Members of Congress are concerned about re-election and thepolitical system is in a state of upheaval.

Against this backdrop, it's fair to assume that there will belittle action on significant insurance legislation until the dustsettles. What is harder to predict is the shape of thepost-election landscape's effect on insurance issues.

The past few years have seen an unusual and welcome spate ofbipartisan action in Congress on insurance legislation. Perhaps thebest example came earlier this year, when the House passed a bill to encourage the development ofa private flood insurance market. The bipartisan FloodInsurance Market Parity and Modernization Act (H.R. 2901),sponsored in the House by Reps. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) and PatrickMurphy (D-Fla.), was passed by a vote of 419–0.

Will this kind of refreshing bipartisanship on insurance issueslast? Prospects for individual issues will likely be affected bywhich side prevails in the 2016 elections — but exactly how remainsto be seen.

Some of the insurance-related issues to be dealt with in 2017and beyond include the following:

Flood insurance

For those who enjoy observing continuous congressionaldeliberation, flood insurance is the issue that keeps ongiving.

In 2017, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) comesup for renewal, while other flood bills will also be debated. Since2017 marks the start of a new Congress, all previously introducedbills will expire. If H.R. 2901 or Senate companion bill S. 1679are not enacted during the current session of the 114th Congress,chances are good they will be back next year as part of the NFIPreauthorization process.

While the National Association ofProfessional Insurance Agents (PIA) opposes the immediateprivatization of the NFIP and supports the long-termreauthorization of the NFIP when it comes up for renewal in 2017,it also supports sensible solutions for encouraging the growth ofthe private flood insurance market.

Related: What will flood insurance look like after2017?

Continuereading… 

Protecting state insurance regulation

On June 16, 2016, the House Financial Services Committee passedthe Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016 (H.R. 5143) by avote of 34–25. The bill enhances congressional oversight ofinternational deliberations relating to insurance standards byrequiring the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve toconsult with Congress and state insurance regulators beforeapproving any international insurance standards.

It would give Congress 90 days to approve or reject any proposedinternational insurance agreement, require its publication in theFederal Register and mandate a 30-day public comment period.

Related: Negotiations with EU insurance regulators are atest for 'Team USA'

This bill is an effort to prevent the Treasury Department fromentering into any international insurance agreement that wouldundercut the United States' state-based system of insuranceregulation. The legislation also prohibits the U.S. from enteringinto an international covered agreement that would grant theFederal Insurance Office or the Treasury Department authority tosupervise or regulate the business of insurance.

Reaffirm regulation principle

"The role of the FIO in its enabling legislation is unambiguousin that it is specifically prohibited from acting in any manner asa regulator or supervisor of the business of insurance," said PIANational Vice President of Government Relations Jon Gentile. "It isgratifying to see Congress reaffirm this principle."

For more than 150 years, the state-based system of insuranceregulation has successfully protected consumers and created acompetitive and diverse U.S. insurance market.

If global standards are promulgated without appropriateconsideration of the unique state-based system of U.S. insuranceregulation, they may actually increase systemic risks and consumercosts by pushing small and midsize companies out of business,reducing competition.

Conventional wisdom would say that H.R. 5143 would stand abetter chance now than were Democrats to win control of the Senatestarting next year. However, support for state insurance regulationcan sometimes cross party lines.

Related: Trump most favorable to insurance industry,according to A.M. Best survey

Continue reading… 

Fiduciary rules

President Barack Obama has vetoed legislation that would haveblocked the enforcement of final U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) retirement plan'President Obama's veto will allow implementation of the final DOLrule. Under the rules, which were finalized earlier this year,retirement plan advisers and some other types of financial adviserscould suffer civil penalties if they fail to consider customers'best interests. A House attempt to override the president's vetofailed on June 22.

Efforts to repeal the DOL rule would fare worse if Democratsincrease their ranks in Congress, and fail if they win the WhiteHouse.

Related: Will proposed fiduciary rule make insurance agentsvulnerable to lawsuits?

DOL overtime rule

A new Department of Labor (DOL) rule relating to overtime willhave negative consequences for employers. The rule is set to takeeffect December 1, 2016. It raises the salary threshold below whichmost salaried workers are entitled overtime to $913 per week, or$47,476 annually for full-time workers. The previous threshold wasat $455 per week, or $23,660 annually.

The new level — an enormous 113 percent increase — will berevisited every three years, and will be maintained at the 40thpercentile of full-time salaried workers. The Protecting WorkplaceAdvancement and Opportunity Act (S. 2707 and H.R. 4773) wasintroduced to nullify this rule and require DOL to perform aneconomic analysis of how changes to overtime regulations willimpact nonprofits, small businesses, and employers in othervulnerable industry sectors before issuing a new rule. The billwould also prohibit any future proposal from including an automaticupdate mechanism.

A compromise proposal, H.R. 5813, has been introduced byRep. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR). It would incrementally phase in thenew salary threshold over the next three years and also eliminatethe provision for automatic updates to the salary threshold.

Healthcare

Both political parties are at odds on healthcare. Republicansvow to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Democrats support it,with some wanting to expand it. This — like the election — could goeither way, with opposite effects.

Despite the current election year uncertainty, prospects forlegislation that would have a positive effect on insurance issuescontinue to be good, although the outcome of the election will playa role in the timing.

Related: What grade does your state get for its insuranceregulations?

Ted Besesparis is senior vice president of the National Association ofProfessional Insurance Agents, Alexandria, Va.