Beyond Structured Settlements

NSSTA 2014 Fall Educational Conference

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

Johnson and current NSSTA President Kevin Silo jointly addressed "Industry Challenges", a panel discussion moderated by NSSTA President-elect Michael Goodman. Repeating portions of his SSP 2014 keynote speech, Johnson proposed the following solutions for achieving industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Generational Change and Challenges

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

• Stagnant growth - Since achieving $6 billion of annual annuity sales in 2001, structured settlement premium growth has stagnated with 2013 sales totaling $5.1 billion.
• Polarized market(s) - NSSTA's leaders have been unable, and/or unwilling, to unify the structured settlement market(s) around such shared interests as: primary market growth; preservation of existing legislation; and consumer protection - which prioritizes maintaining promised periodic payments.
• Alternative business models - Can alternative structured settlement models (traditional defense vs. emerging plaintiff) continue to co-exist and collaborate?
• Complexity - Structured settlements represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market.
• Product features - Will Pacific Life's recent private letter ruling encourage structured settlement annuity providers to expand their product offerings to include "equity-indexed" annuities and "hardship conversions"?
• Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.
• Success factors. To expand sales within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA's leaders must re-think and re-engineer historical success factors - backgrounds and skill sets; educational programs; business models; product enhancements; sales and marketing strategies.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

• Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.
• Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.
• Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

MARKETING INITIATIVES

NSSTA conference speakers introduced multiple new marketing initiatives including:

• "NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.
• CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction and Welcome - Eric Vaughn.
• Industry Challenges - Michael Goodman (Moderator), Kevin Silo, Neil Johnson.
• Next Gen Brokers - Louis Masry (Moderator), Kristen Chess, Ryan Garrison, Tony Robinson.
• Financial Issues for People with Disabilities - Sally Greenberg and Mark Perriello.
• AAJ Treasurer Elect - Elise Sanguinetti.
• MSA Professional Administration - Tom Adams (Moderator), Marques Torbert, Joe Anderson.
• Affordable Care Act - Jordan Bossler.
• Past NSSTA Presidents - Moderators (Kevin Silo; Eric Vaughn); Jeff Bowers, Len Blonder, Joe Costello, Mal Deener, Dan Durbin, Randy Dyer, Dan Finn, Patrick Hindert, John Machir, Henry Strong.
• Factoring Panel - John McCulloch (Moderator), Stephen Harris, Patrick Hindert, Patricia LaBorde.
• Non-Traditional Products - Erin Muller (Moderator), John Arendt, Ryan Jandreau, Jeff Reinhold, Chris Shumate, Ravi Vaswani.
• American Insurance Association - Peter Foley.
• CLM Survey Part II - Taylor Smith, Susan Clark, Jeff Livingston.
• Tax Posse - John McCulloch, Timothy O'Driscoll, Tom Ronce.
• NSSTA CE News - Erin Muller and Debbie Sink.

Congratulations to NSSTA and conference chairperson Erin Muller for re-establishing NSSTA's tradition of educational programs featuring speakers with multiple viewpoints on industry issues "regardless of beliefs". David Ringler and other structured settlement pioneers should feel gratified - and hopeful for NSSTA's future success.

For S2KM's reports about prior NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

NAMSAP 2014 Annual Meeting

The National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), the only national professional association whose singular focus is Medicare Set-Aside arrangements (MSAs), celebrated its 10th anniversary last week in Las Vegas with a congratulatory acknowledgement of past accomplishments, a comprehensive educational program and a confident look at the future.

Incoming NAMSAP President Leslie Schumacher and Immediate Past President Douglas Shaw complimented NAMSAP's founding members for their innovative spirit and sustaining priorities: education; best practices; and certification - the Medicare Set-Aside Consultant Certified (MSCC) program.

Schumacher and Shaw highlighted NAMSAP's recent accomplishments and enhanced membership value: expanding membership; regional conferences; educational webinars; a recurring "legal roundtable"; an active website listserv; improved communications with CMS; a new strategic plan; and sponsorship of NAMSAP's first "Take the Hill" Day in Washington D.C.

NAMSAP also seeks and welcomes opportunities to help improve MSA and settlement planning industry standards for documentation, work product and business practices, according to Shumacher and Shaw.

MSP Act and MSAs

NAMSAP's growth has paralleled the expansion of workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) to satisfy the requirements of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency responsible for administering Medicare policies, failed to take practical steps to enforce the MSP rules until 2001 when it issued the first of several policy memoranda addressing WCMSAs. These policy memorandums created a format, checklists and procedures for seeking approval for WCMSAs to "protect Medicare's interests" when workers compensation cases are settled.

CMS subsequently published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. The WCRG's intended purpose: to help WCMSA professionals, beneficiaries and other stakeholders "understand CMS' [WCMSA] amount approval process and to serve as a reference for those electing to submit such proposals to CMS for approval."

The WCRG explains WCMSAs as follows: "A WCMSA allocates a portion of the WC settlement for all future work-injury-related medical expenses that are covered and otherwise reimbursable by Medicare. When a proposed WCMSA amount is submitted to CMS for review and the individual or beneficiary obtains CMS’approval, the CMS-approved WCMSA amount must be appropriately exhausted before Medicare will begin to pay for care related to the beneficiary’s settlement, judgment, award, or other payment."

Both the CMS policy memoranda and the WCRG address structured settlement issues and provide guidelines for their utilization in funding WCMSAs.

WCMSAs represent one of the few submarkets where structured settlements sales have increased since 2008 - in large part because the method CMS requires for calculating WCMSA present values provides an inherent cost advantage for annuities compared with lump sum alternatives.

CMS has not yet published definitive rules for using MSAs in liability cases (LMSAs). CMS did publish an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on June 14, 2012 in the Federal Register which included seven different option to satisfy obligations for future medicals in liability cases. CMS also published RIN: 0938-AR43 in Spring of 2013 outlining a timetable for the proposed rule. No such LMSA rule, however, has yet been published.

Topics and Speakers

Among the challenges in selecting topics and speakers for any NAMSAP conference is the diversity of MSA subject matter expertise. A significant knowledge gap exists between many MSA attorneys and many MSA nurse/life care planner/allocators - with MSA administrators, insurance professionals and structured settlement brokers falling somewhere along this educational axis.

NAMSAP continues to select topics which, and attract speakers who, meet the learning needs of its multi-professional membership during a period of rapid industry change and development. The following S2KM listing of topics ( with speakers) attempts to communicate both the range of NAMSAP's 2014 annual conference educational offerings as well as NAMSAP's success in maintaining and expanding a unified MSA community of professional practice.

Directed Toward All MSA Professionals

• Professionalism in the MSA Industry - Preston Holloway; David Jankosky; Leta Sharkey.
• Problematic Areas in MSP Compliance - Lavonya Chapman; Stephanie Ragsdale; Linda Wolden.
• How Medication Impacts MSAs - Dr. Marcos Iglesias; Kayla Tortorich; Melissa Woitalewicz.

Directed Primarily Toward MSA Allocators

• Evidence Based Medicine - Dr. Shari Ling; Mary Nix; Ken Eichler; Beth Hostetler.
• Transitioning to ICD-10 - Marci Moorhead; Carlos Navarro.

Directed Primarily Toward MSA Attorneys

• Workers Compensation Cases with a Liability Component - William Delaney; Jill Schroeder.
• Dual Eligibility: MSAs within Special Needs Trusts - Kristen Behrens; Shannon Laymon-Pecoraro.
• Developments in the MSA Courtroom - Chelsie Allan; Patrick Czuprynski; Jennifer Santoro.
• Impact of Outside Factors on the Distribution of MSA Funds - Gregg Chapman; Danielle Marone; Daniel Simones.

Congratulations to the speakers, as well as NAMSAP's conference and educational committee chairmen Thomas Matson, Gary Patureau and Thomas Spratt, for maintaining NAMSAP's impressive educational standards.

For S2KM's most recent prior NAMSAP reporting, see "NAMSAP 2014 Regional Conference":

• Part 1 - Topics and Speakers
• Part 2 - WCMSA Market Metrics

For S2KM's summary of structured settlement issues in the CMS WCMSA Reference Guide, see this blog post.

 

Ohio NAELA 2012 UnProgram

For the past several years, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) has featured "UnPrograms" as part of its educational curriculum. Earlier this week, Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author and a NAELA member, attended the Ohio NAELA 2012 UnProgram as a participant.

What is an UnProgram? NAELA's UnPrograms are moderated group discussions about specific topics. The topics typically are identified in advance and the discussions are informal. The handouts for the NAELA Ohio Chapter's 2012 UnProgram were limited to: a list of topics; suggested "Ground Rules", and a one-page evaluation form.

Compared with traditional conference lectures and panels, NAELA's UnProgram discussions are informal and encourage participation by all attendees.The discussions frequently focus on practice issues or actual cases and result in the exchange of ideas and best practices.

Based upon S2KM's limited experience with UnPrograms, these discussions seem to work best with less than 15 participants per topic. For larger groups, participants select from among multiple discussions which occur simultaneously and require space planning. Although it helps to have a moderator with specific subject matter expertise, subject matter experts inevitably emerge during the discussions. Individual discussions can vary in time allotments.

The agenda for the Ohio NAELA two day UnProgram featured topics suggested in advance by participants:

• Increasing efficiency and profits with technology.
• Cloud computing.
• How to market and expand an Elder Law practice.
• How Elder Law and Special Needs Law differ.
• Using care managers.
• Medicaid issues - planning scenarios; estate recoveries; eligibility issues; appeals process; spend down options; annuities; promissory notes; home exemption.
• Veterans benefit issues - planning priorities; irrevocable trusts; proposed pension legislation.
• Special pensions.
• Structured settlements and settlement planning.

Some of the "Ground Rules" for the Ohio NAELA UnProgram:

• Participants are encouraged to be polite and warned not to interrupt other participants.
• Participants are encouraged to ask any and all appropriate questions.
• Participants can politely decline to answer any questions.
• Discussions about fees and other issues that violate anti-trust law are prohibited.
• All other ideas are welcome and encouraged.
• The moderator is directed to monitor individual input to encourage broad participation.
• Break out sessions are suggested if and when a subset of participants want to discuss a specific subtopic or related topic.
• When participants become disinterested in a discussion topic, they are encouraged to move to another group.
• Groups are not expected to backtrack when new participants are late entering a discussion.
• Individual participants are encouraged to continue discussions during breaks and meals.

Although Ohio NAELA's UnProgram organizers did not attempt to integrate Internet use or Internet resources into the 2012 UnProgram, the UnProgram's informal, horizontal format appears well-suited for both synchronous and asynchronous Internet adaptibility. Private wikis with discussion features could prove especially valuable for organizing, capturing and leveraging the considerable knowledge generated by the Ohio NAELA UnProgram.

Additional resources and information about Internet-based knowledge management (KM):

• For attorneys - see the public wiki and related concept map (with embedded links) S2KM developed with Denham Grey and Barbara Bowen in 2006 introducing web 2.0 for lawyers.
• For structured settlements - see the structured settlement wiki.

Massive Open Online Courses

Although the Internet has already transformed how we communicate, work and interact socially, its impact on formal education has been surprising limited. Parents of college students continue to pay exorbitant costs to enable their sons and daughters to attend colleges and universities where in person (F2F) lectures predominate. Professionals continue to attend expensive in person conferences to obtain continuing education credits.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) represent a relatively new Internet development with the potential to transform our educational paradigms.

Although the idea of moving classroom instruction and educational content to the web has existed since Al Gore (claims to have) invented the Internet, most educators and educational stakeholders have resisted the idea. More recently, MOOC companies such as Coursera, Udacity, and edX have expanded their participants and appear to be attracting significant investment and generating considerable growth.

S2KM recently became aware of MOOCs during a conversation about knowledge management with Dr. Martha Pollack, Vice Provost for Academic and Budgetary Affairs at the University of Michigan. Dr. Pollack, who previously served as Dean of the School of Information at the University at Michigan, specifically recommended Coursera.

Coursera is a social entrepreneurialship company that currently partners with Princeton University, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Michigan, and University of Pennsylvania. Their online courses are free and open to anyone. Patrick Hindert, S2KM's author, has signed up to participate in a six week course taught by Dr. Charles Severance titled "Internet History, Technology and Security" which begins July 23, 2012.

What do MOOCs have to do with structured settlements and settlement planning? Currently nothing - other than to suggest the MOOC movement, if successful, could impact and improve professional as well as academic education. The need for improved education seems especially true for settlement planning on account of its relative complexity, changing legal and financial rules and multi-professional teams.

The Wikipedia entry for "Massive Open Online Courses" identifies several organizing principles for MOOCs including: aggregation; re-mixing; re-purposing; feeding forward; and connectivism. One of the earliest MOOC courses (2008) titled "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge" was taught by George Siemens and Stephen Downes.

Proponents of connectivism, according to Wikipedia, believe it represents a new theory of learning "based on the premise that knowledge exists in the world rather than in the head of an individual." Consequently, one aspect of connectivism is the use of social networks comprised of nodes and connections as a primary metaphor for learning.

As structured settlement and settlement planning leaders contemplate how to improve and grow their related markets, industry stakeholders might benefit from greater knowledge about MOOCs and might consider the following principles of connectivism as set forth in Wikipedia:

• "Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• "Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• "Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• "Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
• "Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• "Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• "Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• "Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision."

For information about structured settlements and knowledge management, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 6

Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured internet experts as part of their 2011 educational programs.

SSP's speakers, Mark Wahlstrom and Joe Didier, focused primarily on internet marketing and recommended expanded business use of web-based social media tools such as podcasts, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. Wahlstrom offered one especially insightful and negative cultural observation about the structured settlement industry as it attempts to transition from pre-internet to web-based business models, processes and skill sets: "We do not share ideas well in our industry."

NSSTA's speaker, LuAnn Reeb, also discussed internet marketing and social media tools in the context of "business communications today". Her emphasis, however, was more on the importance of learning web-based skill sets and how web-based conversations are replacing traditional one-directional marketing techniques.

How far structured settlement stakeholders must still go to successfully transition their business to the Internet was summed up humorously by one SSP wag who asked speaker Didier at the conclusion of his presentation: "So, are you saying that this Internet thing is really important?"

Assuming the answer is "yes", neither SSP nor NSSTA has articulated any identifiable learning strategy to help members transition from pre-internet to web-based business models, processes and skill sets. At best, their 2011 educational programs will encourage some members to sign-up for Linkedin, Twitter, or Facebook.

S2KM comments and recommendations:

• The structured settlement and settlement planning industries currently function primarily using old (pre-internet) business models, rules, skill sets, tools and culture.
• Web-based business activity introduces new business rules, creates new business models and culture, and requires new skill sets and tools.
• In the words of Kevin Kelly, an internet business pioneer: “as innovation accelerates, abandoning the highly successful in order to escape from its eventual obsolescence becomes the most difficult and yet most essential task.”
• Lectures represent an ineffective teaching method for learning Internet skill sets and tools.
• To help their members accelerate and improve their business transition to the internet, SSP and NSSTA could:
  • Place a greater educational priority on helping members understand the Internet business environment and learn web-based skill sets and tools.
  • Sponsor related workshops utilizing appropriate educational venues. See, for example, The METS Center.
  • Begin utilizing web-based tools (other than email and listserves) to improve committee functions and teach committee members how to collaborate online.
  • Encourage more members to publish, read and subscribe to online blogs, podcasts and wikis.
  • Expand (or create) references in Wikipedia for "structured settlement", "settlement planning" and related vocabulary.
• Advice for structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders who consider themselves knowledge workers and want to successfully transition their knowledge and work processes to the internet - with or without assistance from SSP and NSSTA:
  • Learn more about web 2.0 and web-based knowledge management (KM).
  • Identify (inventory and/or map) your personal and collaborative (company; industry) knowledge.
  • Learn how to capture your knowledge in formats you can publish and share online (publicly and/or privately).
  • Identify and connect with online knowledge leaders and resources for structured settlements and/or settlement planning.
  • Learn more about web-based organizational concepts such as personal KM, social networks, communities of practice (COPs) and folksonomies.
  • Learn to utilize web-based cultural best practices such as knowledge sharing and continuous learning.

For visual examples of how one company captures structured settlement knowledge, see this Flickr page created by The Settlement Services Group (TSSG). Click on individual diagrams to enlarge.

For complete S2KM reporting about the SSP and NSSTA 2011 annual meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA and NASP 2010 Educational Conferences - 3

"Protect and Preserve" or "Improve and Grow".

These polar-opposite imperatives for the structured settlement industry represent S2KM's two strategic lenses for reporting and analyzing simultaneous educational programs this week in Las Vegas sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, will attend portions of the NSSTA conference (as a NSSTA member and former NSSTA President) and participate in NASP's Friday morning "Industry Analysis" program (as a moderator and speaker). S2KM's continued reporting and commentary about the NSSTA and NASP conferences will appear on this S2KM blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA's strategic mandate is to "protect and preserve".

Question: what exactly does NSSTA want to "protect and preserve"?

The simple answer: Internal Revenue Code sections 104(a) and 130.

More strategically, what NSSTA wants to "protect and preserve" (to the extent possible) are business models and business practices ("good old days") that existed prior to:

• 1986 - Jim Lokey completed the first structured settlement transfer;
• 1991 - Executive Life insolvency;
• 1993 - Congress enacted IRC 468B and introduced qualified settlement funds;
• 1994 - Weil lawsuit settlement permitting structured settlement agents to work directly with claimants and plaintiff attorneys;
• 2001 - Congress adopted IRC 5891 and defined "structured settlement" as well as rules for structured settlement transfers;
• 2010 - Hartford settled the Spencer class action lawsuit (and departed the structured settlement business) following allegations of civil RICO and state fraud violations by Hartford, its agents, brokers and attorneys.

One result of NSSTA's "protect and preserve" mandate has been a "dumbing down" of NSSTA's educational programs - at least from a strategic perspective. Some of NSSTA's technical discussions are excellent. For example, NSSTA's legal committee has re-emerged as a leading structured settlement educational resource. And NSSTA's CSSC certification program continues to receive positive reviews despite low attendance and the lack of a continuing education (CLE) requirement.

NSSTA's primary educational problem is the application of its narrow and political strategic framework ("protect and preserve" as opposed to "improve and grow") for its educational programs. For example, NSSTA never invites knowledge leaders from NASP or SSP (or anyone critical of NSSTA political objectives) to participate in NSSTA's educational programs. For another related example, NSSTA educational programs never provide strategic discussions ("Industry Analysis") with alternative perspectives.

Bottom line: NSSTA's educational programs have fallen behind NASP and SSP who now represent the benchmarks for structured settlement educational excellence. For further S2KM reporting about NSSTA's educational demise, see: S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's 2009 educational program. Unfortunately, NSSTA's announced 2010 educational program looks like "the same old, same old" - at least from S2KM's strategic perspective.

By comparison with NSSTA, NASP will devote three hours of its 2010 educational program this week in Las Vegas specifically to "Structured Settlement Industry Analysis". This portion of the NASP program is subtitled: "How to Improve and Grow the Structured Settlement Industry".

Announced participants for this strategic discussion include industry knowledge experts who are members of NASP, SSP and NSSTA plus Jeremy Babener as an independent writer and analyst. Other participants include: Robin Shapiro, Earl Nesbitt, Matt Bracy, Andrew Savysky, Peter Vodola, Richard Risk, John Darer and Patrick Hindert - and continues prior NASP strategic discussions that featured: Stephen Harris, Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch among others.

S2P2J Release 48

Publisher Incisive Media has announced October 21, 2010 as the distribution date for Release 48 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

S2P2J Release 48 Highlights

• How the Spencer v. Hartford and the Macomber v. Travelers class action lawsuit settlements impact structured settlements; and
• More specifically, how these two class action settlements impact structured settlement risk analysis, business strategy, business models, business practices and business standards for various stakeholders and participants:
  • Chapter 4 - Defendants and their attorneys:
    • Whether, when and how to structure
    • Risk and cost analysis
    • Related party transactions
    • Insurance policy issues
    • Financial impact
    • Releases and assignments
    • Multiple defendant cases
  • Chapter 5 - Plaintiffs and their attorneys
    • Settlement planning options and responsibilities
    • Comparing lump sums and periodic payments
    • Investment standards
    • Addressing the risk of non-payment
    • How to control decision making
    • Integrating government benefits
    • Informed consent
  • Chapter 6 - Structured settlement consultants
    • Available resources
    • Products and services
    • Business standards and practices
    • Licensing and certification
    • Agent vs. broker
    • Conflicts of interest
    • Representations and misrepresentations
    • Obligations and potential liabilities
  • Chapter 7 - Structured settlement negotiation strategy
    • Public policy
    • Legal mandates
    • Negotiation guidelines
    • Safe harbors
    • Defense and plaintiff strategies
    • Disclosure and privacy
    • Discovery issues
    • Compensation issues
    • Secondary market issues
    • Minors and incompetents
    • Utilizing 468B funds
    • Drafting settlement documents
    • Court approval
• Release 48 also updates recent developments for:
  • Structured settlement public policy (Chapter 1),
  • 468B settlement funds (Chapter 3) and
  • The secondary market (Chapter 16).

Structured Settlement Public Policy - 1

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has invited Patrick Hindert, Managing Director of S2KM Limited and The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), to organize a discussion about "Structured Settlement Public Policy" for the SSP 2010 Annual Meeting May 3 in Washington, D.C.

For additional information about the SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings, see this prior S2KM post.

S2KM's objectives:

• Improve and grow the structured settlement market.
• Promote public discussions about structured settlement public policy. S2KM has previously published a structured settlement public policy wiki featuring Joseph Dehner, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener.
• Invite and challenge the best and brightest structured settlement knowledge experts to:
  • Attend the SSP 2010 Annual Meeting; and
  • Participate in a public discussion about structured settlement public policy.

Preliminary public policy questions - also posted on S2KM's public policy wiki.

• What is a structured settlement?
  • Google search
  • wikipedia definition
  • transaction diagram
• What does "public policy" mean generally - and specifically for structured settlements?
• Why is public policy important for structured settlements?
• Who and what defines structured settlement public policy?
• What changes have occurred in structured settlement public policy?
  • Before 1982
  • Between 1982 and 2000
  • Since 2001
• Based upon existing structured settlement public policy, what constitutes best business practices, bad business practices and illegal business practices?
• What are the most important structured settlement public policy issues?
• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
  • Tax exclusions for non-physical injuries as well as physical?
  • Tax credits rather than the current tax exclusion?
• How many structured settlement recipients pay federal income taxes - or gain any financial advantage from the structured settlement tax exclusion?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Or, does public policy actually require and promote dissipation by injury victims and other disabled persons? For example, Medicaid asset requirements and resulting asset "pay down" strategies.
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?
• How has health care reform changed structured settlement public policy?
• Does public policy support expanded use of the Internet for marketing, communication, education and collaboration? If yes, how does the Internet and Internet public policy impact the future of structured settlements?
• How can SSP members and attendees influence structured settlement public policy?
• How can members of NSSTA, SSP, NASP, NAMSAP and NAELA better identify and promote their collaborative public policy knowledge and shared public policy interests?
• Should the structured settlement industry encourage public policy analysis and promote best business practices in the context of public policy?
• Does public policy analysis and promotion of best business practices strengthen or weaken the structured settlement industry?

For additional S2KM reporting about SSP and NSSTA, see:

• S2KM's blog post titled "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings" and
• S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NAELA Special Needs Summit - 3

This S2KM blog post strategically analyzes the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2010 Special Needs Summit from an Internet-based knowledge management (KM) perspective. The NAELA Special Needs Summit occurred February 25-27 in New Orleans. Prior S2KM blog posts summarized the NAELA Special Needs Summit and analyzed the NAELA Special Needs Summit from a structured settlement perspective.

This S2KM review also considers a March 9, 2010 Web 2.0 webinar for NAELA members by Mark Miller titled "Web 2.0: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Miller is Chief Operating Officer of ElderLawAnswers; General Manager of Lawyers Life Network; and Director of Operations and Business Development for the Academy of Special Needs Planners. Miller has more than 15 years experience in sales and business development for web-based service providers.

Positives

• Knowledge resources - Whether the subject is elder law, special needs law or personal injury settlement law, NAELA's membership possesses substantial knowledge resources. Specific to disabled persons, NAELA's knowledge encompasses technical legal knowledge as well as relationship knowledge with disability leaders and disability community stakeholders.
• Knowledge culture - NAELA promotes and prioritizes legal scholarship. Examples include: the NAELA Journal and NAELA's annual writing prize for law students. NAELA promotes and practices knowledge sharing. NAELA's unprograms offer a non-hierarchical and interactive learning alternative to traditional lectures. Compared with traditional lectures, NAELA's unprogram learning model is more comparable with how collaborative learning occurs on the Internet.
• Focus on web 2.0 - NAELA has identified and offered learning resources on web 2.0 and social network technologies. In addition to Mark Miller's March 9, 2010 web 2.0 presentation, NAELA also featured S2KM's web 2.0 for lawyers wiki at its 2008 National Symposium.
• Mark Miller's web 2.0 presentation - Miller's 90 minute web 2.0 presentation was comprehensive. It highlighted many web 2.0 features, tools, and developments and offered advice for NAELA members about blogging; podcasting; web-site design; search engine optimization; news feeds; key word searches; social media; and emerging tools.
• Web 2.0 examples - a growing number of NAELA members, and non-NAELA special needs attorneys, have experimented with web 2.0 tools - especially blogs and podcasts. Examples of special needs and elder law blogs:
  • Harry Margolis
  • David Lillesand
  • Frank Johns
  • Patricia Kefalas
  • John Campbell

Negatives

• Web 2.0 learning disconnect
  • Neither the NAELA Special Needs Summit nor Miller's web 2.0 webinar made any attempt to integrate the web 2.0 medium itself into their learning programs.
  • If "the medium is the message" (to quote Marshall McLuhan), NAELA has not yet processed or responded to that message from a web 2.0 learning perspective.
  • NAELA's conference was typical of almost all professional association education conferences. Learning takes place in multi-purpose hotel meeting rooms with no Internet resources or integration. Laptops are discouraged by the general failure to provide power outlets. With the notable exception of NAELA's unprograms, the speakers lecture with limited audience interaction. Supplemental learning resources include power points, hardcopy handouts or web 1.0 flash disks.
  • Miller's web 2.0 webinar utilized a traditional web 1.0 powerpoint. His extensive presentation was lecture format with limited interactivity and no asynchronous features.
  • Typical of most introductions to the Internet, Miller's web 2.0 webinar focused primarily on identity and marketing - with no discussion about whether and how web 2.0 can enhance and accelerate learning or what learning issues and strategies occur with web 2.0.
  • As one example of a web 2.0 learning issue, many college professors (the paragons of old school learning) are banning laptops from their classroom and view in-class Internet surfing as a distraction. These paragons, however, typically lack any ability to integrate discussions (example: Socratic teaching) or Internet resources into their classroom experience. Their teaching model is a hierarchical lecture which is contrary to how the web 2.0 Internet functions.
  • Teaching web 2.0 using web 1.0 (or predecessor technologies) is akin to trying to teach people to swim or play basketball in a traditional classroom - using hardcopy text with no diagrams - instead of utilizing a swimming pool or a basketball court. After an hour or a semester in the classroom, the students still won't be able to swim or play basketball.
• Role of knowledge management
  • NAELA's members all qualify as knowledge workers. Without specifically studying knowledge management, NAELA has spent 25 years helping its members identify, expand and manage knowledge.
  • The changing Internet medium (currently web 2.0 featuring social network technologies) prioritizes knowledge and how you manage knowledge:
    • Knowledge generally becomes more transferrable and complex.
    • New knowledge tools, systems, networks, teams and leaders emerge.
    • New business models evolve requiring online skill sets and related knowledge services.
  • Unless NAELA and its members study and understand Internet-based knowledge management, how will they successfully transfer their professional knowledge (including relationship knowledge) to web 2.0?
  • And what happens to those professionals and professional associations who are slow (or unable) to successfully transfer their knowledge to the Internet? How will they compete? Who will want (or allow) them to participate on Internet-based knowledge teams and networks?
  • Neither Miller's web 2.0 webinar nor NAELA's first-ever Special Needs Summit discussed knowledge management.
  • How could knowledge management have improved the NAELA Special Needs Summit? As one example, the NAELA Summit made no attempt to define special needs law or to differentiate special needs law from elder law or personal injury settlement law. NAELA could have used (and still could use) various types of knowledge maps to:
    • Define these strategically important knowledge domains and related knowledge boundaries;
    • Identify stakeholders and online learning resources within each community of practice;
    • Highlight transactional events and transferable knowledge opportunities for NAELA members within each knowledge domain.

Unsolicited Recommendations for NAELA

• Continue to study Internet-based knowledge management - focusing on web 2.0 and social network technologies.
• Develop a web 2.0 learning strategy:
  • Utilizing appropriate learning environments, teachers and tools.
  • Introducing participants to online culture, organizational theory and functional skill sets through actual experience.
  • Integrating web 2.0 learning into NAELA's other educational programs.

For Additional Information see:

• Denham Grey's KM wiki
• S2KM prior blog posts
  • Web 2.0 for Lawyers Concept Map - featuring Barbara Bowen
  • Knowledge Management and Structured Settlements

NAELA's Special Needs Summit - 2

This S2KM blog post strategically analyzes the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) 2010 Special Needs Summit from a structured settlement perspective. A prior S2KM post summarized the NAELA Special Needs Summit. A subsequent S2KM post will strategically analyze the NAELA Special Needs Summit from the perspective of Internet-based knowledge management.

For related S2KM learning resources, see S2KM's public read-only wikis:

• Structured settlement
• Structured settlement public policy
• Web 2.0 for lawyers

From a structured settlement perspective, the strategic business overlap with special needs attorneys encompasses disabled personal injury victims, their families and trial attorneys. Various knowledge leaders, knowledge networks and communities of practice within this strategic business and public domain utilize alternative terminology to describe their businesses without comparative analysis of the terminology itself. Here are some recommended resources to help special needs attorneys understand this growing legal market segment:

• Settlement law - hardcopy textbooks:
  • Robert W. Wood
    • "Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments"
    • "Qualified Settlement Funds and 468B"
  • Matt Garretson: "Negotiating and Settling Tort Cases"
  • Stuart Zimring, Rebecca Morgan and Bradley Frigon: "Fundamentals of Special Needs Trusts"
• Structured settlement law - Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert: "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"
• Settlement consulting - see S2KM's report and analysis of Joseph DiGangi's presentation at the 2009 NSSTA winter meeting.
• Settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the SSP 2009 conference.
• Special needs settlement planning - see S2KM's report about the ASNP 2009 conference and Tim Nay interview.

S2KM regularly attends and publishes reports summarizing and analyzing national educational conferences sponsored by selected professional associations and universities whose speakers and attendees participate within the strategic business overlap of structured settlements and special needs law:

• National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA)
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
• American Association for Justice (AAJ)
• National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
• Stetson Law School - Special Needs Trust conference

Strategic question: from a structured settlement perspective, what was most important about NAELA's first-ever Special Needs Summit? 

Strategic answer: None of the NAELA speakers or unprograms:

• Attempted to define "special needs law" or any of its ancillary legal and business domains.
• Addressed any of the following structured settlement legal priorities and developments - all of which are strategically important for special needs attorneys:
  • IRC sections 104(a), 130, 468B or 5891;
  • Treasury Hearings for IRC 104(a)(2) regulations
  • Treasury 2009-10 Priority Guidance Plan - dropping single claimant 468B.
  • Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit - alleging civil RICO violations.
  • Unauthorized practice of law
  • Dissipation studies
  • Single claimant 468B funds
  • Executive Life of New York
  • Secondary structured settlement annuity market:
    • State structured settlement protection statutes.
    • J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy
    • Fresno County factoring cases
    • Rapid Settlements arbitration model
    • California protection statute amendments - including "best interest" definition

Why should special needs attorneys be interested in structured settlement law? This S2KM structured settlement diagram summarizes a complex legal and financial transaction that requires special needs legal knowledge, documentation and representation and also presents business and career opportunities for special needs attorneys:

• IRC 468B qualified settlement funds
• IRC 130 qualified and non-qualified assignments
• Special needs trusts
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Structured settlement transfers

Additional S2KM structured settlement resources for special needs attorneys interested in learning more about structured settlement law:

• Market surveys
• Growing the market
• Structured settlements in 2009
• structured settlement wiki
• structured settlement public policy wiki.

S2KM's next blog post will analyze NAELA's Special Needs Summit from an Internet-based knowledge management perspective.