Insurance Match Workgroup Conference Call
Meeting Minutes

Decisions/Discussion

1. A question was raised concerning the minutes from the July 11^th Workgroup conference call regarding the insurance industry moving away from using Social Security numbers. The Workgroup agreed to further address the comment during the upcoming Workgroup meeting in August.
2. A question regarding State Workgroup representation and overall participation in a centralized insurance match was raised by an insurance industry representative. It was noted that OCSE anticipates most states will participate in a centralized insurance match and the state participants on the Workgroup represent at least one state from each of the ten regions. It was also noted that the state representatives on the Workgroup have been charged to update other states in their region with Workgroup progress and to solicit input from the other states.
3. OCSE provided an update on the August Workgroup meeting and noted that rooms are reserved; however, reservations cannot be made yet. Insurers should be able to contact the hotel to make reservations within two weeks. OCSE will notify insurers as soon as they are able to make reservations. Workgroup members who have not submitted a registration form to Joan O'Connor were reminded to please send the form as soon as possible; we are attempting to confirm the number of participants for the Workgroup meeting.
4. The following items were discussed regarding the consensus items:
1. Arrears Threshold for State Submittal for Insurance Match – An insurance industry representative expressed concern about a minimal arrears threshold for insurance match submittal noting insurers may become overwhelmed by the number of insurance intercept requests from state child support enforcement agencies. States noted that arrears may increase from the time a match occurs and when the state issues the document to intercept the insurance claim. OCSE noted the average arrearage on a child support case is significantly higher than the minimal threshold addressed in the consensus items. OCSE will provide arrearage statistics at the August Workgroup meeting.
2. Data Elements (States to OCSE) – OCSE will address the proposed data elements states will submit to OCSE for the purpose of the insurance match with the Federal Offset Coordinators on an upcoming monthly Federal Offset conference call.
3. Data Elements to Insurers – A recommendation was made to require the address field when sending the information to insurers or their agents for matching.
4. Data Elements from Insurers – The Workgroup has not addressed which data elements should be optional versus required. Data elements will be discussed in more detail during the August Workgroup meeting.
• Date of Birth – The Workgroup discussed how frequently insurers have a date of birth. It was noted there is a greater possibility that the insurer will have the date of birth in a workers' compensation claim. It was also noted that the insurer would have the date of birth in a bodily injury claim; however, the information may not be in the automated system. ISO noted the date of birth is reported in the Claim Search System on approximately 70% of the claims.
• Number of Data Elements – It was noted that the number of data elements that states would like to receive from insurers (states identified 19 data elements) is more than twice as many as what insurers are required to provide through the Massachusetts look-up process. However if the match is automated this may save time from manually exchanging of these items between states as part of the intercept process.
• Potential Amount of Claim – Insurers noted they would not be able to provide the potential amount of an insurance claim as that would require the insurer to disclose the "reserve amount". Insurers stated there would be resistance from the industry to report this information.
• Insurer EIN – Insurers stated this would be difficult to provide.
• Date of Loss – A recommendation was made to create two data elements; one for Date of Loss and the other for Date of Claim.
• Beneficiary Indicatory – Insurers noted that this field would only pertain to life insurance companies.
• Settlement Company Information – Insurers stated this information may not be necessary and we will discuss during the August Workgroup meeting.
5. Match Criteria – A state noted that the current insurance match process includes matching on name/SSN, name/date of birth and name/address, and that the match is successfully providing data to states. An insurance industry representative noted that the ability to match exactly will be more difficult as insurers move away from collecting or storing any portion of the SSN in their automated system. The representative also shared a Florida Supreme Court decision related to providing SSNs for workers' compensation claims. An individual applying for workers' compensation benefits in Florida refused to provide their SSN and individual was denied benefits. The case reached the Florida Supreme Court and the court ruled in favor of the individual refusing to provide their SSN.
6. Frequency of Matching with Insurers – An insurance industry representative encouraged daily matching and noted some claims are settled very quickly; even on the same day the claim is filed.
5. Insurers indicated the percent of claims that result in payment is unknown; however, the insurers would attempt to obtain statistics.
6. Insurers were not able to provide an average amount of time to settle a claim and stated that the time varies based on the type of claim. The timeframe may range from one day to several years. An insurance industry representative noted thirty days could be used as an estimate for the average amount of time to settle a claim.
7. Insurers stated there are claims management companies that are used by smaller insurers which may be similar to data processors or transmitters used by financial institutions. An insurance industry representative also noted that there is an emerging trend for insurers to outsource their IT operations.
8. The Workgroup discussed the Massachusetts look-up process for insurers. An insurer noted that their handlers are checking the Massachusetts website twice; once when the claim is filed and again prior to paying the claim. It was noted that automating the match process would be difficult if insurers check twice prior to paying a claim. Massachusetts clarified that insurers are only required to use the look-up once; no more than ten days prior to paying a claim. It was also noted that uniformity and standardization among states for the insurance match process is vitally important to insurers as this would reduce the impact on, and cost to, insurers.

Action Items

1. Add a list of acronyms to the binder for the Insurance Match Workgroup meeting.
2. OCSE will provide arrearage statistics at the Workgroup meeting.