MONTANA STATE FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING April 30, 2010

Transcription

1 5 South Last Chance Gulch P.O. Box 4759 Helena, MT Customer Service: or Fraud Hotline: (888-MT-CRIME) MONTANA STATE FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING The (MSF) Board of Directors meeting was held at the Best Western Helena Great Northern Hotel in Helena, Montana. Directors Attending Joe Dwyer, Billings Tom Heisler, Great Falls James Swanson, Glendive Ken Johnson, Missoula Boyd Taylor, Butte Wallace Yovetich, Billings State Fund Staff Attending Laurence Hubbard, President/CEO Sherrie Handel, Special Asst to Pres/CEO Nancy Butler, General Counsel Mark Barry, Corporate Support VP Dick Root, Insurance Operations VP Al Parisian, Chief Information Officer Peter Strauss, Operations Support VP Rick Duane, HR Vice President Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary Patti Grosfield, Internal Auditor Rene Silverthorne, Controller Carl Kochman, Communications Leader Christy Weikart, Underwriting Services Leader Philip Woodland, Support Srvcs Team Leader Jeff Bryant, Underwriter Deb Brotherton, Underwriter Others Attending Russell Greig, Towers Watson Representative Chuck Hunter Pat Murdo, Legislative Services Lance Zanto, HCBD Jon Bennion, Montana Chamber of Commerce Mari Kindberg, State Auditor s Office Mark Bruno, OBPP Brenda Miller, Liberty Northwest Dorie Schwinden, Dept of Labor & Industry Kris Wilkinson, Legislative Finance Division Bob Biskupiak, IIAM Don Judge, LMAC Jerry Keck, Department of Labor & Industry I. Meeting Preliminaries A. Call to Order Chairman Joe Dwyer called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. He asked everyone present to introduce themselves. B. Approval of March 26, 2010 (Board Action) Chairman Dwyer moved to approve the March 26, 2010 minutes with the corrections shown in Exhibits A and B. The motion was seconded by Jim Swanson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion was unanimously approved with Ken Johnson voting against it. II. Miscellaneous Montana s insurance carrier of choice and industry leader in service.

2 A. Miscellaneous Laurence Hubbard, President/CEO President Hubbard asked Rick Duane, Vice President of Human Resources, to update the board on the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Mr. Duane explained that the goal of the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiation process was to continue development of the relationship of mutual respect, trust and constructive communication which MSF and the Montana Public Employees Association (MPEA) have established. It was agreed to begin negotiations early to avoid conflict with the move to MSF s new building. They also agreed to a four-year contract which begins on July 1, The process used was interest-based bargaining, a facilitated, non-adversarial process to achieve consensus building and problem solving. Key changes included cleaning up and building consistency in contract language; clarifying language and definitions; defining employees as a member of the designated Bargaining Unit represented by MPEA; ensuring that all references to the Employer, Association or Employee were referenced appropriately and consistently (approximately 19 changes); clarifying language reflecting current policies and practices regarding personal leave, sick leave and banked holiday accrual and usage; defining regular workday; defining hours worked for overtime purposes as hours actually worked (no leave time will count toward overtime); removing the eight-hour option for overtime; adding language in the grievance procedure (clarified the specific information needed when a grievance is filed and redefined steps of the grievance procedure); rewriting the on call and call out sections; and removing specific language regarding the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA) but stating that federal and state laws will be followed. President Hubbard gave the board a progress report on the planning for MSF s Strategic Business Planning and budgeting for fiscal year 2011 which both have to be finalized by the June 25 th board meeting. There is serious pressure on the expense ratio because of the decline in net earned premium. Fiscal year 2009 ended with $204M in net earned premium and now we re projecting for the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 the amount of $166M to $167M in net earned premium, which is over a $30M difference. Thus, it will be reflected in our budget planning for fiscal year There are some expenses that are variable and go up or down with premium, for example, insurance agent commissions; but other costs are fixed and we are not as likely to be able to readily adjust them. B. Overview of Class Rating Process Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary As in the past, Mr. Gengler provided the board with a brief overview of the class rating process, the purpose being to provide context for how MSF s rate-setting process compares with any other private carrier operating in the state. He also highlighted the board s key decision points in the process. The rates the board sets today are an important starting point in the premium pricing process. See the premium algorithm below. (in $100s) Class Code Rate Payroll 0001 $4.50 x 1,200 = $5, $8.25 x 4,000 = $33, $2.00 x 800 = $1,600 $40,000 "Manual Premium" x 0.85 Experience Rating x 0.95 Scheduled Rating - $1,015 Volume Discount + $150 Expense Constant $31,435 Final Premium He stated that class rate making is fundamentally a balancing act between two considerations. One is aggregating large enough pools of data such that the rate that is set is the right rate on Page 2 of 21

3 average for those employers in that particular type of business. Most industries in Montana are not large enough to have a rate based on just the experience in this state alone, so a national rating organization such as NCCI is able to pool the data from not only Montana but also 36 other states. On the other hand, the rate they derive from the large aggregations of data need to be applicable to the business that is being insured here in Montana. There can be a number of differences that come into play. The exposure might be affected by differing wage levels here in Montana as well as the effects of terrain and climate. The kinds of businesses in that class code in this state might be different from the kinds of businesses in that class codes in other states. Another example of a difference is the existence of residual market impact. For example, if there are a lot of national accounts in a particular class code or a group association plan in a class code, it might leave the businesses insured by MSF fundamentally different from the average. According to Mr. Gengler, it s necessary to distinguish loss costs from rates. Loss costs represents the benefits plus claim administrative expense. Rates that a carrier needs to charge include those loss costs plus consideration of general and production expense, offsets for underwriting (credits or debits), any applicable taxes and assessments and provision for contingencies, profit, contribution to equity and offsets for investment income. Rates are the product of loss costs times the loss cost multiplier and Mr. Gengler gave several examples. The way insurance companies establish their rates is 1) NCCI files loss-costs by class code; 2) The Insurance Commissioner has 30 days to disapprove (file and use); and 3) Carriers file a Loss Cost Multiplier (LCM) with a prior filed LCM applying or carriers may update. The way MSF establishes its rates is substantially the same as private carriers (apply LCM s to NCCI-filed loss costs). The most important substantive difference is that the Montana State Fund Board of Directors establishes our LCM s rather than the Insurance Commissioner. Also, MSF uses a limited number of special class codes that are not contained in the NCCI loss cost filing and modifies NCCI loss costs in highly selected instances by establishing different loss costs that are not found in the NCCI filing. These are primarily for state agency use and the 0006 agricultural code for private employers. MSF may modify selected NCCI loss costs where there is good reason to do so. This is a cosmetic difference because a private carrier can file a separate LCM by class code. MSF chooses to apply the same LCM to that class code but substitute different loss costs. Next, Mr. Gengler explained that MSF deviates from NCCI loss costs for various reasons including the fact that MSF is a guaranteed market and does not have the luxury of refusing to write business if we have good reason to believe that loss costs for a particular class code are inadequate. On the other hand, MSF has a statutory obligation to charge less if we perceive and have good reason to believe that the loss costs for a particular class code are too much and that charging that rate would be excessive. Actuarial models are one-size-fits-all and there are all kinds of anomalies that can occur such that MSF looks at each and every class code to determine whether or not it fits the business here in Montana. MSF has credible data with a large enough market share to do so. Finally, MSF is the dominant writer of small accounts. Smaller accounts cannot be effectively underwritten. MSF needs a process to establish those loss costs that are not contained in the NCCI filing. We also use the process to test the adequacy of NCCI to determine if it appears to be excessive or inadequate. This is a class rating model which follows generally accepted actuarial principles. In order for MSF to recommend to the board that they substitute a different loss cost. The criteria for those deviations include: 1) a strong indication in the data; 2) a plausible Page 3 of 21

4 explanation for an underwriting/actuarial perspective; 3) corroborating evidence; and 4) a valid business rationale. Under applicable rules, MSF s board formally adopts NCCI loss costs as a basis for MSF rates. The consulting actuary certifies the exception process is consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles. The consulting actuary certifies the recommended loss costs are neither excessive, inadequate nor unfairly discriminatory. The board accepts or not accepts certification and establishes applicable LCM s. III. Corporate Support A. FY09 Financial/Budget Report Rene Silverthorne, Controller Ms. Silverthorne reported that net earned premium is projected to be at $165.8M at the end of the fiscal year, but the actual amount at third quarter is $130.5M. Payroll growth has continued to decrease. Incurred losses are projected to be $136.9M or $20M below the Strategic Business Plan estimate, a 13 percent decline and comparative to the reduction in premium estimate. This amount includes $6.3M in prior year development. Underwriting expenses net of contingent commission are at $11M for the third quarter with a fiscal year end projection of $19.7M. Investment income projection is approximately $700K below the $46.7M business plan number. Prior to the dividend, $22.1M is being projected for fiscal year end or 12 percent below the SBP of $25M. With regard to policyholder equity, Ms. Silverthorne stated that MSF s projected unrealized gain on investments is $25.2M. The SBP estimated $406K of unrealized gain for a difference of $24.8M. Our projected pending policy holder equity for fiscal year 2010 of $250.9M is a $49.9M increase over fiscal year 2009 s equity. The balance sheet summary at quarter ending March 31, 2010 was explained by Ms. Silverthorne and is shown below: Condensed Balance Sheet Q3 FY2010 FY 2009 Variance ADMITTED ASSETS Investments and Cash Bonds 931,415, ,459,736 22,955,704 Equity Securities 112,158,830 81,742,906 30,415,924 Real Estate Investments 25,512,033 12,732,565 12,779,467 Cash and Short-term Investment 24,617,408 33,585,750 (8,968,342) Securities Lending Collateral 182,634, ,758,454 6,876,257 Total Investments and Cash 1,276,338,422 1,212,279,411 64,059,011 Other Admitted Assets 78,670,505 71,802,904 6,867,601 Total Admitted Assets $ 1,355,008,927 $ 1,284,082,315 $ 70,926,612 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Reserve for Unpaid Losses 748,763, ,247,613 13,515,487 Reserve for Unpaid Loss Adjust 90,465,958 78,057,100 12,408,858 Other Liabilities 267,819, ,745,703 (1,925,831) Total Liabilities 1,107,048,929 1,083,050,415 23,998,514 Policyholders' Equity 247,959, ,031,900 46,928,098 Total Liabilities and Equity $ 1,355,008,927 $ 1,284,082,315 $ 70,926,612 For the Old Fund, total assets are at $13.3M as of March 31, This is decrease of $9.1M from the prior year end. Total loss and LAE reserves are at $59.1M and investment income is projected at $273K or $256K less than fiscal year end Projected operating loss is ($1.2M). The unfunded liability projected for the end of the year is ($46.7M). Page 4 of 21

5 The budget variance summary for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 is shown below: She commented that this summary displays the original budget compared to projections based on nine months of activity in fiscal year Overall, 99 percent of the budget is projected to be spent in all areas. Although the net earned premium projection was down by $20.7M, the total budget projection is close to the original plan. Operational expenditures are estimated to be $3M under budget by the end of the year. Benefit payments are projected to be $1.1M over budget, so claim benefits are the most significant driving factor in MSF s third quarter projections. Wage loss claim settlements for permanent total claims went from $3.5M last year at this time to $7.3M (more than double). Medical payments are on track with some areas up including medical settlements and physical rehabilitation, while hospital and emergency room visits decreased. The Old Fund budget was estimated to remain flat as compared to prior years. Since fiscal year 2005, annual benefit payments ranged from $10M to $11M in 2009 to $10M in This year, based on the first nine months, it is under budget by $2.3M although a couple of extended hospital stays could put this right back to where it was. In summary, Ms. Silverthorne reported that benefits overall are slightly above plan at percent and said that we monitor benefit payments daily and will notify management if transfers are necessary between the programs to cover the overage this fiscal year. Moving onto the Operational Expenditures Summary, Ms. Silverthorne said the main categories account for $56M of the total budget and include: Personal Services: As of the third quarter, Personal Services are projected to be $677K under budget based on vacant positions and holds on position fills. Page 5 of 21

6 Operating Expenses: There are an assortment of areas that net to $1.67M favorable variance overall with the two most significant being Commissions at $1.1M under budget and the Building Project at $428K under budget in Operating Expenses. Equipment and Intangible Assets saw budget savings primarily through the Building Project ($572K) and Insurance Intelligence ($121K) and should come in under budget by $1M. ALAE is $207K over budget due to the increase contracted rates for private investigators and more investigations. Corvel is $163K under budget which is a net of impact from rate adjustment increase and nurse review overpayment recovery. In summary, the total budget is coming in very close to plan at 99 percent with New Fund benefits as the largest piece pushing us close to that estimate; however, operational expenditures are estimated to be under by 5.4 percent from the original budget. IV. Ratemaking Decisions for Fiscal Year 2011 A. Review of MSF Tiered Rating Plan Actuarial Report Russell Greig, Consulting Actuary, Towers Watson Mr. Greig gave the board background information on MSF s tier rating structure and the scope of Towers Watson s engagement along with their findings. He explained that pricing workers compensation based on risk classification alone can lead to inequity and that experience rating goes a long way to reduce such inequities and provide incentives for safety, but still leaves room for improvement. MSF classifies its insureds into five tiers: Experience-rated risks are placed into a tier based on their experience modification factor. Approximately two-thirds of risks with annual premiums in excess of $5,000 are experience rated. Non-experience-rated risks are placed into a tier based on the number of claims and the number of years of continuous coverage with MSF. The placement algorithm depends on the size of the employer. Risks that are not experience-rated and have manual premium in excess of $8,000 default to Tier 4 for underwriting review. Claim count driven criteria is likely unsuitable in many of these cases. The tiers determine the multiplier that is applied to the corresponding manual premiums. Mr. Greig noted that MSF s rating tiers have been effective in supporting the equitable treatment of its policyholders and that it is not alone in using a tiered approach to enhance equity in pricing. SAIF (Oregon) uses a five-tier rating based on loss history, premium size and implementation of effective safety systems. Florida uses a three-tier structure based on actual losses, eligibility for experience rating and insured tenure. Hawaii Employers Mutual Insurance Company uses a five-tier rating plan while SCF Arizona refines pricing on size, past experience and safety. In addition, private carriers also use increasingly sophisticated tiering for risk selection and pricing. Mr. Greig explained that Towers Watson reviewed MSF s approach in order to provide an independent opinion on MSF s tiering structure. MSF s pricing parameters are subject to different regulatory processes than those of private carriers. MSF requested that they independently review and opine on its tiering approach. They answered the following questions: 1) Are MSF s tiers consistent with reasonable, robust and actuarially sound approaches and 2) At the end, is the resulting picture (i.e., pricing) fair? Page 6 of 21

7 Their analysis is grounded in practical considerations. The structure must be implemented in the real world, not a theoretical ideal. The rating plans must be reasonably efficient and practical to administer. The rating plans must be easy to understand and intuitively fair to policyholders. Any rating plan used by MSF must recognize the fact that MSF cannot turn away any employer. Next, Mr. Greig commented on Towers Watson s findings and stated that, overall, MSF s tier rating plan improves the equity of pricing for MSF policyholders and is not unfairly discriminatory. MSF s tier rating structure enhances pricing equity by narrowing the disparities between loss ratio experience by tier. The structure of the tier rating plan and the process for monitoring and recalibrating its parameters are 1) Generally reasonable, actuarially sound, practical and straightforward, and 2) Consistent with practical approaches used by other carriers. According to Mr. Greig, MSF s approach is generally reasonable, actuarially sound, practical and straightforward, and consistent with practical approaches used by other carriers. He recommended that MSF perform additional research to continue the evolution of the plan. Those recommended topics regarding the construction and monitoring of individual risk pricing included: Evolution towards more robust approaches to pricing individual accounts; for example, through systematic data mining for additional predictive characteristics Research on the cost and benefits of lowering threshold for experience rating Analysis of results along all the characteristics used in the tiering process; i.e., following the claim count and tenure dimensions as well Excluding large, non-experience rated accounts from the monitoring data Refinement of tiering characteristics to increase the homogeneity within each tier Update the claim amount threshold used to assess claim frequency for tier assignment Topics for additional research to further improve pricing equity include: 1) Options to bring Tier 3 loss ratios and Tier 4 loss ratios closer to average loss ratio; 2) Loss ratio experience for risks with highest experience rating modifiers; 3) Differences in loss ratio experience within Tier 2 for different levels of experience-rating modifier; and 4) Departure from average in loss ratios for employers with annual premiums between $2,500 and $5,000. Page 7 of 21

8 Mr. Greig said Towers Watson considered the following: Are the achieved loss ratios by tier level approximately the same or are the differences explainable? Are there significant interactions that may have been missed? Are the tiers sufficiently credible He targeted certain types of variables and characteristics for this portion of the analysis: Based on the types of data that are readily available Most likely to yield observations that would be practically actionable by MSF In addition, they kept practical considerations in mind throughout their analysis: The need for a plan that is reasonably efficient and practical to administer (e.g., there is a tradeoff between refinements and ease of implementation) The fact that MSF, unlike private carriers, cannot refused to insure any employer MSF s tier rating plan needs to be relatively easy to understand and intuitively fair to policyholders Towers Watson s Certification of s Tiers (Exhibit C) that, in Mr. Greig s opinion, MSF s tiered rating structure improves the equity of pricing for MSF policyholders and is not unfairly discriminatory. B. Multiple Rating Tiers Peter Strauss, VP Operations Support (Board Action) Mr. Strauss advised the board that private carriers may have a number of subsidiaries to file different low-cost multipliers to compete at different rate levels in the marketplace. For example, you might buy insurance from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company or State Farm Indemnity Company or State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company or State Farm General Insurance Company depending on the state in which you live. Although not all are licensed in every state, they all provide coverage by State Farm but at different rate levels. Because MSF cannot have different company titles, our approach is to use rate tiers. The criteria for initial rated tier selection is based on the loss experience of individual accounts. Rate tiers are a tool used by just about every company in the industry in one form or another. The purpose of a rate tier program is to start the process of tailoring the right premium to the individual risk presented by the policyholder. That is, the criteria for the assignment of the rate tier is based on the individual policyholder s loss experience. Generally, higher risk governing policyholders are placed in the higher rated tiers. Conversely, lower risk-generating policyholders are placed in the lower rated tiers. Again, tier selection is based on individual policyholder experience. For experience-rated accounts, the tier selection is based solely on the experience modification factor. For non-experience rated accounts, tier selection is based on the actual number of claims over $250 and the number of years the employer has had a policy with MSF. Fewer losses and longer time with MSF result in an assignment to the lower-rated tiers. Over the past eight years, since the inception of the rate tier program, we have proposed changes to the program to fine tune it to be as accurate as possible in generating the right premium level for each policyholder. At this point in the life of the program, the quarter turns on the screws appear to be successful. Over the years, we have seen an increase in the number of policies in the lowerrated tiers and a corresponding decrease in the number of policies in the higher-rated tiers. Page 8 of 21

9 Every year we review the annual pricing programs to make sure they are as responsive as possible to the market and our policyholders results. Where we see a need to make changes, we ask for your approval. Where we see continued responsiveness in a program, we ask you to allow it to continue without changes. Mr. Strauss noted that the board had a copy of Russell Grieg s letter from Towers Watson certifying that the tiered rating program effectively improves equity of our pricing and is not unfairly discriminatory as compared to a one-size-fits-all rate for everyone. He asked the board to approve the continuation of the five rating tiers with the current eligibility thresholds to be effective for fiscal year Ken Johnson moved that the board approve, for new and renewal policies in fiscal year 2011, the implementation of five rating tiers and that policies be assigned to the tiers based on the factors as presented by management. The motion was seconded by Jim Swanson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion was unanimously approved with Wallace Yovetich abstaining. C. Volume Discount Peter Strauss, VP Operations Support (Board Action) Next, Mr. Strauss stated that Administrative Rule permits MSF to provide volume discounts based on premium levels. He said that every year we review our programs to make sure they are performing as expected and survey the competition to make sure we do not inadvertently miss market changes. As a result of that effort, this year he said we are again asking the board to maintain the volume discounts at the same levels as last year. Most, but not all, of MSF s competitors have a volume discount program. Generally, volume discounts reflect the economies of scale for higher premium policies; that is, our fixed costs to provide coverage for smaller premium policies are about the same as they are for larger premium policies. The volume discount program recognizes that and the discount is automatically applied. While most of our competitors have a volume discount program, not all do. The programs are literally all over the board as one would expect as the programs should reflect the individual carrier s expenses. MSF s proposal is to make no changes to the current program to reflect appropriate discounts based on MSF expenses. This program, taken with our other premium-fitting programs, provide the best opportunity to properly tailor the premium to the risk presented by the individual policyholder. At the same time, this proposal to make no change to the current program levels retains a position in the middle of the pack of our competitors. Mr. Strauss asked the board to approve the proposal to maintain the current volume discount table for fiscal year Boyd Taylor moved that the board approve, for new and renewal policies in fiscal year 2011 and as recommended by management, the same volume discount table for modified standard premium as approved for fiscal year The motion was seconded by Ken Johnson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion was unanimously approved. D. Terrorism Rate Dick Root, VP Insurance Operations (Board Action) The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) and its renewal in 2005 were discussed by Mr. Root. In 2007, it was extended to 2014 and requires a clear and conspicuous notification to Page 9 of 21

10 policyholders of the insurance agreement. TRIA requires a 20 percent deductible. NCCI files a loss cost of two cents in the aggregate for both certified terrorism acts and uncertified incapacity losses. He asked the board to approve it again for this year. In response to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as renewed, amended and extended by act of Congress in December, 2005 and extended under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (TRIPRA) through December 30, 2014, Chairman Dwyer moved that the board adopt the NCCI loss-cost filing of two cents per $100 of payroll for new and renewal policies in fiscal year The motion was seconded by Jim Swanson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion was unanimously approved. E. NCCI FY 2011Montana Loss Cost Filing Update Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary Consideration of approval of NCCI s loss costs filing as the basis for MSF s rates was discussed by Mr. Gengler. MSF rates are the NCCI loss costs, although modified with a few additions and substitutions times the loss cost multiplier. Under administrative rules, the choice for the board is to either use NCCI s new filing effective July 1, 2010 or to use last year s filing. The circumstances under which MSF would not use the new filing are extremely narrow but administrative rules allow the opportunity to use last year s filing should the NCCI filing should be unavailable or found to be defective (extremely unlikely); therefore, this decision was put on standing approval by MSF s Board of Directors because it s unlikely that MSF would recommend not using NCCI s most recent filing. This year s NCCI filing reflects a 6.4 percent decrease in loss costs in Montana. The single biggest component is the cost of benefits. NCCI included in their filing a minor one-tenth of one percent decrease in the cost of handling claims, which means an overall decrease in the NCCI filing for Montana businesses of 6.4 percent. Mr. Gengler pointed out that the change in loss costs varies by industry group and within industry groups by individual class code. For this year, NCCI s loss costs decreased by as much as 36 percent or increased by as much as 23 percent but the overall average is -6.4 percent. Dorie Schwinden appeared on behalf of the Schweitzer administration and the Department of Labor and Industry and noted that both MSF s internal actuary and external consulting actuary said that MSF s rating system is equitable and fair. He agreed, but questioned if it s enough for policyholders and businesses in Montana and said he would appreciate MSF doing more. Mr. Gengler stated that MSF s recommendation is to maintain standing approval for use of the most recent NCCI loss cost filing. F. Adopt NCCI Filing/Loss Costs Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary (Board Action) In April of 2004, the board approved a standing motion for the adoption of NCCI Filing/Loss Costs as follows: Jack Morgenstern moved that the board adopt the NCCI-filed loss costs for July 1, 2004 for classification codes except those loss costs for classification codes approved as exceptions by the board. The loss costs will apply to new and renewal policies with effective dates in fiscal year He also moved that the NCCI-filed loss costs, as filed each year by NCCI for the following July 1, be utilized by Montana State Fund in its annual ratemaking process and apply to new and renewal policies with effective dates in each fiscal year except for those loss costs for classification codes approved as exceptions by the board each fiscal year unless a board member or management requests this item be placed on a future agenda for further consideration. The Page 10 of 21

11 motions were seconded by Derek Grewatz and carried unanimously. Therefore, this item does not require board action unless otherwise desired by the board. G. Adopt Loss-Cost Exception Analysis/Actuarial Certification Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary (Board Action) The next item discussed by Mr. Gengler was consideration of modifications to the NCCI loss costs where MSF makes some additions and a couple of substitutions. The additions are for the special classifications and substitutions for any selected deviations from NCCI loss costs. He explained that MSF has a process by which the recommendations are developed and it is certified by our consulting actuary, which is the process defined by administrative rules. With respect to MSF s special class codes (not contained in the NCCI filing), Mr. Gengler showed the chart below: MSF Special Classifications Recommended Rate Change MSF FY2010 FY2011 Loss-Cost Prior to Code Name Loss-Cost Loss-Cost Change Overall Change 6 Farm Or Ranch - All Employees & Drivers % -7.5% 7424 State Aircraft Operation Noc: Flying Crew % -2.6% 7721 State Penal Institution: All Other Employees % 0.2% 7722 State Highway Patrol Officers % 9.4% 8743 Municipal: Professional Or Administrative % 0.0% 8744 State,Hosp,Penal: Prof Or Adm % -2.3% 8811 State: Clerical Office Employees % 2.1% 8834 State Hospital: All Other Employees & Drivers % -5.5% 9411 State Highway Dept: Admin Or Non-Professional % 1.7% 9412 State: Administrative Or Non-Professional % 0.9% 9421 State Highway Dept: All Others & Drivers % 5.2% 9422 State: All Other Employees Noc & Drivers % 5.5% 9424 Municipal: Relief Workers % 0.4% 9427 Community Service Workers % 0.4% Ten class codes are in use by state agencies, three for municipal governmental entities, and one class code is in use by private employers (0006-Farm or Ranch Operations). Mr. Gengler explained the process by which loss-cost exceptions are determined. With respect to state agency class codes that represent the bulk of MSF s special class codes, he showed on the chart below the ten-year history of state agency loss costs versus the net effective premium rate charged to state agencies. Page 11 of 21

12 Mr. Gengler noted that state agencies are a significant customer for MSF. The green line on the chart shown above indicates the average MSF has been charging state agencies per $100 for payroll. The red line is the losses per $100 of payroll and should be below the green line to provide room for additional expenses. In the early 2000 s, the rate was about half of what it is today. On the other hand, we now realize the losses were running double, so there were very significant losses on state agency business. The rates increased in response to this situation. We now believe we have things in relative balance. Mr. Gengler added that, at the time, we believed rates and accident rates were in balance; in hindsight, we realize they were not. We think we re in balance right now; however, five years from now we might discover we are not. This uncertainty is inherent in the insurance business. Adverse development on state agency claims is what caused the situation. The state agency with the biggest increase is in the state s Highway Patrol code, which is increasing nine percent prior to any overall rate change. There are some extremely high losses driven by fatalities in accident years 2008 and He stated that we need to react to those high losses but not over react because that s what insurance is for to smooth out the highs and lows over long periods of time. One other class code mentioned by Mr. Gengler was 4-State Institutions (All Other Employees), the non-professional, non-clerical employees. In this case, he shared that the class rate is coming down about six percent prior to any overall rate change. It is the state s largest class code by premium volume. The next category of modifications to the NCCI loss costs is Select Deviations where MSF tests the appropriateness of NCCI loss cost rates. MSF developed a preliminary list of 17 class codes to review, assembled a team of actuarial and underwriting subject matter experts to review the 17 class codes, and, from that, recommended a deviation for eight class codes (shown on the next page) in the NCCI loss cost filing. The net differential is nine percent below NCCI s loss costs. Deviations from NCCI Loss-Costs Proposed Rate Change NCCI FY 2011 Prior to Code Name Loss-Cost Loss-Cost Variance Overall Change 1005 Coal Mining-Surface- & Drivers % 8.4% 5645 Carpentry-Detached 1 Or 2 Family Dwellings % 6.0% 8279 Stable,Breeding Farms/Riding Acdmy/Riding Clb % -0.5% 9052 Hotel/Motel/Dude Ranch/Commissary Work % -2.0% 9082 Restaurant Noc % 0.0% 9083 Restaurant: Fast Food % -0.6% 9084 Bar, Discotheque, Lounge, Nightclub Or Tavern % -12.1% 9179 Athletic Sports Or Park: Contact Sports % 1.3% Boyd Taylor moved that the board adopt the recommended modified loss costs for the classification codes identified by management and also moved that the board accept the consulting actuary s certification of the loss costs proposed by management. The loss costs will apply to new and renewal policies with effective dates in fiscal year The motion was seconded by Ken Johnson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any Page 12 of 21

13 questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. H. Minimum Premium and Expense Constant Mark Barry, VP Corporate Support (Board Action) Mr. Barry explained that it was necessary for the board to approve the expense constant and loss-based minimum premium for new and renewal policies that will be new or renewed during the period of July 1, 2010 to June 30, The expense constant is a charge on all policies that represent the common expenses of issuing and administering a policy regardless of its size. The loss-based minimum premium is an assessment to small policies that represent the loss exposure of those policies of the medical and/or wage loss portion of the insurance coverage provided to those small accounts. Mr. Barry gave the board a history from 2004 forward of the expense constant and advised the board that management recommends to maintain the $155 expense constant. Regarding the loss-based minimum premium component, Mr. Barry again updated the board of the history going back to There are approximately 5,300 accounts that fall into this category. Management evaluates loss exposure and, based on their analysis, they recommend $245 again for fiscal year Ken Johnson moved that the board adopt an expense constant of $155 and the amount of $245 for the loss-based portion of the minimum premium for a total minimum premium of $400 for new and renewal policies with effective dates in fiscal year The motion was seconded by Boyd Taylor. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. V. Actuarial Report Russell Greig, Consulting Actuary Towers Watson Mr. Greig stated that MSF management requested that Towers Watson provide analysis (Exhibit D) to aid management and the Board of Directors in selecting loss cost multipliers for policies incepting from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 and followed with an overview of the methodology they used. Key management decisions requested included selected loss projection (including any provision for potential adverse deviation and terrorism), anticipated investment yield, target contribution to policyholder equity, and the impact of rating programs. He explained that, because the aggregate amount of historical ultimate losses is an estimate, there are several contingencies that could impact their analyses: 1. Development, defined as changes over time in insurance data, can be higher or lower or relatively constant and is primarily impacted by the medical condition of claimants and medical technology. 2. Medical costs may increase more than expected due to medical technology and utilization. 3. Trend frequency and severity 4. Benefit changes and court cases that retroactively change benefits 5. Litigation/attorney involvement 6. Economic cycles and social trends After selecting their actuarial central estimate of ultimate losses for each of the prior accident years, Mr. Greig then needs to have a projection of future ultimate losses for the upcoming underwriting year. He adjusts historical ultimate losses for statutory benefit changes, mix of business, trends in frequency and cost of claims and employers liability (and the impact of reinsurance), compares it to NCCI loss costs and selects future loss provision (including any provision for potential adverse deviation and terrorism). Page 13 of 21

14 Loss Cost Multipliers Mr. Greig has to include expenses in his analysis as shown in the comparative figures below: Private Carriers Loss Adjustment Expense 13.8% 14.4% (% of Loss) Other Expense 22.2% 20.1% He must analyze premium revenue received during the year and claims payout over many years. MSF recognizes the economic value of cash flow and reduces its premiums accordingly. Management considered a reasonable range of investment yields for this purpose (2.75 percent to 3.50 percent). Another issue is contribution to policyholder equity and provision for adverse deviation. We must recognize the transfer of risk from the employer to MSF as premiums are established before the ultimate number, severity, duration or cost of claims are known. Premiums are established before operational expenses are incurred as well. We must provide for contingencies such as adverse development on claims experience, adverse court decisions, catastrophes, and unexpected increases in claim frequency, medical costs, etc., as well as maintain or build policyholder equity to target levels. Mr. Greig s analysis must also incorporate a provision for terrorism exposure. When combined, Towers Watson comes up with indicated loss cost multipliers. They assume an investment yield on underwriting cash flow of 3.25 percent. Management s recommended target contribution to equity is 7.5 percent of earned premium. Mr. Greig showed graphically how the loss cost multipliers change by tier in the summary of projected loss cost multipliers shown below: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tiers VI. Ratemaking Decisions Laurence Hubbard, President/CEO Page 14 of 21

15 a. Recommendation on Contribution to Surplus and Loss Cost Multipliers for FY2011 President Hubbard discussed the three key decisions that the board needed to make that were summarized by Mr. Greig. It is required by law that MSF rates are discounted for future investment income as opposed to losses, which are not discounted. They are two different concepts. He explained that we have to select a number to charge that, when invested over time, would grow from some percentage to a full dollar. He believes a reasonable rate of return to assume for our rate level is 3.25 percent, which is management s recommendation. The other decision point is the amount of equity expressed as a percentage of earned premium that the board seeks to generate in the fiscal year 2011 rates. President Hubbard recommended that the board plan on generating a 7.5 percent contribution to equity from the rates for fiscal year The factors that impact the contribution to equity are investment risk, adverse deviation for medical trends or unanticipated wage trends, court decisions, and others that affect positively or negatively each individual rate year s contribution to equity. By law, MSF must be more conservative when a cost factor is more uncertain than if it is certain. We must err on the side of caution. The other principal that guides President Hubbard s recommendation to the board is the responsibility MSF has to act as a stabilizing force with regard to rate levels avoiding precipitous volatile ups and downs. With regard to the need for MSF to be financially strong, every rate decision has to have a significant enough provision for contribution to equity, because we have to grow our aggregate equity for each accident year that we incur new liabilities. He said that we are all aware of the reserve-to-surplus target ratio that the board has established and review each time there is an equity and dividend discussion. The board targeted a 2.0 to 2.5 long-term goal of reserves to equity. As noted by Controller, Rene Silverthorne, if MSF s fiscal year 2010 financial projections are correct, MSF will potentially be at a 3.5 to 1 reserve-to-equity level. President Hubbard emphasized that is still not at the target and we need to move forward to that goal. He recommended that adverse deviation stay at five percent of the overall indicated rate, because MSF continues to experience adverse development trends. While we re seeing positive frequency and severity indications on recent accident year trends, there is still upward pressure. Considering those risk factors and given MSF s goal of a financially strong, President Hubbard recommended a 7.5 percent target contribution to equity from this rate action. That would imply a minus four percent annual rate change from fiscal year 2010 rates. b. Loss Cost Multipliers and Components Dan Gengler, Internal Actuary Mr. Gengler noted that NCCI loss costs, modified by some additions and substitutions, had been discussed and that if one were to apply the NCCI loss costs to MSF s book of business, given our distribution of payrolls by class code, NCCI says MSF needs to charge approximately $4 per $100 of payroll. MSF considers that 1.0 (100 percent). The loss cost multipliers (LCM s) for each of MSF s five rate tiers then makes the judgment that says $4 per hundred may be the average, but the businesses insured in Tier 1is lower loss than average; therefore, we don t need to charge as much; in fact, MSF charges 68.4 percent of those loss costs. On the other end of the spectrum, according to Mr. Gengler, the businesses insured in Tier 5 tend to produce higher losses than average; so the judgment is that we need to charge 25 percent more than that average. Analysis of LCM Components -4.0% Rate Change Tier1 Tier2 Tier3 Tier4 Tier5 Loss & LAE Offsets for UW Programs Genl & Acquisition Expense Profit & Contingency Loss-Cost Multiplier Page 15 of 21

16 An extensive question-and-answer discussion followed on rates in Montana with Chairman Dwyer emphasizing that Montana s workers compensation rates will go down when there are fewer accidents. Mark Barry reminded the board that, in the management of risk at MSF, there is a very critical risk that we have to take into account. We are a public entity serving a public role and that is as the guaranteed market for workers compensation. Given that risk, we have to understand what that role means to us. We assess what adjustments we can make in order to ensure we are serving that role, a risk that other insurers do not have. Anyone who wants to insure with MSF must be allowed to obtain their workers compensation insurance. He commented that Mr. Gengler was making a point that MSF is already at a lower level than NCCI recommendations. Don Judge addressed the board and shared that he serves on the Labor-Management Advisory Council (LMAC). He suggested that the real cost driver in workers compensation is the state s rate of injury and accidents. He also discussed his sub-committee s work on claim closure. He asked the board to consider the possible future use by the state of Montana of Colorado guidelines supplemented by the ODG guidelines. History has shown that, in states that adopt Utilization and Treatment Guidelines, rates are reduced anywhere from 25 to 30 percent. He went on to discuss provider rates and the fact that they might still be too high. c. Adopt Loss-Cost Multipliers for FY2011 (Board Action) Ken Johnson moved that the board adopt loss-cost multipliers to apply to the loss costs as approved by the board for new and renewal policies with effective dates in fiscal year 2011 as follows: For Tier 1, a loss-cost multiplier of For Tier 2, a loss-cost multiplier of For Tier 3, a loss-cost multiplier of For Tier 4, a loss-cost multiplier of 1.269, and For Tier 5, a loss-cost multiplier of The motion was seconded by Jim Swanson. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. d. Retrospective Rating Plan Factors Peter Strauss, VP Operations Support (Board Action) Mr. Strauss stated that Administrative Rule permits MSF to have a Retrospective Rating Plan, which provides for individually priced coverage for the most sophisticated of policyholders, generally those with full-time professional risk managers and very large premiums. The program provides an opportunity for those policyholders to accept part of the risk, manage losses and potentially pay less than guaranteed cost coverage or, based on results, pay significantly more than guaranteed cost coverage. As applied to our group plans, we provide a return premium for years with better-than-expected results but no penalty; that is, no retrospective premium increase for results that are worse than expected. In fiscal year 2010, MSF quoted 45 risks and wrote 12 retrospective policies representing about $4.4M in premium (+/- $365K average premium). To date, we have provided approximately $2M in return premium on the 2008 retrospective policies. Results are reviewed at 18 and 24 months. These policies obviously did well in managing their losses from 2008 and outperformed the rest of the market. We also covered about $300K in additional premium. Page 16 of 21

17 The only change MSF is recommending is for the factors applicable to individual and group retention plans is an increase in the applicable expense ratio from 8.3 percent to 11.6 percent reflecting the decrease in program premium and the leveling of our expenses. Maximum Premium Factor: 1.00 to 1.75 Expense Ratio: 11.6% Contribution to Surplus: at least 5% Loss Conversion Factor: 1.10 to 1.25 Premium Deferral: up to 40% Loss Limitation: per NCCI Retrospective Rating Plan Manual Tax Multiplier: 1.00 Minimum Premium Threshold: $50,000 Mr. Strauss asked the board to approve the Retrospective Rating Plan, the individual components of the program to be applicable to individual retrospectively rated policies and group retention plans, and to permit the President/CEO to adjust the expense ratio to include costs of business acquisition and other account-specific costs not generally included in the expense ratio. Chairman Dwyer moved that the board adopt for fiscal year 2011 retrospective rating plans the following components: A maximum premium factor of 1.00 to 1.75 An expense ratio of 11.6 percent or as approved by the President A contribution to surplus of at least five percent A loss-conversion factor of 1.10 to 1.25 A premium deferral of up to 40 percent The excess-loss limitation factors as specified in the NCCI Retrospective Rating Plan Manual A tax multiplier of 1.00 A minimum premium threshold of $50,000, and Loss development factors for each evaluation based upon actuarial analysis The motion was seconded by Boyd Taylor. Chairman Dwyer asked for any questions or comments from those present. There being none, he called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. e. Optional Deductible Plan Factors Peter Strauss, VP Operations Support (Board Action) Mr. Strauss related to the board that Administrative Rule permits MSF to have an Optional Large Deductible Plan. This plan is similar to the Retrospective Rating Plan in that the application is limited to the most sophisticated policyholders who are willing and financially capable of accepting and managing their own risk. Generally those policyholders have full-time professional risk managers on staff. MSF did not quote any large deductible policies in fiscal year For the most part, this plan provides MSF an opportunity to provide a direct comparison to our competition and an additional option for policyholders to consider. The purchasers of these policies are the largest companies with nationally know names who can afford to pay the large deductible and generally manage the risk on their own. Aggregate Limit: up to 175% of standard premium Expense Ratio: 11.6% Contribution to Surplus: at least 5% Loss Conversion Factor: 1.10 to 1.25 Loss Limitation: per NCCI Retrospective Rating Plan Manual Tax Multiplier: 1.00 Minimum Premium Threshold: $50,000 As with the Retrospective Rating Plan, after review, the only change we are recommending is an increase in the applicable expense ratio from 8.3 percent to 11.6 percent reflecting the change in premium relative to the expenses of the program. Page 17 of 21