March 26, 2026

NAIC regulators field complaints about transparency, closed meetings

State insurance regulators and industry and consumer representatives debated the balance between transparency and the need for private deliberations on Tuesday as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners reviews its open meetings policy.

Discussions became most strained when some speakers accused regulators of making decisions during closed, regulator-to-regulator sessions.

“There is a growing perception that increasing amounts of deliberation are occurring in sessions that are not open to interested parties, and that the open meetings tend to be confirmation of actions already discussed and agreed to,” said David Snyder, vice president for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

Snyder further annoyed some regulators by calling the NAIC an “increasingly quasi-legislative” body. Established in 1871, the NAIC is a non-governmental organization with no direct regulatory authority over the industry.

“There isn’t a single thing that we do here, whether it’s a standard or whatever, that immediately becomes law in any state,” countered Anita G. Fox, director of the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. “It has to go through the legislative process, when all of you also have another opportunity to have a voice.”

The topic was debated during the Executive Committee meeting held at the NAIC Spring Meeting in San Diego.

Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike told attendees the review aims to explore potential revisions to the NAIC open meetings policy and improve guidance and training for regulators who lead committees and working groups.

“We are committed to continuing our work in modernizing our policy … while also ensuring that our members have the opportunities that we need to discuss with each other the issues that challenge each of us in our own jurisdictions,” Pike said.

The effort follows a survey of more than 100 regulators and staff, including committee chairs and vice chairs, which identified both strengths and concerns in how the policy is applied.

Calls for greater transparency

The NAIC is already “more transparent” than many global standard-setting bodies, Snyder said, but he urged regulators to limit closed-door sessions to areas such as personnel matters, legal negotiations and protection of trade secrets. Snyder also called for advance publication of meeting materials and summaries of closed sessions.

Industry groups, including America’s Health Insurance Plans and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, echoed similar concerns, emphasizing the need for consistent application of the existing policy rather than sweeping changes.

Erica Weyhenmeyer is policy vice president, market regulation & workers’ compensation for NAMIC. Transparency earlier in the policymaking process could improve outcomes, she said.

“When key conversations happen behind closed doors, it becomes much easier to miss the operational realities that only stakeholders can provide, and it undermines the credibility of what we’re doing here,” she said.

Regulators defend private discussions

Regulators acknowledged the concerns but stressed the importance of private collaboration. Closed-door discussions can be essential for candid exchanges among regulators, Fox said.

“The value of this organization for me as a state member, goes way down” without opportunities for private collaboration, she added, noting time constraints and the complexity of issues regulators face. “I’m now going into my in the middle of my seventh year here and we have surprisingly little amount of time to collaborate with one another.”

Consumer representatives urged broader access to meetings and materials, including recordings.

In August, Peter Gould, an annuity owner and retiree from Indiana, presented a proposal for the NAIC to provide access to both livestreams and recordings of all NAIC public sessions. Recordings should be provided to all stakeholders and kept for at least one year, Gould said.

“Current policies present practical barriers to stakeholder access (including fees, lack of recordings and limited availability) and serve to restrict participation to well-resourced entities and industry-paid lobbyists,” Gould wrote.

Lucy Culp is vice president of state government affairs for Blood Cancer United. Limited transparency can hinder meaningful participation, she said.

“It does at times make it more difficult for us to engage with you, not because we want to prolong a decision or prolong a process, but because we miss the opportunity to really fully hear and understand your thinking,” she said.

Pike said regulators will continue reviewing feedback and consider whether policy or operational changes are needed. Additional opportunities for stakeholder input are expected.

“This is an important issue,” Pike said. “It’s finding that right balance … and we’ll continue to work through it.”

The NAIC’s current open meetings policy, last updated in 2014, presumes openness but allows exceptions for certain confidential matters. Regulators said any revisions would aim to preserve transparency while ensuring effective policymaking.

The post NAIC regulators field complaints about transparency, closed meetings appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.