By Evan Falchuk
On the heels of its efforts to create a federal regulator for health insurance, Congress is laying the foundation for a federal regulator for other lines of insurance, too.
A draft of legislation that would create “Federal Insurance Office” was released Friday night. According to reports:
The new agency would have the power to monitor the insurance industry, including identifying gaps in regulation that could contribute to systemic risk issues. . . . have the authority to preempt state insurance measures; consult with the states on insurance matters; and advise the secretary [of the Treasury] on domestic and prudential international insurance policy issues.
As with health insurance reform, it’s a fancy way of saying to state regulators: there’s a new sheriff in town and his address is in Washington, D.C.
The insurance industry associations are split on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But what do the state regulators think? Programs of state insurance regulation built over decades are being dismantled, and the state regulators who run them seem to be largely silent.
There’s something else interesting, too.
One of the key justifications for a federal insurance regulator is that there are some insurers that are so important that they are a “systemic risk” to the economy. The thinking is that these companies are “too big to fail,” and so require the stricter oversight that (apparently) only a federal regulator can bring. If you recall, the idea was one of the reasons for the massive federal intervention in the financial services and automotive industries.
Some people aren’t so sure that kind of systemic risk can exist in the insurance industry. But even if it can, consider this: as a way of justifying federal regulation, “systemic risk” is fast becoming the “interstate commerce” of the 21st century.


Following my earlier 
