Commitment Beyond Numbers



Similar documents
D Insurance: City of Detroit Insurance Company Feasibility Study

Presentation on Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance

RentersPLUS Move In Special

CHOICES: Insurance Rate Comparison Search Systems. Auto Insurance. Instructions/User Guide

Colorado Auto Premiums Continue to Drop Since No-Fault Sunset

Driving Michigan: An Agenda To Reform Michigan s No-Fault system

Personal Automobile. November 5, Sandra Starnes, Director

Safeco Insurance Company of America Motorcycle Program Rate Manual State of Massachusetts

Cabinet Presentation Personal Injury Protection. August 2011

a consumers guide to No-Fault Automobile Insurance in Michigan

Economic Education for Consumers Chapter 14 Study Guide Automobile and Home Insurance: Sharing the Risk

Prepared By: Chris Longino, Field Information Analyst, Central Florida Major Medical Fraud Task Force. Background. Personal Injury Protection (PIP)

No Fault/PIP/First Party Medical States

FIS-PUB 0077 (6/13) Number of copies printed: 10,000 / Legal authorization to print: PA 145 of 1979 / Printed on recycled paper

CHAPTER 2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NO-FAULT INSURANCE AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR

March 20, MCCA sets Insurance Company Assessment

Regarding: 2012 Questionable Claim Referral Analysis for Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties

ANALYSIS AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE. Senate Bill 288 (Substitute S-3 as reported) Sponsor: Senator Virgil Smith Committee: Insurance

Submitted by Lorilee A Medders, PhD November 4, 2011

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE BUYER S GUIDE. Chris Christie Governor. Kim Guadagno Lt. Governor. Commissioner

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE BUYER S GUIDE. Jon S. Corzine Governor. Steven M. Goldman Commissioner

Office of Insurance Regulation

How To Get Insurance For A Car

New Jersey Pre Signature Series to Signature Series Changes

WHERE TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND HELP

Causes of the Invisible Red Line. Vernal Newson Detroit Police Department

How To Determine A Class Of Auto Insurance In Massachusetts

COMMERCIAL PPA EDITION

Date: 09/22/2010 Regarding: Questionable Medical Claims Report 2008, 2009, and 2010 (1 st Half) Prepared By: Joel McCloskey, Senior Strategic Analyst

March 22, MCCA sets Insurance Company Assessment

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE BUYER S GUIDE *C * PL (03-12) Page 1 of /00000 S1347I /23/12

NEW JERSEY AUTO SUPPLEMENT

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE, BUYER S GUIDE

New Jersey AUTO INSURANCE

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE

Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) Update as of: April 14, 2015

1. What types of damages could you cause while you are driving?

Medical Costs of No-Fault Automobile Insurance

Florida No-Fault Law Reform. CAS Antitrust Notice. Background - Example. 1 August 10, 2012 [Enter presentation title in footer] Copyright 2007

Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance: A Historical Primer

NEW JERSEY AUTO INSURANCE BUYER S GUIDE

Keeping your money in your pocket, where it belongs.

2002 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY TARGET MARKET CONDUCT EXAMINATION ATLANTA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (ATLANTA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES)

Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company. Antique Auto Program

Private Passenger Automobile. Analysis of No-Fault Legislative Reforms. Michigan. On Behalf of the Insurance Institute of Michigan

Antitrust Notice. Overview. Massachusetts Personal Auto Insurance. Why make change? Challenges of change. Unique features of the Plan.

Michigan No Fault Law Essential Knowledge for Hospital and Medical Office Personnel

RATING INFORMATION NEW JERSEY

Ontario Application for Automobile Insurance

CORPORATE ID: WILLIAM PENN HOUSE 515 E CAPITOL ST SE WASHINGTON DC 20003

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A FLORIDA CAR ACCIDENT?

ABCD F I N A N C I A L

ST. PAUL PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY Hartford, CT NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE STANDARD POLICY COVERAGE SELECTION FORM

RRA Insurance Premium Pay Me Back Instructions

An Analysis of. Profitability and Pricing. In the. Michigan Auto Insurance Market

An Analysis of. Profitability and Pricing. In the. Michigan Auto Insurance Market

Insurance Companies Website Glossary of Common Terms Shopping for Automobile Insurance Worksheet III

CAR INSURANCE: The Consumer s Guide

ABCD F I N A N C I A L

Special Investigations Unit (SIU) Reference Manual

2:08-cv DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) Updated April 15, 2010

Top 10 Market Conduct. Property & Casualty

Workshop of the Americas for Decisions on Traffic Safety and Education. Plenary Session IX: Financing Activities, Plans, and Programs

ASSEMBLY BANKING AND INSURANCE COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR. SENATE, No. 63 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: MAY 5, 2003

21st Century Pinnacle Insurance Company STANDARD POLICY COVERAGE SELECTION FORM

domicile, including but not limited to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) and Personal Property insurance (PPI), must be carried.

PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE APPLICATION- PENNSYLVANIA

Your Guide to Automobile Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION ROUNDTABLE

OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION Property and Casualty Product Review

Understanding Florida s PIP Laws

How To Stop Insurance Fraud In Florida

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF HB 119

NO-FAULT INSURANCE IN OTHER STATES

ALLIANCE OF NONPROFITS FOR INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP P.O. Box 8546, Santa Cruz, CA P: (800) F: (831)

OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION Property and Casualty Product Review

AUTOMOBILE APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE FOR NON-TRUCKING USE (BOBTAIL)

State of Florida End of Session (2012)

A Survey of Federal and State Actions to Counter Misclassification Fraud

How To Get A Car Insured

Kentucky Retirement Systems Health Benefits. Mike Burnside, Executive Director National Conference of State Legislators July 28, 2010

The Florida Senate POTENTIAL IMPACT OF MANDATING BODILY INJURY LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES. Interim Project Summary November 1998

AGENT CHECK-WRITING AUTHORITY INSTRUCTION MANUAL

R. Terry Butler, Esq. Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate. Representing Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer State of Florida

NO-FAULT INSURANCE & FRAUD PREVENTION S.B. 248 (S-3) & 249: (REVISED) SUMMARY AS PASSED BY THE SENATE

Risk Management Division Municipal Manager Anchorage: Performance. Value. Results.

How To Fight Insurance Fraud In Minnesota

Town of Littleton Policy on Group Health and Life Insurance Coverage for Active Employees and Retirees

The Florida Senate. Issue Brief August 2011 PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION (PIP) Statement of the Issue. Discussion

Arkansas. Insurance Department AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE. Mike Beebe Governor. Jay Bradford Commissioner

Medical Claims. How to File a Medical Claim. Coordination of Benefits. Explanation of Benefits Instructions and Sample

Indiana University Peer Institution Benefits Comparison July 2009 Health Care Plans

Your Auto Insurance Policy ONTARIO. is Changing

Auto Insurance. No-Fault: Michigan's Unique Auto Insurance Law. Personal Injury Protection (PIP)

Industry Standard Claims Reporting Data and Claims Management

COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE/TRUCKERS APPLICATION

BUSINESS AUTO DECLARATIONS

Market Conduct Examination

Michigan No-Fault Law: What You Don t Know Can Hurt You

Transcription:

3109CorneliusDrive Bloomington,IL61704 309.807.2300 pinnacleactuaries.com RooseveltC.Mosley,FCAS,MAAA Principal&ConsultingActuary rmosley@pinnacleactuaries.com June8,2015 Mr.CharlesRaimi DeputyCorporationCounsel CityofDetroitLawDepartment 2WoodwardAvenue,Suite500 Detroit,Michigan48226 [deliveredviaemailtoraimic@detrotitmi.gov] DearChuck: AttachedisthereportdetailingtheestimatedsavingsbasedontheproposedPIPreforms.Ithasbeena pleasureworkingwithyouinthedevelopmentofthisreport. Pinnacleremainsavailabletoansweranyquestionsorprovideanyclarificationsasneeded. ThankYou, Roosevelt RooseveltC.Mosley,FCAS,MAAA PrincipalandConsultingActuary CommitmentBeyondNumbers

June8,2015 RooseveltC.Mosley,Jr,FCAS,MAAA rmosley@pinnacleactuaries.com 309.807.2330 3109CorneliusDrive Bloomington,IL61704 309.807.2300 pinnacleactuaries.com CommitmentBeyondNumbers

3109CorneliusDrive Bloomington,IL61704 309.807.2300 pinnacleactuaries.com June8,2015 TableofContents Contents TableofContents...1 Scope...2 ReliancesandLimitations...2 DistributionandUse...2 Data...3 ProjectBackground...4 ReformProposal#1:PIPBenefitLimitsandPreferredProviderAgreements...5 IntroducePIPBenefitLimits...5 PreferredProviderAgreement...5 ReformProposal#2:HighDeductibleOption...7 TotalEstimatedSavings ReformOption#1...7 TotalEstimatedSavings ReformOption#2...8 MoreRecentData...9 Conclusion...10 IndexofAttachments...12 CommitmentBeyondNumbers

Scope TheCityofDetroit(TheCity)engagedPinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.(Pinnacle)toperforma feasibilitystudyforaproposedcitysponsoredinsurancecompany(dinsurance)thatwillsellnofault insurancetovehicleownersindetroit.theinitialphaseoftheprojectwasforpinnacletoreview availableinsurancedataandproposedlegislativechangestothemichigannofaultlawthatwould applytotheproposednewinsurer,andtoestimatethepremiumsavingsthatcouldbeachievedbased onthelawchanges. Basedonthefindingsintheinitialphaseandtheoutcomeoftheproposedlegislativechanges, PinnaclewouldthenassistTheCitywithdevelopmentoftheratingandunderwritingplanforD Insuranceaswellasprojectedfinancialresultsandcapitalrequirements. Thisreportoutlinesthecalculationoftheestimatedsavings. ReliancesandLimitations Indevelopingthisreport,PinnaclehasreliedprimarilyupondataandinformationsuppliedbyTheCity andtheinsuranceresearchcouncil(irc).werelieduponthegeneralaccuracyofthisdataand informationwithoutindependentverification.however,wedidreviewcertainelementsofthisdata andinformationforreasonablenessandconsistencywithourknowledgeoftheinsuranceindustryand theclaimsprocess.wealsovalidatedthatthedataprovidedwasconsistentwithothersourcesof publiclyavailableinformation.anyerrorsoromissionsinthedataprovidedcouldhaveamaterial effectonouranalysisoftheprojectedsavings. TheanalysisoftheIRCclaimexperiencewasforclaimsthatoccurredin2012.Assuch,anyprojection oftheresultsofthisdataintothecurrentclaimsenvironmentinvolvesestimatesoftheimpactof differencesinthelegalandmedicalenvironmentnowasopposedto2012.therefore,anysuch projectionsaresubjecttoeconomicandstatisticalvariation.noassurancescanbeofferedthatthe resultsofthisclaimstudywillberepresentativeoftoday sconditions. Otherreliancesandlimitationsandspecificassumptionsanddataadjustmentsarecitedinthisreport andintheattachedexhibitsthatareanintegralpartofthisreport. DistributionandUse ThisreportandtheopinionsexpressedhereinhavebeenpreparedforTheCity sinternaluseandfor thesupportofthecity slegislativeeffortstoauthorizeinsurerstoselladinsuranceproductonly. FurtherdistributionofthisreportisnotallowedwithouttheexpresswrittenconsentofPinnacle. Upongrantingofsuchrequest,thereportmustbereleasedinitsentirety,andallrecipientsmustbe madeawarethatpinnacleistheauthorofthisreportandisavailabletoansweranyquestions. 2 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

Pinnacledoesnotassumeanyliabilityforthereliancesofthirdpartiesontheconclusionsofthis report. Anythirdpartiesreceivingthereportshouldrecognizethatthefurnishingofthisreportisnota substitutefortheirownduediligenceandshouldplacenorelianceonthisreportorthedatacontained hereinthatwouldresultinthecreationofanydutyorliabilitybypinnacletothethirdparty. AnyreferencetoPinnacleinrelationtothisreportinanyaccountsorotherpublicdocumentsorany verbalreferenceissuedbythecityisnotauthorizedwithoutourpriorconsent. Data Duringthecourseofthisreview,Pinnaclehasreliedonthefollowingdataandinformationreceived fromthecityandtheirc: 1. DraftDInsurancelegislationdatedMay20,2015 2. AutoInjuryInsuranceClaims:CountrywidePatternsinTreatment,CostandCompensation, 2014Edition PersonalInjuryProtection(PIP)andBodilyInjury(BI)InformationforMichigan, NewYork,Florida,NewJerseyandMassachusettsforclaimsthatwereclosedin2012 3. CitizensResearchCouncilofMichigan,October2013report MedicalCostsofNoFault Insurance. 4. MichiganChamberofCommerce,April2011studytitled"TheHighCostsofMichigan'sNoFault AutoInsuranceCausesandImplicationsforReform." 5. MichiganAutomobileInsurancePlacementFacilityBaseRateseffectiveJanuary1,2015 6. IndependentStatisticalServicesAutomobileExperiencePremiumData,calendaryear2013 TheIRCdataincluded5,095claims.Theclaimsbreakdownbystateisshownbelow. NumberofClaims State BI PIP GrandTotal Florida 1,025 780 1,805 Massachusetts 421 159 580 Michigan 139 557 696 NewJersey 310 632 942 NewYork 317 755 1,072 GrandTotal 2,212 2,883 5,095 FromthisIRCdatabase36BIclaimsand55PIPclaimsoccurredinDetroit.Duetothelimitednumberof PIPclaimsintheIRCdatabase,reformsavingsestimateswerecalculatedforallIRCPIPclaimsin MichiganaswellasseparatelyforclaimsthatoccurredintheCityofDetroitonlyasareasonability checkforsavingsestimates. 3 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

ProjectBackground Bylaw,Michigandriversmustbuyfirstpartymedicalinsurance(alsoreferredtoasPersonalInjury ProtectionorPIP)andresidualliabilitycoverage(BodilyInjuryandPropertyDamage,BIPD).Drivers arenotlegallyrequiredtobuycollisionandcomprehensivecoverage,butthesecoveragesarerequired bylienholdersifadriverhasacarloan. StatisticaldatafiledwiththeMichiganDepartmentofInsuranceandFinancialServices(DIFS)through theindependentstatisticalservice(iss)bysomeofthelargestcarinsurancewritersinmichigan, includingallstate,autoclub,andstatefarm,showsthatin2013,theaverageannualpolicypremium forpip,bipd,andcollisionandcomprehensivecoverageindowntowndetroitwas$2,249.70.thiswas doubletheaverageannualpremiuminwesternoaklandcounty.itshouldbenotedthatthisaggregate dataisnotadjustedtoreflectthedifferenceinthespecificcoveragespurchasedbetweenthetwo areas.issdataalsoshowsthatabout2/3ofpolicyholdersindetroitpurchasefullcoverage,while almost100%ofpolicyholdersinthedetroitsuburbspurchasefullcoverage. TosupportinitiativesoftheMayor soffice,thecitywouldliketoenactlegislationauthorizingthecity tocontractwithinsurancecarrierstoofferdinsurancecoverage.thiscoveragewouldbeofferedata lowerratethancurrentlyavailableinthemarketplace.thiswouldbeaccomplishedbyintroducing reformstothemichiganinsurancelawsthatwouldbeapplicableonlytothecityownedinsurance company.theproposedreformshavebeendevelopedbythemayor sofficeandareasfollows: 1. ReformProposal#1:Thefirstreformproposalconsistsoftwoelements. a. Introducea$25,000/$250,000limit:Currently,PIPbenefitsareunlimited.Thischange tothelawwouldallowinsuredstopurchasepipbenefitswithaspecifiedlimitof $25,000,exceptincasesofnecessarycriticalcare,whichwouldbeadditionalcoverage withalimitof$250,000peroccurrence. b. Allowinsurerstonegotiatepreferredproviderarrangementsandpreauthorization:This wouldallowdinsurancetocreatealimitedprovidernetwork.exceptforemergency services,theinsurermayrequireaclaimanttoobtainproducts,treatment,services, accommodations,orrehabilitativeoroccupationaltherapyortrainingprovidedfor underthisactfromaproviderorsupplierthatispartofthelimitedprovidernetwork. Theclaimantmayalsoneedtoobtainpreauthorization. 2. ReformProposal#2 HighDeductibleOption:Thisoptionwouldincorporateahighdeductible optionintothecurrentunlimitedpipbenefitprogram. Theattachedexhibitsanddiscussionbelowshowtheexpectedimpactoninsurancelossesifthese reformsareimplemented. 4 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

ReformProposal#1:PIPBenefitLimitsandPreferredProviderAgreements IntroducePIPBenefitLimits Currently,PIPbenefitsinMichiganareunlimited.Oneofthereformsbeingproposedisthe introductionofpipbenefitlimits.specifically,thelegislativechangesbeingproposedare: 1. $25,000limitperpersonforbenefitspayableformedicalexpenses,worklossandreplacement services. 2. Anadditionalamountnottoexceed$250,000intheaggregate,onlyforcriticalcareforthe personnamedinthequalifyingnofaultpolicy,theperson'sspouse,andarelativeofeither domiciledinthesamehousehold,whoareinjuredinasinglemotorvehicleaccidentduringthe policyterm.criticalcaremeanstreatmentrenderedatanacutecarehospitalortraumacenter immediatelyfollowingthemotorvehicleaccident,necessarytosavethepatient slifeortreat lifethreateningorpermanentlydisablinginjuries,untilthepatientisstabilized.apatientis stabilizedwhenthepatientcansafelybedischargedortransferredtoanotheracutecare hospitalortraumacenter,rehabilitationorotherfacility,regardlessofwhetherthepatientis, infact,dischargedortransferredatthattime.aqualifyinginsurershallhavetherightto contestthechargesofanacutecarefacilityunderthissectiontotheextenttheinsurercan presentcompetentevidenceshowingthatthefacility schargesrelatetopoststabilization services. Toestimatethesavingsforthisreform,Pinnacleappliedthe$25,000benefitlimittotheindividualPIP claimsprovidedintheircdatabase.priortotheapplicationofthelimit,themedicalnoncriticalcare paidclaimamountsweredecreasedbytheestimatedsavingsfromthepreferredprovideragreement reform(discussedbelow).aftertheapplicationofthe$25,000limit,iftherewerepaidlossespresent ontheclaimforemergencyroomdoctorsorambulancecare,theseamountswereaddedtothe lossesthatwouldbepaidunderthereformsubjecttothe$250,000limit. TheestimatedsavingstotheoverallPIPcostssolelyfromtheapplicationofthebenefitlimitsis62.1% fordetroit. PreferredProviderAgreement Thisproposedchangewouldallowaninsurertocreatealimitedprovidernetwork.Exceptfor emergencyservices,theinsurermayrequireaclaimanttoobtainproducts,treatment,services, accommodations,orrehabilitativeoroccupationaltherapyortrainingprovidedforunderthisactfrom aproviderorsupplierthatispartofthelimitedprovidernetwork.theclaimantmayalsoneedto obtainpreauthorizationfornonemergencyservices. 5 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

ThelimitedprovidernetworkandpreauthorizationwouldaddresstwosignificantissuesrelatedtoPIP coverageindetroit.thefirstisthatthechargeformedicalprocedurespaidunderpipissignificantly higherthanthechargeformedicalprocedurespaidunderworker scompensationormedicare.the secondrelatestooveruseandpotentialabuseofpipcoverage. Formanycommonmedicalprocedures,Michiganmedicalproviderschargenofaultinsurerstwoto fivetimesmorethanrateschargedforthesameprocedurebymedicare. 1 Atableofmedical proceduresandassociatedreimbursementsundernofault,medicareandworker scompensationis showninattachment1. Inaddition,nofaultpremiumsinMichiganmayalsobeinflatedbyoveruseofbenefits,thefilingof fraudulentorexcessiveclaims,andlegalfeesgeneratedbyexcessivelitigation.typicalpatternsof fraudoroveruseinvolvehardtoverifyinjuriesandlargenumbersofvisitstoprovidersofalternative medicaltherapies. 2 TheproblemofoveruseisparticularlyacuteinDetroit,where 1. theaveragefrequencyofpipclaimsindetroitistwicethefrequencyinthesuburbs(12per 1,000exposuresvs.6per1,000exposures), 2. averageseverityofpipclaimsindetroitisroughlytwicetheaverageseverityinthesuburbs ($59,000vs$30,000),and ThecreationofaclosednetworkwithpreauthorizationwillprovidetheDInsurancecarrierwiththe abilitytonegotiaterateswithmedicalproviders,tolimitexcessiveorunnecessarytreatmentandavoid litigation.therefore,webelievethattheultimateratesnegotiatedwouldmoveinthedirectionofthe Worker scompensationschedule.ascanbeseeninattachment1,worker scompensationmedical providerreimbursementsare11%77%lowerthanreimbursementsunderpipbasedonthetypeof medicalprocedure. PinnaclealsoperformedasearchforstudiesthatestimatedthecostsavingsassociatedwithPreferred Providersystems.ThoughmanyofthestudiesaresomewhatdatedbecausePreferredProvideroptions wereintroducedroughly15 20yearsago,PinnacledidfindastudybyTheRobertWoodJohnson Foundation 3 thatprovidedsavingsestimatesfromintroducingappo.theestimatedsavingsfromthis studywere12 14%. 1 CitizensResearchCouncilofMichigan,October2013report"MedicalCostsofNoFaultAutomobileInsurance,"p.7. 2 MichiganChamberofCommerce,April2011studytitled"TheHighCostsofMichigan'sNoFaultAutoInsuranceCauses andimplicationsforreform,"p.17. 3 RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation. PreferredProviderOrganizations AreTheyBetteratKeepingHealthCostsDown? January1,2001. 6 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

Tounderstandthepotentialsavingsbasedonimplementationofpreauthorization,thusdecreasing fraudandoverutilization,pinnaclereviewedthestatisticsrelatedtopipfraudinotherstates.inthe IRCdata,therearedatafieldsthatindicatewhetheraclaimwasreferredtoanotheragencyforfurther investigation.foraspecificclaim,thisfieldindicateswhetherornotaclaimwasreferredtothe insurancecompany sspecialinvestigativeunit(siu),lawenforcement,prosecutorsorthenational InsuranceCrimeBureau(NICB).Inaddition,Pinnaclereviewedtheseverityofclaimsthatwerereferred forfurtherinvestigationversusthosethatwerenotreferred. Attachment2showstheclaimreferralratesbyNoFaultstateandtheseverityofnonreferredvs. referredclaims.forpip,thereferralratesformichiganwere5.4%andfordetroitwere20%.theother statesrangedinreferralrateswere1.9%10.6%.theseverityfornonreferredclaimsformichigan wasabout62%lowerthantheseverityforreferredclaims.fordetroit,thenonreferredseveritywas 71%lowerthantheseverityforreferredclaims.Fortheotherstates,thedifferenceinseverities rangedfrom8.4%35%lowerfornonreferredclaims.asaresult,forpipwecanseethatthereis potentialforsavingsbasedontheseveritydifferencesofreferredvs.nonreferredclaims.assumingan estimated25%decreaseinseverity,forexample,translatesintoestimatedsavingsforpipof10.5%,as showninattachment3. Basedonthiscombinationofpotentialsavings,weareestimatinga20%losscostsavingsfrom implementingalimitedprovidernetworkandpreauthorization.thisestimatedsavingsappliedonlyto themedicalportionofthelossespaidandassumingnootherchangeswouldresultina13.9% estimateddecreaseinoverallpiplosscosts.seeattachment4formoredetails. ReformProposal#2:HighDeductibleOption ThisoptionwouldallowinsuredstopurchasePIPbenefitssubjecttoadeductible.Pinnacleestimated thesavingsfromseveraldeductibleoptions$1,000,$2,500and$5,000.forthisoption,theinsured wouldberesponsibleformedicalcostsuptheamountofthedeductible. Toestimatethesavingsfromtheseoptions,Pinnacleappliedthedeductibletoeachoftheindividual claimsintheircdata.ascanbeseeninattachment5,savingsforthecityofdetroitrangedfrom3% to13%baseduponthedeductibleselected. TotalEstimatedSavings ReformOption#1 AscanbeseeninAttachment6,thecombinedestimatedlosssavingsforthelimitedprovidernetwork andthepipbenefitlimitforthecityofdetroitisestimatedtobe64.5%ofpipclaimcosts.thereason thetotalsavingsdoesnotequaltheproductoftheindividualsavingsestimatesisduetothe overlappingimpact.becauseofthe$25,000pipbenefitlimit,theimpactofthelimitedprovider networkisdampenedsignificantly. 7 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

ThetotalestimatedpremiumsavingsforthePIPreformsisshowninAttachment7A. Toestimatethesavings,Pinnaclebeganwiththe2013averagepremiumbycoverageinDetroit MetropolitanInner(Territory36)ascalculatedfromtheAutomobileExperienceDatafromISS.We thenappliedtheestimatedlosssavingspercentages(adjustedasdescribedbelow)basedonthe reformsdiscussed.theoverallestimatedpremiumsavingsforafullcoveragepolicywouldbe25.8%, whiletheestimatedsavingsforaliabilityonlypolicywouldbeabout45.9%. Thecostestimatesinthisreportaregenerallystatedintermsoftheimpactonclaimlosses.Theimpact onclaimlossescannotbeusedinterchangeablywithpremiumsavings.thisisbecauseaportionofthe insurancecompanies expensesisforgeneraloverhead(rent,utilities,etc.)andwouldnotdecrease proportionatelytothelosscosts.basedonthe2013bestsaggregatesandaveragespublication, PrivatePassengerAutomobileLiabilitygeneralandotheracquisitionexpensesrepresent14.2%ofthe industrywidewrittenpremium(this14.2%doesnotincludeagents commissions,premiumtaxesand otherpremiumrelatedexpenses).toestimatethepremiumsavingscorrespondingtothecostsavings showninthisreport,itisnecessarytoreducethelosssavingsbyafactorof.858.thusa64.5%cost savingsequatestoanapproximate55.3%premiumsavings. Thesavingscalculatedassumethatcurrentratesareadequate.TotheextentthatcurrentPIPratesare inadequate,itislikelythatthepremiumsavingscouldbelower.wewouldalsoemphasizethatthe abovepercentagesavingsareaveragesforpipcoverageonly.itispossiblethatactualsavingscould varybyareaofdetroit,andalsobytheageandotherratingcharacteristicsofthecovereddrivers(s), drivingrecords,typeandageofcar,levelandtypeofcoverageandotherfactors. Inaddition,thesesavingsestimatesassumenochangetothetortthresholdinMichiganandthusno associatedincreaseinliabilitycosts.totheextentthattheliabilitythresholdchangesasaresultofthe PIPbenefitlimitsandmoreliabilityclaimsarefiled,thiswouldleadtoanincreaseinliabilityclaim costs. TotalEstimatedSavings ReformOption#2 AscanbeseeninAttachment5,theestimatedlosssavingsforthehighdeductibleoptionfortheCity ofdetroitisestimatedtobe313%ofpipclaimcostsdependingonthelimitchosen.theestimated savingsgeneratedbyapplyingthebenefitlimitstoallclaimsinmichiganare518%ofpipclaimcosts. ThetotalestimatedpremiumsavingsforthePIPreformsisshowninAttachment8Aand8C.The overallestimatedpremiumsavingsforafullcoveragepolicyfora$1,000deductiblewouldbe1.2%, whiletheestimatedsavingsforaliabilityonlypolicywouldbeabout2.2%.forthe$5,000deductible, theestimatedfullcoveragesavingsare5.1%,andtheliabilityonlyestimatedsavingsare9.1%. 8 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

MoreRecentData Asdiscussedabove,Pinnacle sanalysisfocuseson2013isspremiumdatathatsuggestsan average Detroitautoinsurancevehiclepremiumin2013was$2,250.Thatinformationexcludestheeffectsof citizensofdetroitwhodrivewithoutinsurance.thecityhasprovidedanecdotalevidencethatin2015, manycitizensofdetroit,includingthosewithgooddrivingrecords,paypremiumsmuchhigherthan $2,250. PinnaclehasobtainedrecentinformationfromtheMichiganAutomobileInsurancePlacementFacility (Facility).TheFacilityactsasaninsureroflastresortforindividualswhocannotsecurenofault coverageintheopenmarket.thefacilitysetsits baserate premiumsastheaverageofthetopfive insurancecarriersinthestate.baseratesrepresentthepremiumschargedpriortotheapplicationof anydiscountsorsurcharges.mostdriversseekingcoveragefromthefacilitywillpaypremiumshigher thanthebaseratesasaresultofunderwritingfactorssuchasage,drivingrecord,mileage,etc. TheFacility smostrecentannualbaserateaveragepremiumdatafordetroitisasfollows: Coverage BodilyInjuryLiability $468 PropertyDamageLiability 48 PropertyProtection 142 PersonalInjuryProtection 4,134 Collision($100Deductible) 1,126 Comprehensive($100Deductible) 310 Total $6,228 PremiumsPerYear Usingthisdata,andassuminga55.3%savingsonthePIPpremium(basedonReformOption1PIP limitoption),theownerwouldsaveapproximately$2,286bringingthepremiumdownfrom$6,228to $3,940 anallcoveragesavingsonthepolicyof37%. Dependingontheageandvalueofthevehicle,itmightbeeconomicallywiseforanownertoselecta largerdeductibleforcollisionandcomprehensivecoverageorelectnottoobtaincollisionand comprehensivecoverage.ifcollisionandcomprehensivecoverageiseliminated,theannualpremium underthecurrentnofaultlawwouldbe$4,792.a55.3%savingsonpipwoulddecreasethepriceof thepolicydownto$2,504,oradecreaseof48%.thedetailsareshowninattachment7b. TheestimatedsavingsforReformOption2basedontheMAIPFbaseratesareshownin8Band8D.For the$1,000deductibleoption,thefullcoveragesavingsare1.8%andtheliabilityonlysavingsare2.3%. 9 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

Usingthe$5,000deductibleoption,thefullcoveragesavingsare7.3%andtheliabilityonlysavingsare 9.5%. TheCityhasalsoprovidedtoPinnaclethefollowing2015hypotheticalrateexampleasanexampleof thetypesofsavingsthatcanbeachieved.thehypotheticalcasestudycomesfromamajorauto insurerthatoffersinsurancepremiumquotationsonline.arepresentativeofthecityenteredthe followingdetails: AnaddressinnortheastDetroitinthe48225zipcode 2005ChevyMalibu 10,000milesdriverperyear Vehicleusedtocommutetoworkandforpleasure Basiccoverageincludingthemandatorynofaultinsurancecoveragestogetherwith comprehensive(theft)andcollisioncoveragewith$1,000deductibles. Thefollowingquotationwasprovidedforaoneyearpolicy: Coverage BodilyInjuryLiability $260 PropertyDamageLiability 24 PropertyProtection 60 PersonalInjuryProtection 3,332 Collision 1,042 Comprehensive 234 Total $4,952 PremiumPerYear Usingthisexample,andassuminga55.3%costsavingsonthePIPpremium,theownerwouldsave approximately$1,844reducingthepremiumfrom$4,952to$3,108. Iftheownerinthisexampleelectednottoobtaincollisionandcomprehensivecoverage,theannual premiumundercurrentnofaultlawwouldbe$3,676.a55.3%savingsonpipwouldproduceasavings of$1,844,decreasingthepriceofthepolicyto$1,832.detailsareshowninattachment7c. Conclusion Asshownabove,implementingreformthatlimitsPIPbenefitswillprovidesignificantpremiumsavings tothecitizensofdetroit.themostsignificantchangeswouldbeachievedwiththeimplementationof 10 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

ReformOption#1.Whiletheactualsavingswouldvarydependingonthespecificpolicycircumstances, theestimatedaveragesavingsfromthisoptionwouldadecreaseinpremiumsof25.8%forafull coveragepolicy,and45.9%foraliabilityonlypolicy. 11 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

IndexofAttachments 1. LimitedProviderNetworkSavingsEstimate 2. PIPFraudReferralRates 3. PotentialSavingsfromFraudMitigation 4. PreferredProviderCostSavingsEstimate 5. HighDeductibleOptionSavingsEstimate 6. PIPLimitandLimitedProviderNetworkSavingsEstimate 7. PremiumSavingsCalculation PIPLimitandLimitedProviderNetworkOption a. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2013ISSAveragePremiums b. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2015MAIPFBaseRates c. SavingsEstimatesBasedonHypotheticalQuoteExample 8. PremiumSavingsCalculation HighDeductibleOption a. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2013ISSAveragePremiums,$1,000DeductibleOption b. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2015MAIPFBaseRates,$1,000DeductibleOption c. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2013ISSAveragePremiums,$5,000DeductibleOption d. SavingsEstimatesBasedon2015MAIPFBaseRates,$5,000DeductibleOption 12 P age PinnacleActuarialResources,Inc.

Attachment1 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing MedicalProcedureReimbursementAmounts Procedure Code NoFault Reimbursement Detroit Medicare Reimbursement PotentialSavings Medicare Reimbursement Description WorkComp Therapeuticexercisesforstrength(each15minutes);usuallychargedby PhysicalTherapist 79.38 30.66 41.57 61.4% 47.6% 97110 98941 Chiropracticmanipulativetreatment,spinal,34regions 72.60 36.43 48.67 49.8% 33.0% 97140 Manualtherapy(each15minutes)physicaltherapy 60.80 28.91 38.03 52.5% 37.5% 97014 Electricalstimulationphysicaltherapy 56.05 13.20 19.27 76.4% 65.6% 97124 Massage(each15minutes)physicaltherapy 52.36 25.07 32.96 52.1% 37.1% 99284 Emergencydepartmentvisit;severemedicalcomplexity 443.68 124.98 170.35 71.8% 61.6% 99283 Emergencydepartmentvisit;moderatemedicalcomplexity 297.04 65.70 90.75 77.9% 69.4% 98940 Chiropracticmanipulativetreatment,spinal,12regions 56.47 25.94 34.98 54.1% 38.1% 99213 Officevisit,establishedpatient;typically15minutes 104.40 72.84 89.23 30.2% 14.5% 97012 Mechanicaltractionphysicaltherapy 56.94 15.99 20.79 71.9% 63.5% 97035 Ultrasound(each15minutes)physicaltherapy 66.26 12.50 16.73 81.1% 74.8% 99214 Officevisit,establishedpatient;typically25minutes 151.30 107.90 133.85 28.7% 11.5% 97530 Therapeuticactivities,improvefunctionalperformance(each15minutes); generallychargedbyoccupationaltherapists 53.72 33.44 43.10 37.8% 19.8% 97112 Neuromuscularreeducation(each15minutes)physicaltherapy 77.69 32.05 42.08 58.7% 45.8% 72040 Xray,spine,cervical;2or3views 161.96 41.59 54.76 74.3% 66.2% 72125 CTScanNeck 1,820.09 261.50 418.78 85.6% 77.0% 72141 MRINeck 3,258.68 483.98 769.63 85.1% 76.4% 72148 MRILowBack 3,278.55 484.31 765.57 85.2% 76.6% 72193 CTScanPelvis 1,828.04 305.65 477.59 83.3% 73.9% 72050 XRaySpine 227.55 55.89 77.06 75.4% 66.1% 29826 SurgeryShoulder 2,806.13 730.70 939.98 74.0% 66.5% Work Comp Source:MitchellDecisionPoint;CRCCalculations

Attachment2 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing PreferredProviderOrganization PersonalInjuryProtection ClaimReferralRate State Total SIU Other Company NICB State Fraud Local Police Prosecutor Other Non Referred Severity Referred Severity Florida 3.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 7,330 8,001 Massachusetts 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3,608 5,547 Michigan 5.4% 4.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 14,121 36,844 NewJersey 10.6% 10.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16,000 20,655 NewYork 7.0% 6.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8,743 12,827 Detroit 20.0% 18.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17,880 61,477 Difference 8.4% 35.0% 61.7% 22.5% 31.8% 70.9%

Attachment3 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing FraudInvestigation PersonalInjury Protection Stateof Michigan Cityof Detroit (1) EstimatedIncreaseinClaimReferralRate 0.0% 0.0% (2) EstimatedDecreaseinSeverityforReferredClaims 25.0% 25.0% (3) IRCTotalPaidLossesforReferredClaims 1,105,306 676,247 (4) IRCTotalPaidLosses 7,969,097 1,613,067 (5) SavingsasaPercentageofTotalLosses 3.5% 10.5% Notes (1) EstimateBasedonIRCFraudAnalysisExhibit (2) EstimateBasedonIRCFraudAnalysisExhibit (3) IRC:AutoInjuryInsuranceClaims:CountrywidePatternsinTreatment,Costs,andCompensation,2014Edition (4) IRC:AutoInjuryInsuranceClaims:CountrywidePatternsinTreatment,Costs,andCompensation,2014Edition (5) [[(2)*(3)]/(4)]+(1)

Attachment4 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing PreferredProvider Stateof Michigan Cityof Detroit (1) PPOSavingsEstimate 20.0% (2) TotalPIPMedicalPaid 4,559,642 1,120,411 (3) IRCTotalPaidLosses 7,969,097 1,613,067 (4) PIPSavingsasaPercentageofTotalLosses 11.4% 13.9% Notes (1) EstimatedImpactofPreferredProviderandPreauthorization (2) IRC:AutoInjuryInsuranceClaims:CountrywidePatternsinTreatment,Costs,andCompensation,2014Edition (3) IRC:AutoInjuryInsuranceClaims:CountrywidePatternsinTreatment,Costs,andCompensation,2014Edition (4) [(1)*(2)]/(3)

Attachment5 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing HighDeductibleOption DeductibleImpact Deductible Stateof Michigan Cityof Detroit 1,000 5.1% 3.1% 2,500 10.6% 7.1% 5,000 17.5% 12.8%

Attachment6 CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing Impactof25,000PIPLimit/$250,000EmergencyCareLimitandLimitedProviderNetwork StateofMichigan (1) OriginalPaidLosses 7,969,097 (2) RevisedPaidLosses 3,646,820 (3) SavingsEstimate 54.2% CityofDetroit (4) OriginalPaidLosses 1,613,067 (5) RevisedPaidLosses 572,548 (6) SavingsEstimate 64.5% (1) IRC:AutoInjuryInsurancePIPClaimsData (2) EstimatedRevisedLossesAssuming$25,000PIPLimit/$250,000LimitforEmergencyCareandLimitedProviderNetwork (3) (2)/(1)1 (4) IRC:AutoInjuryInsurancePIPClaimsData (5) EstimatedRevisedLossesAssuming$25,000PIPLimit/$250,000LimitforEmergencyCareandLimitedProviderNetwork (6) (5)/(4)1

Attachment7A CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing EstimatedSavings$25,000/$250,000LimitOptionUsing2013ISSAveragePremiums (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013ISSAverage TotalLoss Estimated Premium EstimatedNew Coverage Premium Savings Savings Premium BI $163.08 0.0% 0.0% 163.08 PD $19.24 0.0% 0.0% 19.24 PIP $1,105.55 64.5% 55.3% 493.67 PPI $44.20 0.0% 0.0% 44.20 Collision $664.79 0.0% 0.0% 664.79 Comprehensive $374.43 0.0% 0.0% 374.43 Estimated Overall Percentage Savings FullCoverage $2,371.28 $1,759.41 25.8% LiabilityOnly $1,332.07 $720.19 45.9% (1) IndependentStatisticalService,Inc,AutomobileExperience,AveragePremiumsforDetroitMetropolitanInner(Territory36) (2) Attachment5 (3) (3)*0.858(PortionofPremiumsthatareVariable) (4) (1)*[1+(3)] (5) [(4)Total/(1)Total]1

Attachment7B CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing EstimatedSavings$25,000/$250,000LimitOptionUsing2015MAIPFBaseRates (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2015MAIPFBase TotalLoss Estimated Premium EstimatedNew Coverage Rates Savings Savings Premium BI $468.00 0.0% 0.0% 468.00 PD $48.00 0.0% 0.0% 48.00 PIP $4,134.00 64.5% 55.3% 1846.00 PPI $142.00 0.0% 0.0% 142.00 Collision $1,126.00 0.0% 0.0% 1126.00 Comprehensive $310.00 0.0% 0.0% 310.00 Estimated Overall Percentage Savings FullCoverage $6,228.00 $3,940.00 36.7% LiabilityOnly $4,792.00 $2,504.00 47.7% (1) MichiganAutoInsurancePlacementFacilityBaseRates,010115,Territory3637 (2) Attachment5 (3) (3)*0.858(PortionofPremiumsthatareVariable) (4) (1)*[1+(3)] (5) [(4)Total/(1)Total]1

Attachment7C CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing EstimatedSavings$25,000/$250,000LimitOptionUsingHypotheticalRateQuote (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) HypotheticalQuote TotalLoss Estimated Premium EstimatedNew Coverage AnnualPremium Savings Savings Premium BI $260.00 0.0% 0.0% $260.00 PD $24.00 0.0% 0.0% $24.00 PIP $3,332.00 64.5% 55.3% $1,487.88 PPI $60.00 0.0% 0.0% $60.00 Collision $1,042.00 0.0% 0.0% $1,042.00 Comprehensive $234.00 0.0% 0.0% $234.00 Estimated Overall Percentage Savings FullCoverage $4,952.00 $3,107.88 37.2% LiabilityOnly $3,676.00 $1,831.88 50.2% $1,844.12 (1) MichiganAutoInsurancePlacementFacilityBaseRates,010115,Territory3637 (2) Attachment5 (3) (3)*0.858(PortionofPremiumsthatareVariable) (4) (1)*[1+(3)] (5) [(4)Total/(1)Total]1

Attachment8A CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing EstimatedSavingsHighDeductibleOptionUsing2013ISSAveragePremiums $1,000DeductibleOption (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013ISSAverage TotalLoss Estimated Premium EstimatedNew Coverage Premium Savings Savings Premium BI $163.08 0.0% 0.0% $163.08 PD $19.24 0.0% 0.0% $19.24 PIP $1,105.55 3.1% 2.7% $1,076.19 PPI $44.20 0.0% 0.0% $44.20 Collision $664.79 0.0% 0.0% $664.79 Comprehensive $374.43 0.0% 0.0% $374.43 Estimated Overall Percentage Savings FullCoverage $2,371.28 $2,341.92 1.2% LiabilityOnly $1,332.07 $1,302.71 2.2% (1) IndependentStatisticalService,Inc,AutomobileExperience,AveragePremiumsforDetroitMetropolitanInner(Territory36) (2) Attachment4($1,000DeductibleOptionSavings) (3) (3)*0.858(PortionofPremiumsthatareVariable) (4) (1)*[1+(3)] (5) [(4)Total/(1)Total]1

Attachment8B CityofDetroit InsuranceReformPricing EstimatedSavingsHighDeductibleOptionUsing2015MAIPFBaseRates $1,000DeductibleOption (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2015MAIPFBase TotalLoss Estimated Premium EstimatedNew Coverage Rates Savings Savings Premium BI $468.00 0.0% 0.0% $468.00 PD $48.00 0.0% 0.0% $48.00 PIP $4,134.00 3.1% 2.7% $4,024.22 PPI $142.00 0.0% 0.0% $142.00 Collision $1,126.00 0.0% 0.0% $1,126.00 Comprehensive $310.00 0.0% 0.0% $310.00 Estimated Overall Percentage Savings FullCoverage $6,228.00 $6,118.22 1.8% LiabilityOnly $4,792.00 $4,682.22 2.3% (1) IndependentStatisticalService,Inc,AutomobileExperience,AveragePremiumsforDetroitMetropolitanInner(Territory36) (2) Attachment4($1,000DeductibleOptionSavings) (3) (3)*0.858(PortionofPremiumsthatareVariable) (4) (1)*[1+(3)] (5) [(4)Total/(1)Total]1