Description: The article analyzes Private Letter Ruling 202031008, which considers how Internal Revenue Code sections 72(q) and (u) apply to an annuity contract issued to a trust. In particular, the Ruling interprets the terms “taxpayer,” “holder” and “held by” in those Code sections in situations where a non-qualified deferred annuity contract is issued to a grantor trust or a non-grantor trust. The Ruling’s analysis and conclusions differ in some respects depending on which of these types of trusts is involved. In addition, although the Ruling does not address sections 72(s) or 72(e)(4)(C), the Ruling has potential implications under those provisions because they also use the term “holder” and “holds,” respectively.

Description: MHPAEA prohibits health plans from imposing financial requirements or treatment limitations on behavioral health benefits that are more restrictive than those applied to medical and surgical benefits. MHPAEA's regulations define treatment limitations to include nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs), which are benefit design features that are not numerical, but otherwise limit the scope or duration of benefits.

Description: HIV is still a big public health concern, but there are therapies available to prevent infection before and immediately after exposure. As legislatures and the USPSTF considers adding these therapies to the list of preventive care covered without cost share, actuaries will need to estimate the impact on their care cost. The presenters will share an actuarial tool kit to estimate the impact of covering PrEP and PEP for different populations. Examples are provided and discussion is welcome.

Description: in the insurance industry, machine learning models are increasingly used to make decisions that affect people's lives. In order to ensure that models are fair, they should be audited for bias. There are no hard and fast rules for bias audit; metrics that can be used to evaluate fairness vary depending on the context in which the model is deployed. The presenters in this session present a flexible framework that highlights key considerations in bias evaluation that can be adjusted to suit your process.

Description: This article discusses final Treasury Regulations published in October 2019 under Internal Revenue Code sections 101 and 6050Y. The regulations cover new tax reporting requirements for transfers and sales of life insurance contracts, as well as changes to the transfer-for-value rules related to reportable policy sales

Description: The presenters will cover the variation in risk adjustment approaches used across state Medicaid programs and compare them to other Federal programs. Additionally, recent developments, such as the use of OCR to extract data from medical charts for risk adjustment, will be discussed.

Description: As the use of predictive models and novel datasets becomes more prevalent, a focus on consumer protection is being highlighted by regulators, ethicists, and industry insiders. Over time, increased rigor should and will be applied in model development and implementation. These issues are not new. Hundreds of individuals have worked on these issues in the laboratory, the board room, and the court room. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Uniform Guidelines of the US EEOC, the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection and other sources are intended to protect the rights of citizens and consumers and provide guidance to professionals in the development and use of decision-making tools. Drawing heavily on examples and parallels from psychology and employment practices as well as other disciplines, concepts such as model bias, fairness, adverse impact, disparate treatment and the like will be presented. Suggestions to ensure model validity, demonstrate model and data relevancy and minimize the potential for adverse impact to protected classes will also be offered. Each of these considerations will be linked to recent dialogue and concerns in the Life Insurance sector.