New Workmans Comp Ratepayer Advocate To Do the Job the IC Won’t
This didn’t get alot of press, except from WDDE — but Delaware’s workmans compensation rate-payers now have an advocate and watchdog. The Ratepayer Advocate position was one of the recommendations of the Workers Compensation Task Force that was charged with taking a hard look at excessive increases (26% over two years) in workers compensation rates — made especially critical by the fact that the Insurance Commissioner seemed ready to approve another set of increases without regard for the ratepayers. Lt. Governor Matt Denn headed up this commission and he and this group were able to submit to the Governor a set of reform recommendations that built on the reforms that Denn implemented when he was IC. So basically, the Governor and the GA asked Matt Denn to take up the work of reducing the impact on ratepayers — the job that the IC is *supposed* to do. Mr. Fred Thompson has been named to the position and he is a former Deputy Insurance Commissioner.
One of the recommendations was the appointment of a Ratepayer’s Advocate — someone who would specifically represent the interests of Workmans Comp ratepayers (rather than the insurance companies, which is the instinct of the current IC):
Change Title 18, Section 2610 of the Delaware Code to require appointment by the Department of Insurance (DOI) of an attorney to represent ratepayers through the rate-setting process, with authority for the appointed attorney to retain an actuarial expert and demand additional data and other factual information from the applicant. By appointing an outside advocate for rate-payers and providing that advocate with adequate time, data, and expert assistance to prepare for a rate hearing, DOI can ensure that the hearing officer for any rate increase application will hear evidence of any excessive reserve requests or other unnecessary costs being sought by insurance carriers during the DCRB’s annual rate filing. The task force contemplates that the outside advocate would be hired at a flat fee for a limited period of months, and that DOI would need only one actuary to analyze the rate filing rather than two if the outside advocate is using his or her own actuary. Costs would be borne by the applicant.
The IC objects to this new position, however:
DOI Response: The DOI objects to this proposal because it duplicates the Commissioner’s existing statutory duty, with the assistance of experts and counsel, to examine workers compensation filings and to protect ratepayers. The purpose of the public information session and public hearing process is to allow ratepayers and other members of the public to be heard. It is the duty of the Commissioner, and not a private attorney, to protect the
ratepayers. As an alternative which avoids interference with the Commissioner’s powers, DOI suggests adding the underlined language to 18 Del. C. §2610, which is similar to existing language in 18 Del. C. §5003(d)(3):
This new position is meant to actually do the job that the IC is *supposed* to do, but doesn’t. It is really hard to defend turf that you aren’t even in — if you want to keep your responsibilities, you need to perform those responsibilities. Otherwise you are always at the mercy of special Task Forces who are going to make the system work, in spite of the IC not being especially interested in her real customers.
KWS is a pitiful excuse for an IC, but it isn’t really fair to compare her to Denn who was the exception rather than the rule when it came to prioritizing IC office “clients.”
Knowing the IC office, in general, bends toward making insurance carriers happy – this is a welcome and much needed addition.
Of course it’s fair — there’s no reason to lower the bar after getting it to where it should have been all along.
Why is Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart not mentioned by name even once in this post although everyone else is? To make this otherwise scathing post less likely to appear in internet searches? So readers won’t remember this travesty when they see her name on the ballot next time?
DOI does not “object to this proposal”. In fact, the department’s merit employees welcome it because it interferes with but unfortunately will not entirely stop Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart’s corrupt schemes and her resultant cash flow. Furthermore, this woman fails to do the job for which Delaware taxpayers are paying her over $100,000/year not because she doesn’t feel like it but because she is completely incapable, lacking basic intelligence and even a fraction of the vast experience and education she fraudulently claimed in her campaign and DOI website to have.
Good thing Matt Denn and Jack Markell stepped in to pick up the shambles she made of the DOI and do Stewart’s job for her. Question is, with all that’s happening, why is she allowed to remain in office? Oh wait….it’s the “Delaware Way”.
“Question is, with all that’s happening, why is she allowed to remain in office? Oh wait….it’s the “Delaware Way”.
Really? I thought it was called “voting.”
Don’t pretend she can’t be removed. There are enough grounds for impeachment but her political cronies will prevent it.
DOI does not “object to this proposal”
I noted that the IC did object to at least the Ratepayer Advocate part of the recommendations — the posting of the link and an except from it comes right from the IC’s office. So, yes, they do object to this proposal. What the career employees may or may not object to doesn’t much matter since they didn’t sign anything here.
My point was that the name Karen Weldin Stewart, although she somehow got herself elected to the office of insurance commissioner, is not necessarily synonymous with the Department of Insurance. SHE herself objected to the proposal because it throws a monkey wrench in her works, not the entire DOI that she unfortunately heads up.
*My* point was that I can write about what I know about — which is the linked letter that the IC signed on behalf of the office she represents.
Whatever. I doubt she consulted anyone in the department other than the crony who wrote the letter for her. Good luck being stuck with her for another 3+ years.
C’mon anon, Impeachment? You sound like a crazy person when you throw that around.
Anyone who thinks a Democrat should be impeached is crazy in your book? Obviously you can’t come up with something more substantive in defense of Stewart because you don’t have it any more than she has brains or integrity.
It’s “Worker’s Compensation’ not “Workmen’s Compensation.”
@Cassandra: You didn’t answer my question why throughout your article you referred to Karen Weldin Stewart as the “IC” or “the Commissioner” (ok, that’s what she is), and not by her name as you always have before, not even “KWS”. What’s up with that or is it too sensitive to share here? Afraid of being sued by her and her coterie of useless crony lawyers who’ve been sucking off the state’s teat since she first took office? Remember that the truth is an absolute defense. I can’t imagine you’re purposely trying to protect her.
He was great on Law & Order!
What’s up with that or is it too sensitive to share here?
Only that I was also trying to get my regular work done while doing this too. Not mentioning her name was an oversight, but there are few people who read this who don’t know who she is.
Afraid of being sued by her and her coterie of useless crony lawyers who’ve been sucking off the state’s teat since she first took office? Remember that the truth is an absolute defense. I can’t imagine you’re purposely trying to protect her.
This is *especially* rich from someone who can’t provide any detail of ” Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart’s corrupt schemes and her resultant cash flow” and whatever other accusations you are throwing around. If this stuff is true, *you* are the reason she isn’t being impeached — so don’t ask me about trying to protect anyone until you’ve come forward and provided the AG or the US Attorney’s Office with a solid data dump.
I’m hardly the reason she isn’t being impeached. State and federal agencies have had their “data dumps” from a number of individuals, including names, addresses, fronting companies, phone numbers, financial institutions, account numbers, transfer dates, types of instruments, witness statements, you name it. With the vast resources of the Del Lib brain trust, maybe you can find out why nothing was ever done with that information. I suspect all this has a four-word answer: She is a Democrat.
Uh, Anonymous, she won’t be impeached b/c, in Delaware, she CAN’T be impeached. There is no provision whatsoever in either the Delaware Constitution or the Delaware Code that would permit it.
State and federal agencies have had their “data dumps” from a number of individuals, including names, addresses, fronting companies, phone numbers, financial institutions, account numbers, transfer dates, types of instruments, witness statements, you name it.
No they haven’t. And *this* I’ve been checking on. And I know for a fact that they haven’t heard from you. So you can lead the way here or hide behind your anonymous ID here and keep on with this unproductive whinging.
If you release that material to the press, I guarantee it won’t be covered up by those nefarious Democrats.
@cassandra: How strange. State and federal agencies are prohibited from even acknowledging to the public that an investigation of a public official is ongoing, let alone that it isn’t being pursued for whatever reason. But they suddenly made an exception for you? Right. You can be sure they’ve received everything they need from several parties.
The Delaware outfits thanked the contributors for their submissions and added that they couldn’t comment on “the integrity of the DOI and a duly elected official”. They were probably just joking since you were able to do so much better. You must be very important in Delaware.
Not so strange. It *is* Delaware, and while you don’t think anyone cares about this — now you know otherwise.
And the reason you won’t release this to the press is…?
… or created a website and posted it there for the world to see?
Because I like my life and don’t want to have to look over my shoulder all the time. The consequences of any public action that identifies me were made very clear several times. Satisfied? It should at least make certain people happy because my silence is what they intended.
Well, you could of course forward it to us. We have a tip line, you know. Your anonymity would be assured. Seriously, if you had taken any time to read this site at all, you’d know that we’re unanimous or, at least, virtually unanimous, in our disdain for the performance of the current IC.
Absent that, we have allegations w/o substantiation. WTF are we supposed to do with that?
Since writing for this site is not a day job for any of us (we don’t get paid except in terms of satisfaction for trying to make a difference and occasionally succeeding), we don’t have a ‘staff’ available at our beck and call.
Either substantiate your allegations or kindly STFU. We’d prefer the former. However, should you choose to remain silent, we all know it will be b/c you are silent by choice, not b/c anyone’s silencing you.
KWS is a Democrat so she will talk, obfuscate and never act to help anyone. The Delaware Way is more like the Delaware Method of Democrats acting like shills and Republicans looking shocked but going along in the end.
@a: Are you suggesting your life would be in danger, or just your employment?
Because I like my life and don’t want to have to look over my shoulder all the time. The consequences of any public action that identifies me were made very clear several times.
And yet here you are accusing people of being too scared of lawsuits, etc to speak. Do you understand that unless you are willing to walk the talk, you have no moral authority to demand the same from anyone else.
@Geezer: Both.
@ El Somnambulo: Because of what I replied to Geezer, any future silence will be because I’ve been silenced. I hope you understand that. On the up side for you, I won’t write any more because I see there’s nothing you can do without documentation. At the same time, I hope that at least some of the people who have it will eventually do something constructive with it.
Which “Democrats” would be doing this covering up anyway? Who in any other office would risk their political career to be involved in a coverup like that?
@a: I think everyone here would love to see proof, or even evidence, of what you say. Good luck to you.
At least leave the Pelican Brief where someone can find it if something happens.