Milliman’s Mike Meehan was named to the 2016 Captive Review Power 50 (subscription required). The Power 50 is a ranked list recognizing the 50 most influential professionals in the global captive insurance industry.
“I am honored and humbled to have my name included among this group, which contains so many individuals for whom I have the utmost respect,” he said about the distinction.
A.M Best recently interviewed Mike from the 2016 Cayman Captives Forum about the domicile’s captive market. He’ll be a speaker at the upcoming CICA Conference in San Diego from March 12 to 14. For more information, click here.
A.M. Best TV recently interviewed Milliman’s Mike Meehan during the 2016 Cayman Captive Forum. In this video, Mike discusses why the Cayman captives market seems “poised to have another really strong year.” He also talks about an increase in interest from companies seeking to use captives as a possible solution to insuring their cyber risks.
A captive insurance program can offer healthcare organizations several benefits such as broader coverage, improved cash flow, and direct access to reinsurance markets. However, not every organization is suited for a captive. Its management must assess the benefits and drawbacks before creating one. Milliman’s Richard Frese provides perspective in his article “Captive insurance: Is it the right choice for your insurance exposures?” He also discusses the background of captives, how organizations should choose a domicile, selecting coverage policies, actuarial analysis for loss projections, and considerations when shutting down a captive.
From an actuarial perspective, pricing a coverage for a captive often involves looking at the past experience of that coverage and adjusting the results to reflect inflation (for both losses and exposures), legislative changes, updated expense forecasts, etc. When a captive has been in business for a number of years, has a statistically credible history of losses, and is keeping the terms of the coverage consistent from year to year, this is a reasonable approach. Challenges arise when the captive has no credible loss history, when the risks that a captive is insuring are different or altogether new, or when the terms of the policy are different from what had been covered previously. In situations such as these, good communication becomes critical between the risk manager and the actuary that is involved in the pricing. This ensures that the pricing exercise is done correctly.
For example, consider a “Firm ABC” that had been purchasing professional liability coverage from the commercial market for a number of years. The terms of the policy have historically excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims. Firm ABC is now going to insure its professional liability claims through a newly established, wholly owned captive insurance company. The actuary pricing this coverage would typically rely on the historical loss experience of Firm ABC, assuming it has credible experience, or perhaps on industry loss costs used to price this type of coverage. If the actuary is not aware that there has been an expansion in coverage, namely the inclusion of asbestos coverage, the resulting premium could be inadequate.
This situation can work in reverse as well. Consider the same example, except now Firm ABC had been purchasing professional liability insurance that did include coverage for asbestos-related claims. If that same Firm ABC were to decide that it was now going to insure that coverage through a captive, however, and exclude the asbestos-related claims from coverage, then adjustments would need to be made during the rating process. Otherwise the premiums, based on loss experience or loss costs with provisions for asbestos-related claims, could be excessive. The risk manager, the underwriter, and the broker typically have the in-depth knowledge related to the subtle differences in coverages that aren’t necessarily identifiable by an actuary reviewing only loss runs. Communicating this information will help the actuary make sure that the necessary adjustments in the calculation of premiums are being made.
Meehan also participated in a recent panel discussion held by A.M. Best during the Vermont Captive Insurance Association’s annual conference. The discussion focused on some considerations that potential sponsors should think about if they decide to form a captive.
Milliman has received a 2015 US Captive Services Award, presented by Captive Review magazine. The awards recognize excellence and innovation in the U.S. marketplace. This article provides some coverage of the awards ceremony.
Here is an excerpt:
Milliman was able to demonstrate its leading position and experience in serving a broad captive marketplace. They have a large and strong captive practice allowing them to meet the demands of a significant client base. The Milliman submission pointed to specific examples of serving the wider captive industry in both educational and legislative activities.
Milliman was selected as the actuarial firm of the year at the 2014 U.S. Captive Services Awards. The award, presented by Captive Review, is given to the firm demonstrating the highest level of service meeting their clients’ needs over the last 12 months.
“The expertise shared by our consultants within the captive insurance industry has been invaluable to our clients,” says Bob Meyer, Milliman’s Property & Casualty Practice Director. “Milliman continually strives to provide the best solutions that address the challenges facing captive insurers and regulators. This award is a recognition of our firm’s efforts.”
Milliman fosters an entrepreneurial culture throughout the entire organization that encourages our consultants to consistently endeavor for excellence and to pursue new cutting edge solutions to meet the evolving needs of our captive insurance clients. To learn more about Milliman’s captive insurance services, visit www.milliman.com/captives.