EDITORIAL

The temptation to predict the odds of a legislative issue rising or falling during the first week of the legislative session is both foolish and irresistible. It reminds me of a friend of mine who liked to spend time at the horse track. When I asked him if he wished he owned a horse, he replied that he had bought many a thoroughbred, one two-dollar ticket at a time. In Tallahassee, lobbying is politely referred to in some quarters as gambling and, while the stakes are much higher than a two-dollar ticket, the wins are more impersonal. Clutching a winning ticket as Skid Row Bound crosses the finish line is exciting. But I have yet to see a lobbyist or lawmaker come running out of the Capitol after passing an insurance bill, celebrating that he just saved $200 on his car insurance.

Which brings us to the PIP debate, or the lack thereof. In 2003, when lawmakers approved a provision that called for the law to sunset unless reenacted this session, the stage seemed set for another great insurance battle. After taking on medical malpractice and workers' compensation reforms with notable successes, the industry seems geared up to push for another major set of reforms. The legislative battle pits the industry against its old nemesis, the trial bar and health-care providers. At issue is the implementation of some kind of medical fee schedule and a variety of legal reforms, which pretty much covers the industry's desire when it comes to any insurance issue. But if the opening discussions on PIP are any indication of things to come, the blue suit, red tie crowd may be dressed up with nowhere to go.

Though it is little expressed, there are litmus tests that determine whether the legislature will summon the political will necessary to enact broad-based reforms. These tests break down into several categories. For example, lawmakers size up the public's mood by how many times the phones ring in their offices. Then, there is the number of articles on the subject that appear in the papers. Lawmakers also read the market by looking at the number of policies in the FAJUA and the availability and affordability of insurance. And then there is the relative success brought about by the 2001 and 2003 reforms. Considering all of those points, it is difficult to paint the auto market as one heading into a downward spiral.

Take, for example, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the trial bar and health-care providers have on hand to make the case that reforms are not needed. In 2002, the FAJUA covered more than 40,000 consumers. As of June 2005, that number had dropped to 1,500 consumers. Looking at 2004 statistics, the FAJUA provided coverage to less than one-half of one percent of the market, while 327 private carriers offered insurance in the state. Those figures do little to help the insurance industry in trying to convince lawmakers to do more than reenact the PIP law.

This is not to say that PIP is free from problems. Although the 2001 and 2003 reforms cracked down on fraud, the most sophisticated criminals will still find ways to exploit the system if given enough time. And both House and Senate will spend time on the issue with the Senate being the key to any deal. But right now, a betting man would play the odds that lawmakers will adjourn after doing no more than reenacting the law. If I'm wrong, I'll just tear up my $2 ticket and wait for the next race.