Articles

Equitable has added what it says is the first bitcoin-linked investment option available within a registered index-linked annuity, marking the latest effort by insurers to bring cryptocurrency exposure into retirement products.

The option is linked to the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, or IBIT, and allows investors to participate in bitcoin’s performance while receiving a measure of downside protection.

Allocations generally will be limited to 25% of a contract’s value, the company said.

The launch comes as interest in bitcoin continues to expand across the insurance and retirement industries.

Earlier this year, Delaware Life and Aspida introduced annuity products tied to indexes that include bitcoin exposure alongside other assets, including stocks and cash.

Equitable’s offering takes a different approach.

Rather than linking performance to a broader index, the option is tied directly to IBIT.

Steve Scanlon, managing director and head of individual retirement at Equitable, said the company had received inquiries about a bitcoin-linked option for years.

“We’ve been asked over the years whether or not this was an option that we could provide,” Scanlon said.

The move raises a broader question for the retirement industry: whether bitcoin is becoming a mainstream portfolio allocation or remains a niche investment aimed at a small but growing group of investors.

Growing advisor adoption

A January survey from Bitwise and VettaFi found that 32% of financial advisors allocated cryptocurrency in client accounts during 2025, up from 22% a year earlier.

The survey also found that 42% of advisors said they could purchase crypto investments for clients, compared with 35% in 2024 and 19% in 2023.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, the exchange-traded fund underlying Equitable’s new option, has grown into the largest spot bitcoin ETF in the United States and manages tens of billions of dollars in assets.

Scanlon said advisor and client interest both played a role in developing the offering.

“I’d say it’s 50-50,” he said when asked whether demand came primarily from advisors or clients.

Scanlon said advisors frequently face questions from clients interested in cryptocurrency while also evaluating risk tolerance and retirement objectives.

Balancing demand and risk

According to Scanlon, advisors often find themselves balancing client interest in bitcoin against broader retirement planning considerations.

He said many investors want exposure to the asset class, while advisors remain responsible for determining whether that exposure fits within a client’s overall financial plan.

“We felt that a very good way for clients who wanted to invest in bitcoin, but advisors didn’t feel like it was part of their risk tolerance, that this was a good balance for them,” he said.

Scanlon said the option was designed to allow clients to gain bitcoin exposure while remaining within the risk framework established by their advisors.

Direct exposure sets Equitable apart

Earlier bitcoin-related annuity products launched by Delaware Life and Aspida incorporated cryptocurrency exposure through broader index strategies that also included other assets.

Equitable elected to provide exposure through a direct link to IBIT.

Steven Mabry, senior vice president of annuity product development at Equitable, said development of the option began about 18 months ago.

Mabry said the company wanted a structure that closely tracked bitcoin rather than one built around a diversified index.

“There’s no blending. There’s no disconnect to the actual bitcoin price,” Mabry said. “You will get the index performance subject to the cap and buffer.”

Under the one-year RILA structure, investors can choose downside buffers of 10%, 15%, 20% or 40%, which absorb losses up to those levels before investors begin participating in market declines.

In exchange for that protection, gains are subject to a performance cap that is set at the start of each segment and can vary based on market conditions.

Mabry said IBIT was selected because of its size, liquidity and position within the spot bitcoin ETF market.

“The IBIT is the number one crypto ETF out there,” Mabry said.

RILA market continues to expand

The launch also comes during a period of strong growth for registered index-linked annuities.

RILA sales reached nearly $80 billion in 2025, up 20% from the previous year and marking the category’s 11th consecutive year of growth, according to LIMRA.

LIMRA projects RILA sales will exceed $85 billion in 2026 and continue growing through at least 2028.

As the market expands, insurers have continued introducing new index strategies and investment options, including products tied to digital assets.

Mabry said the 25% allocation limit was established after discussions with distribution partners.

“We wouldn’t want somebody to put 100% in,” he said. “They should diversify.”

Scanlon said Equitable’s review of the concept focused on whether bitcoin exposure could be offered in a way consistent with retirement investing.

“The only way we would have brought it out is with a buffer because it is a retirement account,” he said.

Bitcoin’s place in retirement portfolios

Scanlon said he does not view bitcoin as a core retirement allocation.

Instead, he said the company sees the option as a tool for addressing client interest in cryptocurrency while maintaining portfolio discipline.

“It’s really a perfect compromise between a client [who] wants to buy this asset class they’re interested in it, the advisor’s got to maintain their fiduciary obligation to manage their risk, and they say, ‘Yeah, I’m comfortable with you buying a little bit of this as long as we have guardrails around it,'” Scanlon explained.

Equitable said the bitcoin-linked option is being introduced as part of its latest Structured Capital Strategies Premier enhancements, which also include new index strategies, downside-protection features and shorter-duration segment options.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Bitcoin gains ground in retirement market with Equitable annuity option appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

An increasingly younger percentage of Americans known as the “sandwich generation” faces more difficulty saving for retirement as they balance caring for their own young children and for aging parents.

“Dual caregiving is hitting people much earlier than anyone expected,” Jill McNamara, vice president of strategic growth at Care.com, said. “Responsibilities are starting at around age 34 on average, and it’s happening suddenly. Most people don’t see it coming until they’re already in it.”

Previous research found that not only has the number of American adults providing caregiving increased by more than 45% within the last decade, but the age at which it begins has also dropped from around 40 to 50 years of age to around 35.

“This isn’t just a ‘boomer caring for parents’ story anymore — it’s hitting people in their early to mid-30s, which is reshaping what ‘sandwich generation’ even means,” McNamara said.

It also represents a compounded barrier to adequate retirement planning that many young Americans are already facing, financial experts suggested.

“I think that this change in the number of people in caregiving roles has happened relatively quickly,” Teresa Hassara, senior vice president, Workplace Savings and Retirement Solutions group, Principal, said. “I’m not sure that we are thinking about it and talking about it as comprehensively and seeing it as a financial wellness issue, rather than a caretaking issue.”

Significant financial impact

Care.com’s 2026 Sandwich Generation Report found that today’s dual caregivers, 80% of whom say they felt caught off guard by the circumstances, deprioritize major aspects of their life to focus on providing care. In terms of finances:

• 82% said care costs make their household feel financially strained.
• 80% said unexpected caregiving has changed the financial future they expected.
• 77% said they feel financially behind because of caregiving duties.
• 71% said they feel guilty spending money on themselves.
• 66% said the cost of living, inflation and economic uncertainty have a major impact on them.
• 52% said they deprioritized financial savings.

“It makes sense when you think about it,” McNamara said. “When a parent needs help today, that takes precedence over a retirement contribution that can technically wait. The problem is, those ‘temporary’ pauses tend to stack up over years, especially since caregiving responsibilities are starting younger and lasting longer than people expect.”

“It really puts a financial burden on the sandwich generation because the timing is unexpected and it may not have been planned for,” Andrew Crowell, vice chairman of wealth management at D.A. Davidson & Co., said.

He noted that most people are “trying to dispose of recurring expenses” such as mortgages or credit card debt as they approach retirement, but the sandwich generation is “surprised” by children “hanging on longer than they were originally expected to” while parents may also unexpectedly need healthcare support.

And surprises can happen even when everything was planned right, he added. For example, he mentioned a client who had begun financial planning well in advance and was of sound mind and still found herself scammed out of half a million dollars. In another case, a client unexpectedly broke a hip and had to move back in with his adult children, creating unexpected financial costs.

“As loving children and loving parents, you want to do the best for both generations before you and behind you. But it just means that the pressure is on that sandwich generation to anticipate the unanticipated, which is challenging to do,” Crowell said.

“For those middle-income earners, it’s particularly difficult,” Hassara added. “They’re having to take precious resources that they may use to put into an emergency savings account, or they may use it for their retirement, and redirect those to their caregiving responsibilities. They tend to have more debt, and that can be both credit card and medical debt. They’re using debt to cover some of the shortfalls that they’re experiencing financially.”

“Saving for retirement is the easiest expenditure line to cut once there is the burden of supporting two people,” Dat Ngo, certified public accountant and financial expert at Vetted Prop Firms, said. “With dual caregiving, it gets increasingly difficult for the individual to make plans for their retirement since, at this stage, the individual may need to cut down on their contributions when the need of the hour really requires them to step up.”

How can advisors help?

All the experts interviewed for this article said financial advisors can do their part to help clients think about caregiving and plan for the unexpected.

“Advisors need to really incorporate this into their conversations with their customers about what their caretaking responsibilities are today; how does that impact them, both personally as well as their financial perspective; what are their caretaking needs potentially down the road, and how are they planning to handle it,” Hassara said.

“It can feel like an uncomfortable conversation, and yet, at the same time, when everybody is of sound mind and thinking clearly, that’s exactly the time to have a conversation,” Crowell added.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post The ‘sandwich generation’ faces compounded barriers to retirement savings appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

The Consumer Federation of America is pushing for legislation that would penalize insurers for delayed payments of insurance claims, including requiring insurers to pay interest to customers for late payouts.

This comes after the CFA argued American insurers have an “incentive” to delay payouts as a study conducted in collaboration with Weiss Ratings found insurers can earn millions of dollars in investment income every day they delay paying a claim to a client.

Meanwhile, Americans depending on those claim payouts must bear the burden of often-catastrophic losses while taking on extra expenses that can impact their immediate and long-term financial well-being.

“We think it’s time, especially in light of all of the consumers’ frustrations with this industry, with the way industry handles claims, for policymakers to get rid of this incentive,” Douglas Heller, director of insurance, Consumer Federation of America, said.

“One way to do that would be to require insurance companies to pay interest on any claim that they owe to customers that they haven’t paid in a timely fashion. Once they have to pay anything they earn back to the consumer, then there’s no incentive to hold payment in the mailroom for a couple of extra days.”

‘Perverse incentive’

Heller alleged that the insurance business model has a “perverse incentive” to deny or delay claims payments in order to turn a profit on invested premiums.

He noted that insurance is “unique among American large business sectors in that the income precedes the expense” and consumers must buy a policy before they can use it.

“This creates this opportunity for insurers to earn investment income on the money that they hold onto before they have to pay out claims, and also the extra surplus that they hold onto as a protection against a worst-case scenario,” Heller explained.

Working with Weiss Ratings, the CFA found that if all property/casualty insurers in the U.S. delayed their claims payments by just one day, the industry would earn $52.3 million in investment income.

In the homeowners insurance sector, the research found if all insurance companies in that sector delayed claims by just a day, insurers could earn $8.8 million per day, almost hitting $62 million per week.

“We thought it was very important to illustrate the perverse incentive that insurance companies have to withhold or delay claims payments to their customers,” Heller said. “If we don’t pay our premium on time, the insurance companies cancel us. But if they don’t pay their claim on time, they make more profit. And of course, the reason people are complaining to the insurance commissioner isn’t because their claim payment was delayed a day or a week, but a month or several months.”

‘Endless catastrophe’

Heller also pointed out that, from a consumer’s perspective, delayed claims payouts make the recovery process after a traumatic event that much more difficult. According to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, delayed claims payouts are one of the biggest complaints of American insurance customers.

“People have paid premiums for years so that when a disaster strikes, they have the resources to repair or rebuild their homes and lives. But, too often, insurers make the recovery process a second and seemingly endless catastrophe of its own,” he said.

He said this makes “the trauma of the actual loss so much more difficult,” and also “much more expensive than it ought to have been.

“It means people start taking hits on their credit score because they’re maxing out their credit cards to make payments that the insurance company should be covering. They are cutting back on things that they need. Sometimes, they’ll lose access to their additional living expenses, so they suddenly are worrying that they’re going to be able to have a place to live if they haven’t been able to rebuild their home,” Heller said.

A new normal

The CFA, in calling for penalties for insurers who delay claims payouts, wants a “new normal” where consumers can trust insurers will hold up their end of the contract in a timely fashion, Heller said.

“I think that if we can establish an accountability rule for claims payments, hopefully it will just establish a new normal in the relationship between consumers and insurers — a normal that is expected by the contract but hasn’t been achieved in reality because insurance companies hold all the cards,” he said.

He added that the CFA wants legislation to set a standard for how claims are paid and how insurers are penalized if they don’t meet that standard, which could set a precedent for “better practices in the market” if not additional legislation to protect consumers.

California, a “trendsetter” in insurance legislation, has already introduced a bill, SB 878, which proposes interest due on claims payments more than 30 days late without fair reason. That bill has already passed through the state Senate and is pending a vote by the Assembly.

“We need insurers to pay those claims, and it’s scary for consumers to push too hard because they really are counting on those insurance companies. I think it’s important that we see these new rules, and maybe this legislation will take hold in California and set a trend for fair claims handling across the country,” Heller said.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post CFA calls for insurers to be penalized over delayed claims payouts appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

In an era marked by the rapid growth of artificial intelligence in the insurance industry, a new tool has been introduced. This tool helps insurers assess their progress in AI, gain insights into how their competitors are using AI, and identify missed opportunities where AI could deliver additional benefits.

Baringa, a technology consulting firm, recently developed an AI Value and Maturity Index that assesses, among other things, the value of AI across 47 different steps in the insurance industry lifecycle.

Ryan Bohn, partner at Baringa and finance expert, said he thinks of the index as a guide insurers can use as they figure out their AI game plan.

“We use it more as a conversation starter across the industry,” Bohn said. “Think of it as an attention analysis across different parameters to be able to understand how far advanced certain firms’ capabilities are across the end-to-end value chain.”

The idea to create the index originated from a roundtable held last year by Baringa for chief financial officers in the insurance industry. During the roundtable, he said Baringa noticed AI seemed to be “a bit of an abstract discussion” rather than something more tangible and helpful for navigating this new, complex world of advanced technologies.

“What we saw at the CFO roundtable was that they are not very far, and also there’s a lack of understanding in terms of where to point it and how to use it. But there are real, real opportunities to do it across different areas of the value chain,” Bohn said.

Baringa created the index to help insurers “really just understand where the marketplace is” and also “understand relative to their peers where they are,” Bohn said.

They started by looking at the core value chain of insurance, breaking it down into 47 categories across six major areas:

• Marketing and sales — lead generation, sales outreach, referrals
• Application — document collection, quote comparisons, application intake
• Underwriting — risk assessment and pricing, underwriting decisions, final approvals
• Policy and onboarding — policy issuance, payment setup, document management
• Claims and renewals — fraud detection, claims intake, damage assessment
• Servicing and relationships — invoicing and collections, customer service, newsletters

“I’m sure they’re debatable, but we’ve tried to unpack the core processes to really just understand where the industry is and where the opportunity is in the future,” Bohn said.

Opportunity and return on investment

The index assesses where most insurers are deploying AI in their practice, and where there might be untapped value in introducing AI. This can help insurers not only think about where to invest in AI, but also determine return on investment, Bohn suggested.

“The industry is seeing a lot of value on first notice loss and fraud detection, but another insurer could see a lot of benefits in document preparation and renewal, which is at the bottom and has less perceived value, but maybe others can think about other areas that they don’t have on their agenda that could be a value add,” he said.

With AI still being relatively new in the insurance space, Bohn noted that knowing where to start or finding direction can be a challenge.

“I think that that’s been the challenge; everyone has a mandate or initiative in terms of trying to implement AI across their teams, develop the strategy, but I think the challenge is if you go too wide, the value realization of that is quite challenging at times to be able to demonstrate or quantify,” he said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that costs to invest in technology can be significant, and “getting a business to substantiate a specific initiative to support” can be difficult when going in with “a blank slate.”

A guide to AI transformation

Bohn said he thinks of the AI index as a “guide” to help “break down and be specific about where AI could be deployed.”

He noted that the index’s data comes not just from trend analysis but also from Baringa’s “own research and client conversations to really help shape where the market is today, where the need is, as well as where they can point this type of technology to maximize the value.”

However, he also suggested tackling AI is “a dual approach” where insurers also must do their own legwork to determine what’s best for their respective organizations.

“I think of the index as a guide. I don’t think it’s a strategy or a playbook, first and foremost,” Bohn said. “I think this helps identify where to prioritize, but if an institution has their own legacy decisions, legacy challenges, legacy personnel — where I also think insurance is a bit antiquated from a technology perspective but also resistant to change from a personnel perspective — if you can get over the hump to be able to communicate to your teams on how this is going to make their lives better, easier, more efficient, elevate the role, that is where I think this can help firms engage their own teams, own stakeholders, to create those use cases or proofs of concepts to really move the needle on what they do day-in and day-out.”

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post New assessment tool helps insurers take a hard look at their AI game plan appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

A client’s insurance needs are never set in stone.

In fact, they can and likely will change even without a major life event. As an advisor, it’s important to recognize the less obvious factors that can alter someone’s situation.

“Most financial professionals watch for the ‘loud’ insurance triggers: marriage, birth, divorce, death. The quiet ones are just as important, and easier to miss,” explained Seth Miller, chief distribution officer at Empathy.

By committing to annual and periodic reviews, you can identify gaps that may otherwise go unnoticed.

What can prompt a shift in insurance needs?

Many clients assume their insurance needs will only change when they get married, start a family, buy a house, retire, or go through another major life event.

The reality is that their coverage may require adjustments without any of these milestones. Inflation, for example, can change the amount of protection someone needs.

“The cost of healthcare, rebuilding a home, replacing property and even replacing someone’s income can be very different than it was several years ago,” said Jennifer Schaefer, founder and CEO of JS Benefits Group.

Career transitions may also warrant a new insurance plan.

“Someone may have gotten a significant raise, moved into a different position, or taken on more responsibility at work. Their employer benefits may have changed too,” Schaefer said.

Even when an employee stays put, their benefits can change from year to year.

“I see this a lot with health insurance. An employee remains at the same company and still has a very different health plan than they may have had a year ago,” Schaefer explained.

Deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, networks, prescription coverage, and plan design can all change.

In addition, lifestyle changes can affect a client’s insurance needs. More travel, working remotely, buying another property, or simply taking on more financial responsibility can increase the amount of risk someone is carrying.

How to spot outdated coverage

Every year, sit down with your clients to review their current financial situation and circumstances.

“I would start by asking what the client owns, what they owe, what they earn, what benefits they have through work and what insurance they currently have,” Schaefer said.

Then ask a simple question: If something happened tomorrow, would the coverage they have actually protect what they have today? That is where you often find the gaps.

Also, remember that employer benefits often get overlooked.

Clients will often say, “I have life insurance through work,” or “I have health insurance through my employer.” This is all well and good, but it’s important to ask: How much coverage is available? What does it actually cover? What happens if they leave the company? Has the plan changed?

The goal of annual reviews isn’t necessarily to change coverage every year. It’s to determine whether existing coverage still aligns with a client’s financial position, assets, liquidity needs, family and business responsibilities, health and lifestyle circumstances, and retirement or estate-planning objectives.

Whatever you do, don’t assume that nothing needs to be changed because nothing major has happened.

Also, look beyond the amount of coverage a client has.

“The limits, exclusions, deductibles, beneficiaries and other provisions are just as important,” Schaefer added.

Miller agreed that annual reviews are effective but only when they’re supplemented with periodic reviews.

“A yearly conversation provides an important checkpoint, but many coverage-relevant changes occur between scheduled reviews,” Miller explained.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Why client insurance needs could change even if their life doesn’t appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Life insurance application activity surged 18% in August from a year earlier, marking the strongest year-over-year growth ever recorded for the month, according to the MIB Life Index.

The August data extended a strong run for life insurance applications in 2026. Through the first eight months, activity was up 15.6% from the same period in 2025 and was 19.6% higher than in 2024 and 20.6% higher than in 2023.

On a month-over-month basis, application activity was essentially flat in August, declining 0.6% from July.

The MIB data comes one day after Wink, Inc. reported strong life insurance sales across all product lines.

Older applicants lead the way

The growth in life applications was particularly pronounced among older applicants. Every age group showed growth in August, MIB reported, with double-digit gains among applicants 40 and older. Activity rose 3.5% among people ages 0-29, 5.3% among those 30-39, 13.5% among those 40-49, 22.9% among those 50-59, 34.4% among those 60-69 and 53.9% among applicants 70 and older.

The pattern was similar on a year-to-date basis, with growth accelerating as applicant age increased. Through August, activity was up 0.7% among applicants ages 0-29, 5.7% among those 31-39, 14% among those 40-49, 22.4% among those 50-59, 30% among those 60-69 and 48% among those 70 and older.

Application activity also increased across all face-amount categories in August, according to information MIB collected from its member companies. Double-digit growth was recorded for policies with face amounts below $250,000 and for amounts of $1 million to less than $5 million.

The year-to-date numbers showed broad-based gains as well. Through August, all face-amount categories posted growth, including double-digit increases for policies below $250,000 and those from $500,000 to less than $2.5 million. Applications for face amounts from $2.5 million to less than $5 million increased at a triple-digit rate.

The relationship between age and face amount produced a more mixed picture.

Among applicants ages 0-29, applications grew for face amounts of $100,000 to less than $250,000 and $500,000 and above, with double-digit gains for amounts of $2.5 million and higher. Activity was flat below $100,000 and declined for amounts from $250,000 to less than $500,000.

Applicants ages 30-39 posted growth for amounts of $100,000 to less than $250,000 and $1 million and above, while applications for $2.5 million and higher rose at a double-digit rate. Activity was flat for $500,000 to less than $1 million and declined across the other face-amount categories.

Applications increased across every face-amount band for applicants ages 40-49. Double-digit growth was recorded for amounts from $100,000 to less than $250,000 and from $1 million to less than $5 million.

Applicants ages 50-59 recorded double-digit growth for amounts below $500,000 and from $1 million to less than $5 million. Applications for $5 million and higher also increased, while amounts from $500,000 to less than $1 million declined at a double-digit rate.

For applicants ages 60-69, applications grew for amounts below $5 million. Growth was in the double digits for amounts below $1 million and from $2.5 million to less than $5 million, while applications for $1 million to less than $2.5 million increased at a triple-digit rate. Activity for $5 million and higher was flat.

Applicants 70 and older posted growth across every face-amount category, with double-digit gains for amounts below $500,000 and for amounts of $1 million and higher.

Term up nearly 25%

The gains also extended across major life insurance product categories.

Term life applications increased 24.7% from a year earlier in August, while whole life applications rose 23.3%. Universal life applications increased 8.3%.

Term life posted double-digit year-over-year growth across every age band. Whole life and universal life both recorded growth among applicants 40 and older, with double-digit increases among those 50 and older. Both products declined among applicants under 40.

On a year-to-date basis through August, all three product categories recorded double-digit growth.

The results point to continued strength in life insurance demand in 2026, with the largest gains concentrated among older applicants and in several higher-face-amount categories.

The post MIB reports double-digit life insurance app activity in record August appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Artificial intelligence can help insurers modernize policy migration, making the process seamless for customers and providing better customer experience, according to Juan Huerta, head of AI with Zinnia.

He noted that, as insurance companies continue exploring AI in different areas, its usefulness as a tool to help “transform infrastructure” — building and modernizing — should not be overlooked.

“Another example is migration,” Huerta said. “As we build systems that are for policy management, that are newer, the question arises as to what happens with carriers who have blocks of policies on legacy systems.”

He noted that many insurance policies or products “could have been purchased or acquired many years ago” and could exist in legacy systems that existed long before the concept of AI was even a thought.

“The migration of those policies into a new system is something that, traditionally, could be a very difficult and manual process. So, that’s another area where we’re finding that AI could help automate, could help speed up and could help facilitate those migrations,” Huerta said.

AI is a “really great technology” for facilitating more modern policy migration, he explained, precisely because it’s a tool that works well at generating hypotheses.

“When migrating these blocks of policies, the AI needs to explore what are the configurations that make sense in order to map existing previous legacy products into the new systems, how to migrate those transactions, how to make sure that the ledgers match, that this migration is accurate,” he said.

In his experience, AI is a “very promising technology that can help make this migration much more accurate and faster.”

Better customer experience

Huerta said using AI for policy migration can also have benefits from a customer service perspective, as “the customer shouldn’t be able to notice the effect of a migration” and AI can help with precisely this seamlessness.

He explained that a policy running on a legacy system should become “transparent” once enabled in a newer, modern “target system” such that it can now be fully managed in the new system.

The benefit of this, he added, is that these new systems are often easier to use, supporting better business processes for the carrier and simultaneously a better experience for the end-user, being the customer. In addition, migration of policies into newer systems can enable access to new features and products that are supported by AI.

“The idea is that in the new environment, your migrated policies should be able to have a better customer experience for the user. And it also should be a good thing for carriers to have these new systems. Usually, this new system supports better functionality than legacy systems,” Huerta said.

Infrastructure-first approach

Huerta noted insurance companies tend to think of AI as a tool for customer service interfaces, but said there is value in taking an “infrastructure-first” approach to AI adoption.

“We hear of chatbots, we hear of improved funnels, we hear of customer interfaces that facilitate the customer-facing products. That’s traditionally what many organizations and many people think when they think of AI. But what we think, also, is that AI can help in the development, in the configuration, in the deployment of infrastructure,” he said.

Legacy systems and data are largely considered to be one of the biggest barriers to full AI adoption across the insurance industry.

According to Huerta, one of the clearest cases where AI can be used to modernize infrastructure is with policy migrations, as it can transform “legacy blocks into new systems” and support “the configuration, bringing tools that make this easier.”

“AI is also a super valuable technology in this stage, even though it’s not necessarily consumer-facing,” Huerta said. “System administrators, product developers, actuaries, brokers, broker-dealers – all of these can benefit from better tools, better infrastructure and so can the people who are building the infrastructure itself.”

The next step

Huerta said bringing legacy insurance policies into modern systems can open the door for better availability of products and better education on products that can benefit the entire insurance ecosystem.

“As more carriers adopt this technology, eventually the net result will be to have a better availability of products, products that are better matching the needs of consumers,” he said. “They have the features, the characteristics, the innovation that consumers need to have to fulfill their needs.”

He added that the ability for consumers to better inform themselves about the products available, some of which may seem complex to them, is important “for the products to make sense,” and noted technology can help with this.

“I do feel that this technology can really help the whole ecosystem of carriers, distributors and consumers to have a better availability of products, better matching of the products, better shopping experience and overall a better impact for the feeding and fulfilling those needs that the consumers have,” Huerta said.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post How AI is accelerating policy migration appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

The Life Insurance and Annuities Illustrations Working Group is leaning toward a model bulletin to quickly address problems with annuity illustrations, while it works on revisions to Model Regulation 245.

On the fourth of four calls Tuesday, the group tentatively endorsed the strategy as a short-term fix. A fifth call is scheduled for Sept. 15 after members failed to get through a checklist of issues.

The working group is examining how insurers calculate and display nonguaranteed elements in annuity illustrations, including caps and participation rates. Members said current practices can produce unintuitive or overly optimistic results when current nonguaranteed values are applied retroactively to historical periods.

Under one approach discussed by members, insurers would continue to show historical index returns but would not necessarily apply today’s nonguaranteed elements to those historical periods. Instead, the illustration could use a prescribed rate, scenario or range to demonstrate how the nonguaranteed elements affect the final illustrated results.

If historical nonguaranteed elements remain part of the illustration, the group previously expressed preliminary support for applying “haircuts” or other adjustments to those elements.

Bonnie Burns, a training, policy and technical assistance consultant at California Health Advocates, urged regulators to keep consumers in mind.

“I get lost in a sea of numbers, and I expect I’m not the only one who does,” Burns said. “Consumers should be able to easily find the minimum benefits that they would be getting at the time that they need them in these illustrations.”

What rules do states follow?

Model 245 has been adopted by just 10 states, creating a patchwork of requirements while regulators consider changes. It also prompted questions on how a guideline or bulletin would apply to states that haven’t adopted the model.

Model bulletins from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have no independent, direct enforcement mechanism. On its own, a bulletin is simply a guidance template or best-practice recommendation.

Dan Schelp, chief counsel of regulatory affairs for the NAIC, noted that an actuarial guideline would be “appropriate” but also unclear.

“The accounting practices and procedures manual doesn’t really give a mechanism on how to enforce an actuarial guideline that’s not included in the valuation manual,” he said. “So it’s a little unclear with respect to that.”

Carrie Haughawout, senior vice president, life insurance and regulatory policy for the American Council of Life Insurers, raised concerns that an actuarial guideline could establish a separate regulatory regime rather than simply bridge the gap until Model 245 is revised and adopted more broadly.

Bulletin and stopgap

Members settled on a bulletin that could draw on provisions already found in the NAIC’s annuity suitability model regulation, which has been widely adopted by states. That could make the temporary guidance useful even in states that have not adopted Model 245.

Working group chairman Ben Slutsker, director of life actuarial valuation at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, asked members to choose among three options: no stopgap measure, a stopgap measure or an actuarial guideline as the stopgap.

While not a binding vote, a straw poll showed support for having a stopgap measure, with the model bulletin emerging as the preferred mechanism over an actuarial guideline.

The working group spend the remainder of Tuesday’s call tackling additional illustration possibilities and supplemental information. Whether to allow additional information and data presenting the “range of risk” is a topic the group will continue discussion on the next call.

“The primary concern here is that the past 20 years right now doesn’t provide a full range of possible high and low scenarios,” Slutsker noted.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post Guidance, bulletin or reg? NAIC debates form of annuity illustration update appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Life insurance sales topped $3.1 billion in the first quarter, Wink, Inc. reported, up 6.5% compared to the previous quarter and up 6.4% compared to the same period last year.

All life sales include fixed universal life (UL), indexed UL, variable UL, indexed whole life, whole life, and term life product sales.

Noteworthy highlights for total life insurance sales of all products in the first quarter included Transamerica ranking as No. 1 in overall sales for all life insurance sales, with a market share of 7%. Transamerica Life’s Transamerica Financial Foundation IUL II, an indexed universal life (IUL) product, was the No. 1 selling product for all life insurance sales, for all channels combined, for the quarter.

All universal life sales for the first quarter were $1.2 billion, up 5.8% compared to the previous quarter and up 4.3% compared to the same period last year. All universal life (UL) sales include fixed UL, indexed UL, and variable UL product sales.

Noteworthy highlights for all universal life sales in the first quarter included Prudential ranking as No. 1 in overall sales for all universal life products, with a market share of 10.9%. Transamerica Life’s Transamerica Financial Foundation IUL II, an IUL product, was the No. 1 selling product for all universal life sales, for all channels combined, for the quarter.

Non-variable universal life sales for the first quarter were $872.7 million, up 2.4% compared to the previous quarter and down 2.2% compared to the same period last year. Non-variable universal life (UL) sales include both fixed UL and indexed UL product sales.

Noteworthy highlights for total non-variable universal life sales in the first quarter included National Life Group retaining the No. 1 overall sales ranking for non-variable universal life sales, with a market share of 14.8%. Transamerica Life’s Transamerica Financial Foundation IUL II, an IUL product, was the No. 1 selling product for non-variable universal life sales across all channels in the quarter.

Fixed universal life sales for the first quarter were $65.2 million, up less than 1% from the previous quarter and down 6% from the same period last year.

Items of interest in the fixed UL market included Nationwide retaining its No. 1 ranking in fixed universal life sales, with a 22.5% market share; Pacific Life Companies, Protective Life Companies, John Hancock, and Massachusetts Mutual Life Companies completed the top five, respectively.

Nationwide’s Nationwide CareMatters II was the No. 1 selling fixed universal life insurance product, for all channels combined, for the second consecutive quarter. The top
primary product objective of No Lapse Guarantee captured 36.5% of sales. The average fixed UL target premium for the quarter was $7,207, an increase of nearly 6% from the prior quarter.

Indexed life sales for the first quarter were $811 million, up 2.7% compared with the previous quarter, and down 1.7% compared to the same period last year. Indexed life sales include both indexed UL and indexed whole life.

Items of interest in the indexed life market included National Life Group retaining its No. 1 ranking in indexed life sales, with a 15.7% market share; Transamerica, Pacific Life Companies, John Hancock, and Nationwide rounded out the top five, respectively.

Transamerica Life’s Transamerica Financial Foundation IUL II was the No. 1 selling indexed life insurance product across all channels for the quarter. The top primary product objective for sales in the quarter was Cash Accumulation, capturing 72.1% of sales. The average indexed life target premium for the quarter was $12,174, a decline of nearly 6% from the prior quarter.

“It appears that multi-level marketing (MLM) firms are advancing indexed life sales,” said Sheryl J. Moore, CEO of both Moore Market Intelligence and Wink. “It will be interesting to see if the companies underwriting products for these firms improve the retention issues that are associated with this distribution method.”

Variable universal life sales for the first quarter were $363.9 million, up 15.1% compared with the previous quarter and up 24.5% compared to the same period last year.

Items of interest in the variable universal life market included Prudential retaining the No. 1 ranking in variable universal life sales, with a 31.8% market share; Pacific Life Companies, John Hancock, Nationwide, and RiverSource Life completed the top five, respectively.

Pruco Life’s PruLife Custom Premier II was the No. 1 selling variable universal life product, for all channels combined for the second consecutive quarter. The top primary product objective for sales this quarter was Cash Accumulation, capturing 68.2% of sales. The average variable universal life target premium for the quarter was $20,424, a decline of nearly 12%

Whole life first quarter sales were over $1.3 billion, up 7.4% compared with the previous quarter, and up 18.2% compared to the same period last year. Items of interest in the whole life market included the top primary product objective of final expense, capturing 69.5% of sales. The average premium per whole life policy for the quarter was $4,109, an increase of more than 6% from the prior quarter.

“The market share for whole life insurance is impressive,” Moore said. “The next-nearest product line, indexed life, is trailing whole life’s share by a nearly 17% lead.”

Term life first quarter sales were $553.2 million, up 6% when compared with the previous quarter and down more than 11% compared to the same period last year.

Items of interest in the term life market include Prudential ranking No. 1 in term life sales, with a 6.8% market share. Pacific Life Companies, Protective Life Companies, Corebridge Financial, and National Life Group completed the top five, respectively.

Protective Life Classic Choice Term 20 was the No. 1 selling term life insurance product, for all channels combined, for the second consecutive quarter. The average annual term life premium per policy reported for the quarter was $2,008, an increase of more than 5% from the previous quarter.

Wink reports sales on all annuity lines of business, as well as all life insurance product lines.

The post Life insurance sales rise across all product lines in Q2, Wink reports appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

A payment dispute system created under the No Surprises Act has generated an estimated $22.4 billion in costs since 2022, according to a new Georgetown University study.

The study focuses on the law’s independent dispute resolution, or IDR, process, which was created to settle payment disputes between health insurers and out-of-network providers while protecting patients from surprise medical bills.

Researchers said the law has largely succeeded in protecting consumers from surprise bills, but the arbitration system has grown far beyond what policymakers originally expected.

The $22.4 billion estimate includes payment awards, administrative costs and fees tied to the IDR process. Researchers said dispute volumes have far exceeded early federal projections, with millions of cases moving through the arbitration system each year.

Premium concerns emerge

The researchers said rising IDR costs could affect employers, health plans and consumers if those expenses continue to grow.

The study cited New York’s state employee health plan, which reported more than $200 million in additional claim payments tied to IDR decisions and said those costs were a major contributor to a nearly 10% premium increase in 2025.

An AHIP spokesperson who declined to be identified said much of the spending identified in the study ultimately falls on employer-sponsored health plans.

“Those are funds that don’t come out of insurance company coffers. That’s money that comes from employers,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said employers are increasingly being forced to weigh difficult decisions as health care costs rise.

“Do we cut back on benefits? Do we increase premiums? Do we further increase deductibles?” the spokesperson said. “They’re having to make those decisions.”

Several employers and insurers have also reported financial effects tied to the arbitration process.

UnitedHealthcare has said it is processing about 100,000 IDR disputes each month and that the IDR process is contributing a 2% to 6% increase in premium expenses within its exchange business.

The United Service Workers Health Plan, which covers about 20,000 workers in the New York area, reported increasing premiums by an additional 1.75 percentage points to offset arbitration awards and fees.

Centene reported that its commercial health benefits ratio was 100 basis points higher than expected during the fourth quarter of 2025. The AHIP spokesperson cited the increase as an example of growing cost pressure facing health plans.

A recent Mercer survey found health benefit costs are expected to rise 8.2% in 2027, the largest increase since 2003. Mercer identified several contributors to rising costs, including GLP-1 drugs, AI-assisted claims software and the growing volume of disputes moving through the No Surprises Act IDR process.

Costs continue to climb

According to the study, dispute volume rose 77% from 2024 to 2025, while total award amounts increased 264% during the same period. Researchers estimated that IDR-related costs reached $16.6 billion in 2025 alone.

The report also found that providers initiated about 1.75 million disputes during the first six months of 2026, up 50% from the same period a year earlier. Providers prevailed in about 85% of disputes in 2025, according to the study.

Federal officials originally estimated the arbitration system would handle roughly 22,000 disputes annually. Researchers found providers initiated about 2.6 million disputes in 2025 alone.

The spokesperson said the process was originally intended to be used only in limited situations.

“It was not going to be a major revenue stream, let alone an entire business model for many providers and an entire business model for these IDR middlemen,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the growth of companies that specialize in filing and managing IDR claims has contributed to rising dispute volumes.

Industry debate continues

The study’s findings have drawn criticism from several physician groups.

In a joint statement, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Radiology challenged the study’s methodology.

The groups said the report relies too heavily on the qualifying payment amount, or QPA, which they argue does not accurately reflect market rates and is often calculated too low by insurers.

AHIP disputed that criticism, saying the QPA remains an important benchmark because it reflects negotiated in-network payment rates.

“The QPA is based on the median of in-network rates for that same service in the same geographic area,” the spokesperson said.

The study also found that a small number of organizations account for a large share of arbitration activity.

According to the researchers, more than three-fourths of resolved dispute lines in 2025 came from Radiology Partners, HaloMD and TeamHealth.

Researchers said the No Surprises Act has largely succeeded in protecting patients from surprise medical bills. They also found the arbitration system created by the law now handles millions of disputes each year, far exceeding the roughly 22,000 annual cases federal officials originally projected when the process was established.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

The post No Surprises Act arbitration costs reach $22.4 billion as disputes surge appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.