A leading consumer advocate has gone to war against an actuaries' organization that he contends supplies biased reports to Congress because of hidden job connections.

On the attack is Consumer Federation of America Insurance Director Robert Hunter, who is challenging the objectivity of the American Academy of Actuaries, which recently presented findings to lawmakers concerning the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

Mr. Hunter, who has been urging members of the Academy to disclose their individual employment affiliations in reports to lawmakers for nearly a year, believes the objectivity of Academy subgroups on TRIA, medical malpractice and other issues is questionable.

Mr. Hunter, himself a member of the Academy, said current boilerplate wording contained in Academy reports describing the Academy's function is "deceptive."

The description, which says the Academy is a "nonpartisan" group that "assists the public policy process "through the presentation of clear and objective actuarial analysis," gives no hint of potential biases of individual members. Such biases may exist because Academy members work for employers and clients that have interests in how some issues the group reports on play out, he contends.

Ken Kent, vice chair for the Council on Professionalism of the Academy and a former chair of the joint committee on the Code of Professional Conduct, disagrees. When actuaries volunteer to work on behalf of the Academy, they leave their employers' interests outside the door--putting the interests of the Academy first, and building Academy analyses and recommendations around a consensus view, he said, explaining why the Academy won't change the wording or disclose member business affiliations.

"We work on a committee basis and a consensus basis," he said. When the Academy puts forth a position, it is approved by committee, not by any single individual, he added.

Mr. Hunter first attacked the notion that a consensus view obviates disclosure in a letter to the Academy last February, when he expressed particular concern about a medical malpractice committee that reports to Congress.

"Ninety percent of the members of that committee either work for medical malpractice companies or have such companies as [consulting] clients," Mr. Hunter told NU. "So, if you're getting a consensus among them, what have you really got?" he asked.

Mr. Hunter also noted that the chair of an Academy TRIA subgroup works for a large provider of commercial insurance that was on the record as seeking a particular outcome with respect to extension.

That subgroup published a Dec. 1 statement recommending "permanent federal legislation to make terrorism coverage widely and readily available." (See NU Online News Service, Dec 5.)

The unwillingness of Academy members to comply with his repeated requests for disclosure prompted Mr. Hunter to take matters into his own hands. On Dec. 13, he sent a letter to four members of Congress, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Alesssandro Iuppa, president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, with an attached list of TRIA subgroup members and business affiliations. The letter also stated his belief that the Academy's analysis of TRIA was not independent.

Mr. Kent stressed that members take obligations to adhere to the Academy's conflict-of-interest policy seriously. In fact, he reported there are times when a committee member "may back off" or even leave the room if the committee is working on an issue that directly involves the member's employer or client.

Coaxed to share examples based on his own committee experiences, Mr. Kent, a pension actuary who has served as VP of the Academy Pension Practice Council, said when the Academy is called upon to provide clarification of news events, like those related to pension issues at United Airlines, actuaries having client relationships with United excuse themselves.

Special Reports /

Actuary Reports To Feds Biased?

Related Stories

Recommended For You