draft pending adoption - naic. · pdf filedraft pending adoption ... a final decision on that...

Draft Pending Adoption

© 2017 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

Date: 4/18/17 Attachment One

Market Information Systems (D) Task Force Denver, Colorado

April 8, 2017 The Market Information Systems (D) Task Force met in Denver, CO, April 8, 2017. The following Task Force members participated: Mike Kreidler, Chair, and John Haworth (WA); Lori K. Wing-Heier, Vice Chair, and Chris Murray (AK); Dave Jones represented by Pam O’Connell (CA); Marguerite Salazar represented by Damion Hughes (CO); Stephen C. Taylor represented by Sharon Shipp (DC); Trinidad Navarro represented by Frank Pyle (DE); Jennifer Hammer represented by Michael P. Rohan (IL); Ken Selzer represented by Stacy Rinehart (KS); Brian Maynard represented by Russ Hamblen (KY); James J. Donelon represented by Jeff Zewe (LA); Chlora Lindley-Myers represented by Jim Mealer (MO); Roger A. Sevigny represented by John Elias (NH); Richard J. Badolato represented by Gale Simon (NJ); Jillian Froment represented by Angela Dingus (OH); John D. Doak represented by Brian Gabbert (OK); David Mattax represented by Ignatius Wheeler (TX); and Todd E. Kiser represented by Randy Overstreet (UT). 1. Adopted its 2016 Fall National Meeting Minutes Ms. Dingus made a motion, seconded by Mr. Pyle, to adopt the Task Force’s Dec. 10, 2016, minutes (see NAIC Proceedings – Fall 2016, Market Information Systems (D) Task Force). The motion passed unanimously.

2. Adopted the Report of the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group

Mr. Haworth reported that the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group met March 21via conference call in regulator-to-regulator session pursuant to paragraph 3 (specific companies, entities or individuals) and paragraph 6 (consultations with NAIC staff) of the NAIC Policy Statement on Open Meetings. During the call, the Working Group adopted recommendations to move forward to application development for: 1) Uniform System Enhancement Request (USER) form 10059: Market Analysis Review System (MARS) – improve iSite+ navigation; and 2) USER form 10076: Market Conduct Annual Statement (MCAS) Market Analysis Prioritization Tool (MAPT) – add non-standard interrogatory data to auto and homeowners. The Working Group also adopted a recommendation to move forward to detailed analysis for USER form 10075: MAPT – include current year and previous two years of Overall Score, National Score and State Score, as well as main component and sub-component scores. Mr. Haworth said the Working Group also discussed and requested additional detailed analysis for: 1) USER form 10066: MARS – merge Level 1 and Level 2; and 2) USER form 10074: MARS – allow for comments to be added to a Level 1 review after it has been approved. Director Wing-Heier made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hamblen, to adopt the report of the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group (Attachment One). The motion passed unanimously. 3. Reviewed Outstanding USER Forms Commissioner Kreidler noted that the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group’s charge is to serve as the business partner to review and prioritize submitted USER forms (Attachment Two) to ensure an efficient use of available NAIC staffing and resources. Ginny Ewing (NAIC) said USER Form 10055 was completed and released to production in late February. The request was to isolate major medical data from the health lines of business in the MAPT. She said USER Form 10059 is in application development based on the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group recommendation to move forward to application development on March 21.

Ms. Ewing said the remaining portion of USER Form 10063 is to complete the analysis of the quality of the Central Registration Depository (CRD) numbers that the NAIC receives with the state producer data. She said the CRD is the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency’s (FINRA) unique identifier for brokers, noting that the initial review indicated that the CRD numbers’ quality is not very good. She said NAIC staff will continue to work with FINRA to make the data-sharing process more efficient.



Ms. Ewing said USER form 10065 is to provide functionality for the states to access and download data from NAIC systems. She noted that this has been designated as the No. 1 priority for business analysis. She said NAIC staff have begun interviewing the states on their requirements for accessing and downloading data from the NAIC databases. The requirement gathering will include both Market Information Systems (MIS) data and financial data.

Ms. Ewing said USER form 10071 is to redesign and enhance iSite+ reports by using interactive data visualization and adding data analytics. She said this request was designated as the third priority for business analysis. She said NAIC staff have been working on business intelligence and data analytics for all iSite+ data, noting that some NAIC staff members who work with MIS data are participating in a business intelligence tool pilot project. Ms. Ewing said there are 12 requests pending business analyst availability, which is down from the 15 reported at the 2016 Fall National Meeting. 4. Heard a Presentation on Recommendations for Making Public Data More Meaningful and Widely Available

Commissioner Kreidler reminded the Task Force that one of the funded consumer representatives provided a review of the Consumer Information Source (CIS) during the 2016 Fall National Meeting. He said this is the NAIC’s primary tool for providing consumers access to insurance company information, which is available via the NAIC website. He said that, based on the feedback the Task Force heard, CIS has room for improvement. He asked Ms. Ewing for an update. Ms. Ewing reported that a project has been proposed for the NAIC’s 2018 budget. She said it includes funds for user experience/user interface consulting assistance. She said the NAIC plans to engage subject-matter experts composed of regulators, the industry and consumers to provide input into the design. She said the NAIC is also hoping to leverage a business intelligence tool that is currently being piloted. A final decision on that tool should be made in June. Commissioner Kreidler asked Ms. Ewing to remind the Task Force of what type of information is currently publicly available. Ms. Ewing noted that, through CIS, consumers have access to aggregate closed confirmed consumer complaint data, companies’ key financial statement data in the Financial Profile, receivership data, licensing information and have links to states’ market conduct exams and enforcement action websites. Additionally, other consumer tools are available via the NAIC website, including Insure U, the Life Insurance Policy Locator Service, the Online Fraud Reporting Service and aggregate Market Conduct Annual Statement data. She noted that suggestions from previous Task Force discussions have included group-wide complaint data (in addition to legal entity as currently displayed), unconfirmed complaints, access to the complaint reports (redacted as appropriate), and rate and form data. Brendan Bridgeland (Center for Insurance Research—CIR) said the CIS used to provide the company key pages from their annual financial statements. Those are no longer offered, yet they were helpful for consumers. He said that if the key pages cannot be made available, he suggested that the companies’ Management Discussion and Analysis pages be made available on the CIS. This information is a high-level overview and explanation of the company’s financial reporting and puts the Financial Profile in context. It is especially helpful if the company’s annual report is not publicly available. Director Wing-Heier noted that Commissioner Laura Cali Robison (OR) will be giving a presentation to the Health Insurance and Managed Care (B) Committee regarding the transparency of health insurance company filings. She suggested that the presentation may be useful for the Task Force. Birny Birnbaum (Center for Economic Justice—CEJ) encouraged the Task Force to contact users of the CIS to determine the scope and type of information that would be helpful to them. As an example, he said consumers could use a more readable and understandable way of assessing a company’s financial strength and reliability that could be legible on a mobile device. Dave Snyder (Property Casualty Insurers Association of America—PCI) asked that the industry be included in these discussions to be certain that confidentiality concerns are considered. He noted that some data can be misunderstood without appropriate context and explanation. 5. Discussed Complaint Reconciliation Process Commissioner Kreidler said that attached to the agenda was the Complaint Reconciliation Process adopted by Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs (D) Committee in 2011. Ms. Ewing said that the Complaint Reconciliation Process document was an outcome of a 2006 charge to “…monitor and evaluate the states’ accurate submission of data and full participation in the Complaint Database system. As part of this effort, consider issues related to accuracy of the complaint



data which will include the development of uniform standards for the reconciliation of complaint data between companies and state departments…” She said there has been a lot of activity related to the accurate submission of complaint data and full participation by all jurisdictions. She noted that the five-year Complaint Handling and Reporting Standards project, which converted all states to the new Complaint Database System (CDS) code structure, was completed in 2016. She said NAIC staff are currently compiling the third year of MIS Data Analysis Metrics results, which measures the timeliness, completeness and accuracy of CDS and other MIS data. These results reflect that the vast majority of the states submit complaint data to the NAIC at least monthly. In addition, the metrics are identifying potential accuracy issues that regulators can review and correct, as necessary. Ms. Ewing noted that the Complaint Reconciliation Process document outlines minimum reconciliation data point recommendations, including insurance department file number, company name, company code, insured name, type of coverage, complainant name and reason for complaint. Additionally, it offers two implementation options for the states to consider. The first option is a state-specific option, in which each state or their state back-office system vendor would develop the process directly between the state and the insurance company. The second option is an NAIC centralized system that could be used to help facilitate the reconciliation process. Ms. Ewing said the next logical step seems to be to assess the states’ current reconciliation processes. In 2011, as indicated in the document, most states did not have a complaint reconciliation process. She said NAIC staff recommend a state survey to determine what complaint reconciliation processes have been implemented; and, for jurisdictions that have not done so yet, assess the interest in an NAIC centralized or a State Based Systems (SBS) reconciliation process. Commissioner Kreidler said Washington is not an SBS state and has its own complaint reconciliation process. He agreed that a survey is the right first step. Ms. Rinehart also agreed with conducting a survey. She noted that Kansas reconciles complaints, but it is a manual and time-consuming process. She suggested that the industry also be included in the complaint reconciliation discussions. She also indicated that training would be helpful for consumer assistance departments. Mr. Hamblen said that there needs to be greater consistency in what is a confirmed complaint and what is a non-confirmed complaint. Mr. Birnbaum expressed support for the project and survey, noting that consumers, regulators and the industry all have an interest in accurate complaint information. Marty Mitchell (America’s Health Insurance Plans—AHIP) expressed concern that the complaint reconciliation project is moving back to the first step of seven years ago. He noted that it is important to have a complaint reconciliation process and suggested that this may be made a part of the Voluntary Market Regulation Certification Program. 6. Discussed Other Matters Director Wing-Heier said Alaska has become aware that some producers may have had their licenses renewed, even though they had not completed the continuing education (CE) requirements, because SBS erroneously indicated that the producers’ CE requirements had been met. Mr. Murray said that after attempts to reach SBS support staff, Alaska was informed that SBS was not consistently resetting the annual CE requirements for producers. In Alaska, it appeared that 758 licensees had not been reset out of about 4,000 domestic licensees. He said that for those non-reset producers, the National Insurance Producer Registry (NIPR) was indicating that those producers’ CE requirements were met even if they were not, so this has had a multistate impact. He said he did not know if this has happened only in Alaska or for how long it has been happening. Editor’s note: after further investigation, it was determined that this issue was limited to only 60 licensees, rather than 758. The issue seems to be isolated to Alaska and no licensee was able to renew without the required CE. Having no further business, the Market Information Systems (D) Task Force adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2017\Spring\TF\MIS\01-04-08MISTFmin.docx

Attachment Two Market Information Systems (D) Task Force

8/6/17


Conference Calls

MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (D) WORKING GROUP July 13, 2017 / April 26, 2017

Summary Report The Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group met July 13 and April 26. The meeting was held in regulator-to-regulator session pursuant to paragraph 3 (specific companies, entities or individuals) and paragraph 6 (consultation with NAIC staff) of the NAIC Policy Statement on Open Meetings. During this meeting, the Working Group: 1. Reviewed the Market Information Systems (MIS) Data Analysis Metrics results.

2. Considered adoption of recommendations for the following Uniform System Enhancement Request (USER) forms:

• 10066: Market Analysis Review System (MARS) – Merge MARS Level 1 and Level 2. Result: Adopted motion to recommend that the Market Analysis Procedures (D) Working Group consider adding a Merged review that merges Level 1 and Level 2 questions (the analyst would be able to pick and choose which questions to address) and eliminating Level 2.

• 10074: MARS – Allow for comments to be added to a Level 1 review after it has been approved. Result: Adopted motion to move forward to application development.

• 10077: Market Analysis Prioritization Tool (MAPT) – All the user to select ‘all policy’ types instead of running 18 different reports. Result: Adopted recommendation to move forward to detailed analysis.

• 10078: MARS – Add links for reviewer. Result: Adopted recommendation to move forward to detailed analysis.

• 10069B: Complaint Database System (CDS – Enhance complaint codes for lender based insurance and pet insurance. Result: Adopted recommendation to move forward to detailed analysis.

3. Reviewed and prioritized the outstanding Uniform System Enhancement Request (USER) forms. W:\National Meetings\2017\Summer\TF\MIS\MISRD Summary.docx

Attachment Three Market Information Systems (D) Task Force

August 6, 2017


NAIC Market Information Systems Data Analysis Summary

August 6, 2017 Objective It is essential that the systems on which insurance consumers and state insurance regulators depend use reliable data. These systems include, but are not limited to, the Consumer Information Source (CIS), Market Analysis Prioritization Tool (MAPT), Market Analysis Profile (MAP) and Market Analysis Review System (MARS). In addition to these National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) systems, many state systems and processes use NAIC Market Information System (MIS) data. Therefore, MIS data quality is critical. The MIS data analysis metrics were developed at the direction of the Market Information Systems (D) Task Force to identify potential data quality issues in the NAIC MIS database. For each system, three aspects of data quality are considered: 1) completeness; 2) timeliness; and 3) accuracy. Results Note: These symbols indicate the following changes between periods: improvement (); no significant change (–); and decline (). Complaint Database System (CDS) Completeness: C1. Identify errors that prevent submitted complaints from successfully loading to the MIS database.

2016 Results As of 1/9/2017

Transactions

Processed Errors Error Rate

2016 Total 3,508,376 16,608 0.47% 2015 Total 1,251,785 8,373 0.67% 2014 Total 1,237,887 32,356 2.61% –

Timeliness: T1. Identify jurisdictions that have not submitted closed complaints to the NAIC MIS database at least monthly.


# of States That Did Not

Submit Closed Complaints At Least Monthly

# of States That Did Submit Closed Complaints

At Least Monthly

2016 Total 9 43 2015 Total 14 38 – 2014 Total 14 38 –

2016 Results

As of 1/9/2017

# of States Submitting CDS Data Each Month

12 Months

11 Months

10 Months

9 Months

8 Months

7 Months

<7 Months

2016 Total 43 3 2 2 0 0 2 2015 Total 38 3 2 1 3 3 2 2014 Total 38 5 3 2 0 2 2


August 6, 2017


Accuracy: A1. Identify complaints submitted with a confirmed indicator and only a disposition of “Complaint Withdrawn,” “No Action

Requested/Required,” “Question of Fact/Contract Provision/Legal Issue,” “Company Position Substantiated,” “No Jurisdiction” or “Insufficient Information.”

2016/2017 Results As of 7/5/2017

Number of Confirmed Complaints with Only the Following Disposition Codes

Total

Complaint Withdrawn

(Code 1312)

No Action Requested/ Required

(Code 1235)

Question of Fact/ Contract Provision/

Legal Issue

(Code 1290)

Company Position

Substantiated

(Code 1295)

No Jurisdiction

(Code 1300)

Insufficient Information

(Code 1305) Total

Total Number of

All Complaints

%

2017 Q2 536 3,782 3,024 17,005 1,864 350 26,561 364,605 7.28% 2016 359 2,884 2,070 11,763 1,315 248 18,639 255,000 7.31% N/A 2015 393 N/A N/A 16,764 N/A N/A N/A 218,315 N/A N/A 2014 285 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 200,305 – –

*2015 results only evaluated dispositions Complaint Withdrawn and Company Position Substantiated. 2014 results only evaluated Complaint Withdrawn.

A2. Identify complaints submitted for lines of business on companies that have no premium written for those lines of

business on the financial annual statement. 2016/2017 Results

As of 7/5/2017

# of Complaints with No

State Level Premium

# of Complaints with No

National Level Premium

Total Number of Complaints

% of No State Level

Premium Complaints to

Total Complaints

% of No National Level

Premium Complaints to

Total Complaints

2017 Q2 Total 16,866 9,493 364,605 4.63% 2.60% 2016 Total 11,919 6,964 255,000 4.67% 2.73% 2015 Total 10,273 5,816 240,443 4.27% 2.42% –

Market Action Tracking System (MATS) Completeness: C1. Identify jurisdictions that did not close an exam in previous year but reported they completed exams in the NAIC’s

corresponding year’s Insurance Department Resources Report (IDRR). 2016 Results

As of 7/5/2017

Exams Closed

in MATS

Closed Exams

Reported in IDRR

Difference

Entities in Exams Closed

in MATS

Entities in Exams Closed

in IDRR Difference

2016 Total 565 585 -20 670 827 -157 2015 Total 590 880 -290 N/A N/A N/A 2014 Total 490 771 -281 N/A N/A N/A 2013 Total 667 806 -139 – N/A N/A N/A


August 6, 2017


Timeliness: T1. Identify open actions with inactive values in MATS attributes (e.g. status, action type, line of line of business).


Actions with Inactive Values

Action Type Area of Scrutiny Line of Business Status Tier 1 Trigger Total

2017 Q2 Total 46 185 96 55 19 401 2016 Total 90 185 96 55 73 499 2015 Total* N/A N/A N/A 166 N/A N/A 2014 Total* N/A N/A N/A 243 N/A N/A –

*2015 and 2014 data metrics only evaluated inactive statuses. T2. Identify actions with an estimated start date that has passed more than 30 days ago, and the status is “Called Not

Begun.” 2017 Results

As of 7/5/2017

Actions in Called Not Begun Status with

Estimated Start Date > 30 Days

Total Actions in Called Not Begun Status

% Actions in Called Not Begun Status w/

Estimated Start > 30 Days to Total Called Not Begun

Status

2017 Q2 Total 162 200 81.00% 2016 Total 190 251 75.70% 2015 Total 194 270 71.85% 2014 Total 136 282 48.23% –

T3. Identify actions with a status of “In Settlement” for more than 180 days.


Actions in In

Settlement Status > 180 Days

Total Actions in In Settlement Status

% Actions in In Settlement > 180 Days to

Total In Settlement

2017 Q2 Total 19 44 43.18% 2016 Total 18 43 41.86%

2015 Total 15 33 45.45% – 2014 Total 6 N/A N/A –

T4. Identify actions with a status of “In Progress” for more than 18 months.


Actions in In Progress

Status > 18 Months Total Actions in In Progress Status

% In Progress Actions > 18 Months to Total In

Progress

2017 Q2 Total 95 618 15.37%

2016 Total 108 562 19.22%

2015 Total 163 416 39.18% N/A 2014 Total 0 N/A N/A –


August 6, 2017


T5. Identify actions with a status of “Work Concluded” for more than 120 days. 2017 Results

As of 7/5/2017

Actions in Work

Concluded Status > 120 Days

Total Actions in Work Concluded Status

% Actions Work Concluded > 120 Days to Total Work Concluded

2017 Q2 Total 23 73 31.51%

2016 Total 26 55 47.27%

2015 Total 53 74 71.62% – 2014 Total 27 N/A N/A –

T6. Identify actions with a status of “Anticipated” for more than 120 days.


Actions in Anticipated

Status > 120 Days Total Actions in Anticipated Status

% Actions Anticipated > 120 Days to Anticipated

2017 Q2 Total 95 122 77.87%

2016 Total 122 144 84.72% – T7. Identify actions with a status of “Suspended” for more than 120 days.


Actions in Suspended

Status > 120 Days Total Actions in Suspended Status

% Actions Suspended > 120 Days to Suspended

2017 Q2 Total 162 165 98.18% 2016 Total 142 175 81.14% –

Accuracy: Note: No metrics have been defined to measure MATS data accuracy. Market Analysis Review System (MARS) Completeness: C1. Identify jurisdictions that have not completed a Level 1 review in the past year.

2016 Results As of 2/10/2017

# of States That Did Not Complete

a Level 1 Review in Year

2016 Total 7 2015 Total 9 2014 Total 10 –


August 6, 2017


C2. Identify Level 1 reviews with a disposition of “Level 2 analysis scheduled” with no corresponding Level 2 review entered within nine months of the closed date.

2016 Results As of 2/10/2017

Level 1 Reviews with Level 2 Scheduled But

No Level 2 Reviews

Level 1 Reviews with Level 2 Scheduled and

Level 2 Completed

Total Level 1 Reviews with

Level 2 Scheduled

% Level 1 with No Level 2

to Total Level 1

2016 Total 171 266 437 39.13%

2015 Total 107 205 312 34.29%

2014 Total 241 364 605 39.83% – Timeliness: T1. Identify reviews that were started but not completed and deleted after 60 days.

2016 Results As of 2/10/2017

Reviews Created

Reviews Deleted

Total % Reviews Deleted to Reviews Created

2016 Total 1,985 50 2,035 2.46% 2015 Total 1,841 27 1,868 1.45% 2014 Total 1,939 23 1,962 1.17% –

T2. Compare data year to review year for the past year.

2016 Results As of 2/10/2017

Current

Data Year Current

Data Year Total

Reviews % Current

Data Year to Total Reviews

% Not Current Data Year to

Total Reviews

2016 Total 1,928 57 1,985 97.13% 2.87% 2015 Total 1,785 56 1,841 96.96% 3.04% 2014 Total 1,900 39 1,939 97.99% 2.01% –

Accuracy: Note: No metrics have been defined to measure MARS data accuracy.

Market Conduct Annual Statement (MCAS) Completeness: C1. Identify nonparticipating jurisdictions.

2016 Results As of 4/26/2017

# of Nonparticipating

States

2016 Data Year Total 2 2015 Data Year Total 4 – 2014 Data Year Total 4 – 2013 Data Year Total 4 –


August 6, 2017


C2. Identify missing company filings for current MCAS data year. 2016 Data Year Results

As of 7/5/2017

Required to

File Missing Filings

% of Missing Filings to Total Required Filed 45+

Days Late % of 45+ Days Late

Filings to Total Required

2016 Data Year Total 29,645 81 0.27% 7 0.02% 2015 Data Year Total 28,881 97 0.34% 50 0.17% 2014 Data Year Total 28,927 78 0.27% 34 0.12% 2013 Data Year Total 25,433 50 0.20% – 21 0.08% –

Timeliness: T1. Identify filings submitted 45 days after deadline for the current MCAS data year. See C2 results above.

Accuracy: A1. Review validation exceptions for the current MCAS data year.

2016 Data Year Results As of 7/5/2017 Grand Total

All Lines of Business Errors on Original Filings

Current Unresolved

Errors

Total Validations

Run Original Filing Errors/ Total Validations Run

Current Unresolved Errors/

Total Validations Run

2016 Data Year Total 17,626 252 1,719,728 1.02% 0.01% 2015 Data Year Total 13,562 0 1,069,681 1.27% 0.00% 2014 Data Year Total 14,413 640 1,021,478 1.41% 0.06% 2013 Data Year Total 12,904 419 980,237 1.32% – 0.04%

A2. Identify refilings.

2016 Data Year Results As of 7/5/2017 Grand Total

All Lines of Business Amended Filings or Refilings Total Filings % Amended Filings or

Refilings to Total Filings

2016 Data Year Total 5,608 36,676 15.29% 2015 Data Year Total 4,063 34,130 11.90% 2014 Data Year Total 3,543 33,761 10.49% 2013 Data Year Total 6,670 32,592 20.47% –

Regulatory Information Retrieval System (RIRS) Completeness: C1. Identify jurisdictions that have not submitted actions in the past year.

2016 As of 2/19/2017

# of States That Did Not Submit Actions

2016 Total 2 – 2015 Total 2 – 2014 Total 2 –


August 6, 2017


C2. Identify errors that prevent submitted regulatory actions from successfully loading to the NAIC MIS database.

Timeliness: T1. Identify regulatory actions with a date of entry 90 days greater than the date of action.

2016 As of 3/16/2016

Action Entered 90

Days > Action Date Action Entered 90

Days <= Action Date Total Actions

Entered % Actions Entered 90

Days > Action Date

2016 Total 2,616 7,592 10,208 25.63%

2015 Total 6,390 7,182 13,572 47.08%

2014 Total 992 7,765 8,757 11.33% – Accuracy: Note: No metrics have been defined to measure RIRS data accuracy. Conclusions After a thorough review of the analysis results and metrics themselves, the conclusion of the Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group is that for the most part the metrics are performing as desired. There are caveats associated with most of the metrics. In some cases, the results do not necessarily reflect data quality issues. However, overall the metrics are very helpful identifying potential issues. In addition, the majority of NAIC MIS data is of good quality overall. There are several areas where the results improved from the previous year. However, some areas in need of improvement have been identified. The Working Group will continue to review the metrics and will propose recommended changes to improve their accuracy and usefulness.

2015 As of 5/19/2016

Transactions

Processed Errors Error Rate

2016 Total 91,166 5,466 6.00%

2015 Total 84,412 10,959 12.98%

2014 Total 65,148 3,878 5.95% –

Market Information Systems Research and Development (D) Working Group Status of Outstanding USER (Uniform System Enhancement Request) Forms

As of July 14, 2017

Application Key: CDS – Complaints Database System; CIS – Consumer Information Source; MAMS – Market Analysis Market Share;

MATS – Market Action Tracking System; MAPT – Market Analysis Prioritization Tool; MARS – Market Analysis Review System; MCAS – Market Conduct Annual Statement; RIRS – Regulatory Information Retrieval System

© 2017 National Association of Insurance Commissioners Page 1 of 3

User Form #

Application Requestor Request Summary Documents NAIC Recommendation

Phase Target End Date

Status

10043 MARS MAP (D) WG Randy Helder NAIC

Import the average industry loss ratio and expense ratio.

Request

Detailed Analysis

Application Development

TBD Pending USER form 10066.

10047 MAPT MCAS MAPT

Mark Hooker WV

Add option to display data by group code.

Request

Preliminary Analysis

Detailed Analysis

Pending Business Analysis. #4 in backlog.

10051 MATS MISTF State Survey Project Action Plan

#9

Implement MATS Web Service in SBS: Provide SBS Examination module integration for automated

submission of information to MATS.

Request Pending Defer until after SBS 2016.

10053 RIRS MISTF State Survey Project Action Plan

#22

Review of RIRS Codes: Review of RIRS codes by the RIRS Code Review Working Group to clarify definitions for consistent usage and provide recommendations

for revisions.

Request


Detailed Analysis


Note: regulator comments on RIRS coding changes are

posted on StateNet

10054 RIRS MISTF State Survey Project Action Plan

#23

Support for Attachments: Facilitate submission of

supporting documentation. (ex: orders)

USER Form 10021: Allow entry of multiple state regulatory

actions in RIRS. (added 3/20/13)

Request


Detailed Analysis


10059 MARS John Haworth WA

Menu bar added to various Market Regulation

pages/applications in I-SITE

Request

Detailed Analysis


Scheduling development resources.


Ensure company financial statement data file matches company financial statement

PDF.

Request

Detailed Analysis

Detailed Analysis

Pending Business Analysis, as a result of another example where data file and PDF do

not match. #10 in backlog.

Attachment Four


As of July 14, 2017




User Form #



Status

10063 RIRS Tim Mullen NAIC

FINRA Request

Detailed Analysis


TBD Completed steps 1 – 3; step 4 in progress.

10065 CDS, MAPT, MARS,

MATS, RIRS, SPL

Jo LeDuc WI

Provide functionality to access and download data from NAIC

systems.

Request


Detailed Analysis

Interviews with states being scheduled. Preliminary work

with Tableau in progress.

10066 MARS MAP (D) WG Teresa Cooper

NAIC

Merge MARS Level 1 and MARS Level 2.

Request

Detailed Analysis

Detailed Analysis

Recommendation referred to MAP Working Group.

10067 MCAS Teresa Cooper NAIC

Creation of an MCAS Company Ratio Trend Report

Request


Detailed Analysis


10068 MCAS MAPT Teresa Cooper NAIC

Modifications for all lines of business for “All Coverages” or

“Selected Coverages”

Request


Detailed Analysis


10069A CDS Frank Pyle DE

Enhance complaint codes to better meet federal reporting

guidelines and market analysis needs.

Request


Detailed Analysis


10069B CDS Jo LeDuc WI

Enhance complaint codes for lender based insurance and pet

insurance

Request Detailed Analysis

Pending prioritization in Business Analysis backlog.

10071 All Apps Jo LeDuc WI

Redesign and enhance I-SITE reports using interactive data

visualization and add data analytics.



10072 MCAS Cheryl Hawley AZ

Allow companies to submit new filings for prior years once MCAS has been closed for submission

of the current year data.



Attachment Four


As of July 14, 2017




User Form #



Status

10073 CDS Brent Kabler MO

Change calculation of complaint indices based on MIS Research and Development (D) Working

Group recommendations.

Request



Being addressed to correct index calculations.


Allow for comments to be added to a Level 1 review after it has

been approved.

Request

Detailed Analysis


Pending scheduling of application development

resources.

10075 MAPT Cheryl Hawley AZ

Include current year and previous two years of Overall

Score, National Score, and State Score, as well as main

component and sub-component scores.

Request


Detailed Analysis

Pending Business Analysis. #5 in backlog

10077 MAPT Ibrahim Al-Hajiby MN

Allow the user to select ‘all policy’ types instead of running

18 different reports.

Request


Detailed Analysis


10078 MARS Mark Hooker WV

Add links for reviewer. Request


Detailed Analysis


USER Form Cycle


1st

Consideration Detailed Analysis

2nd Consideration Development Testing

Withdrawn/Pending/ Complete

Pending Production

Attachment Four