Published: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2009 | 10:44 AM ET

Text Size

Congress is preparing to extend the National Flood Insurance Program for another year, despite warnings that the program lacks adequate controls and may be shifting too much money to the insurance industry.

AP

The insurance program, deeply in debt since Hurricane Katrina, operates as a public-private partnership, collecting more than $2 billion in annual premiums. The Federal Emergency Management Agency runs the program, and the government bears all the risk.

But the insurance policies are sold by individual companies under their own names, and those companies handle claims, pocketing a portion of the premiums and forwarding the rest to the government.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office cited many inefficiencies in the program and found that the government overseers had no way of knowing how much profit their insurance partners were making and whether it was appropriate.

The program’s critics in Congress acknowledge that it serves an important purpose — indeed, some want it to cover even more types of damage — but say it has run off the rails and needs more oversight, if not a broader re-examination of the role of insurance companies.

The troubles with the flood insurance program offer a parallel to Congress’s grappling with how to expand access to health care, possibly through a government partnership with insurance companies.

“There are certain things to be learned,” said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute. “If the price charged for the service rendered does not cover the cost, you will ultimately run a taxpayer-financed deficit.”

Clark Stevens, a spokesman for FEMA, said that by working through the insurance industry, the program was able to reach many more communities in a timely and cost-effective manner. The nation’s biggest insurers participate, including Allstate, State Farm

ALL loading...

Quote  |  Chart  |  News  |  Profile

[ALL  Loading...      ()   ], Traveler’s Insurance Companies, Liberty Mutual, Farmers and the American International Group

AFF loading...

Quote  |  Chart  |  News  |  Profile

[AFF  Loading...      ()   ]. Many smaller and regional insurance companies also take part.

In all, the program takes in about $2.3 billion in premiums a year, and lets the insurance companies retain roughly $1 billion of that amount.

The Congressional auditors found that FEMA did not look at the insurers’ actual expenses when deciding what share of the premiums they could keep — even though the data has been available since 1997 from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Instead, the auditors found, the federal agency looked at the average expenses of companies selling five other types of property insurance.

When the auditors looked at the actual costs of selling flood insurance, they found that a sample of insurers in the flood program were retaining about $327 million more than they were incurring in actual expenses, a difference of about 16.5 percent.

The accountability office did not draw conclusions as to whether this profit level was too high, given that the insurers do not bear risk in the flood program. It simply stated that the government agency should be keeping better track.

Without accurate expense data, it said, the government “does not have the information it needs to determine whether its payments are appropriate and how much profit is included.”

Mr. Stevens said that the Congressional report was based on a small sample during a time when losses were unusually heavy.

“We have concerns about the report’s central finding because it is not representative of the program as a whole,” he said.

The accountability office also said that the roughly 90 insurance companies in the flood insurance program did not seem to market the flood insurance at all — they simply offered it when someone asked for it.

This seemed at odds with the government’s goal of trying to persuade more people to buy flood coverage, particularly people outside the most hazardous zones. Broadening and diversifying the risk pool of customers could lower the government’s costs and protect taxpayers.

Again, the accountability office faulted FEMA, saying it did not give the insurance companies any incentive to market their policies strategically. Instead of paying bonuses to insurers that brought in a more diverse group of policyholders, the federal agency has been using a broad-based formula that simply pays bonuses to companies that increase sales by 2 to 5 percent a year.

“This formula primarily rewards companies that are new” to the program, the auditors wrote.

The accountability office said that flood program representatives had expressed agreement with this finding and were already working on changes in the way the insurance companies are paid, which they hoped to have in place by next year.

Print

Email

Text Size