Insurance Match Workgroup Conference Call
Meeting Minutes

Decisions/Discussion

1. The August, 2006 conference call minutes were reviewed and approved.
2. The Workgroup discussed the Implementation Alternatives and the Evaluation Criteria matrix.

After the August 17-18, 2006 Workgroup meeting, Workgroup members received a matrix containing evaluation criteria for six implementation alternatives, and were asked to evaluate/rank each of the alternatives by assigning a number value to the criteria ranging from '1' to represent 'Low' and '5' to represent 'High'. OCSE received evaluations from four insurers and 13 of the 15 States on the Workgroup. Once received, OCSE added the values assigned to each of the criteria and divided by the number of responses received to determine an average for each implementation alternative.

OCSE added the following assumptions to the matrix after sending it to the Workgroup based on questions/comments received from Workgroup members:

• Assumption #3 – OCSE will explore coordinating a data match process with insurers that do not report to ISO (self-insurers such as the Department of Labor, Boeing, Starbucks, etc.), and return matches directly to State Child Support Enforcement Agencies participating in the OCSE centralized insurance match.
• Assumption #4 – OCSE will perform automated quality control on matches that are returned from insurers or their agents prior to returning the matches to States.

It was noted that the "Promotes Efficiency" column was expanded to address all potential entities involved in a centralized insurance match, including insurers, States, OCSE, and ISO.

A concern was raised that not all insurers or all States have had an opportunity to evaluate the implementation alternatives and the rankings may change based on additional State and insurer input. OCSE noted that the evaluations/rankings are one of many tools that will be used to determine which alternative will be selected to implement the centralized insurance match.

A suggestion was made to distribute the results of the Evaluation rankings to all members of the Insurance Match Workgroup. OCSE agreed to consider that option, but stated that the numbers are a guide that OCSE will use in the analyzing the best possible alternative. In other words, the rankings are in no way the end-all for which alternative will be implemented.

3. AIA clarified that National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), with approximately 1,400 member companies, is the largest insurance association by market share. PCIAA and AIA are primarily lobbying associations with about 1,000 and 400 members respectively.
4. State Farm reiterated that insurers would not be concerned with which entity, CSLN or OCSE, conducted the match with ISO because the process would be transparent to the insurer. The workgroup was queried to why insurers would be concerned about anything that would happen post-reporting claims to ISO Claim Search.
5. The Workgroup discussed additional outreach to the insurance industry.
1. AIA will present information gathered thus far to insurers in October. OCSE offered to assist with outreach material.
2. OCSE is scheduled to meet with the Department of Labor to discuss the insurance match, and will provide an update to the Workgroup.
6. All material (meeting presentations, conference call minutes, legislation, etc) will be available to Workgroup members on the Insurance Workplace. Instructions for Workplace navigation will be provided.
7. OCSE will distribute the meeting summary from the Workgroup meeting to Workgroup members after the document has been review and approved by appropriate OCSE staff.

Action Items

1. OCSE will review notes captured during the Workgroup meeting to identify pros and cons that are associated with each alternative, and will distribute to the Workgroup for review and comment.
2. OCSE will finalize insurer outreach material.