House Budget and Fiscal Affairs Oversight Committee, February 5, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1162354922 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1162354922#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/house-budget-and-fiscal-affairs-oversight This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:00:01] I'm gonna call the meeting to order if we hadn't already, and, uh, go ahead and tell you that, uh, uh, Representative Bruce Williamson, uh, asked not to have a hearing, so we're not gonna hear that. Uh, Representative Viola Davis has had another hearing, and I told her I would give her a hearing on her bill later, and she, she, she may come in, but I, I don't think she will. And w- uh, uh, Representative Tanya Miller had a, a witness online, and I, I told her she was going first, but, but since we were delayed, we'll, we'll, we'll, uh, give her a little time after, uh, Representative Wilkinson. [0:00:39] So, uh, tell us what, uh, what, uh, bill you're working off of, LC number, Mr. Wilkinson, and you have the floor. [0:00:49] Members of the committee, um, may I? Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Today I'm presenting House Bill 1003, LC number 473779. This is, a- as we know, across the country we've had a lot of, um, discussion regarding security for elected officials. Th- this bill and an additional bill are an attempt to kind of m- make sure that as we do our jobs, we don't have to worry about the safety and security of ourselves, as well as those attending our meetings, as well as our families. [0:01:25] And so I have a separate bill that deals with dignitary protection, which provides protection for, like, the majority leader, minority leader, and then members that experience, um, active threats. This bill is basically modeled off of our legislative reimbursement account. So currently we get $7,000 to handle our, um, legislative duties, and this creates a separate fund that would be only used for security. So you can install a security system, you can have the monthly monitoring. [0:01:55] Um, if you have a town hall meeting, you can use it for that. So it's basically saying, use your $7,000, which would be elevated to 10, and then use this other 10 for security. So I had a recent town hall meeting, all the members of the delegation were invited, our local police department came. This could be used for that, or your sheriff, or whoever you want to pay them, because they're usually gonna be working off-time. So that's basically the gist of the bill. We can kind of walk through the pieces, but I wanted to kind of give you the general understanding. And, and Representative Panitch is here, because I w- it's all of us, but then what, some of us have a, a more, you know, uh, unique situation that we never wanna face. [0:02:30] And if you don't mind, if you could just tell us your personal experience of being a legislator. [0:02:37] So in 2024 we all worked on HB30, which was the antisemitism bill. It was very contentious. The moment it passed, a few days later, which happened to be the morning of, uh, when the governor was going to sign the bill publicly, uh, there was a postcard that my husband brought in from our mail, which was a death threat to me, uh, because, well, related to me being Jewish. And, um, I called law enforcement. The FBI ended up taking it over. [0:03:08] Uh, the Middle District of Georgia prosecuted it in district court. There was a conviction. It wasn't just sent to me, it was sent to a rabbi in Macon as well, where Naz- neo-Nazis had marched in front of her synagogue a couple years, or a year before that. It was because that rabbi and I were advocating for the bill. She had just testified on behalf of the bill, and we both received these postcards. So there was a conviction in November. The rabbi and I both testified. There was sentencing yesterday. [0:03:39] Uh, the s- rabbi and I both testified again at the sentencing, and this guy was sentenced to the m- statutory maximum sentence of five years. The idea being there are some of us who have more heightened threats, but we're all, um, there isn't any one of us who won't get threatened at some point because of a position we're taking on legislation or just because someone doesn't like us doing our job. So th- this is the new reality for people in, in public office, unfortunately. [0:04:12] Um, and so I would support the bill. [0:04:16] Is this, uh, that's the pr- you through with your presentation? [0:04:19] Yes, that's it. And I'll, I'll be open to any questions. Like I said, it's, it functions the same way our reimbursement account does, so. [0:04:24] Well, um, this may not be appropriate, but I wanna ask you a question- [0:04:26] Okay [0:04:26] ... to refresh my memory. Now, that was 2024. [0:04:30] Mm-hmm. [0:04:31] Was this, that was after the driveway flyer things that we- [0:04:34] Yes [0:04:34] ... we had, correct? [0:04:36] The driveway flyer things happened, uh, within my first few weeks of session. [0:04:39] Yes. [0:04:40] My first session in 2023. And so this, actually the group that did the flyers is related to the neo-Nazi who was sentenced yesterday. He was active in their group, so it was not unconnected. [0:04:53] Thank you. We're certainly sorry that happened. [0:04:55] Thank you. [0:04:56] Um, w- okay, now we're gonna open up questions from the panel. We have, uh, from the committee, uh, number 15. [0:05:04] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you for this bill. Uh, and this is, um, I do think very important, and I know we had a lot of questions about security, uh, recently. Um, I actually, um, am just confused a little bit by the line 46, uh, through 48, um, where it talks about security equipment and its depreciation, and whether or not the member needs to return it to the state. [0:05:36] And the way it is written, it, I, I, maybe I'm just, like, reading it wrong, but it seems like it's the opposite of what we would do, for example, if we bought, like, a cellphone or something, uh, which is in lines, like, 19 through 21. Is that just, like, a scrivener's error, or am I just, like, not reading it right? Or... [0:05:57] So you're saying lines 46? [0:05:59] Yeah, like, 46 through 48 seems to be written- And the opposite way of lines 19 through 21. Although I think the intent is the same, but maybe I just, it might be- [0:06:11] So 46 through f- basically, the way our legislative reimbursement account works as well is if it's over a certain dollar amount, say you buy a computer, if it's more than a certain dollar amount of valuable, if, if it's worth a certain amount, uh, like $100, we have to return it to the state or pay that to the state because they can't give it to us for free. Um, this is the same type situation. So let's say you have a SimpliSafe where you just put it up and, and, um, at the end of a couple of years, it's only worth, it's worth $150. [0:06:42] You would have to return it to the state or, or pay the difference. That's what that's looking for, is that we cannot receive something of value. [0:06:49] No, I, I see it. And I, I see what I'm, the... It's just that it's written the opposite way of the way it's written for the things that we already did, but it does mean the same thing, so my apologies. [0:07:00] No. [0:07:00] That's on me. [0:07:00] No, that's fine. They, they worked on that for, you know, we had to work on that language, so yes. [0:07:07] Uh, rep number 21. [0:07:10] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Um, so when was the last ti- um, when was the last time we raised our expense account? Um, do we know? [0:07:20] I have been here 16 years. Um, I've never seen it raised. [0:07:26] Okay. And, um, so we don't have to keep addressing this issue. If we wanted to tie it to inflation, would we be against something like that? Say we raise it to 10,000. [0:07:35] No, I, I don't think any member in this chamber will probably complain- ... about actually having a, a legislative reimbursement account that funds what we need. And I think, you know, my colleague brought up the security. Yeah, I'm, these dollar amounts are what I consider to be low. But yeah, I mean, I'm open to any changes. [0:07:54] And I, I just wanna be clear, too, on the bill. We're talking about now two separate expense accounts. [0:07:58] We're talking about two separate accounts. So if you never have any security issues, you would never use that one account. You cannot add them together. Um, uh, you know, so your legislative... Well, I guess you could. I mean, you can't use a sec- the security account only has to be used for security. Now, your legislative reimbursement account is go- is gonna be used for the current items you use them for. [0:08:17] So, um, so this... Sorry, one, one last one. Um, so this account would just be on security. It wouldn't just be for any type of in, um, in-district services or just, just- [0:08:27] No, and I believe a colleague has something like that. But right now, you would have to use your current legislative reimbursement account of $7,000. [0:08:35] Thank you, Chairman. [0:08:37] Number nine. [0:08:40] Chairman. Two things. One, I just wanted to add context to the discussion we were having with Dr. Clark and, uh, Representative Wilkerson. We had discussed this on our team in terms of how to handle security with respect to, like, a durable piece of hardware versus a service. And what I think we ultimately determined was the case was that we wouldn't use it to pay for hardware that might outlast the, the s- the term of state level service, but that the expenses could be used to pay for the service, for example, home monitoring- [0:09:12] Yes [0:09:13] ... or a service like a security guard and that type of thing. But that we wanted to, to separate those two just in case that we wouldn't wanna be using state funds to pay for something that lives in your home and outlasts the- [0:09:25] Correct. So if you buy a system that costs you $20,000 and you serve one term, you're not, nobody wants to have to rip that out of your wall or pay the difference. [0:09:33] Right, or upgrade it or use- [0:09:34] Upgrade it, yes. Correct [0:09:35] ... a different thing. Just to simplify it. The second one is a question, is, um, just for scale. After... I'm so sorry that happened to you. That's not cool. And we all, we all thought about it, especially in these past few years with so much, uh, political violence on the rise. Can you give us a sense of how much you feel like you had to invest from your personal accounts into security related matters around your job? [0:10:02] You know what? I don't have a number, I didn't think to, you know, to provide one. Um, I, and frankly, my husband pays the security. Like, he handles that part for us, so I have no idea what we even pay. [0:10:14] Yeah. [0:10:15] But, uh, we increased security. I had already increased security after the, after the flyers. We put up cameras, more lights, things like that. Um, we also have monitoring. We've always had an alarm. So, you know, I don't know specifically how much we put out, but, um... And law enforcement came in pretty quickly. [0:10:35] Mm-hmm. [0:10:36] So they took a lot of what I otherwise would have had to do. So I don't know the number. I'm sorry. [0:10:43] Uh, for, for my personal investment, it's, it's a couple thousand dollars a year for sure. [0:10:48] Wow. [0:10:49] Easily. [0:10:49] Oh, easily. I, but I don't have an amount. [0:10:52] And just to give you perspective on how that would work is, you know, Representative Panitch would go through life and, and have the reimbursement account like the rest of us. Incident happens, GBI will confirm that it's an active threat. Law enforcement will step in and say, "We need to do something." And this would, you would get elevated to that status where they would be authorized to provide protection of some sort, um, until that threat is no longer a, a, a real threat. And that's determined by GBI. [0:11:23] Re- Representative Sanchez. [0:11:29] Thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you for this bill. Um, were there any consideration about just making them, like, do, making them one account instead of two separate? Or do you think the security is kinda like, it's better to have one just for security? [0:11:44] Yeah. I wanted to clearly address an issue. I mean, the, the challenge that we're having right now is related to security. And so that's why I wanted to have one clear account that's done for that. Because what I would hate to happen is, say there is... Because, one, we wanna encourage people to make sure they're taking care of themselves and their families in addressing that issue. [0:12:00] Yeah. [0:12:00] Um, and two, I didn't want it to be perceived as us do- a way of increasing our personal allowance- [0:12:06] Right [0:12:06] ... uh, for that. [0:12:08] Thank you. [0:12:09] Thank you for that question. Thank you. [0:12:12] Number 17. [0:12:16] Thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you for bringing this bill. Um, I was happy to co-sponsor it. Um, and Representative Panitch, I'm sorry, uh, for your experience as well. Um, I just wanted to add, I guess, um, an sort of an additional benefit. So it would provide, um, support for safety for members, also their family, extended family members, but also our staff and in a, in some ways a default benefit for the public. So when we're going to host town halls, recently, uh, at libraries and/or college campuses, security absolutely has been an issue. [0:12:52] Um, so again, um, a default additional benefit for safety for our constituents as well. No, that's, that's a great point, because we all have chosen to be here. Um, our families have come along, willingly sometimes because they love us, and then the public wants to be engaged. And so when we do have a town hall meeting, it's, I feel it's our responsibility to make sure they have a safe environment and, and this could be used for that. But thank you for that, and thank you for co-sponsoring. [0:13:19] Representative Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, friendly question. Uh, I know earlier we were talking about- Yes ... official capacity. Mm-hmm. But when it comes to security, uh, in my mind, anywhere I go, I'm still in my same capacity, right? And so would you be open to a friendly amendment to say it's not just official c- capacity, right? I mean, we could be at a grocery store and we still need security, um, uh, personnel to be with us. [0:13:52] Yeah, and I think official capacity was something we put in there because, of course, if you're on the beach, on a cruise, you know, you're not on official capacity, but any time you're in the community, I would consider that official capacity, to your point. If you're at a football game at a high school, you're in official capacity because you are available to the public. We don't, we don't leave that role because it's hard to separate the two. So, um, let's meet with the legislative council, because I'm definitely open to that, make sure that we're addressing those issues where you are just the common guy going down the street and doing something. [0:14:22] But y- you know, so let's look at how we can address that, but that's a great point. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Chairman, a friendly follow-up. Um, would you also be open, um, much like our expense account, we, y- there are a plethora of th- you know- Yeah ... tabulations on there. Mm-hmm. Computers, paper, all that stuff. Would you be open for this separate account, which I do agree with your logic and approach, but would, can you, can we specify hardware versus personnel? [0:14:53] Because when I think of security from a military standpoint, there are different forms of security, right? If I go and get a Cane Corso- Yeah ... right, I'm not looking to turn that Cane Corso back to the Georgia General Assembly. So are you looking at saying of that amount, a certain amount's for hardware or maybe a pre- startup? Correct. It could- Yeah. I mean, 'cause that way we c- we could sort of spell it out when we s- when, when a member said, "Hey, I wanna get security," and now they can discern what kind of security is available. [0:15:26] Much like how we look at our expense account, it clearly tells us what can be, you know, spent, uh, or, or not. Yeah. And I guess with the regular account, we, it's kind of lumped in. The challenge would be if we broke it out, and let me think about that, that's, you know, 'cause we talked about it a little earlier, is that, so let's say we was like four, five and five, or something like that your first year. If you leave after a year, that five is either coming back to us or we're taking that, they're taking the security system out because it is a benefit to the legislator, like a personal benefit they consider it, because it still has a depreciable value. [0:16:03] So let's see how that would work. Um, my guess is that you would probably go toward a system that can not, that has a quick depreciation value, which a lot of them may. I don't know, but, but, um, let me look at that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Be- because if I go and get an AK-47, that's security. Yeah. Right? Yep. So I, I- As long as you know how to use it as security. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Um- And you do. [0:16:30] Thank you. Thank you. A- as long as it, it's worth more than $100, you turn it back in. Uh, I would think, I'm gonna make a statement. I would think that we're in our f- uh, official capacity 24/7, 365. Yeah. And, uh, uh, when you get into this, you know, you could, you, you might, uh, I don't know how far that would go as far as security. I can certainly understand why some people feel uncomfortable. Yeah. And it doesn't matter what, what party you are or what nationality or race or anything else. [0:17:02] It's a, it's a serious problem and, and I appreciate you bringing it. It'll give us time to think about it, talk about it. Give other people time to ask more questions and see where we're going with it, and, and, and, and it may be something that's, that's needed, you know? Yeah. And we're, uh, we're certainly, uh, glad you brought it, and I'm, uh, ready to talk to you some more about it. Yeah, let's definitely- And make sure we understand it and make sure everybody else understands it. Yeah. And if you have, there's no further questions from the panel or from, either one of the statements from you, we'll, we'll let you be dismissed and move on to- No, I just wanna thank the panel for listening today, and I wanna thank my colleagues that signed onto the bill because as I've talked to, you know, we get to know each other, but when I brought this bill forward, I talked to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, and I was shocked at how many people- Yeah ... [0:17:49] have actually had active threats against them. Sure. Um, it doesn't matter the age, doesn't matter the race, doesn't matter where they are in the state, doesn't matter the party. They have ac- had active threats. And so, um, you know, it, it's one thing to leave here and come downtown, but it's hard to leave your family at home and know they're not protected, so this would just be part of that. But anyway, I thank you again for the hearing and look forward to having further discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman [0:18:21] Representative Tanya Miller with two As. [0:18:27] Representative Miller, we understand that you have a, um, expert or a witness on, and you got that set up and- [0:18:34] We, we do. We do, Mr. Chairman [0:18:35] Okay. So- [0:18:36] Thank- [0:18:36] We're, uh, we're gonna, we're gonna, uh, uh, let, uh, Representative, uh, Tanya Miller, uh, present her bill, and she's gonna tell us what LC number she's working off of, and she has the floor. [0:18:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, uh, colleagues, um, for your, for your patience with my, uh, uh, misunderstanding of the time we were starting. Uh, so thank you for being patient with me. I am working off of LC number, uh, 521008S, which is the substitute bill from House Bill 733. Um, 733 is a bill designed to tackle what, uh, we have been talking about as a body here in a bipartisan way, some of the practices of the insurance, uh, industry and, uh, insurance premiums and the affordability of insurance. [0:19:31] Essentially, the bill itself is called, uh, in the sub, the Insurance Consumer Protection Act. Uh, the title of the bill really speaks for what the purpose of the bill is. Uh, in recent years, as we know, if you, if you've had constituents, whether it's homeowners or, um, small business owners, some of us have heard from churches in our community about the inexplicable rises in premiums and what largely feels like, um, an area where, uh, constituents and consumers are lost in terms of how they can themselves, uh, advocate on their own behalf when it comes to this. [0:20:09] So, uh, this bill has looked at, uh, data, it's looked at information, it's-- we've talked to folks on the inside and on the outside, and, um, there's a lot of, of, of conversation around the country, uh, on this topic. Um, we know that between, or at least some reports have said that between 2021 and 2024, Georgia homeowners' insurance premiums have risen at least 20%, from an average of 2,529 a year to upwards of 3,000 annually. [0:20:41] Um, car insurance, business insurance, it's all going up. Um, the Consumer Federation of America, which is, is essentially a consumer watchdog organization, points to several reasons for this: uh, rising costs of construction, building materials, um, natural disasters, um, um, and lots of other things. Uh, one of the things that they, that they point to, um, is an imbalance sometimes within states i-in our regulatory function. Um, it's a very, uh, technical, uh, sort of regulation. [0:21:13] Um, and the voice that is often missing in the conversations about rate increases and, uh, industry prac-practices, uh, is the voice of the consumer. So, overall, I'll go through quickly what, uh, each section in the bill does. Um, but the bill is, is designed to sort of rebalance the way that our, uh, regulatory function works in the state to give consumers a little bit more of a voice. So sections one and two, um, really sort of define the purpose of the bill. [0:21:47] It's as I just described. Uh, we shortened the title of the bill. That's one of the changes in the sub. Um, and, uh, these statements, or these, excuse me, these sections state kind of plainly why the bill exists. It's to protect, uh, consumers and policyholders by making the system fairer, more transparent, and more accountable. The change was made because folks are seeing their premiums go up, and they don't know why. Um, the process that allows those increases to happen, it's technical, as I just stated, mostly closed to the public and dominated by, um, insurance insiders. [0:22:24] Uh, we are trying to make it clear from the start, um, with this bill that, uh, we wanna put consumers first. Uh, we don't wanna put them after profits, not after convenience, but first. Sections three and four creates, uh, which is really the heart of this bill, the insurance consumer advocate. Um, this person's only job is to represent insurance, uh, consumers. Um, they do not represent the insurance companies. They don't represent the department itself. [0:22:56] This advocate represents the people, the folks, the businesses who are paying these premiums. Uh, the bill allows for the advocate to review policy cancellations and non-renewals, to get the data to understand, uh, and, and sort of pierce the veil of why these things are happening, to participate meaningfully in, uh, rate increase reviews with an eye towards the consumer. Um, there is a provision in there that, uh, requires the advocate to engage in a public education campaign and to, uh, speak for consumers in hearings and in court if needed. [0:23:34] Um, what we know about how these, uh, processes go in terms of how insurance companies get rate increases and, and when there are challenges to the practices, uh, insurance companies show up with their lawyers, with actuaries, with experts. Consumers aren't there. Uh, that creates an imbalance. Not because folks are bad, right? But because one side is always, uh, prepared and advocating, and the other side is not in the room. So this, uh, advocate, what we're trying to accomplish here is to give consumers a permanent seat at the table when in, when decisions about insurance rates are made. [0:24:12] We want someone who is asking at all times, "How does this affect families? How does this affect seniors? How does this affect small businesses?" Sections five through seven Really are designed to give the advocate, uh, real power and real authority. So we don't want this advocate to be symbolic. Um, and so for that reason, we, uh, give the advocate the ability to ask for hearings before the commissioner, uh, participate fully in those hearings on behalf of the consumer, uh, examine evidence, examine witnesses, get evidence and witnesses, data, things like that, that, um, are oftentimes relied on to justify these rate hikes and to have the ability, it sets up an appeal mechanism similar to other appeal mechanisms within the state and within other, uh, state, uh, departments. [0:25:02] Um, we all know that having a watchdog without authority really is just a suggestion box, right? And that's not what we want. Um, we want the advocate to be able to act, to speak, to challenge dec- dec- decisions, and, um, if we don't have that, quite frankly, the role really doesn't protect anyone. So that's the purpose of that. Uh, Sections 8 and 9, uh, sort of, uh, kind of raise the bar a little bit for the process of rate increases. [0:25:33] Uh, this section tightens the rules around insurance rate increases by saying that rates, it, it delineates in the code, um, really a framework for assessing whether or not a rate increase is, is appropriate. Uh, rates cannot be fair-- excuse me, unfair. They cannot be excessive, and they cannot be unjustified. That is what th- these Sections, um, 8 and 9 try to set forth clearly. Um, it does have a trigger for large increases, especially those over ten percent in a year. [0:26:05] Those get, uh, mandatory extra scrutiny. So the advocate can-- is in the position to really question and, and pierce the veil behind any rate increase. But if there is a large increase, then everybody has to sort of say, "Well, let's take a pause. Let's understand what's happening and why." It also, um, disallows auto insurers from automatically raising rates without review. Right now, our provision allows for auto insurance-- auto insurers have sort of this special carve-out where they can simply file a rate increase, and it is not-- a review is not, is not triggered. [0:26:44] Um, companies must explain, insurance companies must explain increases with real data. So, um, that's Sections 8 and 9. Um, Section 10 essentially, um... Let's see. Well, actually, that described Sections 8, 9, and 10. Let's go to [0:27:11] eleven. [0:27:15] Section 11, um, again, sort of tightens the approval standards. Um, rate increases should only be approved when data supports them. So it sort of shifts the burden. Um, there's not a presumption that a rate increase is appropriate after hearing from one side. It requires that data be provided. It be provided not only to the commissioner, but to the advocate. Um, and it requires, uh, really a finding or a determination that the rate increase is necessary. [0:27:49] Um, and, and it sets forth sort of the factors that can be assessed. It cannot simply be, uh, to maintain or increase profit margins. I think that's, that is not an appropriate or fair justification for a rate increase. And, uh, again, essentially, we are centering the consumer in this exchange. They have to be earned. So a rate increase is not automatic. It has to be earned because we want a system where, uh, really insurance companies have to justify taking more money out of, out of people's pockets. [0:28:21] Twelve through fourteen, um, also discusses sort of how complaints are handled. It requires transparency, um, and it allows, uh, a little bit more of enforcement in that regard. The advocate can investigate complaints. So the advocate's job essentially is if a consumer has a complaint about a non-renewal or a cancellation, sometimes these are groups of insurance-- excuse me, groups of consumers, um, it's the advocate's duty to, to look into that. [0:28:54] And it also requires that when insurance companies are, are submitting information that, that this-- th- and they want to do these sort of large scale increases or, or non-renewals, and they, and they are submitting data to us to support that, um, these filings should be made public. Uh, this-- none of this stuff should be happening behind closed doors. Uh, there simply really isn't, um, a, a justification for it. And I think what we are seeing is that the lack of transparency really puts us all, even as legislators, in a bind when we're trying to understand, uh, what the insurance companies are doing, what they're relying on, um, and, and how they are getting at all of these increases over time. [0:29:35] Um, so, so I think that's an important component to this, accountability and transparency. Sunlight matters, as we all know. Uh, when people can't see what's happening, um, they don't trust the, the system. And so what we wanna do is to put that sunshine there so that bad practices are less likely. It disincentivizes that. Um, uh, so essentially that said, I think one of the other changes from the initial bill was the, uh, requirement that the advocate be an attorney. [0:30:07] Um, and we debated this with leg counsel and, and kind of, um with each other why it might make sense to have the advocate be a licensed attorney qualified to advocate in this space specifically because the, uh, the framework here allows for the advocate to enter into adversarial proceedings, uh, to appear in front of the commissioner and perhaps even a, a, lodge an appeal. We just thought having an attorney, um, do that or be the person primarily responsible for that made the most sense. [0:30:41] We also, instead of having the advocate as we sort of initially drafted it, uh, be a person hired by the ins- the office of the insurance commissioner, uh, we went with an appointment system. We wanted the insurance, uh, advocate to be independent. So while the ad-- Sort of like you would OIGs and other sort of child advocates, um, the position is appointed by the governor, and the governor sort of, uh, lays the sort of the framework for the hiring and the, um, the firing, so to speak, of the advocate. [0:31:16] But the advocate is his or herself placed within the insurance commissioner's office just because it makes more sense to do that. That's where the data is. That's where the commissioner is. That's where the decisions are being made. But we wanted it to be clear that the advocate is not an employee of the department. The advocate is really placed there for the purpose of advocating for the consumer. So at the end of the day, um, this bill asks for something very simple. If insurance companies wanna charge Georgia families more, they should have to explain why. [0:31:49] Uh, transparency is not punishment, uh, accountability is not hostility, um, and protecting consumers, uh, I don't believe is radical. Um, it is our responsibility as members of this body and, and folks who represent, uh, citizens across this great state. So I think, uh, HB seven thirty-three really adds a modest balance to our system, um, a system that affects almost every household in the state, um, as well as our small business community very, uh, very significantly. [0:32:20] So, um, with, with that, I will, um, take any questions. We do have, um, a representative from, um, let me just make sure that I say it right, Michael Delong from the Consumer Federation of America, who is here to speak by Zoom, uh, in support of the bill. I'll do that at the chairman's, um, pleasure, whether he wishes to do that now. [0:32:43] Well, let's, let's, let's do that now. [0:32:45] Yes, sir. [0:32:45] So they may have some questions from his presentation. [0:32:48] Yes, sir. Who's doing it? Somebody in media services, I hope. [0:32:54] There you go. [0:32:56] This is Michael Delong. Can you hear me? [0:32:58] We can. [0:32:59] Okay, great. Uh, thank you so much. Uh, I'm Michael Delong. I'm a research and advocacy associate here from the Consumer Federation of America. We're an association of over two hundred consumer groups, and we work to help consumers through research, advocacy, and education. We've done a lot of work on insurance for many years, so we'd strongly urge your support for HB seven thirty-three, the Georgia Insurance Consumer Protection Act. This bill, we think it's gonna provide much needed balance, uh, between consumers and insurance companies in a market where, uh, consumers are required a lot of the time to buy insurance. [0:33:33] Um, as you're well, well aware, Georgia, like every other state, requires drivers to have auto insurance. And additionally, banks and other financial institutions, they require consumers to have homeowners insurance in order to get a mortgage. So the state has a responsibility to make sure that this coverage is affordable and that people get fairly treated. Uh, unfortunately, that's often not the case. Uh, you're well aware that auto insurance and homeowners insurance costs have been rising over the last several years. Uh, a lot of consumers are struggling to pay their premiums. Uh, we actually did a recent report on rising homeowners insurance costs from two thousand twenty-one to two thousand twenty-four, which we're happy to share with you. [0:34:11] And we basically found that over those three years, average homeowners insurance premiums in Georgia went up by twenty percent from about two thousand five hundred dollars to over three thousand dollars, uh, a hike of over five hundred dollars. We also did a past report on, uh, auto insurance costs in Georgia, and we found that, uh, Georgia drivers with, uh, per- with a perfect driving record but poor credit wind up paying an, an average premium of over one thousand dollars. Uh, they pay significant penalties compared to drivers with excellent credit, and a lot of people are struggling to afford, uh, auto insurance. [0:34:44] Um, so basically, when insurance departments have the power to thoroughly investigate insurance rates and require insurance companies to be transparent, the results are a lot better for consumers. The rates are lower, consumers get better treated, and the overall insurance market is stronger. But when departments can't prevent excessive rate increases or make sure that policyholders are fairly treated, uh, consumers lose, and in fact, almost everyone loses. So this bill, HB seven thirty-three, provides a bunch of helpful consumer protections to make sure that consumers get the fair insurance treatment they need. [0:35:17] Um, as you've heard, it creates the position of the insurance consumer advocate, who's going to be appointed by the governor, and the advocate's going to look at insurer cancellations of policies and non-renewals of policies to make sure that consumers are being fairly treated. They're gonna participate in hearings that approve insurance rates. They'll advocate for consumers at those hearings, and they'll publish an annual written report of what they're doing so people have more information. Uh, second, uh, the bill repeals a harmful section of law that the representative recently discu- just discussed. This is the one that says auto insurance rates can't be excessive unless a reasonable degree of competition does not exist. [0:35:53] Under this current law, the department's hands are tied in reviewing auto insurance rates. Uh, the companies can basically increase their auto insurance rates without triggering a rate review, and that's not good for consumers. That prevents regulators from exercising their power to make sure that rates are justified and fair. And so this repeal is going to help make auto insurance more affordable and accessible at a time when a lot of Georgians are forced to drive without auto insurance because it's too expensive We also support the provision in the bill that requires, uh, insurance rate filings of over 10... [0:36:23] Insurance rate increases of over 10% to go through an open and transparent review process with extra scrutiny. We have been big advocates of more open and transparent review of insurance rates. Uh, this basically gives policy makers and consumers a more ability to dig out the truth, determine if the rate hikes are justified, and to allow regulators to reject these rate hikes if they're not actuarially sound. We do think the proposed threshold of 10% is a little high because we're worried that insurance companies could, say, do rate increases of 8%, 9% or something like that without m- the, no more scrutiny. [0:36:57] So lowering the threshold, if possible, would be great. Um, finally, we really support, uh, the provisions in HB 733 that say the commissioner should only approve rate increases if these increases are supported by clear and compelling data and that they're fair to consumers. Um, and we also are really happy with the provision that insurance companies, as a part of this, will have to submit reports to the commissioner detailing why these rate increases are needed. And those reports will have to include a whole bunch of useful information like, say, the risk factors, uh, claims costs, uh, administrative expenses and, and profit margins. [0:37:31] This is going to help provide long overdue transparency, uh, for Georgians. So this bill is a very good one, and at a time of high insurance costs and a lot of complaints from consumers about unfair treatment by insurance companies. HB 733, it will establish stronger consumer protections for Georgians, and it will help them get the fair, affordable insurance coverage that they deserve. So we urge your support for the bill. Are happy to answer any questions. [0:38:00] Okay. Let- let's start. We've got, um, we've got, uh, uh, number 15. But if you have an answer, if you have a question for th- that presenter, let's ask those first if anyone has one. [0:38:16] W- we see no questions for the presenter, and I, I have some things that you can find out for us fr- from them before we, we have a hearing or vote on the bill. [0:38:27] Okay. [0:38:27] But it's just some things that we, we would wanna know, I would wanna know personally from what, what I heard him say, so. [0:38:33] Happy to. [0:38:33] Now, has number two got a question for the presenter? [0:38:37] Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for your presentation, and thank you for the bill. Uh, it's so, um... What, what is the average rate of increase that we see usually, and what is the gr- increase we've seen in the last few years for, uh, insurance rates? Are, are you asking Mr. DeLong that? Yes, yes. Okay. [0:39:03] Um, it varies according to, like, a whole bunch of things. There's been a whole bunch of rate increases. I don't know the average one off the top of my head. But as we mentioned before, from 2021 to 2024, uh, we saw homeowner insurance rates in Nevada go up by 20%. Uh, I think auto insurance rates went up by even more. I know that nationwide, uh, from 2020 to 2025, auto insurance rates went up by 55%. And, uh, I don't have the specific Georgia numbers at my, uh, disposal, but I can probably try to find them out, and I think they were roughly about the same thing. [0:39:35] So we've seen some very big price hikes in both auto insurance and homeowners insurance. [0:39:43] Thank you. [0:39:43] Your questions for th- this presenter are for... [0:39:47] Not. [0:39:48] Okay. I w- I wanna w- I wanna make a statement and then I wanna let him go if, if nobody has a question, further question for the presenter on screen. W- we thank you f- very much, sir, and appreciate your info and, uh, uh, uh, Representative Miller for having him here. Uh, I do wanna make a statement, um, something I'd like for you to find out. [0:40:10] Yes, sir. [0:40:10] Uh, he mentioned earlier, I made a note here, uh, and he did, he did again then, which is it's, you know... We, we all... Let me, let me make a disclaimer. I, I hold an insurance license. I've never made a penny off selling insurance. My, my daughter and, and son-in-law and, uh, son, they're the same to me, but son and daughter-in-law, they, they are a, they are a, uh, independent agent. And, uh, unless, m- m- uh, I don't know anything about how much money they make, but I can tell you it's probably not much. [0:40:40] Mm-hmm. [0:40:40] But they try to sell the insurance just as cheap as they can, although they get paid a percentage, but they wanna sell more of it. Uh, but I want you to look at something, and this is, uh, I hate to take up our time, but this is important. And as, as you show your age, me, not you, ma'am. Uh, as we show our age and we get up close to 75, we, we sometimes live in the past and we think of your grandfather bought a, a Ford, uh, pickup truck, 1967. Remember it like it was yesterday. [0:41:12] Had a 351 Cleveland engine in it, which was the same engine they ran in race cars. [0:41:17] Mm-hmm. [0:41:18] $1,800. I bought a 70, first car I ever had was a '70 Dodge Dart, orange with hood scoops. It registered 150 miles an hour and had a 340 high performance in it, and I gave $3,200 for it. That car today in pristine condition is worth about $45,000. [0:41:40] Mm-hmm. [0:41:40] Because that muscle car, uh... But I've said all that to say now you can buy a pickup truck excess of $100,000. And, and something we find is with the, with the un- and, and I s- looked this up because all of us are looking for a way to lower insu... including insurance companies, believe it or not. I would think they'd wanna sell more and be the company that sells the most. But, but the, the, the uni-bumper, I don't know any other way to say it, but the whole front of a car is like a bumper. [0:42:11] You used to dent a bumper and you put a bumper on. That's the whole front of the car. You get a, you get a, you get the front of a car, you got a, the whole, just about the whole front clip And a Mira with all the computer and defroster and remote control, sometimes in excess of $2,500 to $3,000. So it costs so much to fix things. And, um, I would like to again say from '24, '21 to '24, if insurance went up 20%, I would wanna know how much from '21 to '24 housing prices went up. [0:42:45] I think it's more than 21%. And so when you start everybody wants replacement costs and those things, uh, uh, without getting into insurance profits, which I have no idea, those are the things I'd wanna know. If, if, if, if, if it costs 20% more for premiums from '21 to '24 in Georgia, how much did appraisals and home costs go up? And, uh, that, that's the kind of thing we'd, we'd be looking for. And, and it's something that's, this bill is something that's on everybody's mind. [0:43:17] Uh, I mean, I, I literally, uh, I mean, I used to be, you've heard of dirt poor. I was insurance poor, but I felt like I had to have it when I was in another business. And, uh, it's something that's costing people a lot of money, and it's, it's, this, th- this is, this is, uh, something we're all looking at. And, uh, uh, so those are the kind of things I wanna look at. And I, I apologize, I did look into some of it, but I have, I do think home prices may have went up more than 20% in that period of time. [0:43:50] So, uh, who was, who was first here? Representative Campbell. [0:43:58] Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um, and thank you, um, Vice Chair, uh, Miller, for bringing this bill. Um, rising h- insurance costs have been a big priority, uh, for the constituents in my district, and I spent, um, the last year working very closely, uh, with some of the folks that are in the audience here from Commissioner King's office. And really, the idea of s- understanding, uh, can only, we can only solve this problem if we have more information. [0:44:29] So I really appreciate the emphasis on transparency that you've brought forward in this bill. Um, as an example, um, w- I had requested the rate increases for all of the health insurance premiums that have been approved over 10% in the last six months from our insurance commissioner's office. That information is not currently available at a macro level on the website for the public to see broad trends. [0:45:01] You must look at every single individual policy, and there are multiple policies, obviously, for our multiple insurance carriers. So it's a very, uh, data intensive, labor intensive, um, type of, um, effort to try to get to the percentages that you were talking about, Chairman. And just as an example, what we were provided, um, we took the time to, um, to aggregate it all just for, uh, insurance premiums, health insurance, ACA premiums that were approved over 10%. [0:45:40] To talk about the scale and the magnitude here, the average rate increase for health insurance premiums was about 30%, so significantly over the 10%, affecting more than a million Georgia consumers and totaling more than $8 billion. So I think appropriate for this committee in terms of budget and fiscal oversight, this bill really is helping us to take the necessary next step to understand the drivers for the cost. [0:46:15] And to your point, we can't begin to solve that if we don't really understand these massive trends. Um, so again, I just wanted to p- to point that out, and the tactics that you've described here in terms of publicly available information, this bill would move forward in that direction, uh, in a very substantial way. So, um, I really appreciate that part of this bill in particular. Thank you. [0:46:40] Thank you, Representative Campbell. Um, I will just say, uh, uh, briefly, I think, uh, to the chairman's, uh, questions, uh, I, I am absolutely happy to, to delve into that and to report back with answers as best I can on that. But I think, uh, some of the problems, um, with understanding sort of how we get to rate increases, um, uh, uh, are understanding sort of how the insurance industry operates and, um, where the insurance company makes money and where the insurance company loses money and the justification for rates. [0:47:17] The rates are often, uh, rate increases are often, uh, following market trends, um, as opposed to actual costs. Um, insurance companies make most of their money, and they are a very profitable industry. Despite, uh, how society has changed over the d- over the years, this industry remains extraordinarily profitable. [0:47:39] True. [0:47:39] And some of the things I think we... You know, what the advocate does is it doesn't say an increase isn't appropriate. [0:47:48] True. [0:47:48] It just says that, "Tell us why it's appropriate, and let someone on behalf of the consumer be there to understand and advocate." [0:47:57] Yeah. Understand. [0:47:58] So I, I do, uh, appreciate your questions, all. [0:48:00] Yeah. [0:48:02] And as, I think that's it, unless there are any other questions, that's all I have. I will say, though, to the 10% question, uh, to the 10%, um, comment by, um, uh, Mr. Delong, the advocate is not bound by that. The advocate has the ability to assess any rate increase and investigate any rate increase on behalf of the consumer and weigh in for the consumer in any rate increase. The 10% threshold really just triggers sort of a mandatory kind of assessment. [0:48:35] So, um, I believe that if we... And, and really it's this, and then I'll close. I think you, you think about the process that, um- All of these insiders, uh, engage in when they're trying to do this sort of complicated understanding of, of the, the data, the science, actuary, all that com- that stuff that I, I can't do. I'm, I'm just a, I'm just a lawyer. Um, but if you had a game and there were two teams, and there was a referee, and the referee only ever heard from one team- [0:49:09] Sure [0:49:10] ... then the referee could be trying to be extraordinarily fair in assessing what that one team, um, said. It... but the process itself is inherently unfair because the other side does not have an opportunity to also weigh in, and so that's what this bill is trying to solve. [0:49:27] Mmm. We've got four people with questions. Do you... I, I, I mean, I'm just making sure you wanna take those questions. [0:49:36] Me too. [0:49:36] Representative Jackson is the next. [0:49:38] Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Miller, um, thank you for the bill. Uh, I think we certainly need something like this. Um, my only, not so much a question, but a statement, comes in section four. Um, section four, the my, uh, unease of my, of my thinking here is that the... I, I envision this person not being inside of the Insurance Commission agency. [0:50:10] I see this person like a watchdog. That way the public, one, will have trust, um, uh, in, in this position, but two, this individual will be, will be empowered with the spirit of, um, being objective. Because if they're within the Insurance Commission, I mean, we all know w- we are, we're in the world of politics here, right? And that this p- this individual could be influenced by the commissioner. Not saying that they will, but the likelihood could exist because they become very, very familiar with each other. [0:50:48] And so, you know, I, I would like to suggest that maybe this position sits in the inspector general, or the AG, or, or someone, uh, somewhere outside of this particular agency in which they need to be able to do audits, to be able to i- in a most objective way say, "I'm standing on behalf of the a- uh, of the consumers as an advocate," versus the public may perceive that because they're within the same agency, they may not be there for the consumer. [0:51:25] Mm-hmm. Uh, and, and we talked about that actually. Um, we, we went back and forth. By we, I mean myself, ledge council, about, you know, sort of the objectives of the role, wanting to make sure that the role itself was independent. That is extremely important. Um, that is, uh, deeply embedded in the spirit of, uh, this bill. Um, and it, I bel- you know, I think we sort of landed on it being, um, because we don't necessarily see the advocate as adversarial always to the commissioner, um, that, and that this i- is really constitutionally the insurance commissioner is, um, given extraordinary power as an elected constitutional office to, um, to, to largely be the person who makes, makes, fundamentally makes these decisions. [0:52:22] Um, the, the housing of the advocate in that office was really one of, of kinda logic and convenience. Um, I think, you know, just access to the materials, access to sensitive information, um, access to the commissioner as well. I mean, the, you know, the advocate is really there or to urge the commissioner to view, um, requests and, and filings from the perspective of the consumer, not necessarily to fight the commissioner, although the advocate does have the ability to appeal a ruling of the commissioner. [0:52:56] So, um, so your point is well taken. I would not be opposed to that. I think if, if... and I'm happy to talk more about that, sort of where we put that. We did consider, um, perhaps some arm of the inspector general, some arm of the consumer protection division within the attorney general's office. Um, but, you know, logistically really, I think, um, and, and more just convenience and sort of keeping this discussion about insurance rates under, you know, physically under one roof, um, made the most sense in terms of a k- kind of upheaval of various different code sections. [0:53:34] But happy to, to give that more thought. Thank you. [0:53:37] Mr. Clerk. [0:53:42] You may have to push your button again. We got disconnected there. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. [0:53:47] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I absolutely love the intent of this bill. I think that, um, commit- we, I feel like we need, um, consumer advocates in a lot of different, uh, spaces and, uh, to protect, uh, the people of Georgia. Um, the question that I have is one of volume. [0:54:11] Mm-hmm. [0:54:11] I noticed that this is, like, one person, and I'm actually worried about them- [0:54:15] Mm-hmm [0:54:15] ... already. Like, uh, how, how much work do you think this might be for one person, and do you think after we do some re- uh, I know there's some data reporting required- [0:54:29] Mm-hmm [0:54:29] ... um, could this turn into an office of advocates? Um, as I, I feel like with, you know, upwards of 11 million Georgians and many of them having to have some form of health insurance in some way- [0:54:43] Mm-hmm [0:54:44] ... this, this just might be a volume issue. [0:54:46] No, I agree with you. [0:54:47] Any concerns about that? [0:54:48] I do, actually. Um, and I think what we were trying to do by, um, a st- uh, first of all, um, um- establishing a person whose job it is to focus on the consumer specifically with respect to, um, insurance premiums, um, we did start conservatively. I think, you know, obviously budgetary issues, I'm sure as many departments come before this body to advocate for their priorities and to justify why they need additional funds, I fully anticipated that happening. [0:55:24] I think that's one of the reasons why we had report out requirements. Uh, the advocate would be required to report out to the General Assembly and also port, report out to the executive, to the governor's office, um, about sort of the state of, of, of their work. And, um, there are also provisions in here that allow for establishing, I mean, you know, sort of we could legislatively do this or we could allow the, the governor's office in conjunction with the in, um, the, um, insurance commissioner's office to provide, um, the space, the requirements, the necessities. [0:56:03] I mean, those things are required under this bill for the functioning of the advocate. But I certainly think, you know, once the advocate, um, if, if this were to come into, into being, once the advocate was in a position to see precisely the s- the scope of the work that, um, he or she would be doing, I anticipate them having the ability to come back before this body, um, with a full debrief, a full accounting of, of what they are seeing and what they need. But I think you're absolutely right, and that was, um, certainly something we considered in drafting it, so. [0:56:39] Yes. Um, and thank you again so m- I love, I absolutely love this bill. And, um, I think it's kinda way overdue- [0:56:46] Thank you [0:56:46] ... for the people of Georgia. [0:56:47] Thank you, Representative. [0:56:51] Senator. [0:56:54] Thank you, Chair, and thank you Chair Miller for this, uh, awesome bill. This is great, um, very well thought out, and I really appreciate holding this. Um, these insurance companies accountable 'cause we need it. Um, my main question is on, um, section 12 at the end in line of 400, the advocate has the ability to investigate and then have the hearing before the commissioner. Frankly, I'm not, uh, well-versed on that process. So, like, when the, when those hearings do happen, what sort of can be the result of those, or do they go any further if any punishment is needed? [0:57:26] Or I guess, what is sort of the punishment that could come out of that, or? [0:57:31] Well, it's not really punishment. So the, the, the advocate isn't, um, trying to punish anyone. Um, the advocate is simply advocating on behalf of consumers, mostly related to, uh, rate increases, and certainly other, other practices, uh, like, uh, non-renewals or cancellations. Um, what this bill does anticipate is the ability to make the case to the commissioner. Um, once the commissioner makes a decision, if the advocate believes that, uh, there is some justification in, uh, based on the facts or the framework that is set up, the advocate would have the ability to then appeal that determination, um, to, um, an administrative, essentially a state administrative officer to have an- another opportunity to, to make, uh, his or her case for, uh, the consumer and, and certainly avail, uh, himself of, of, you know, whatever appellate, all of the appellate procedures that are in place currently in code. [0:58:31] So the way we view it is the advocate's first sort of line of advocacy is with the commissioner, um, hopefully persuading the commissioner or weighing in or giving commissioner, um, a, a different sort of view on whatever the data is showing or whatever the request is. Um, the commissioner would make whatever decision is made, and then the advocate would have the ability to seek review of that, which is, which is why we're doing that. But it's, it is the, the lion's share of what this advocate is doing. [0:59:03] It's not sort of, um, trying to punish insurance companies. It is, it is really- [0:59:09] That's okay. [0:59:10] No, I understand. I understood what you're saying. I just wanna make sure the record is clear. That's not what this job is about. It is really about giving the consumer a voice and setting a framework for, a clear framework set out in code for, um, requiring a more robust justification for, um, raising rates on customers. [0:59:34] Yes, sir. [0:59:35] Thank you. Uh, Representative Horner. [0:59:39] Thank you, Chairman, and thank you Representative Miller for bringing this. [0:59:41] Yes, sir. [0:59:41] This is a, a good bill on, on the goals that you're trying to do, which is the transparency of rates and rate capping with data collections. I mean, it's very similar to what we've been trying to do with some of our reign bills of reigning in our government oversight. My only concern is, is we're also... You know. There. Um, is I don't want us to be advocating our role of being advocates for those policyholders. And so kind of going off what... Oh, there we go. Going off, uh, what the other representatives were saying is if this advocate can come before the committees and share that, that way we can reign in our commissioners, our, our, our bureaucrats to make sure that we can oversee and make sure that the policies are properly, um, being in place to make sure that those rates are kept low. [1:00:27] And so I guess my question is, is on this consumer advocate, how many states kind of have this system? And is there other ways to kind of build this out to where that committee can oversee this individual- [1:00:38] Yeah [1:00:38] ... instead of just- [1:00:39] Yes. You're, you're, you're right. There, there are, um... I, I, because we are, we, we tend to be in our code a, sort of a strong executive sort of framework where, um, we just have a strong governor system, it is consistent to sort of make the beginning of this be with the governor. In, in other states they b- the advocate begins sort of at the, with the legislature. Um, there in, I believe Florida, um- Let me answer your question first. [1:01:10] You asked what other states. Uh, Florida has a consumer advocate. Iowa has a consumer advocate bureau, and I have these code sections. I'm happy to share them offline. Uh, Maryland has, um, essentially sort of an, an insurance council within the office of the attorney general that largely performs this role. Um, New Jersey has a, a claims ombudsman, um, Rhode Island and South Carolina and Texas. So there are multiple states that have sort of this concept of the consumer advocate whose job it is to advocate on behalf of consumer. [1:01:47] Um, you know, I would love to know sort of what framework you would be relying on or we rely on right now to have sort of agencies, um, report out other than sort of our budgeting process where they come in and they present to us sort of what they're doing. Um, if there is some other framework where, you know, it's the legislature. I mean, the, the advocate does have the responsibility to report out to, um, the Senate, the House. Um, Senate, House, and was it Governor, Senate, House, and then one more? [1:02:22] I feel like there's one more. Um, but it's, it's, it's, it's a requirement to report out on what they are doing to, to the House and to the Senate and to the governor. That report can be written. That report can be-- It's the, uh, chair of the insurance, um, committee in the House and the insurance committee in the Senate. So it's governor, um, lieutenant governor, speaker, and the two chairs of the insurance committees in both respective House. So, um, I think those committee chairs could sort of informally require or ask that the advocate come in as part of that process, not only to present sort of a state of the s- state of the state for the consumer as it relates to insurance, um, in that informal way, or, you know, if there was a framework to build out in code for that, I w- I would not object to that. [1:03:14] Thank you. [1:03:14] Representative Draper, you... [1:03:18] Senator Horner got to my question. Thank you. [1:03:20] Oh. Great minds. We certainly appreciate this. I wanna say a couple of things that, uh, I probably know less about some things. I know a little bit about insurance. Uh, I'm reminded of-- I've been on the insurance committee, I think, about ten years. We had a major, major insurance company, and this is Tarvinology now, but you can go back and check it. It may be getting-- A dollar may be worth a cup of coffee. We had a major insurance company here in, uh, Georgia, and when I say major, a big one. [1:03:56] Uh, eight to ten years ago, lost twenty million dollars on car insurance in Georgia. That, that happens. That's part of being in business. In my business, I was in the textile business. Now, I know a little bit about the textile business, but, um, but, uh, in two thousand eight, nine, right in there, we were self-insured for health and workers' comp, which is very unusual for a company our size. We were paying eighteen thousand four hundred and thirty-six dollars a year in two thousand eight for family coverage for our employees. [1:04:28] They had a ten dollar copay, hundred dollar deductible, and a thousand dollar out-of-pocket, and we paid ninety-seven percent of it, and I was proud of it. We helped drive up the cost of insurance by supplying that to keep our employees, and I'm saying all that to say this. Uh, like I said, eighteen thousand seven hundred and thirty-six dollars a year, and we paid full family coverage. The children, the wife, everything, paid ninety-seven percent and had that kind of coverage, and we went self-insured, and I thought, "Boy, this is gonna be good." It took me about three years. [1:05:09] W- w- we were partially self-insured. We had a administrator and stop-loss on, on occurrence and a two million dollar stop-loss cap. Insurance companies at that time knew exactly what they were doing, and they could tell you what it was gonna cost by your eight-- average age of insured, where you lived, how many kidney stones they were gonna have. And I'm not, I'm not overreacting to this, 'cause I'm not gonna take up for insurance companies. There's two things I hate to do, bu- buy tires to go on my car, 'cause I know they're gonna wear out again, and pay insurance premiums. [1:05:42] But I can't make it without it. So those are two instances that, that, that, uh, I know for a fact, even with workers' comp, we did not save that much money, and it wasn't worth the exposure we had. In other words, I was-- I might have saved, uh, two hundred thousand dollars the first year, in fact. That's what I did, and I thought, "Man, I'm killing this." The next two years, I saved about forty thousand, and I had a million two versus two million. I had another eight hundred thousand dollars exposure to save forty thousand dollars, and I decided to let the insurance companies take that risk. [1:06:17] It is a problem in, uh, in, in all of our-- all our constituencies. Uh, but, you know, I don't wanna get to the point, and we ne- and we need to look at this. I personally don't wanna get to the point that, like under the Affordable Health Care Act, where we got down to one supplier and, and we got insurance companies even today that don't wanna sell car insurance in Georgia. And they d- and a lot of them would rather be banks, and they've gone into the banking business and still do insurance a little bit. [1:06:48] And, uh, you know, it's a, it's, it's a tough market. And, uh, it, it-- this is a big, big i- big item, and it's, it's very important to our constituency. And, and I'm very serious about it. And again, I'll never take up for an insurance company, but, boy, I sure am glad we've got them. And, uh, so we ne- we need to, we need to look at some oversight and see if there's something we can do to work with them. But I w- I-- and I'm not, a-again, giving you the final opinion of what I think. [1:07:20] Sure. [1:07:20] But I just want you to know the experience-- what little experience I've had and what, what I found out. And that would be important to me to hear from you also. [1:07:28] Absolutely. [1:07:28] I certainly appreciate you bringing this. And a- and as I've said before, I think this is a, a great committee. And, and I, and I, uh, and I think outside of me, there's a l-- and I don't say this lightly. There's, there's a, there's a lot of brain power and tal- talent i- in th- on this committee. And, uh, I certainly look forward to talking some more about it. And I appreciate the audience indulging us, and, uh, this is something that's very important to me. [1:08:42] And I appreciate you very much. [1:08:45] Thank you. [1:08:46] Anya with two A's. She knows what I'm talking about. [1:08:50] Two A's. That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, colleagues, for your attention and your time today. I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you, sir.