Monday night, May 17th Sal Curiale and Jim Corcoran, each a former Superintendent of Insurance in New York, hosted a reception at New York’s chi-chi Metropolitan Club, for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. It was a small leadership level event that had a most gracious feel to it—ensured particularly by the charming presence of Wande Curiale and Carolyn Corcoran. Among the leaders were companies C- level brass, some former regulators and a number of fans of the Attorney General from the insurance side who believe that his tenure would affect the insuring environment favorably… For the past several days, before tackling this issue of Insurance Advocate, I have been working on our monthly New York Doctor a sister publication and completing work on an article related to pharmaceutical discoveries and how they are presented and analyzed. It occurred to me that, as we prepare this issue, which will include still more on Producer Compensation Disclosure, that there is no scientific evidence of any kind that this disclosure process will work to any one’s special advantage. In scientific spheres the implementation of new drugs has one really defining moment: it comes when a scientists after revealing all of his research and his discovery, presents the last and concluding slides or powerpoint page demonstrating his results in a Kaplan Meier Curve. This is the curve that distinguishes between a control group and the transformational group affected by, for example, a new drug or treatment. If there is a spread in that interval the scientific discovery may be considered to be leading toward success or failure, or inconclusive results, depending. This is an important measure since drug companies can benefit, consumers can benefit (or be harmed) by the outcome.

Analysts require such a tool to determine which way their recommendations should go. It is my opinion that with all that is at stake in producer compensation disclosure, one of the associations might determine that an ideal way to proceed would be to have a focus group to come up with a series of consumer responses to the proposed format of Reg. 194 and see if, in fact, there is some demonstrable benefit or effect on the buyer and what that is. In this way, at very least, there will be some kind of guideline as to what works and what doesn’t. Some kind of scientific or empirical proof should probably be adduced and studied…As we report in this issue, there are differences in approach among the several associations attacking producer compensation disclosure. One approach has been to institute a lawsuit, an article 78 proceeding to question the department’s authority in implementing Reg. 194. This has been led by IIABNY and has been joined by CIBGNY. PIANY has adopted a different approach; that is, to create a dialogue with NYSID to refine the Reg. and add palliative measures that will control the process better, assuming the inevitability of Reg. 194’s implementation. The lawsuit is an absolute stance, although IIABNY reports that it has submitted refinements nonetheless. The PIANY approach is quite diplomatic, but no less set on protecting the producer when—if?—the Reg. takes effect. Some feel that sugar added or not, this medicine going down has not been tested as we suggested above and no amount of palliation or artificial flavoring is going to make what is seen as essentially poisonous to producers, palatable. We understand and empathize with the PIANY approach; that is, stay close to the department and work out the best possible arrangement for something which many seem inevitable. The IIABNY approach is bold and takes the position is that this medicine is poison. It is gutsy. Producers will opine as to which approach they feel is better. For ourselves, we believe that some serious focus groups or a neutrally administered survey added into the mix might be a smart idea and might give insight into the good or bad behavior of an “enacted” Reg. 194. Remember, this Reg. came about without any clamor from consumers or any groundswell from the public. Why not gather some sense of this “drug’s” behavior before it’s administered? It might be a miracle drug. Or not. It might be poison. Or not. Or it might simply be impotent…and prove to have wasted a lot of time and effort. A little basic empiricism here might reveal a lot.