New York Workers Compensation Reforms
and Their Impact on Loss Development
Ziv Kimmel
Vice President and Chief Actuary
New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board
CAGNY 2015 SPRING MEETING
Overview
• Major New York Workers Compensation (WC)
Reforms
• Pricing of Reform Elements
• Adjusting Loss Development to Reflect Reforms
Major Components of the 2007 Reforms
• Elimination of Special Disability Fund
• Increase in Maximum Weekly Benefit
• Caps on Permanent Partial Disability Duration
(PPD)
• PPD Claims Into Aggregate Trust Fund
• Medical-Related Provisions
• System Improvements
The 2008 Reform
 Effective 10/1/2008
 End of “Administered Pricing”
 Loss Costs  LCMs
 NYCIRB’s governing structure
The 2013 Reform
 Revised Assessment Process
 Closing of the Reopened Case Fund
Elimination of Special Disability Fund
 Actual Assessment Data From State WC Board
 Relate Assessments to Paid Losses
 Mitigation / Efficiency Factor
 Indemnity Impact:+17.8%
 Total Impact: +13.3%
Increase in Maximum Weekly Benefit
 Fratello Method
 Recognition of Varying Wage Levels by Injury Type
 Increased System Utilization
Increase in Maximum Weekly Benefit
Impact
Effective Date
Overall Impact
7/1/2007
Max Weekly
Benefit
$500
7/1/2008
$550
1.9%
7/1/2009
$600
1.5%
7/1/2010
$740
4.1%
7/1/2011
$773
0.8%
7/1/2012
$792
0.3%
7/1/2013
$803
0.2%
7/1/2014
$809
0.1%
7/1/2015
$844
0.4%
Total To Date
6.0%
16.2%
Caps on PPD Duration
 % Loss of Earnings = # Weeks of Benefits
 Actual PPD Data From State WC Board
 Distribution of Loss of Earnings
 PPD Settlement Considerations
 Hardship Provision
 Total Impact: -28%
Benefit Duration by Impairment Ratings
Loss of Earning %
Number of Weeks
Greater than 95%
525
90% to 95%
500
85% to 90%
475
80% to 85%
450
75% to 80%
425
70% to 75%
400
60% to 70%
375
50% to 60%
350
40% to 50%
300
30% to 40%
275
15% to 30%
250
Less than 15%
225
Final Calculation
Loss of Earning
percentage
Number of Weeks
Greater than 95%
525
90% to 95%
Selected
Distribution
Percentage Savings
Lump sum Cases
Other Cases
0.5%
17.0%
33.5%
500
0.5%
18.5%
34.2%
85% to 90%
475
2.4%
20.0%
35.0%
80% to 85%
450
2.4%
21.5%
35.7%
75% to 80%
425
10.1%
46.1%
73.0%
70% to 75%
400
10.1%
49.1%
74.6%
60% to 70%
375
19.9%
52.2%
76.0%
50% to 60%
350
15.8%
55.3%
77.6%
40% to 50%
300
21.5%
61.4%
80.7%
30% to 40%
275
8.2%
64.5%
82.3%
15% to 30%
250
6.4%
67.7%
83.9%
Less than 15%
225
2.0%
70.9%
85.4%
54.2%
75.6%
Average
Total Average Savings on Perm. Partial Non Schedule
71.3%
Total Average Savings on Perm. Partial
50.5%
Total Impact
-28.0%
Reflection of Reforms in Subsequent Filing
 Back to Basics
 What’s in the Reported Data?
 Pre-Reform vs. Post Reform
Loss Development Adjustment
 Historical loss development information is primarily pre-
reform
 OK to use it if we assume losses are at pre-reform levels
 Need adjustment if applying loss development factors
(LDF) to losses at post reform levels
 Paid vs. Paid + Case
Duration Cap
Development Adjustments
Reported Indemnity Paid Loss Development Triangle
PY
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/ULT
1991
1.015
1.164
1992
1.017
1.014
1.162
1993
1.016 1.010
1.013
1.165
1994
1.016 1.013 1.015
1.013
1.161
1.016
1.012 1.013 1.011
1.011
1.162
1.017
1.016
1.015 1.013 1.011
1995
1996
1997
1.020
1.018
1.016
1.016 1.014
1.021
1.016
1.020
1.015
1.015
1.029
1.019
1.021
1.019
1.020
1.020
1998
1999
2000
1.029
1.024
1.022
1.019
2001
1.051 1.033
1.032
1.025
1.020
1.100
1.038 1.033
1.033
1.017
1.028
2002
2003
1.135
1.095
1.050 1.042
2004
1.146 1.129
1.090
1.053 1.039
2005
1.167 1.110 1.130
1.085
1.037
2006
1.291 1.170 1.113 1.128
1.078
2007
1.456 1.247 1.174 1.109 1.125
2008
2.200 1.480 1.271 1.192 1.096
2009
2.150 1.471 1.258 1.149
2010
2.159 1.506 1.240
2011
2.145 1.459
2012
2.111
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Restating the Loss Development Factors: Example
(1)
Reported PY 2002 7th to 8th link ratio
1.100
(2)
Development portion
0.100
(3)
% of Non Scheduled out of total PPD
66.7%
(4)
% of PPD out of total indemnity
86.6%
(5)
% Non Scheduled out of indemnity (3)x(4)
57.8%
(6)
Development portion that is NSPPD (2)x(5)
0.058
(7)
Development portion that is other than NSPPD (2)-(6)
0.042
(8)*
% of cases affected by limited duration
25%
(9)
Restated NSPPD Development portion (6) x [1-(8)]
0.043
(10)
Restated PY 2002 7th to 8th link ratio 1+(9)+(7)
1.086
Row (8) assumes at this point in the development, 25% are cases are now limited, whereas before they were still developing. 75%
of the cases are still developing at this point in the triangle, even after the reform, as they still haven't reached the maximum
duration. These assumed percentages can be found on the top of each column of the "restated" triangles. The percentages are
based on a distribution of severities obtained from the Workers’ Compensation Board.
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for illustration purposes only
Restated Indemnity Paid Loss Development Triangle
PY
% Cases
affected
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
0
0
0
0
5
15
25
40
55
70
75
80
85
90
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2.200
2.150
2.159
2.145
2.111
1.456
1.480
1.471
1.506
1.459
1.123
1.142 1.118
1.086
1.081
1.077
1.039
1.029
1.038
1.041
1.167 1.107 1.119
1.073
1.028
1.291 1.170 1.111 1.120
1.070
1.020
1.023
1.023
1.029
1.027
1.017
1.014
1.019
1.020
1.017
1.012
1.011
1.013
1.014
1.010
1.011
1.009
1.011
1.010
1.011
1.009
1.009
1.010
1.010
1.010
1.008
1.008
1.008
1.007
1.009
15/16 16/17 17/18
95
1.007
1.006
1.007
1.007
1.007
95
1.007
1.006
1.006
1.006
1.007
95
1.008
1.005
1.007
1.005
1.005
18/19 19/ULT
95
95
1.007
1.006
1.006
1.006
1.005
1.074
1.073
1.075
1.073
1.073
1.247 1.174 1.109 1.125
1.271 1.192 1.096
1.258 1.149
1.240
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Reform Development Adjustment Summary
1st to 19th
19th to Ultimate
Reported
Restated
Adjustment
Reported
Restated
Adjustment
1st to Ultimate
Adjustment
7.921
7.096
0.896
1.162
1.073
0.923
0.827
Total Full
Year
Adjustment
-17.3%
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Special Disability Fund (SDF)
Development Adjustments
Reported Indemnity Paid + Case Loss Development
Triangle Evaluated as of 2008
PY
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1/2
1.586
1.419
1.388
1.407
1.392
2/3
1.272
1.289
1.181
1.169
1.214
3/4
1.093
1.121
1.175
1.068
1.116
4/5
1.074
1.073
1.072
1.062
1.069
5/6
1.043
1.070
1.032
1.036
1.066
6/7
1.005
1.053
1.037
1.023
1.036
7/8
0.999
1.024
1.014
1.002
1.038
8/9
1.008
1.023
1.027
1.019
1.015
9/10
0.991
1.024
1.018
1.016
1.008
10/11
1.003
1.022
1.038
1.014
1.008
11/12
1.002
1.019
1.027
1.017
1.006
12/13
1.005
1.013
1.031
1.010
1.009
13/14
1.012
1.006
1.031
1.013
1.003
14/15
1.002
0.996
1.028
1.010
1.000
15/16
1.019
0.979
1.015
1.007
0.999
16/17
1.009
1.004
1.017
1.009
0.998
17/18
1.000
0.997
1.016
1.012
0.999
18/19 19/ULT
0.999
1.015
1.009
1.019
0.991
1.040
1.040
1.040
1.040
1.040
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Restating the Loss Development Factors: Example
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Reported PY 1997 5th to 6th link ratio
% of indemnity claims were subject to the SDF
elimination
% of claims accepted by the
SDF at each development age
% of all claims that were accepted by the
SDF at each development age (2)x(3)
% of all claims that were not accepted by the
SDF at each development age 1-(4)
1.043
5.8%
60.1%
3.5%
96.5%
(6)
Adjustment Factor*
1.189
(7)
Restated PY 1997 5th to 6th link ratio (1)x(4)x(6)+(1)x(5)
1.050
*The adjustment factor is determined by restating the reported loss development triangle which consists
entirely of pre-reform years so that the restated LDF to ultimate is 17.8% higher than the original LDF to
ultimate.
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
SDF Acceptance Rate
Year Claims were Accepted
Accident Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
TOTAL by Acceptance
Year
1998
156
-
1999
298
88
-
2000
174
106
20
-
2001
169
129
56
16
-
2002
440
434
258
79
10
-
2003
326
352
441
263
87
10
-
2004
510
506
542
508
311
85
11
-
2005
238
443
400
411
334
162
21
6
-
2006
166
295
401
440
450
358
152
29
2
-
2007
134
196
269
411
410
353
289
106
16
1
2008
90
169
239
391
570
490
434
308
138
19
2009
53
73
140
228
313
428
414
346
286
78
2010
33
68
75
137
180
234
332
265
271
128
2011
22
34
58
92
93
183
195
236
212
113
2012
9
14
14
41
54
63
104
150
203
100
2013
3
7
11
15
25
23
33
43
63
39
Total by Accident
Year
2,821
2,914
2,924
3,032
2,837
2,389
1,985
1,489
1,191
478
156
386
300
370
1,221
1,479
2,473
2,015
2,293
2,185
2,848
2,359
1,723
1,238
752
262
22,060
Accident Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1
156
88
20
16
10
10
11
6
2
1
2
454
194
76
95
97
95
32
35
18
20
3
628
323
334
358
408
257
184
141
156
98
4
797
757
775
866
742
615
473
449
442
226
5
1,237
1,109
1,317
1,277
1,192
968
907
795
713
339
6
1,563
1,615
1,717
1,717
1,602
1,458
1,321
1,060
925
439
7
2,073
2,058
2,118
2,128
2,172
1,886
1,653
1,296
1,128
478
11
2,701
2,791
2,841
2,976
2,812
2,389
12
2,754
2,859
2,899
3,017
2,837
13
2,787
2,893
2,913
3,032
14
2,809
2,907
2,924
15
2,818
2,914
16
2,821
Ultimate
2,823
2,917
2,935
3,060
2,888
2,474
2,107
1,649
1,416
640
Accident Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Average AY
1
6%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1.2%
2
16%
7%
3%
3%
3%
4%
2%
2%
1%
3%
4.4%
3
22%
11%
11%
12%
14%
10%
9%
9%
11%
15%
12.5%
4
28%
26%
26%
28%
26%
25%
22%
27%
31%
35%
27.6%
5
44%
38%
45%
42%
41%
39%
43%
48%
50%
53%
44.3%
6
55%
55%
58%
56%
55%
59%
63%
64%
65%
69%
60.1%
7
73%
71%
72%
70%
75%
76%
78%
79%
80%
75%
74.9%
Years of Development
8
2,311
2,353
2,387
2,519
2,485
2,120
1,848
1,446
1,191
9
2,477
2,549
2,626
2,747
2,665
2,303
1,952
1,489
10
2,611
2,718
2,766
2,884
2,758
2,366
1,985
Years of Development
8
82%
81%
81%
82%
86%
86%
88%
88%
84%
9
88%
87%
89%
90%
92%
93%
93%
90%
10
93%
93%
94%
94%
96%
96%
94%
11
96%
96%
97%
97%
97%
97%
12
98%
98%
99%
99%
98%
13
99%
99%
99%
99%
14
100%
100%
100%
15
100%
100%
16
100%
84.2%
90.3%
94.2%
96.6%
98.2%
99.1%
99.6%
99.9%
99.9%
Restated Indemnity Paid + Case Loss Development
Triangle Evaluated as of 2008
PY
% Cases
affected
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1/2
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
4.4% 12.5% 27.6% 44.3% 60.1% 74.9% 84.2% 90.3% 94.2%
96.6%
98.2%
99.1%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.587
1.420
1.389
1.408
1.393
2/3
1.274
1.291
1.183
1.171
1.216
3/4
1.096
1.124
1.179
1.071
1.119
4/5
1.079
1.078
1.077
1.067
1.074
5/6
1.050
1.077
1.039
1.043
1.073
6/7
1.013
1.062
1.046
1.031
1.045
7/8
1.008
1.033
1.023
1.011
1.048
8/9
1.018
1.033
1.037
1.029
1.025
1.001
1.035
1.029
1.027
1.018
1.014
1.033
1.049
1.025
1.019
1.013
1.030
1.038
1.028
1.017
1.016
1.024
1.042
1.021
1.020
1.023
1.017
1.042
1.024
1.014
14/15
1.013
1.007
1.039
1.021
1.011
15/16
1.030
0.990
1.026
1.018
1.010
16/17
1.020
1.015
1.028
1.020
1.009
17/18
1.011
1.008
1.027
1.023
1.010
18/19 19/ULT
1.010
1.026
1.020
1.030
1.002
1.051
1.051
1.051
1.051
1.051
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Reported Indemnity Paid + Case Loss Development
Triangle Evaluated as of 2014
PY
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1/2
1.451
1.526
1.509
1.513
1.495
2/3
1.226
1.249
1.200
1.219
1.207
3/4
1.113
1.109
1.114
1.115
1.089
4/5
1.077
1.058
1.050
1.043
1.035
5/6
1.071
1.038
1.068
1.037
1.023
6/7
1.034
1.040
1.028
1.026
1.011
7/8
1.024
1.018
1.021
1.021
1.017
8/9
1.029
1.011
1.024
1.027
1.013
9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/ULT
1.018
1.015
1.020
1.010
1.011
1.002
1.008
1.018
1.015
1.013
1.001
1.005
1.007
1.003
1.009
1.009
1.004
1.007
1.005
1.006
1.009
1.004
1.002
1.003
1.008
1.004
1.005
1.005
1.002
1.006
1.010
1.005
1.005
1.003
1.004
1.006
1.004
1.004
1.003
1.001
1.009
1.004
1.004
1.003
1.002
1.002
1.006
1.002
1.004
1.003
1.032
1.032
1.032
1.032
1.032
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Restated Indemnity Paid + Case Loss Development
Triangle Evaluated as of 2014
PY
% Cases
affected
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1/2
4.4%
1.451
1.526
1.509
1.513
1.495
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19 19/ULT
12.5% 27.6% 44.3% 60.1% 74.9% 84.2% 90.3% 94.2% 96.6% 98.2% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.226
1.249
1.200
1.219
1.207
1.116
1.109
1.114
1.115
1.089
1.082
1.062
1.051
1.043
1.035
1.078
1.045
1.074
1.038
1.023
1.042
1.049
1.036
1.033
1.012
1.033
1.027
1.030
1.030
1.025
1.039
1.021
1.034
1.037
1.023
1.029
1.025
1.031
1.020
1.021
1.013
1.019
1.029
1.026
1.024
1.012
1.016
1.018
1.014
1.020
1.020
1.015
1.018
1.016
1.017
1.020
1.015
1.013
1.014
1.019
1.015
1.016
1.016
1.013
1.017
1.021
1.016
1.016
1.014
1.015
1.017
1.015
1.015
1.014
1.012
1.020
1.015
1.015
1.014
1.013
1.013
1.017
1.013
1.015
1.014
1.043
1.043
1.043
1.043
1.043
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
SDF Impact in The 2015 Filing
(1)
Reported 1st to 19th development factor
2.546
(2)
Restated 1st to 19th development factor
2.931
(3)
Adjustment factor for 1st to 19th (2)/(1)
1.151
(4)
Reported 19th to ultimate factor
1.032
(5)
Restated 19th to ultimate factor
1.043
(6)
Adjustment factor for 19th to ultimate (5)/(4)
1.011
(7)
Total development adjustment factor (3)x(6)
1.164
16.4%
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Doubly Adjusted Triangle
Reported Indemnity Paid + Case Triangle
REPORTED INDEMNITY PAID + CASE TRIANGLE
PY
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
1991
1992
1993
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1.001
1.029
1.004
1.029
1.004
1.005
1.004
1.003
1.003
1.002
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
1.009
1.020
1.015
1.010
1.013
1.011
1.027
1.013
1.113
1.058
1.068
1.026
1.017
1.011
1.050
1.037
1.043
1.023
2009
1.526
1.200
1.115
1.035
2010
1.509
1.219
1.089
2011
1.513
1.207
2012
1.495
1.008
1.024
1.021
1.114
1.006
1.011
1.021
1.109
1.002
1.003
1.018
1.028
1.249
1.002
1.007
1.024
1.040
1.226
1.004
1.005
1.034
1.038
1.451
1.004
1.001
1.002
1.006
1.071
2008
1.001
1.005
1.077
2005
1.003
1.003
1.003
1.029
1.004
1.005
1.007
1.029
1.004
1.002
1.005
1.018
1.005
1.006
1.004
1.005
1.008
1.002
1.009
1.004
1.004
1.015
1.029
1.004
1.009
1.018
1.008
1.006
1.009
1.029
19/20 20/ULT
1.010
1994
1995
18/19
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Duration Cap Adjusted Indemnity Paid + Case Triangle
RESTATED TRIANGLE POST DURATION CAP ADJUSTMENT
PY
% Cases
affected
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
18/19
0
5
15
25
40
55
70
75
80
85
90
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
1.451
1.526
1.509
1.513
1.495
1.226
1.249
1.200
1.219
1.207
1.106
1.109
1.114
1.115
1.089
1.066
1.052
1.050
1.043
1.035
1.055
1.029
1.057
1.037
1.023
1.023
1.027
1.019
1.020
1.011
1.014
1.011
1.013
1.013
1.012
1.016
1.006
1.014
1.015
1.007
1.010
1.008
1.011
1.005
1.006
1.001
1.004
1.009
1.008
1.007
1.000
1.002
1.003
1.001
1.004
1.004
1.002
1.003
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.002
1.001
1.001
1.004
1.002
1.002
1.002
1.001
1.003
1.005
1.002
1.002
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.002
1.002
1.001
1.000
1.004
1.002
1.002
1.001
1.001
1.001
1.003
1.001
1.002
1.001
19/20 20/ULT
95
1.004
1.002
1.002
1.000
1.002
95
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
SDF & Duration Cap Adjusted Indemnity
Paid + Case Triangle
RESTATED TRIANGLE POST SDF ADJUSTMENT
PY
% Cases
affected
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1/2
4.4%
1.451
1.526
1.509
1.513
1.495
2/3
3/4
12.5% 27.6%
1.226
1.249
1.200
1.219
1.207
1.109
1.109
1.114
1.115
1.089
4/5
5/6
6/7
44.3% 60.1% 74.9%
1.071
1.057
1.051
1.043
1.035
1.062
1.036
1.063
1.038
1.023
1.031
1.036
1.027
1.027
1.012
7/8
8/9
9/10
10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19
84.2%
90.3%
94.2%
96.6% 98.2% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1.012 1.028
1.015 1.014 1.026
1.014 1.013 1.012 1.026
1.016 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.024
1.013 1.013 1.013 1.012 1.012 1.026
1.015 1.013 1.013 1.012 1.012
1.015 1.013 1.013 1.012 1.011
1.011 1.013 1.012 1.012 1.013
1.012 1.013 1.014 1.012 1.014
1.015 1.014 1.013 1.015
1.020 1.012 1.014
1.019 1.015
1.018
1.023
1.020
1.022
1.022
1.020
1.026
1.016
1.024
1.025
1.017
1.021
1.019
1.022
1.015
1.016
19/ULT
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
SDF Impact of 16.4% Is Then Maintained
(1)
Restated 1st to 19th development factor post Duration Cap adjustment
2.382
(2)
Restated 1st to 19th development factor post Duration Cap & SDF adjustments
2.741
(3)
Adjustment factor for 1st to 19th (2)/(1)
1.151
(4)
Restated 19th to ultimate factor post Duration Cap adjustment
1.015
(5)
Restated 19th to ultimate factor post Duration Cap & SDF adjustments
1.026
(6)
Adjustment factor for 19th to ultimate (5)/(4)
1.011
(7)
Total development adjustment factor (3)x(6)
1.164
16.4%
Note: Numbers shown in this exhibit are for
illustration purposes only
Summary
 Reform adjustment depends on the reported data
 Adjustments can be part of on-level factors or as part of
development factor
 Adjust one triangle at a time
 The devil is in the details
Questions?