Depending on the number and complexity of models that exist for an insurer, model monitoring runs the risk of becoming overwhelming very quickly. A first step to building a solid model monitoring program is to catalog models in use, including any state-specific versions and assessing the relative importance of each. That could be assessed in a variety of ways including by the number of policies that a model potentially impacts, or the premium volume that a model has influence on. An insurer may also want to assess the complexity of the model and its potential stability. Combining all of the different characteristics helps lead to determining which models are most important to monitor first (relative priority).

Continuing our previous deeper dive into certain aspects of the Modeling Lifecycle concept, this installment is the last entry in the lifecycle—model monitoring. While monitoring is the last step in the process, it is arguably one of the more important steps since it can send a modeler back to nearly every other earlier step in the lifecycle. However, model monitoring often receives the least attention.

Last year I wrote about a concept called the Modeling Lifecycle (Modeling Lifecycle). In that blog, I spent time addressing the many steps that are necessary for a predictive modeling project to be a success. Obviously, one of those critical steps is actual implementation of the model itself. Without that, you only have a fancy formula that doesn’t do much of anything for you. While insurers continue to devote more and more time and resources to predictive analytics, it would also benefit them to make sure they are devoting sufficient attention to model implementation.

While predictive analytics can provide significant benefits to insurance companies and customers, the rapid pace at which analytics is evolving and the relative complexity of some of the models used poses a significant challenge to state regulators who are charged with reviewing and approving such models. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) recognized this emerging issue and created the Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force (CASTF), which has been charged with identifying best practices to guide state insurance departments in their review of predictive models for underlying rating plans. Over the course of the last year, the CASTF has released multiple drafts of the white paper “Regulatory Review of Predictive Models” for public comment. And comment the public has! Numerous letters have been submitted from trade associations, actuarial organizations, credit agencies, consumer groups and even insurance departments to provide their input on the lengthy white paper.

The Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) of the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) recently announced the release of the new Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) 56, entitled “Modeling.” This new standard will be applicable to actuaries governed by the AAA for modeling work performed on or after October 1, 2020.