American Hotel and Lodging Association Risk Management Committee

Transcription

1 American Hotel and Lodging Association Risk Management Committee Annual Loss Cost Survey 2015 Annual Loss Cost Survey

2 Foreword from Beecher Carlson This is the 20 th year that Beecher Carlson has prepared the loss cost study for American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA). Beecher Carlson is very proud to be a partner of AH&LA in assisting its members benchmark their casualty loss experience against each other. Background Lines covered: Workers Compensation (WC) General Liability (GL) Period: 2015 refers to the loss year ended 31 December Timeline: Initial data request May All data collated by November 2015 for presentation to the AH&LA risk management committee in December Data shared: WC and GL Loss information including allocated loss adjustment expense. Workers Compensation Indemnity Loss refers to all loss and expense on any claim with an indemnity payment. All average rates and claim cost amounts are based on losses limited to $250,000 per occurrence addition: Limitations: The 2015 study included information on department (housekeeping, food and beverage and other) as well as date of hire. Beecher Carlson reviewed the data submitted by the participants for reasonableness. We do not take responsibility for the accuracy of the data submitted. Key Facts 100+ years AH&LA has served the industry 20 Years of the Beecher Carlson study 2 lines covered throughout the benchmark $170b Revenue of companies Participating in the study Annual Loss Cost Survey

3 Executive Summary The 2015 loss cost study saw some changes. At the request of the AH&LA Risk Management Committee, Beecher Carlson created new reports and analyzed much more data than it has in the past. This white paper starts the new normal for the study as our focus shifts to more granular data points that may drive decisions. As an example, the report confirmed that the payroll code driving WC claim frequency was housekeeping. It was also noted that WC claim frequency is higher for employees with 0-1 years of service with severity greater in the employees with more than 15 years tenure. The Risk Management committee had originally believed these trends to be anecdotally true and this report has validated these concerns. Overall, frequency and severity have started to flatten. This result is reflective of the insurance industry s rate flattening, perhaps even a continued slight softening. Overall severity, caused by medical cost inflation is up except for large hospitality risks, Beecher Carlson is seeing some inflation but below the headline rates due to fee scheduling and re-pricing. We are seeing parallels between the hospitality industry and the insurance industry through economic capital metrics. Consolidation is occurring in both spaces simultaneously as entities look to develop growth patterns. In the insurance industry, with rates flattening, investment returns generously defined as insipid and an all time level of capital, consolidation is inevitable. With these mergers, we expect underwriting discipline which means stable rates and the continuation of relatively benign market buoyed by loss costs that have temporarily lost momentum. Frequency: There was a decrease in frequency rates between 2015 and We are seeing 0.34 indemnity claims per $1,000,000 in payroll compared with 0.437claims per $1,000,000 of payroll in Although this decrease seems significant, at least in the short term, changes in the study may explain much of the change. A large contributor to the study did not participate and was replaced by a similarly sized entity. However, their loss history was not comparable. Beecher Carlson is also collecting more data and has become the arbiter for the definition of indemnity claims. As a result of these two changes, Beecher Carlson would argue against the empirical result shown above as a decrease in frequency and we prefer to see the change as the start of a new phase of the study. Frequency growth is, as always, unwanted and is offset by increased focus on safety and the more recent employment of analytical tools to address causes of loss. The California Only frequency rate conclusion mirrors that for all states in the paragraph above. In the 2015 study losses per $1,000,000 payroll were 0.87 indemnity claims per $1,000,000 of payroll (206% of the all states number), rising to 0.73 claims per $1,000,000 of payroll in the 2014 (215% of the all states number) study. The continued deterioration of the California frequency experience has been a focus for the industry for many years. The downward trend against all other states should define California as a continued area of focus in Severity: Severity flattened in Due to the changes in the study, it may be useful to look at severity changes through the same lens as frequency. One point to note from Beecher Carlson research over the year is the industry s view of medical inflation. Insurers may continue to cite increasing medical costs as a reason for severity increases, but Beecher Carlson s testing of two leading Third Party Administrators (TPA) found that actual medical inflation is maybe 2% to 3% versus the often cited 6%+. Healthcare costs certainly continue to rise but that doesn t always directly translate into workers compensation results with fee schedules/repricing. In the spirit of what gets measured gets done, large employers are focusing on the medical cost inflation and the results of their efforts may be one of the reasons for the flattening of the severity in this study. We are pleased to continue to offer our guidance to the AH&LA and its members with the completion of the General Liability and Workers Compensation Loss Cost Study. Big Data has consumed the global economy and this study offers data of critical value to the Hospitality Industry and its decision makers. Scott Davis Hospitality Practice Leader Annual Loss Cost Survey

4 Findings Workers Compensation Beecher Carlson found that the overall direct cost of losses for Workers Compensation has reduced from 2005 to 2011 from $1.79 per $100 of payroll to $1.12 per $100 of payroll in increasing markedly since the trough to a high water rate of $1.43 per $100 of payroll in 2014, softening through 2015 to $1.36. Note: All charts in this white paper are for the Upscale sector which has the most study participants and comprises 60% of the study s exposure. Of interest within the above is the distribution of losses within different loss layers. 1 Each year s results is an average result of that AH&LA study year. That is, it s not a developed (to ultimate) rate, yet an average of the 5 years of losses that participants submit Annual Loss Cost Survey

5 Findings The bell curve shown in the previous chart defines losses by size. This is, essentially, a severity chart but it has frequency implications. For the All States classification, the losses that occur in the $0-$250,000 range make up 94.8% of the population. Workers Compensation is, therefore, a class of business that requires frequency management. This means control over return to work programs, employee wellness and training. The bell curve chart also helps define industry retention levels. Although many hospitality management companies purchase guaranteed cost insurance to assist with the allocation of costs to each property, consideration should be given to the retention of risk in the $0-$250,000 layer as this is the industry frequency layer. Purchasing insurance in this layer may be defined as swapping dollars with an insurance company. The real exposure to adverse development comes in the layers above $250,000. Given the frequency of loss in the excess layers, this is where the purchase of risk transfer insurance makes sense. Many hospitality companies are moving toward the retention of losses in the frequency layers, either on their own balance sheet or through an owned captive. Allocation of premium through a captive with actuarially determined loss projections may offer many management companies a cost savings. The cost savings comes from the cessation of the insurance company dollar swap as well as the removal of insurance company fixed administrative costs in the retained layer. To continue with the what gets measured gets done theme in this paper, the retention of a risk layer can also improve an entity s bottom line through the review and management of the retention. California California makes-up 40% of the data for this study and it is therefore an important focus for many of the participants. There is a positive, flattening trend on frequency in 2015, as seen below. This may be caused by the increased focus on operations in the state and the implementation of return to work programs, medical cost control management and more analytical resources to address claims. The chart below shows that the cost per $100 of payroll in California in 2015 is $3.16, 232% of the all states number. This is an increase over the 220% ratio from the 2014 study. From the below, there is an appearance that California rates are flattening, they are still deteriorating when compared to the rest of the states. Annual Loss Cost Survey

6 Findings Severity The actuarial valuation of losses is still catching up with actual loss costs. As can be seen from the graph below, loss costs over the past few years have outstripped actuarial valuations at the 12, 24, 36 and 48 month valuation dates. What this means is that loss costs are still being underpriced in the marketplace by insurance carriers. With a flattening of the severity curve, there may be a period of catch up for the industry. This catch up period is affected by a number of factors, not the least of which is the existence of more data to assist with decision, resource allocation and light duty operations to avoid claim cost escalation. The industry is doing what it can to contain severity. This control may become apparent in the study and reflected in the market over time. Severity, in the All States category, continued its levelling off and showed a decrease this year. California increased year-over-year. CA showed an increase year over year Annual Loss Cost Survey

7 Findings Allocation by business unit and tenure Beecher Carlson amended its data request to the participants of the study. As well as the standard data request, we asked for data supporting the loss costs broken down by sector (food and beverage, housekeeping and all other) as well as date of hire. During the presentation of the 2014 results to the Risk Management committee, a number of questions were asked about the drivers of frequency and severity. From the below charts, it can be seen that entities have a propensity towards frequency for employees in housekeeping who have been with the company under one year. Severity is greater for employees with service more than15 years. This makes sense as older workers with tenure are higher paid and older. Employees going through training drive frequency and this also makes some sense. Through the gathering of the data, Beecher Carlson has been able to place some empirical data around the assumptions that were made in Claims by department: Claims by tenure: Beecher Carlson will continue to look for reports from the data that will drive decision-making. Through analysis and the integration of our broking team, analytics and actuarial teams with the control over loss frequency and severity, Beecher Carlson has been successful in managing loss trends for our clients. The above data is used by clients to ensure that resources are directed to the most appropriate areas. Specific management strategies are employed in each area to address trends and these may be as easy as loss acknowledgement and the sending of get-well-soon cards to injured employees to create goodwill all the way to the investigation of housekeeping practices at specific locations for individuals with a tenure over a certain amount to ensure safety. Regardless of participation, the above provides a rough roadmap for hospitality companies to address loss costs. Further analysis is always required to identify focus areas. Strategy implementation, however, is more important than identification... Annual Loss Cost Survey

8 General Liability General Liability (GL) is often not as controllable as workers compensation. That said, the same strategies can be used to manage frequency and severity inspections, training, on-site visits, customer interactions, etc. General Liability incurred loss per $1,000 sales The above graph shows that severity for GL is increasing from $1.27/$1,000 sales in 2014 to $1.48/$1,000 sales in The following graph shows the distribution of loss payments and, similarly to WC, most of the losses occur in the $0-$250,000 range. The portion of losses in excess of $250,000, however, increases for GL to 25%. When setting an insurance retention strategy for general liability, it is important to understand this stratification of losses. Risk transfer costs in the frequency layers are much greater than in the severity layers and as frequency can be controlled more easily than severity, purchasing insurance above a $250,000 retention may reduce costs. Annual Loss Cost Survey

9 Appendix - Definitions Severity In short, the average cost of a claim. The drivers of severity are both internal to a company (claim procedures, claim mitigation, claim settlement procedures) and external (benefit level changes, medical inflation, wage inflation, systemic fraud, settlement costs) and, consequently, can be viewed as being outside management control. This article addresses severity and its drivers in more detail to assess the controllability of claim development. Frequency In short, how often claims occur. The drivers of frequency are mostly workplace environment based (safety procedures, training, automation of procedures and increases in technologies among others). A lot of these drivers are internal to a company and can be controlled by internal functions such as appropriate bonus structures, premium and loss allocation systems and management oversight. Exposure Base The basis on which premium is determined (payroll for Workers Compensation, revenue or the number of rooms for General Liability). About Beecher Carlson Jason Flaxbeard is the sales leader for Beecher Carlson s hospitality practice. He can be reached at jflaxbeard@beechercarlson.com or by phone at (303) Beecher Carlson has prepared the AH&LA benchmarking study for the past 20years. Scott is responsible for leading Beecher Carlson s Large Account Casualty Practice as well as all sales strategies. Scott has developed service differentiators and has lead the growth of Beecher s proprietary ZOOM process, which is a means to systematically reduce the total cost of risk through the use of automated, statistical model based mechanisms. He can be reached at sdavis@beechercarlson.com or by phone at (615) Aaron directs actuarial consulting services for Beecher Carlson. He is a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries and has prepared the data within this study since inception. He can be reached at anewhoff@beechercarlson.com or by phone at (818) Annual Loss Cost Survey

10 Annual Loss Cost Survey beechercarlson.com Annual Loss Cost Survey