authority’s Executive Committee approved an incentive plan for members that elect to pay the receivable prior to the due date. For more information regarding the Aggregate Retrospective Deposit Repayment Plan, please click here.
|
|
15. What happens if my agency withdraws from the Authority or a program?
|
| |
Members that withdraw will not enjoy the benefit of paying retrospective deposits in installments as is provided under the “rolling retro,” nor would payment obligations be deferred during the transition period. Thus any receivable due will be due and payable upon withdrawal. Members that withdraw from a program will continue to have retrospective obligations annually until the all claims close for each coverage period of program participation.
|
|
16. What coverage alternatives does my agency have if we decide to withdraw from the Authority?
|
| |
The Authority has a one-year withdrawal notification, and withdrawal from a program may only be made at the end of a fiscal year. Commercial markets and other pools may offer alternative coverage options for your agency. Authority staff can provide appropriate assistance to your agency should you wish to conduct a comparison of alternatives.
|
|
17. What are the Authority’s financial targets? How will we know when there is enough money?
|
| |
Consistent with the existing Net Asset and Refund to Members Policies, the Authority has adopted a target to build up to, and then maintain, net assets equal to a 95% confidence level. The exact dollar amount will change, over time, reflecting each program’s accumulated loss experience. Both policies will be reviewed in conjunction with the implementation of the formula revisions.
|
|
18. What will happen if the Authority becomes “over” funded?
|
| |
Net assets will be evaluated annually, and any excess will be handled in accordance with the Net Asset and Refund to Members Policies.
|
|
19. How will the members’ loss prevention efforts be recognized?
|
| |
The new formulas still reflect each member’s annual loss experience – from 20% weight for the smallest members to 80% weight for the largest members. Your agency’s actual costs will continue to be significantly influenced by your loss prevention efforts. Also, for past coverage periods, the retrospective payments due will be materially impacted by how the claims actually resolve, so continued diligence and cooperation with the claims management process is critical.
|
|
20. My agency’s losses have been trending downward. Will our costs increase?
|
| |
As you may be aware, the Authority’s members have sustained a number of large losses over the past few years. In addition, the reinsurance market has hardened and Authority has experienced reduced investment income. These elements combined have negatively affected our actuary’s estimate of future funding requirements as well as increased the premiums for insurance the Authority is able to secure from the marketplace. It is anticipated that these developments will lead to increased contributions by the members.
|
|
21. How will members that join the pool after July 1, 2010, be treated?
|
| |
They will pay annual contributions as determined by the new funding formulas.
|
|
22. Has the Authority’s growth over the past ten years caused this problem?
|
| |
No. The addition of members to the pool during the past ten years has actually benefited existing pool members as costs have been spread over more agencies. Our strict underwriting process assures this and the Authority will continue to entertain “good” growth opportunities.
|
|
23. If only 20% of a small member’s annual contribution is based on their loss history, does this mean that effective loss control at their agency no longer makes a difference?
|
| |
Effective loss control continues to make a difference. Members can and do influence their share of the funding estimate by maintaining or establishing best risk management practices in their locale. The best way to minimize future increases is to do everything possible to avoid costly claims. Adoption of best risk management practices will reduce claim severity in most cases. A reduction in future funding estimates is directly tied to a reduction in the severity of claims experienced by the pool and its members. Also, for past coverage periods, the retrospective payments due will be materially impacted by how the claims actually resolve, so continued diligence and cooperation with the claims management process is critical.
|
|
24. Where does my agency fall on the sliding credibility weighting scale? Is my agency categorized as small, medium, or large?
|
| |
The 2010-2011 Coverage Period Annual Contribution spreadsheets, located at http://members.cjpia.org/Resources/Retro.aspx, contains the credibility weighting scale for each member.
|
|
25. Are claim reserves included in the loss data used to calculate the annual contribution?
|
| |
Yes. The annual contribution formula takes into consideration the most recent five years of Net Incurred Losses.
Net Incurred Losses = Actual Paid + Reserves - Recoveries
The maximum amount counted per occurrence is limited to $750,000 in the liability program and $100,000 in the workers’ compensation program. The Authority utilizes the same third party administrators for all claims within each coverage program; as a result, reserving practices are consistently applied to all members. In addition, reserves are periodically reviewed and evaluated by both staff and the claims committee for sufficiency and consistent application.
|
|
26. If the aggregate funding target for 2010-11 will not be achieved at the 75% confidence funding level through the annual contribution, and on a pool-wide basis we actually plan to collect less than the target, why is the total not at least equal to the amount that would have been collected under the old formula?
|
| |
The ad hoc committee focused on long-term solutions, particularly the desire to fund upcoming coverage periods at higher confidence levels. The proposed funding formula achieves that when compared to the current funding model. The lower cash collection is due to the suspension of the collection of retrospective receivables. This suspension was a conscious decision in recognition of the current economic conditions.
|
|
27. Some members have participated in the pool for over 25 years and have experienced relatively few claims, with minimal incurred costs with the exception of the most recent few years, in which their losses have increased dramatically. Since the annual contribution only includes five years of claims experience in the calculation, are these long-time members with good overall claims experience, being penalized strictly based on their most recent few years of claims activity?
|
| |
Stellar loss experience is recognized under the current formula, and the benefits have already been realized by members for past coverage years through retrospective refunds and lower primary deposits. Unfortunately the past several years of adverse loss experience are not isolated to one or two members; loss trends pool-wide have been negative. Industry standards include the recognition of the previous five years of loss experience as a reliable predictor of future loss experience (the Authority's excess and reinsurance carriers request the previous five years of loss experience). In addition, extraneous factors, such as the legal environment, make the previous five years the most relevant for the purposes of estimating future costs.
|
|
28. Is there a correlation between deferred maintenance/poorly maintained streets and public facilities and the rising cost of claims?
|
| |
Deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure is playing a role in claims under $750,000. Causes for the multi-million dollar claims are varied, and in many instances the member involved had a slim percentage of liability. Joint and several liability and the absence of another responsible party with assets, however, resulted in the pool being responsible for the settlements/judgments.
|
|
29. Does the annual contribution establish a new higher baseline for subsequent calculations in future years? Is it possible for it to come down, given the planned pool-wide increase of 10% each year? Will my agency be able to influence that number and make it lower?
|
| |
It is expected that the Liability Program cost, at the pool level, will increase 10% each year for the next three years. In the third year, it is projected that the program will be collecting its actuarially determined funding estimate at a 75% confidence level. Due to the fact that the funding estimate will include a provision for adverse fluctuations in claim costs (e.g. moving from 50% to 75% confidence level funding), the baseline for subsequent calculations will be higher. Prefunding at a higher confidence level diminishes the potential for large retrospective deposits during the transition period as well as future pool assessments.
Over the same time period, individual member’s contributions may or may not increase by the amount the pool must increase. Some may experience increases beyond that of the pool as a whole, while others will increase less, and some may see no increases. Factors that will determine how much individual increases will be include 1) an agency’s payroll growth relative to the pool’s payroll growth, 2) an agency’s loss history relative to the pool’s loss history and relative to its own loss history, 3) the volatility bands used to limit individual member’s annual increases, and 4) the off-balance factors used to ensure the full collection of the funding estimate.
Ultimately, the pool’s losses are the largest component of the actuary’s funding estimate. As the pool’s relative loss history improves, the actuary’s funding estimate will flatten out and may even decline. An example of this was seen in the Worker’s Compensation program funding estimates from 2004/05 through 2009/10. Assuming that were to happen in the liability program, the relative performance of each agency, using the factors noted above, against the pool will determine the answer to whether a member will see a decrease in their liability program cost.
Finally, members can and do influence their share of the funding estimate by maintaining or establishing best risk management practices in their locale. The best way to minimize future increases is to do everything possible to avoid costly claims. Adoption of best risk management practices will reduce claim severity in most cases. A reduction in future funding estimates is directly tied to a reduction in the severity of claims experienced by the pool and its members.
|
|
30. Should there be consequences for members who do not report claims?
|
| |
All members are obligated to report claims. The Memorandum of Liability Coverage states the following in Section 5 Conditions and Responsibilities: C. (ii). If a Claim is made against a Protected Party, the Protected Party shall immediately forward to the Authority's Claims Administrator every demand, notice, summons or other process received by the Protected Party of the Protected Party's representative.
In addition, the Authority consistently reviews the members' risk and exposures, and has developed a systematic system to ensure the members are performing due diligence. Through the Risk Management Evaluation process and the Loss Control Action Plan, members receive individual assistance in identifying potential liability, property, and workers' compensation issues and are reminded of pool protocol such as the obligation to report claims.
|
|
31. The retrospective balances are calculated separately for liability and workers’ compensation, and it is possible for a member to have a retrospective deposit due in liability, yet have a refund in workers’ compensation. While the programs are calculated separately, will the invoice still combine them in such a way I can make a single payment? When will we be invoiced for the 2010-11 coverage year?
|
| |
The invoice will combine both self-insured programs (liability and workers' compensation), and will net the total amounts due with applicable refunds. The 2010-11 invoices will be distributed to members in May.
|
|
32. At present, the economic environment is very challenging for most members. Why do the formula changes need to happen now?
|
| |
The current model is not sustainable. The cash flow implications of the current model could compromise the Authority’s ability to pay claims within the next few years.
|
|
33. How can we protect the pool from members who consistently have bad losses year after year, and who do not demonstrate a commitment to risk management?
|
| |
The Authority actively assists the members by identifying, assessing, and assisting the members in controlling risk and exposures. A combination of systematic and ad hoc methods are incorporated into both methods to perform risk management due diligence. Systematic methods include the Risk Management Evaluation (RME), Loss Control Action Plan, training opportunities, and our annual Risk Management Awards. Ad hoc methods include the provision of risk management consulting services, review of incident reports and underwriting report submissions, provision of white papers, legal review and assistance, and so on. Loss analysis and trends are integral parts of the systematic methods. Since the RME is member-specific, analysis of individual losses is provided to give greater clarity and focus to areas of liability or worker safety that are most in need of attention.
In some instances, it may be appropriate for the Authority to actively intervene in the member's risk management efforts, or even require the member to address serious operational issues through a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). For any member that was unsuccessful in completing the PIP, recommendations may be made to the Executive Committee to endorse the Memorandum of Coverage excluding coverage for activities or conditions of the member deemed to impose unreasonable risk on the Authority. This may include the imposition of specific copayments, deductibles, coverage limitations, or program participation cancellation.
When every effort fails to improve the performance of a member, the Authority's Joint Powers Agreement has a mechanism by which to cancel member participation in either a program or the pool. The primary interest in cancelling a member stems from a common belief that the other members will pay more if poor-performing members are allowed to remain in the pool. Also of concern is the pool's perceived image and the members' desire to have well-managed and respected members participating.
|
|
34. Under the new annual contribution formula, will small members end up subsidizing large members or vice versa?
|
| |
No. Small members will not subsidize large members, and large members will not subsidize small members. Variable credibility weighting is specifically included within the new annual contribution formula to ensure that rough equity is achieved on a long-term basis, and that each member receives a fair estimate of cost allocation using their relative share of both experience and exposure.
|
|
35. Should interest be charged to members on their retrospective deposit balances?
|
| |
Members with significant deferred balances are benefiting to a larger degree than members with smaller balances. Charging interest is one way to address this question of relative fairness, with the added benefit of supplementing the Authority’s interest income from the investment portfolio. This option may also serve as an effective incentive for early re-payment of outstanding balances. The formula review ad hoc committee and Executive Committee will continue to analyze this concept in the coming months.
|
|
36. Would a more simple approach to changing the formula be equally as effective at addressing the core problems, such as removing the caps on the primary deposit or eliminating the rolling retro?
|
| |
The ad hoc committee considered these options, however, it was determined that completely removing the caps would result in unwanted excess volatility at the member level. By keeping the caps in place yet widening them, and shifting them upward, an effective balance was reached between preventing excess volatility, attaining aggregate funding sufficiency, and allowing the claims experience of individual members to impact their cost.
In light of the difficult economic environment, the ad hoc committee decided that all retrospective deposits due to the Authority should be temporarily suspended until the annual contribution reaches target funding levels over the next three to five years, at which time repayment of retrospective deposits should resume. It is anticipated that the combination of members paying a higher annual contribution under the new formula, and simultaneously being required to pay down aggregate retrospective balances would be too heavy of a burden, particularly given the severity of fiscal challenges which many members are facing.
In addition, a simple approach does not address other important issues that were uncovered through the modeling and analysis conducted by the ad hoc committee, particularly the fairness of the old cost allocation model as it relates to its exclusion of losses in the second layer, and its application of equal credibility weighting to all members despite their non-homogeneous payrolls.
|
