search

kasaai / quests

Adventures in research at the intersection of insurance and AI
https://quests.kasa.ai
10 stars 3 forks source link

workers compensation rating #9

Closed ryanbthomas closed 5 years ago

ryanbthomas commented 5 years ago

Workers Comp Rating Plans vary by state. Many states use the NCCI rating plan, but others have their own bespoke plans. They all share some common features. My proposal is the to create a unified R interface to these rating plans so that actuaries can

I started to collect information to do this several years ago, but I didn't get very far: wcratr

kevinykuo commented 5 years ago

This is interesting. If there's enough similarity in these processes (either among WC carriers within a state or among all states that use NCCI) maybe we can have standardized reports (think Rmd templates) that can be generated given data that's been normalized to some specs. I don't have experience with WC rating to comment further though.

@joezfang you got any thoughts on @actuarialvoodoo's proposal?

Also, noob question, what outputs from the NCCI are public vs. proprietary (i.e. available to member insurers only)? There seems to be quite detailed info from skimming through the filings. Would a public API of some sort make sense?

joezfang commented 5 years ago

I think this is definitely an interesting idea! From my experience the processes among NCCI states are similar enough that standardized reports seem very achievable. I'm not too sure about non-NCCI states, but i can't imagine them being too different.

In terms of public vs proprietary, I believe that NCCI rate filings are available to the public once they have been approved by state regulators. Our rating manuals are only available to affiliates though (or non-affiliates behind a paywall).

ryanbthomas commented 5 years ago

An initial "easy" win might be to provide a unified API to calculate experience mod. I believe all of the rating plans have them. The basic inputs are the same. And it would be useful.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 11:23 Joe Fang notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this is definitely an interesting idea! From my experience the processes among NCCI states are similar enough that standardized reports seem very achievable. I'm not too sure about non-NCCI states, but i can't imagine them being too different.

In terms of public vs proprietary, I believe that NCCI rate filings are available to the public once they have been approved by state regulators. Our rating manuals are only available to affiliates though (or non-affiliates behind a paywall).

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kasaai/quests/issues/9#issuecomment-467076447, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALXLvFN4WjRIT2SQOGBJWsGo_RGv-iB9ks5vRA4QgaJpZM4bKRnY .

kevinykuo commented 5 years ago

Let's do this. Ideas on the package name? wc?

ryanbthomas commented 5 years ago

my orignal name was wcratr, but perhaps wcrater is more clear.

ryanbthomas commented 5 years ago

I think wc isn't specific enough. Also, I'm thinking about a package name -- obviously we can call the kasa.ai projection something more human readable.

kevinykuo commented 5 years ago

Let's go with wcrater if that's okay, I feel like wcratr is harder to parse. Wanna start a repo for it? You should have the permissions now.

ryanbthomas commented 5 years ago

yep. I'll do that and move the issues I filed in my original repo here.