Insurance Match Workgroup Conference Call
Meeting Minutes

Decisions/Discussion

1. Workgroup members were asked if there were comments and/or questions regarding the minutes from the May 2, 2006 Workgroup Conference Call. No comments or questions were received.
2. OCSE notified the Workgroup that one of the Workgroup members has a conflict with the current bi-weekly conference call schedule and recommended rescheduling the Workgroup conference calls from every-other Tuesday to every-other Thursday beginning June 1 (subsequent calls would be June 15, June 29, July 13, July 27, August 10). The time of the call would remain, to begin at 1:30 pm ET. OCSE requested that Workgroup members notify OCSE by May 17 if there is a conflict with rescheduling the calls.
3. The Workgroup discussed the structure for today's conference call and subsequent calls. Per industry standards and protocol gathering requirements is the first step in the analysis of alternatives for implementing the Insurance Match at the Federal level. The Workgroup will identify requirements by first focusing on what is involved for implementing the match, including what information/data States would like to send to OCSE and ultimately receive from insurers by following the lifecycle of a match. After the Workgroup identifies and reviews the "what is needed", the next steps will be to analyze implementation alternatives and identify the alternatives that best meet the needs identified in the requirements gathering sessions (the "how to do it")
4. The Workgroup discussed the following stages in the lifecycle of the match.

The following items were discussed related to states submitting obligors to OCSE for the Insurance Match:

• Potential Data elements that states would provide to OCSE
1. Obligor Name
2. Obligor SSN
3. Obligor Date of Birth
4. Obligor Address
5. Case ID
6. Member ID
7. County ID
8. Arrears Balance
• Arrears threshold for Submittal: The Workgroup reached a consensus that the threshold should be minimal, similar to the submittal threshold for MSFIDM. States retain the ability to set a higher threshold for insurance matching.
• Address Scrubbing: Should OCSE scrub the state-provided address? The purpose of the address scrubbing would be to standardize the way the address is submitted for matching purposes. The Workgroup did not reach consensus on address scrubbing and agreed to revisit the topic on a future conference call.
• Date of Birth: Do states want OCSE to obtain a date of birth for an obligor if the state did not or cannot provide one? The Workgroup reached consensus that OCSE would obtain the date of birth if not provided by the state.
• Frequency of State Updates to OCSE: Most Workgroup states indicated that they update the information to OCSE on at least a weekly basis. The Workgroup reached a consensus for states to continue their current Federal Offset update process when submitting obligors for insurance matching.

The following items were discussed related to OCSE receiving data from states for the Insurance Match.

• SSN Verification will not be necessary, and edits can be done similar to MSFIDM (duplicate SSNs are deleted).
• Family Violence Indicator, OCSE should still send information back to states and give states the discretion to decide where to go from there (does Policy need to be involved in final decision?).
• Multiple SSNs for One Obligor. Will OCSE accept multiple SSNs? No decision was reached.

The following items were discussed related to OCSE coordinating with insures or their agents to receive match information.

5. Frequency of Matching with Insurers (or their agents): Currently the Child Support Lien Network (CSLN) matches against the Insurance Service Office (ISO) on a daily basis. The Workgroup reached a consensus that matching with insurers or their agents should occur daily. States reminded the Workgroup to consider the burden on individual insurers to match daily.
6. Potential Data Elements Provided by OCSE to States:
1. Obligor Name
   Obligor DOB
   Obligor SSN
   Obligor Address
   Date of Loss (the date the claim was opened)
   Insurance Company Name
   Insurance Company Office
   Insurance Company Address
   Insurance Company Contact Information (name, phone number, e-mail address)
   Claim Number
   Match Code (match on name/SSN, name/DOB, name/address)
   Open/Closed Indicator*
   Potential Amount of Claim*
   Lump Sum vs. Periodic Indicator*
   Attorney of Record (name, phone number, address)
   Periodic Updates on Claim from OCSE to States
   - Date of Settlement
   - Amount of Claim

"*" indicates items States would like verified prior to sending a notice to the insurer to intercept the claim.
7. Automation: States indicated that they would like to receive information regarding claim verification in an automated fashion (e.g., open/closed indicator).
8. Frequency of Matches to States: The Workgroup reached a consensus that OCSE will return matched information to states as soon as possible (needs further refinement).
9. A recommendation was made to extend the bi-weekly conference call to one hour and thirty minutes. There were no objections to extending the call from 1:30-3:00 pm ET.

State Questions/Comments

1. The average length of time to settle a claim was unknown and it was noted that the "point of claim" to "point of settlement" could take up to as long as 1-2 years, depending on settlement with a company, or litigation. States also noted that freezing the claim quickly is vital to eventually obtaining money from the settlement.
2. The CSLN Quality Assurance/verification process was discussed and it was noted that CSLN releases match files to member states daily, based on a file CSLN receives from states at the beginning of each month. In Pennsylvania, when CSLN identifies a new match, within 24 hours CSLN sends an initial freeze request to the insurer and NCP. Pennsylvania stated that sometimes the matches that are returned by CSLN are closed claims. Pennsylvania noted that resources are sometimes spent on cases that are closed even though they are eventually reimbursed by CSLN for the cost of the match. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania will discuss off line.

Action Items

1. Finalize bi-weekly Insurance Match Workgroup conference call schedule and send e-mail to Workgroup confirming dates for future conference calls.
2. Draft and distribute meeting minutes from today's conference call to Workgroup prior to next conference call.
3. Agenda for next call