Insurance Match Workgroup Conference Call
Meeting Minutes

Decisions/Discussion

1. There were no questions/comments on the May 16 Workgroup conference call minutes.
2. The Workgroup meeting will be held August 17 and 18 in Bethesda, MD. OCSE requested that states stay until 3 PM on Friday, August 18 and stated OCSE will pay for an additional night's lodging for states unable to obtain transportation home on Friday evening. Workgroup members were tasked to notify Joan O'Connor or Sherri Grigsby if they need a hotel room on Friday, August 18.
3. Identified insurance industry representatives invited to participate on the Workgroup and stated that State Farm, Amica, American Insurance Association (AIA), and Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCIAA) have agreed to participate. Insurer participation on Workgroup conference calls will begin on July 11, 2006.
4. Updates to the consensus items are recorded in the accompanying consensus item list. Updates were made to A1.4, A1.5, and A2.2.
5. The Workgroup reached consensus that a matrix of state laws and requirements for intercepting insurance claims, payments and settlements (e.g., workers' compensation and personal injury) should be made available to all states.
6. The representative from Iowa shared that she polled Region VII states to obtain information about state specific insurance match processes. A recommendation was made for the other states on the Workgroup to poll states in their region to obtain similar information.
7. The Workgroup discussed obtaining information directly from insurers and the level of effort required for them to provide updates to claim status and claim type indicators (including life insurance). Some states noted verification of claims data is important while other states stated once they receive a match, they issue the appropriate forms to the insurer to intercept the claim, without verifying if the claim is open. The Workgroup agreed it would be beneficial for insurers to provide updates on claim status.
8. The Workgroup discussed the following items regarding the lifecycle of the match:




Filtering Data from Insurers to States—States agreed that EXACT duplicates, rather than updates, should be filtered. States reached consensus regarding updates to claim information and stated that both the updated information regarding the claim and an update indicator should be provided to states.

States also agreed that the addresses returned by the insurer should not be scrubbed. OCSE noted that when data is returned to states via the Federal Case Registry, commercial software is used to ensure addresses conform to the postal standard format. The Workgroup did not reach consensus whether OCSE should continue this practice for the insurance match initiative.

Insurers Sending New versus Older Claims Data—States indicated they would like to receive recent open claims and recent was defined as claims filed within six to twelve months of the match.

Using Matched Data for Locate—States did not reach consensus whether they would use the matched data for locate purposes, but noted that the obligor must be delinquent in his/her child support obligation to be eligible for the match.

Types of Insurance Claims Reported by Insurers—In addition to casualty claims, states would like to receive matches on other claims filed by individuals who owe past-due child support (e.g., life insurance, property claims, auto claims). States would receive the matched data and make the decision at the state level whether to take an action to intercept the insurance settlement. States noted they would only be interested in the other types of claims if a "Claim Type" was returned with the match.

Standardization of Freeze/Seize Lien/Levy Process—Many states indicated the forms used to intercept insurance settlements are unique to their state. Several states noted they use the Income Withholding Order (IWO) to intercept workers' compensation payments. The Workgroup will discuss standardization on future conference calls.

Action Items

1. Questions for insurers:
1. What percentage of claims result in payments?
2. What percentage of claims that result in payments are greater than $500?
3. Are insurers able to provide information that would increase automation for the verification process?
4. What level of detail can insurers provide on claims (e.g., loss of crop, property, etc)?
5. Are insurers able to provide their EIN as a data element returned in the matc
2. New York to send statistics regarding their match with State Farm.
3. States to send copy of forms used for their insurance claim lien/levy process.
4. Confirm whether insurers include life insurance information with the information they currently report to ISO.
5. New York and Iowa to provide a list of insurance claims types.
6. Iowa to send the Region VII state poll and results to OCSE.
7. Draft and distribute meeting minutes from today's conference call to Workgroup prior to next conference call