Enacts the "Terminate Excessive Cross-state Actuarial Subsidization (TEXAS) Act"
A11404 would amend the New York insurance law to require life insurance companies doing business in the state to factor New York-specific health, morbidity, and mortality information into premium calculations for policies or contracts issued in New York. The bill also directs the Superintendent of Financial Services to establish a standard weight for that New York-specific data, and requires insurers to use that standard weight in their rating formulas.
The measure is framed as the "Terminate Excessive Cross-state Actuarial Subsidization (TEXAS) Act," reflecting its purpose of ensuring that New York policyholders are priced using state-specific risk data rather than broader multi-state assumptions. It would apply to policies and contracts issued, renewed, amended, modified, or altered on or after the effective date, with implementing regulations authorized immediately so the rule can be in place when the law takes effect.
If enacted, the bill would create a new section of the Insurance Law governing life insurance rate-setting in New York and would give the Superintendent of Financial Services explicit authority to set a standardized weighting method for New York-specific actuarial data. This would likely affect life insurers operating in the state by changing how they calculate premiums for New York-issued coverage, potentially increasing or decreasing rates depending on the state-specific risk profile and the regulator’s chosen methodology. It would also affect policyholders and contracts renewed or modified after the effective date.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Insurance, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. As a result, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s title and structure suggest a policy goal of protecting New York consumers from cross-subsidization, but the overall sentiment in the record cannot be determined beyond its formal introduction.
The main point of potential contention is whether insurers should be required to use New York-specific mortality and morbidity data, and how much discretion the Superintendent should have in assigning the standard weight. Supporters would likely argue that New York policyholders should not subsidize risk pools in other states and that rates should better reflect local conditions. Opponents may argue that the mandate could reduce actuarial flexibility, complicate multi-state pricing, and lead to higher premiums or administrative burdens for insurers. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided record as having taken these positions.