Washington State Transit Insurance PoolRating System RecommendationsAugust 26, 2010

Presented by:Kevin Wick, FCAS, MAAA

PricewaterhouseCoopers Slide 2

High Level Points

• A risk sharing pool should charge each member in proportion to the risk they are contributing to the program- “Risk” does not equal actual losses

• Rating system is the program’s method of assessing the individual member risk

• Individual member actual losses are variable

• Need to temper impact individual member losses have on rates (risk measurement) or fundamental purpose of pool is defeated

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Context

Background• Review conducted of experience rating

system (dated July 23, 2010)• Recommendations presented at July 29,

2010 WSTIP Meeting• Recommendations revised and examples

prepared

Slide 3

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Recommendations

1. Current review suggests single blended rate per mile is appropriate but mode rate differences should be monitored annually

2. Maintain a three-year loss experience window

3. Vary the individual loss cap by size of member

4. In mod calculation, weight between relative loss experience and prior mod (versus relative loss experience and 1.000)

5. More transparent presentation that provides a year by year context for evaluating loss levels

Slide 4

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Recommendation # 3 Revised – Varying Loss Cap

Slide 5

Group Members Criteria

Average Loss Level

Recommended Loss Limit

Large 1 Pierce, Community 15m+ $404,000 $250,000

Large 2 Ben Franklin, Spokane, Intercity, Kitsap, Whatcom, Island

3.5m-15m

$114,000 $100,000

Medium Link, Everett, Clallam, Skagit, Grays Harbor, Yakima

1.5m-3.5m

$50,000 $50,000

Small Grant, Mason, Jefferson, Pacific, Valley, Pullman, Columbia, Twin, Asotin, CUBS

<1.5m $14,000 $25,000

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Rating Example – Part 1

Slide 6

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Rating Example – Part 2

Slide 7

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Financial Impact of Moving to Proposed System

1. Annual Fluctuation - same

2. Recognition of long-term favorable or unfavorable loss levels

• Improvement under proposed system• Deficiency in primary rating base

3. Large loss impact – effectively the same• Current - less consideration is given

to less predictable losses at higher limits

• Proposed – tiered cap allows more consideration of individual member experience

Slide 8