Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 63

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for approximately 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning. When structured settlements were first introduced in the United States in the late 1970s, they were viewed primarily as a defense claim management concept which was binary in nature. A settlement was either “cash” or “structure”. A “failed” structured settlement was a “cash out”. Defense brokers sold a single product – a structured settlement annuity which could be, and almost always was, combined with up front cash. Rarely, however, from a defense perspective, was a structured settlement annuity integrated with other financial products or government benefits. In fact, a fundamental public policy justification for structured settlements claimed that “structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.”
As the U.S. structured settlement market evolved, however, a shift in control has occurred as plaintiffs and their attorneys now retain their own structured settlement advisors. From the plaintiff perspective, a structured settlement annuity looks less like an all or nothing settlement proposition and more like a strategic product that can be combined with other financial products, government benefits and trusts into comprehensive settlement plans. National associations of plaintiff structured settlement brokers (SSP), special needs attorneys (SN Alliance and ASNP), and other professionals, as well as traditional structured settlement participants (NSSTA) increasingly recognize a much larger and more complex market (personal injury settlement planning) within which structured settlement annuities represent a core strategic product.
Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders and settlement planning professionals with an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes. In addition to contributing authors recognized below, the book authors acknowledge and thank the NSSTA and SSP Legal Committees for sharing case and industry updates.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2018 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 63 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 63 Highlights - Release 63 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• Historical Analysis - To help structured settlement stakeholders analyze the comprehensive changes impacting their industry, Release 63 adds three new subsections to Chapter 1 expanding its historical analysis of the U.S. structured settlement market including: "Historical Trends and Transitions"; "Legislative History"; and "Significant Historical Developments."
• ABLE Accounts - The "Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014" (ABLE Act) created an important new option (ABLE accounts) for qualifying individuals (disabled prior to age 26) to save and accumulate money while preserving eligibility to receive means-tested government benefits. In the personal-injury context, ABLE accounts cannot be funded directly with a structured settlement, but can be funded indirectly using a special needs trust. Contributing author David Lillesand, a nationally recognized special needs legal expert, highlights Release 63 with a comprehensive introduction to ABLE accounts for structured settlement and settlement planning professionals. Among the topics attorney Lillesand addresses: 1) Federal laws and regulations - including Congressional improvements in 2017; 2) State ABLE programs; 3) ABLE accounts in practice; and 4) a comparison of special needs trusts and ABLE accounts.
• Market-based Programs - One result of settlement planning has been the development of an increasing number of products and financial vehicles directly and indirectly related to structured settlements. Contributing author Serena Fitchard introduces and explains "market-based programs" which provide periodic payments linked to the performance of an underlying investment portfolio. At one time, most industry participants assumed market-based programs did not meet IRC 130's "fixed and determinable" test. In multiple PLRs, however, the IRS has concluded that the variable nature of a payment does not preclude it from being fixed and determinable if the payment obligation is fixed at the time of settlement and the amount can be calculated pursuant to an objective formula.
• Rating Agencies - Contributing author Michael Cohen, former head of A.M. Best's U.S. Life Insurance Industry rating division, provides an extensive update in Release 63 to S2P2J's summary and analysis of financial rating agencies relevant to structured settlements. Mr. Cohen's commentary: 1) introduces new companies that provide ratings for insurers; 2) discusses the quantitative and qualitative factors rating agencies utilize when they apply their rating methodologies; and 3) emphasizes the importance of risk based capital in life insurer evaluations. He further explains why A.M. Best has two rating scales (Financial Strength Rating and Issuer Strength Rating) and how those rating scales interact.
• Non-Qualified Assignments - Release 63 continues to track developments in the non-qualified structured settlement market which features an increasing number of non-traditional product providers as well as funding options where non-U.S. companies serve as obligors. S2P2J's analysis highlights many of tax and non-tax issues that these "off-shore" products raise which structured settlement professionals should evaluate and be able to explain to clients.
• Guaranty Association Model Act - As one result of the ELNY liquidation, the NAIC updated its "Model Life and Health Insurance Association Model Act" in 2017. Release 63 addresses the sections specifically impacting structured settlements including a clarification that Guaranty Association coverage under this newest version of the Model Act does not extend to "persons" who acquire rights to receive structured settlement annuity benefits via factoring transactions or to the "rights" so acquired. Louisiana became the first state to enact the new Model Act provision specifically excluding factored benefits.
• Lanclos v. United States - To its extensive coverage of the ELNY insolvency and liquidation, Release 63 provides a summary of Lanclos v. United States, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2017, in which an ELNY shortfall victim successfully argued that the U.S. government should be held liable for the shortfall because it "guaranteed" the structured settlement payments. To support her position, the plaintiff relied on Massie v. United States, where a Federal Circuit Court relied on a plain reading of the contract terms which stated the payments were “guaranteed” and “shall be paid.” Because of this language, the Court in Massie rejected the government’s argument that it had discharged its duty under the settlement agreement by “purchasing an annuity.”
• Privacy Issues - Professional structured structured practitioners must be aware of various federal and state privacy laws that may impact the gathering and/or sharing of medical or other personal information belonging to a claimant during the course of a personal injury settlement negotiation. Release 63 continues S2P2J's coverage of these privacy laws which can include not only HIPAA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act but also state legislation similar to the NAIC's Model Act entitled "Privacy of Consumer Protection and Health Information Regulation" which may apply to all entities licensed by the State Department of Insurance.
• Deferred Attorney Fees - Plaintiff attorneys who wish to defer part or all of their fees in a contingent fee case have multiple product options depending upon whether the underlying case involves non-taxable personal physical injuries. For non-taxable injury cases, most structured settlement annuity providers allow attorney fees to be structured using an IRC 130 qualified assignment even on a "stand alone" basis. Release 63 updates S2P2J's analysis of qualified assignment applications to deferred attorney fees and questions whether the Childs case on its own represents appropriate tax authority.
• Settlement Planning Practice Standards - More recent S2P2J updates have recognized the evolution of personal injury settlement planning and its strategic relationship with structured settlements. Originally composed primarily of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has played a leading role in defining this new profession. Release 63 highlights SSP's most recent contribution, their "Settlement Planning Practice Standards," and also includes a copy of these Standards in S2P2J's Appendix.
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide - Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) have become an important sub-market for structured settlements. Release 63 summarizes sections applicable to structured settlements within the most recent (2017) update of the CMS Workers Compensation (WC) MSA Reference Guide. Significantly, this newest version of the Reference Guide continues to incorporate the October 15, 2004 CMS Memo that provides structured settlement annuities with an inherent cost advantage compared with lump sums for funding most WCMSAs. Every structured settlement professional should be aware of this cost advantage and be able to explain it to their clients.
• Secondary Market Business Practices - Successful cooperation between NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has resulted in greater consumer protections within the Model Act and multiple state structured settlement protection statutes. Unfortunately, the conduct of some secondary market participants continues to result not only in negative national publicity but also government actions against certain factoring companies alleging fraud and other deceptive business practices. Among other additions, Release 63 summarizes two recent criminal cases involving forgeries of protection act transfer orders to S2P2J's already extensive chapter addressing "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights."

For additional coverage of historical structured settlement issues and developments, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2017 Annual Conference

When Len Blonder was elevated to the role of President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) for an unprecedented third time during NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference, he identified a very clear vision for the structured settlement industry.

"The times are changing and we must change", Blonder stated in 2016, as he addressed NSSTA's membership to begin his third term as President. "The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role."

NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference, which occurred April 19-21 in San Francisco, provided an educational program consistent with Blonder's vision. The conference also re-confirmed that now is an exciting time to be part of the structured settlement industry and that NSSTA is well-organized to address the current challenges and opportunities confronting the industry.

Speakers and Topics

• Opening Remarks - Len Blonder, NSSTA President
• NSSTA Objectives - Jim Early - NSSTA President Elect
• Access to Justice - Elise Sanquinetti; Laurie Klimchock; Melissa Baldwin (Moderator)
• NSSTA Board of Director Candidate Speeches
• My Story: Meg Hertzel-Busing; Mike Wostoupal (Moderator)
• Getting Claims Professionals Invested in Structured Settlements: Taylor Smith; Dean Harring; Al Luther; Brad Cantwell; Jerry Lothrop; Jim Early (Moderator)
• ABLE Act Implementation - Stephen Dale
• Government Benefit Programs - Amos Goodale
• Special Needs Attorneys and Structured Settlement Consultants: Morris Klein; Phillip Krause; Eric Vaughn; Patrick Hindert (Moderator)
• Washington Update - Eric Vaughn
• MSAs in Third Party Settlements - Robert Sagrillo
• A Claimant's Story: Judge Larry Quan (retired); John Allan); Eric Vaughn (Moderator)
• Educating Defense Counsel - Kathy Martin; John Kouris; Nolan Robinson (Moderator)
• Structured Settlement Education - Patricia Fairhurst; Debbie Sink; Jordan Bossler; Matt Ross.

NSSTA Challenges

• Protecting and Preserving IRC Sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 - the existential foundation of the structured settlement industry. Among many individuals, past and present, responsible for organizing and maintaining the political coalition responsible for safeguarding these code sections (including the Congressional Structured Settlement Caucus), Blonder (now NSSTA's immediate Past President), NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn, and NSSTA General Counsel John Stanton have been the longtime leaders of NSSTA's diligent and successful legislative and regulatory team. Without overlooking this traditional tax priority, NSSTA has also become more proactive in seeking new legislation and regulation (both tax and non-tax related) to expand structured settlement opportunities.
• Transitioning to Next Generation Leadership - NSSTA's leadership continues to balance experience with fresh thinking as evidenced by new NSSTA President James Early, President-elect Geoffrey Kissel and newly elected/re-elected Directors: Michelle Caine; Michael Goodman; Melissa Baldwin; Jordan Bossler; and Ross Duncan. Among NSSTA's retiring Directors, Randy Dyer is especially noteworthy. Dyer, who previously served as NSSTA's Executive Director during its formative years, also received this year's NSSTA's President's Award. Among NSSTA's conference speakers, Next Generation leaders Phillip Krause, Brad Cantwell, Nolan Robinson and Jordan Bossler were featured. Robinson and Bossler received NSSTA's Leadership Award for their shared contribution to NSSTA's educational programming.
• Transitioning to New Business Models - No longer simply a "zero sum" negotiation alternative (structure vs. cash), the future growth of structured settlements requires an in depth strategic re-analysis of two separate but related transitional markets (defendant claim management and plaintiff settlement planning) and how best to integrate structured settlements into those markets. Historically slow to provide its members with an in-depth, continuing educational focus on these developing markets, NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference provided a valuable "deep-dive" into defendant claim management and special needs planning as it relates to plaintiff settlement planning - both of which are discussed below under "NSSTA Opportunities".
• Updating/Improving NSSTA Educational Programs - or how best to educate NSSTA members, who possess varying degrees of experience and who market to a diverse group of structured settlement producers and decision makers, to deliver high value services to their respective clients - with multiple additional objectives including: attracting new industry participants and knowledge leaders; helping industry participants develop skill sets needed for success in transitional markets; better utilizing Internet and other technology resources to improve educational efficiencies; competing (and collaborating) with other professional associations and providers for members' educational time and dollars. NSSTA has addressed this challenge by upgrading multiple educational offerings in addition to its Annual and Fall conferences (egs.CSSC program; NSSTA University; Structures 202). The 2017 Annual provided both a foundation and a perspective for future educational development.
• Overcoming Negative Secondary Market Publicity - During his term as NSSTA President (2015-2016), Michael Goodman identified several goals for NSSTA including "moving beyond a focus on factoring". One way to help accomplish this objective is to focus on the many positive, inspiring life stories of structured settlement recipients. NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference presented two such stories. The first featured Meg Hertzel-Busing who suffered traumatic brain injury as a result of a car accident, then developed epilepsy. During college summers, she volunteered at a California camp for kids with cancer and their siblings. Seeing the positive impact, she made her life mission to bring life-affirming experience to children with epilepsy in the Midwest by founding, with her husband Kael, Midwest YouCan Foundation in 2011. The second featured retired Judge Larry Quan who received a structured settlement after sustaining a spinal cord injury resulting in quadriplegia.
• Other Challenges - Of course, NSSTA and its members have other challenges - such as low interest rates; adding new life companies; promoting greater diversity among its membership. However, by highlighting the challenges listed above during its 2017 Annual Conference, NSSTA's Board of Directors and its Education Committee demonstrated an appropriate awareness and focus that should enable NSSTA to successfully pursue its current Growth Initiative.

NSSTA Opportunities

Rejuvenating Defense Programs

• During Michael Goodman's Presidency (2015-2016), NSSTA revised its historic and defensive "protect and preserve" strategy by embracing a new "Growth Initiative" - "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement industry marketplace." Continued and expanded during Len Blonder's Presidency, NSSTA's first Growth Initiatives prioritized "Rejuvenating Defense Programs".
• Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have since reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons. A NSSTA sponsored survey of claims professionals conducted by CLM Advisors in 2014 produced some troubling, yet opportunistic results and raised some important strategic questions for structured settlement brokers who market to defendants - as did an earlier CLM Advisors survey of senior claims executives also conducted for NSSTA.
• NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference featured two outstanding panels addressing defense issues and opportunities: 1) "Getting Claims Professionals Invested in Structured Settlements"; and 2) "Educating Defense Counsel." The first panel, moderated by incoming NSSTA President James Early, featured three representatives of CLM Advisors including President Taylor Smith (who personally conducted the marketing surveys for NSSTA), as well as NSSTA brokers Brad Cantwell and Jerry Lothrop.
• The information generated from both panels provided a valuable supplement to NSSTA's earlier surveys and should help NSSTA's Growth Initiative Committee (and NSSTA members) accomplish its primary strategic objective. Examples:
• Professional backgrounds of today's claims executives have changed. They are less likely to be promoted from within the claims department and are more likely to be lawyers, accountants and/or MBAs hired from the outside. Question: what impact, if any, should this change in claims executive prototype have on structured settlement hiring practices and business strategy?
• These new claims executives focus more often on process rather than loss ratio. "What is important is what gets measured - and process gets measured," added one of the panelists. Observation: plaintiff structured settlement brokers transitioning to settlement planners are also emphasizing "process" - over "product" (see this S2KM report which includes the Society of Settlement Planner's (SSP)description of the "settlement planning process".). Question: How many defense brokers currently prioritize claim management process issues and metrics in their structured settlement marketing, sales and services?
• Also note, to double down on metrics - as S2KM previously reported, one of the "key findings" of a 2011 study titled: "National Litigation Management Study", conducted by CLM Alliance, the parent company of CLM Advisors, was: "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them."
• One of the CLM Advisor panelists pointed out that "many young claim handlers don't understand structured settlements." They view structured settlements as "nothing more than post-settlement financial planning tools" and "have never seen any evidence that structured settlements save money." Questions: do structured settlements save money? If yes, in what context? (see next bullet). Focusing on claim management "process" (see above), should defense brokers develop a new structured sales strategy with supporting metrics - at least in this current economic/interest rate environment? For more on historic structured settlement metrics, see this 2011 S2KM blog series.
• Repeating a theme highlighted in NSSTA's 2014 surveys of both senior claims executives and claims professionals, one of the CLM Advisor panelists pointed out that claim adjustors "need help navigating Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) requirements." Every defense broker should understand exactly why his or her client can save money funding an MSA with a structured settlement as opposed to cash. For an explanation in the workers compensation context, see this S2KM blog post. Although CMS has not published similar rules for liability MSAs, many defendants are already utilizing structured settlements to fund liability MSAs and NSSTA's 2017 conference featured MSA expert Robert Sagrillo discussing that topic.

Special Needs Attorneys and Settlement Planning

• Within the personal injury settlement planning market, plaintiff structured settlement brokers interact with, and face competition from, other professional product and service providers who market to plaintiff attorneys. Among the most important of these other professionals are special needs attorneys. Settlement planning is now viewed as a growth opportunity by many special needs and elder law attorneys.
• Two national associations of special needs attorneys exist: the Special Needs Alliance (SN Alliance) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP). SN Alliance members typically represent a majority of the speakers at the annual Stetson and University of Texas SNT conferences. The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), to which most SN Alliance and ASNP members also belong, increasing emphasizes special needs as well as elder law issues among its educational and legislative lobbying priorities.
• Although their signature products are special needs trusts (SNTs), special needs attorneys play a variety of settlement planning roles (guardian; conservator; trustee; QSF administrator; in addition to legal advisor) and provide a variety of settlement planning legal products and services. Their expertise encompasses government benefits including: Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; the Affordable Care Act (ACA); ABLE Act; veterans benefits; and public housing.
• Although special needs planning and settlement planning overlap in many respects, there are important differences. For example, "special needs" generally refers to birth-related or developmental disabilities. Special needs professional advice typically falls outside of the personal injury litigation process. Third party SNTs represent a prominent special needs planning tool rarely utilized in settlement planning. Unlike plaintiff structured settlement brokers, whose client relationships typically end once a case settles, the relationships of special needs attorneys and other special needs advisors may extend for their clients' lifetimes.
• Both plaintiff structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys who practice settlement planning market their products and services to plaintiff attorneys who continue to perform the following essential settlement planning roles regardless of case complexity:
  • Recognizing settlement planning issues which impact their clients;
  • Recommending appropriate settlement planning professional resources to their clients; and
  • Retaining ultimate responsibility for effectuating settlements.
• Logically, structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys could and should be natural settlement planning marketing allies and work product collaboration partners. This strategic relationship, however, has never achieved its full potential. Among other reasons, one of NSSTA's historic public policy justifications for structured settlements ("structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance") positioned NSSTA and its members at odds with special needs attorneys (who specialize in government benefits) and also contradicted multiple structured settlement growth opportunities (Medicare set-asides; SNTs; ACA benefits) which require integrating structured settlement annuities with government benefits.
• To change the direction and dynamics of its relationship with special needs attorneys, NSSTA created a Special Needs Attorney Task Force in 2015 and made it part of its Growth Initiative Committee in 2016 with the following Mission: "to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement marketplace by:
  • "Improving NSSTA's relationships with, and understanding of, SN attorneys and the primary national associations to which they belong;
  • "Improving SN attorney’s knowledge and understanding of the benefits and appropriate applications for structured settlements;
  • "Collaborating with SN attorneys in a professionally responsible and ethical manner to improve the lives of personal injury victims and their families."
• NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference featured three special needs attorneys:
  • Stephen Dale - One of the nation's leading disability law experts, Dale provided NSSTA attendees with an overview of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act), which was signed into law in 2014 and for which 18 states have now opened qualifying ABLE programs offering various investment options. For eligible, disabled individuals and their families, Dale recommended ABLE accounts as an important supplement and/or alternative to special needs and/or pooled trusts. He views ABLE accounts as a valuable, immediate marketing and sales opportunity for both structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys.
  • Amos Goodall - Goodall supplemented Dale's presentation with a general overview and introduction to government benefits. NSSTA and its members have traditionally emphasized and sold structured settlements based upon their inherent tax advantages compared with cash settlements. For many personal injury victims, however, maintaining Medicaid or other "means-tested" government benefits utilizing structured settlements may be an equally or more persuasive sales rationale. As pointed out above, current CMS rules for MSAs provide a cost advantage for structured settlements compared with cash.
  • Morris Klein - Klein, Co-Chair of NAELA's Public Policy Committee joined NSSTA broker Phillip Krause and NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn on a panel to discuss: 1) how structured settlement consultants can improve their business relationships with special needs attorneys; 2) current political priorities of the SN Alliance and NAELA; and 3) how NSSTA and those associations might collaborate in the future. Among recent legislative developments, Klein highlighted the SNT Fairness Act (SNTFA) as significant for clients of both special needs attorneys and structured settlement consultants.

CONCLUSION: To achieve strategic success, it is important for NSSTA to link its educational programming with its Growth Initiative opportunities and priorities. From S2KM's perspective, NSSTA's Educational Committee Co-Chairs Jordan Bossler and Nolan Robinson, and NSSTA's Executive Administrator Debbie Sink, should be congratulated for accomplishing that objective to a remarkable degree in San Francisco. In particular, NSSTA's 2017 Annual Conference presentations focusing on rejuvenating defense programs, as well as those featuring structured settlement recipients and special needs attorneys, should provide NSSTA with a solid foundation for future educational programming and help NSSTA with strategic and legislative prioritization. For S2KM reports about prior NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

ASNP 2017 Annual Conference

For the past 11 years, the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) annual conferences have consistently improved the educational scope and standards for an expanding professional landscape which, in addition to, and overlapping with, special needs planning, also encompasses personal injury settlement planning, including various types of settlement trusts as well as structured settlements, Medicare set-aside arrangements and life care planning.

ASNP's 2017 Annual Conference, which occurred March 23-25 in New Orleans, maintained its deserved reputation and also highlighted an increasing number of opportunities, issues and challenges for both the traditional structured settlement industry and the "emerging" personal injury settlement planning industry - relatively few of whose combined members have historically attended this, or other, national special needs conferences.

ASNP 2017 TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

PRE-SESSION

• Drafting the World's Best Special Needs Trusts - Kevin Urbatch; Nancy Chudacoff; Ray Falcon; Travis Finchum; Michele Fuller; Robert Mescali
• Online Marketing for Attorneys Intensive Workshop - Conrad Saam

MAIN PROGRAM

• Developments and Updates on Special Needs Topics - Blaine Brockman
• Ethically Representing Persons with Disabilities and their Families - Dr. Roberta Flowers and Sheila Moragas
• To SNT or not SNT: How to Systematically Review a Client's Situation to Provide the Best Advice - Travis Finchum and David Lillesand
• Understanding the Issues that Arise When Persons with Disabilities Interact in Family Law Situations - Emily Kile and Jennifer Kupiszewski
• Taxation Issues that Arise for Persons with Special Needs - Vincent Russo
• SSI Update - David Lillesand
• Ask the Experts Panel - Moderated by Kevin Urbatsch
• The Arc - Robin Shaffert

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS - A STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT / SETTLEMENT PLANNING PERSPECTIVE

Legislative Developments - Multiple legislative developments addressed at the ASNP conference represent expanding business opportunities for structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.

• Affordable Care Act - The political future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid remain uncertain. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the Republican ACA replacement bill concurrent with the ASNP conference. At present, however, both the ACA and Medicaid continue to represent critical health care alternatives for disabled individuals as David Lillesand and Travis Finchurm discussed in their presentation "To SNT or not SNT". In discussing these options, Lillesand highlighted the need for a "cost benefit analysis" to determine whether advisors should recommend private health insurance or a special needs trust (SNT). Both d(4)(A) (self-settled) SNTs and ACA premium payments continue to represent excellent funding opportunities for structured settlements as well as important settlement planning considerations.
• Special Needs Trust Fairness Act - Blaine Brockman summarized Section 5007 of the 21st Century Cures Act - a section referred to as the "Special Needs Trust Fairness Act" (SNTFA), which was signed into law by President Obama on December 13, 2016. The SNTFA adds “the individual” to the list of persons/entities who can establish a special needs trust pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A) and thereby corrected a long -standing oversight in the OBRA 1993 legislation that created SNTs. Among the anticipated results of the SNTFA: more self-settled special needs trusts with more opportunities for structured settlements.
• The Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act - Since the Federal ABLE Act became law in December 2014, 18 states have opened ABLE programs. ABLE Accounts "seemed pretty simple at first", according to Brockman. However, "as programs have developed, accounts have opened, and people with disabilities have begun using ABLE funds," Brockman added "what seemed like simple financial accounts have given way to more nuanced issues about the best use of the ABLE Act." Brockman's presentation addressed many of these ABLE issues and confirmed that, in appropriate cases, ABLE accounts provide a valuable new tool for special needs and personal injury settlement planners. Although Brockman did not specifically address structured settlements, special needs attorney Stephen Dale will be speaking about ABLE Accounts (and presumably structured settlements) later this week at the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Annual Conference.

Collaboration Opportunities

• Structured settlement annuities represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market. From a legal perspective, special needs planning and settlement planning increasingly overlap. Settlement planning is now viewed as a growth opportunity by many special needs and elder law attorneys.
• Although their signature products are special needs trusts (SNTs), special needs attorneys play a variety of settlement planning roles (legal advisor; guardian; conservator; trustee; QSF administrator) and provide a variety of settlement planning products and services. Their expertise encompasses government benefits including: Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; the ACA; ABLE Act; Veterans benefits; and public housing.
• ASNP's commitment to settlement planning has included a 12-part settlement planning webinar series (including a section on structured settlements) as well as its joint 2016 Annual Conference with the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
• Noticeable by their general absence from the ASNP conference, as speakers, attendees, exhibitors and/or sponsors, were members of NSSTA and SSP - which might be explained, in part, by the calendar proximity of their own annual conferences. In S2KM's experience, however, NSSTA and SSP members are also general "no-shows" at other national special needs conferences such as those sponsored by Stetson Law School and the University of Texas.
• By comparison: among the 17 exhibitors at the 2017 ASNP Annual Conference, there were at least: seven settlement trustees, one life care planner, one MSA administrator, and one seller of Medicaid annuities. The Platinum Sponsor of the ASNP Annual Conference was MassMutual, a life insurance company which exited the structured settlement market in 2007. MassMutual now appears to be the leading national special needs life insurance provider - focusing on developmentally disabled individuals and their families rather than personal injury victims. MassMutual acquired Metlife's retail advisory force in 2016 including its special needs division.
• Why should members of NSSTA and SSP attend national special needs conferences? For NSSTA (and its "Growth Initiative") and SSP (and its "Emerging Professionalism"), attendance and participation at national special needs conferences is important, of course, for education and marketing. Beyond those objectives, however, It is also about:
  • Understanding special needs and special needs planning - and how they impact structured settlements and settlement planning;
  • Identifying special needs knowledge leaders and collaboration partners;
  • Establishing (or re-establishing and improving) professional and association identities within the special needs community;
  • Recruiting "next generation" structured settlement and settlement planning professionals;
  • Improving multi-professional work product and building better business models.
  • Becoming part of the local, state and national special needs community - as described during the ASNP conference by Robin Shaffert, Senior Executive Officer of the Arc.

Standards, Practices and Certification - In addition to developments noted above, some progress is being made toward improving professional standards, practices and certification within both the special needs and settlement planning (including structured settlement) markets.

• MassMutual, which sponsors the American College of Financial Services Center for Special Needs , announced during the ASNP conference that the American College now offers a new Chartered Special Needs Consultant (ChSNC™) program. The Mission of the Center is "to elevate the knowledge of financial service professionals in the area of special needs planning." However, its new certification program does not appear to encompass structured settlements or settlement planning.
• In her ASNP discussion titled "Ethically Representing Persons with Disabilities and their Families", Professor Roberta Flowers referenced the proposed and newly revised "Aspirational Standards for Professionalism and Ethical Behavior for Elder and Special Needs Law" published by the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) which NAELA will introduce to its members later this summer.
• During its 2017 Annual Conference, SSP announced a four-step plan to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) re-focusing SSP on professionalism; 2) updating SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing new proposed SSP Practice Standards.
• NSSTA, as an association, has been slow to embrace "settlement planning" and to investigate "special needs planning." NSSTA, however, has recently formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) three special needs attorneys as speakers. NSSTA is a major contributor to the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD) for which Eric Vaughn, NSSTA's Executive Director, currently serves as Vice Chairman. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation." NSSTA currently is updating its CSSC certification program and is expected to increase emphasis on government benefit issues.
• Important, but often overlooked, in discussions about special needs planning and settlement planning are life care planners. The two most prominent U.S. based life care planning professional associations are the International Association of Life Care Planners (IALCP) and the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP). Both offer or promote certification programs.

CONCLUSION - For S2KM, the ASNP Conference continues to be a "must attend" annual event providing "top tier" analysis of special needs and settlement planning developments, valuable perspectives on structured settlements plus the opportunity to converse with industry icons and next generation leaders. For S2KM reports on past ASNP conferences, as well as other structured settlement and settlement planning national conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP 2017 Annual Conference

Although the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) was founded in 2000, the term "settlement planner" is still viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". Current SSP President Joseph Tombs agrees.

"Until recently," Tombs stated in an S2KM interview, "that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ('Settlement Planner') proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure."

Just as significant, under Tombs' leadership, SSP has made a dramatic policy shift: "to pull back completely from structured settlement politics". Tombs quickly adds, however: "Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members." For example: "[t]he SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs."

The changes in SSP, as well as the growing maturation of settlement planning, were evident during SSP's recent 2017 Annual Conference which occurred March 1-3 in Las Vegas. Perhaps the most provocative statement of change, at least from a structured settlement perspective, was a panel discussion titled "Comprehensive Settlement Planning in a Post Structure-Centric World" featuring Tombs; Jack Meligan; Charly Schell; and Joseph DiGangi.

Each of these panelists has been a settlement planning leader and proponent for many years. Meligan and Schell are former SSP Presidents. DiGangi is the newly-elected SSP Vice-President. As panelists, each offered settlement planning "tips" including:

• Meligan - Dive into Medicare; study and understand the power of QSFs; expand your vision beyond structured settlement annuities.
• Schell - Prioritize planning over products; pay attention to compliance in the planning process.
• DiGangi - Obtain relevant credentials (RSP; CSSC; MCSSC; CFP; RIA; CFA; CPA; JD); charge fees for your expertise.
• Tombs - structure into trusts; consider equity-indexed annuities; embrace comprehensive services (financial planning; asset management; trust services; legal services; insurance products; lien resolution; MSP compliance; MSA allocations or management; factoring assistance; economic witness).

SSP did not ignore structured settlements during its 2017 Annual Conference. On the contrary,. the conference included a 90 minute panel discussion titled "Structured Settlement Industry Developments" featuring "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) co-authors Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert (S2KM's Managing Director) as panelists. Topics discussed included S2P2J Release 61 highlights; renewed structured settlement sales growth ; the current AIG class action ; and the current ELNY class action . The SSP conference audience included National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Board members, NSSTA brokers and NSSTA annuity provider representatives. Multiple NSSTA members were featured as speakers.

The SSP conference also included an informative panel discussion about the structured settlement secondary market titled "Bad Practices in the Secondary Market" featuring John Darer, Eddie Stone and moderated by Rhonda Bentzen. The presentation provided a detailed, professional critique, with examples, of false advertising by some primary market participants who sell products consisting of "re-cycled" or "derivative" structured settlement payment rights as "annuities" or "structured settlements" as well as the risks and dangers of such products.

Just as SSP as an association is transitioning, the relative role and importance of structured settlements (from SSP's perspective) is also changing - and this poses a challenge for NSSTA and the structured settlement industry generally. For examples:

• Although most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also NSSTA members, according to Tombs, he also maintains that most SSP members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not sell structured settlement annuities.
• SSP has developed a new set of "Practice Standards" which it introduced during its 2017 Annual Conference because, according to Tombs, "professionalism requires a set of common standards recognized by those calling themselves settlement planners as well as the consuming public."
• Tombs also announced that a committee of the SSP Board will be "modernizing" SSP's existing "Standards of Professional Conduct" because this current ethical code is "too structured settlement centric".
• Tombs, as well as other SSP members, believes that settlement planning represents a uniquely superior business model compared with traditional structured settlements. Most structured settlement annuity providers, according to Tombs, "[don't] understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements."
• From a plaintiff or plaintiff attorney perspective, Tombs characterizes settlement planners vs. structured settlement brokers as "unfair competition". "My experience has shown," Tombs states, "that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product as a solution for a client's comprehensive needs."

From an historic and strategic perspective, Tombs' message, indeed the message of the SSP 2017 conference more generally, appeared to S2KM to echo and amplify Joseph DiGangi's presentation during the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting which DiGangi termed "a wake up call for the [structured settlement] industry". At that time (2009), DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model for NSSTA members, with multiple products and services, as an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model.

Characteristics of consulting model DiGangi proposed in 2009, not unlike SSP's current settlement planning model, included: planning orientation; solutions before products; blended products and services; product neutrality; compensation disclosure; professional training and designations; comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

Significantly, in 2009, DiGangi characterized structured settlement annuities as the "foundation product" for what DiGangi at that time termed "settlement consulting" - and settlement consulting as the new business model for structured settlement growth. For structured settlement consultants who lack the expertise, licensing or infrastructure to offer comprehensive solutions, DiGangi recommended teaming up with other professionals. DiGangi highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

Although NSSTA has not yet formerly embraced "settlement planning", NSSTA has formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) number of special needs attorneys as speakers. Special needs attorneys play an increasingly important number of roles in personal injury settlement planning. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Among several other interesting and educational SSP presentations (listed below), the following two related discussions were especially important for the future of SSP and settlement planning - again, from S2KM's perspective:

• "Turning Settlement Planning Into a Profession" - Kent Hansen presenter.
• "Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Designation Update" - Joseph Tombs presenter.

Hansen's presentation was notable for several reasons. First, he acknowledged that "settlement planning" remains an emerging profession that has not yet achieved professional status. Second, he identified four SSP-related steps to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) the current re-focus of SSP; 2) updating SSP's (structured-centric) Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing the proposed SSP Practice Standards.

Hansen also reviewed the proposed new SSP Practice Standards, which address the following issues, and which the SSP Board of Directors' Practice Standards Committee has approved and sent to the SSP membership for their input and consideration before the SSP Board meets to discuss, modify and most likely approve the Practice Standards at its upcoming April meeting :

• Practice Standard #1 - Identifying/acknowledging "client" as individual (potentially) receiving settlement proceeds.
• Practice Standard #2 - Defining the scope of the engagement including making required disclosures of material conflicts of interest and details of the planner's compensation.
• Practice Standard #3 - Defining the client's goals, needs and priorities relevant to scope of engagement.
• Practice Standard #4 - Obtaining information and documents.
• Practice Standard #5 - Analyzing information to match client's goals, needs and priorities with resources.
• Practice Standard #6 - Considering options and developing recommendations.
• Practice Standard #7 - Communicating recommendations to enable client to make informed decisions.
• Practice Standard #8 - Mutually agreeing on implementation responsibilities consistent with scope of assignment.
• Practice Standard #9 - Recommending appropriate products and services.
• Practice Standard #10 - Mutually defining monitoring responsibilities.

Finally, Hansen reviewed the settlement planning process which S2KM summarizes as follows: 1) identify the client; 2) establish the engagement; 3) define goals; 4) gather data; 5) analyze data; 6) develop options; 7) present options; 8) agree on implementation; 9) implement plan; 10) monitor plan. Hansen acknowledged the CFP Board's current Practice Standards as the source for these processes.

Tombs provided an RSP update which is newly organized and updated within a "Settlement Planning Education Center" (SPEC) website. SPEC, "an online education provider" for the settlement planning profession, is owned and operated by a public charity ("Friends of Settlement Recipients, Inc."), according to Tombs. An RSP Board, Tombs stated, owns and awards the RSP designation and approves, administers and promotes the program. Although the RSP is "independent" of the SSP, according to the SPEC website, SSP helped start RSP and supplied initial funding. The Missions of the RSP and the SSP are "congruent".

The SPEC website provides additional information about the RSP courses and the SPEC faculty and includes a detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions (with Answers) plus multiple "How-To" Videos. The RSP program is entirely online and self-paced. The total cost of the program will be "about $4750" per person. Additional contact information is available on the SPEC website.

The remaining SSP educational programs were topically diversified, well-organized and professionally delivered - easily matching the high standards of past SSP Annual Conferences. Additional topics and speakers:

• Settlement Taxation Update and Commonly Missed Savings - Jeremy Babener
• Are MSAs Required on Liability Cases? - Josh Pettingill; Joe Anderson; Patrick Hindert (moderator)
• The ACA's Impact on Special Needs Trusts - Pi-Yi Mayo
• ERISA, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Refunds - David Place
• Life Insurance in Settlement Planning - Michael Sharpe
• Trust-Based Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Beth Wheeler
• The ABLE Act - Tom Stanley
• Settlement Strategies for Cases Involving Public Benefits - Will Lindahl
• Using MoneyGuidePro in Settlement Planning - Larry Peterson; Cam Bowen; Joseph Tombs

Congratulations to SSP, especially Conference Chairs Steve Halterbeck and Rhonda Bentzen, for an outstanding 2017 SSP program and educational experience. For S2KM's reports on past SSP conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP/ASNP 2016 Annual Conferences

Joint overlapping educational conferences hosted by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) March 9-12, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona provided S2KM and other attendees an opportunity to evaluate the current status of structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market. The SSP conference also transferred association leadership from Neil Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction and to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

Among S2KM's conference conclusions: Many personal injury settlement planners characterize structured settlements as a strategic product, and recognize new marketing opportunities for structured settlements resulting from recent legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the ABLE Act . The traditional and collective structured settlement industry should similarly embrace an important opportunity to grow its premium volume in this larger, more complex, more dynamic market than it has in the past by more effectively:

• Analyzing the evolving personal injury settlement and special needs planning markets;
• Addressing concerns and issues about structured settlements identified by plaintiff and special needs attorneys; and
• Re-positioning structured settlements from a single product sale to the core component of an integrated settlement solution.

SSP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction - Neil Johnson
• Comprehensive Settlement Planning - Joe Tombs; Charly Schell; Joe DiGangi; Tim Denehy
• Rules that Apply to Insurance Brokers - David Childers; Jeremy Babener
• The Grillo Case - Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan
• The Mraz Case - Mark Wilson and Patrick Hindert
• Sudden Money - John Darer
• Alternative Products - Martha Hunt; John Arendt; James Creel; Chris Shumate; Michael Upchurch; Rick Miller.
• Medicare Compliance, Entitlement Planning and Lien Resolution Issues - Anthony Prieto
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits - Edward Stone
• Small Business Legal Strategies - Paul Valentine
• Missed Tax Opportunities at Settlement - Jeremy Babener
• Foreign Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• NSSTA's Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys - Patrick Hindert
• SSP President's Statement - Joe Tombs

ASNP TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• ABCs of Public Benefits - David Lillesand
• ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning - Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller
• Keynote: "Raising Special Kids" - Maureen Beyers & Michael Farrell
• SSI Update - David Lillesand
• SNTs and Retirement Benefits - Melanie Marmion
• Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning - Blaine Brockman
• Joint ASNP/SSP Session - Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts - Frank Johns; Joe Tombs; Jack Meligan.
• "Tricky Issues" in SNT Administration - Travis Finchum; Herb Thomas and Daniel Cutter.
• Ask the Experts Panel - Kevin Urbatsch (Moderator)

DISCLAIMERS: Because of overlapping conference schedules, S2KM was able to attend only three ASNP presentations but did receive and has reviewed all ASNP conference handouts. S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, testified as an expert witness in the Mraz case concerning structured settlement and QSF issues on behalf of Adriana and Addison Mraz.

S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SSP Leadership

• In his closing message as SSP President, Neil Johnson continued to emphasize several positive themes including industry unification and increasing collaboration between SSP and NSSTA. Among Johnson's proposed solutions for 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.
• Newly elected SSP President Joe Tombs promised to "maintain the direction of Neil Johnson's leadership and even accelerate it in every way possible." He identified the following "main themes" for SSP going forward: "to pull completely back from structured settlement “politics”, redouble our efforts at educating our members and promoting a Code of Ethics, and a membership push to quadruple our high water mark for number of members. We intend to actively encourage our members who sell structured settlement to join and to become actively engaged in NSSTA. We will continue to offer a hand of friendship and cooperation in their agenda although we will be decidedly apolitical. We will also make no attempt no manage our member’s opinions or their expressions of their opinions."
• As for structured settlements, Tombs stated: "we intend to emphasize comprehensive settlement planning which will have the natural result of de-emphasizing structured settlement annuities to some extent as we move alternatives including trusts, taxable annuities, investment accounts, etc. closer to the forefront. We will be increasingly product-neutral and more advice-driven and client-need-focused in the future." Note: despite Tombs' assertion, and perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, multiple SSP conference speakers maintained that settlement trust sales, in particular, have actually increased their sales of structured settlement annuities.
• Tombs also promised "to intensify [SSP's] efforts to stave off any further “infiltration" of our society by factoring companies and their employees. We will want to remain abreast of the goings on in that market as we have always attempted, but as a practical matter we are cutting off any new members or sponsors from that side of things."

Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys

• During 2014, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) commissioned a three-part Structured Settlement Survey project, conducted by CLM Advisors, and previously reviewed by S2KM, of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).
• Although NSSTA has made reports of all three surveys available to its members, and featured presentations about Part 1 and Part 2 at previous NSSTA educational conferences, NSSTA has not yet featured its Part 3 survey of plaintiff attorneys as an educational conference presentation. NSSTA has also prioritized "rejuvenating defense programs" as one of three preliminary "Growth Initiatives" with no equivalent current Growth Initiative focused specifically on plaintiff attorneys or personal injury settlement planning.
• As one SSP conference presentation, S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, discussed S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's Part 3 Structured Settlement Survey which, in S2KM's opinion, provides valuable insights for improving structured settlement marketing and expanding and accelerating structured settlement premium growth. For example:
  1. Only 4% of the responding plaintiff attorneys viewed structured settlement consultants as adding value for negotiations and/or case evaluations separate from, or in addition to, their knowledge of structured settlements.
  2. 35% stated that structured settlement consultants fail to deliver value because they are concerned with structuring as much of a settlement as possible.
  3. 52% contact a structured settlement broker one week (possibly less) prior to a mediation.
  4. 38% make contact only after a case settles.
  5. Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunity to structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.
  6. Although 89% believe they "have adequate knowledge of structured settlements so that [they are] able to recognize when they would be in the best interest of an injured party...", only 28% said they suggest a structured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).
  7. Only 26% have ever structured their fees.

Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective

• Most presentations by special needs attorneys at structured settlement conferences focus exclusively on special needs trusts. As one result, many structured settlement professionals fail to understand the broad and expanding scope of special needs planning - or how it impacts, overlaps with and differs from personal injury settlement planning. A similar misconception exists among special needs attorneys many of whom identify financial and insurance settlement planners exclusively with structured settlements. The title of the one joint SSP/ASNP presentation in Tucson ("Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts") re-enforced this misconception. Fortunately and positively, the actual presentation discussion, moderated my Jack Meligan and featuring Frank Johns and Joe Tombs, addressed a broader agenda.
• Separately, both the ASNP and SSP conferences featured multiple presentations which captured the expanding expertise of their respective members. For structured settlement professionals, S2KM found ASNP's two "Pre-Session" presentations ("The ABCs of Public Benefits" by David Lillesand and "The ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning" by Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller) especially informative. Also recommended for structured settlement professionals seeking a more comprehensive understanding of special needs planning: Blaine Brockman's presentation ("Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning"),
• Urbatsch and Fuller speak and write frequently about personal injury settlement planning and are recognized as leading national settlement planning experts among special needs attorneys. Their settlement planning presentations frequently discuss structured settlement "issues" - often with negative connotations and without rebuttal or explanations from structured settlement experts. What follows are structured settlement "issues" Urbatsch and Fuller identified in Tucson. In S2KM's experience: 1) many special needs attorneys agree with these issues; and 2) structured settlement proponents need to proactively respond to these issues - or risk continuing/increasing loss of potential annuity premium:
  • "Income stream is inflexible and cannot respond to emergency or major cash needs;
  • "High initial fees;
  • "Investment returns nearly always lower than what a diversified portolio would produce;
  • "Big ticket items, such as a home, cannot be easily acquired;
  • "Unscrupulous settlement planning brokers over-structuring because of high commission;
  • "Little regulatory oversight over industry – no fiduciary responsibility or licensing required to sell;
  • "Misleading statements about flexibility;
  • "How it fits into Plaintiff’s overall financial plan?

The Grillo Case

• The Grillo case, which establishes potential legal liability for plaintiff attorneys who do not advise their clients about structured settlements, was the subject of an SSP conference presentation by Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan. The Sullivans shared the remarkable life story of their daughter, Christina, the Foundation she inspired and the Texas State Statutory amendment her case helped to enact.
• For structured settlement brokers and settlement planners, the Grillo case provides a logical starting point for discussing structured settlements with plaintiff attorneys. As a point of comparison, consider response #5 above under "Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys."
• Another important settlement planning "takeaway" from the Sullivans' SSP presentation: both Craig and Josephine emphasized the value of Christina's original life care plan which served as a care management "roadmap" throughout Christina's life accurately predicting future needs and developments which the Sullivans would not otherwise have anticipated.
• This important observation, provided by the only care givers to appear as speakers at the combined SSP/ASNP conferences highlights an important settlement planning issue: Why do other settlement planning professionals ignore life care planners - especially considering their strategic role defining "future needs" for personal injury damage analysis, as well as future expense allocations for Medicare set-asides and Affordable Care Act coverage? For examples:
  • As leading nurse life care planner Wendie Howland stated in this 2014 S2KM interview: "I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations."
  • The Urbatsch/Fuller presentation summarized above which identified multiple professionals for the "Settlement Planning Team", omitted life care planners.
  • "Comprehensive" settlement plans S2KM has reviewed typically don't include any life care plan, or other document, providing a detailed "needs analysis".
  • With the exception of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), a majority of whose members are life care planners, none of the many structured settlement or settlement planning conferences S2KM has attended during the past several years has offered specific presentations addressing the topic of "needs analysis" - or, with rare exceptions, featured a life care planner as presenter.
  • Key related issues: 1) what does "needs analysis" mean in the settlement planning context? Who is qualified, if not life care planners, to provide "needs analysis" for settlement planning? What is the relationship between a life care plan prepared for trial (damage analysis) and a life care plan for settlement planning? Who, besides a life care planner, is qualified to transpose one to the other?

The Mraz Case

• The traditional objective and responsibility for plaintiff attorneys in personal injury cases has been to obtain the largest amount of compensation for their clients whether by judgment or settlement. By this standard, the law firm Lief, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein was notably successful in obtaining a $55 million verdict and subsequent $24 million settlement in 2009 against Chrysler in the Mraz wrongful death case.
• Settlement planning, in general, and structured settlements, more specifically, however, prioritize an additional set of objectives and responsibilities for plaintiff attorneys. As a result, when the Lief, Cabraser law firm failed to obtain a structured settlement for Addison Mraz, the minor daughter of the deceased, after her mother, Adriana Mraz, allegedly requested Lief, Cabraser to obtain a structured settlement on Addison's behalf, Adriana brought a lawsuit alleging Lief, Cabraser attorneys breached the duty of care they owed to Addison.
• On December 22, 2015, among other findings, a California trial court jury determined Lief, Cabraser attorneys did not breach the standard of care or any fiduciary duty they owed Addison Mraz. Nevertheless, unrelated to damages associated to the loss of the structured settlement, the jury awarded Addison Mraz $400,000 of fees and costs she previously paid to Lief, Cabraser. The case is currently on appeal.
• Mark Wilson, the attorney who represented Adriana and Addison Mraz in their lawsuit against Lief, Cabraser, was a featured speaker at the SSP conference. Based upon the Marz case, and regardless of what occurs on appeal, Wilson highlighted the following structured settlement responsibilities as potential duties of care for plaintiff attorneys and recommended that structured settlement professionals and settlement planners utilize CLE programs to educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liabilities. Plaintiff attorneys should:
  • Educate themselves about structured settlement issues including how to avoid constructive receipt as well as the appropriate utilization of QSFs and non-qualified assignments.
  • Recommend competent structured settlement professionals to clients (and retain them for advice) prior to settlement negotiations.
  • Insert appropriate language in term sheets and/or settlement agreements to preserve clients' structured settlement options.
  • If and when necessary, know how to correct mistakes to preserve or re-establish their clients' structured settlement options.

Plaintiff Broker Diversification

• The most successful plaintiff structured settlement brokers appear to be diversifying their products and services. It works, according to SSP speaker Anthony Prieto, "because it changes the conversation from a marketing perspective. There are a lot more people who want to talk to me about updates in MSP compliance or lien resolution than structured settlements. You see more cases when you offer other services. You become a problem solver as opposed to a problem identifier."
• Prieto identified multiple sources of alternative revenue now available to settlement planners in 2016: alternative products (retail annuities, life insurance, managed money); trust company fees or referrals; lien resolution or verification fees or referrals; MSP compliance fees or referrals; attorney fee deferral programs; QSF referrals and administration fees.
• Although one SSP panel, discussing "Comprehensive Settlement Planning", emphasized the importance of "planning before products", another SSP panel spoke specifically about expanding opportunities for alternative (non-traditional structured settlement) settlement planning products: Martha Hunt (equity-indexed annuity riders); John Arendt (reinsurance); James Creel (settlement trusts); Michael Upchurch (rehabilitation facilities); Rick Miller (indexed annuities).
• Consistent with the themes of "diversification" and "changing the conversation", John Darer made a convincing case for "transition expertise" as a critical settlement planning skill.
• What potential professional liability issues accompany plaintiff broker product and service diversification? The SSP conference did not directly address this issue comprehensively.
  • Speaking about "ELNY and Factoring Industry Lawsuits", attorney Edward Stone asserted that the "New Normal" (i.e. personal injury settlement planning) will not work if the core product (i.e. structured settlements) does not work. Focusing specifically on structured settlements, Stone asked whether a broker (plaintiff and/or defendant) owed any duty of care - and to whom? Also whether split commission arrangements changed the analysis? Based upon ELNY, he offered several related lessons for settlement planners.
  • Insurance law expert David Childers provided SSP conference attendees with a traditional analysis of standards of care and duties of care for insurance brokers, agents and producers under Arizona law.

CONCLUSION: Personal injury settlement planning is a large, complex, dynamic marketplace within which structured settlements historically has represented a strategic, if arguably under performing, product. The traditional structured settlement industry has heretofore avoided the educational analysis and strategic association relationships necessary to help its "New Generation" membership successfully transition to the "New Normal". It remains to be seen whether, when and how successfully future industry leadership will figure out how to put old wine in new bottles. Based upon this year's joint SSP/ASNP conference (and mixing metaphors), it appears the "New Normal" train is already leaving the station with a diversified cargo of blended products and services.

For additional S2KM analysis about personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2016 Structures 202 Conference

Hosted earlier this month in Las Vegas for the second consecutive year by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Structures 202 conference represents an important addition to NSSTA's growing educational curriculum and also provides valuable strategic insights into some of the challenges and opportunities currently facing the structured settlement industry.

Primarily targeting "Next Generation" structured settlement participants, Structures 202 offers attendees a day and one half program explaining case management fundamentals and identifying business development opportunities. This educational offering replaces and expands upon NSSTA's previous Structures 101 program which was directed more narrowly toward structured settlement case analysts and administrators.

Most of the following 2016 presentations, and many of the 2016 speakers, replicated NSSTA's inaugural 2015 Structures 202 Conference:

Case Management Fundamentals

• Settlement Documents and Qualified Assignments - Toni Warbington
• Group Exercise - Review and Fixing Settlement Documents
• Payees and Best Practices - Betty Gregware
• Long Term Obligation Risk - Geoff Kissel and Ravi Vaswani
• Workers Compensation Documentation - David Korch
• Medical Underwriting - Ken Kiefer
• Structured Settlement Protection Act Update - Eric Vaughn
• Technology and Productivity - Nolan Robinson
• Post Issuance Services - Harry Coleman; Dan Goodmann; Patrick Kelly
• Resolving "Problem Cases" and Dealing with Foreign Nationals - Daniel Caldwell; Trish Fairhurst; and Amy Sisson
• QSF Best Practices - Christi Fried

Business Development Opportunities

• IRC Section 104(a) Grey Areas - Trish Fairhurst
• Working with Financial Planners - Michael Goodman
• MSA Professional Administration - Joe Anderson and Marques Torbert
• Quoting ACA Plans - Mike Zea

The primary topical differences from NSSTA's 2015 Structures 202 Conference:

• Medical Underwriting - NEW
• Working with Financial Planners - REPLACED "Comprehensive Settlement Designs"
• Special Needs Trusts - DROPPED
• Marketing Plaintiff Attorneys - DROPPED

Former NSSTA Presidents and current NSSTA Directors Mal Deener and Len Blonder also spoke this year about the history of NSSTA and the structured settlement industry. Blonder is scheduled to become NSSTA President for the third time when he succeeds current NSSTA President Michael Goodman in May during the NSSTA 2016 Annual Meeting.

S2KM Comments and Recommendations

Strategic Context for Structures 202

• Growth Initiative - From a strategic perspective, NSSTA's expanded educational program generally, and its Structures 202 program more specifically, can be viewed, and should be considered, as complementary to NSSTA's current "Growth Initiative" - as described in S2KM's review of the NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference. One way to measure growth is annual structured settlement annuity premium - which increased approximately 2% in 2015. Other possible growth measurements: annual increases in NSSTA membership and/or attendance at NSSTA conferences including Structures 202. Approximately 110 NSSTA members attended the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, including approximately 40 life company representatives and 60 broker representatives - compared with approximately 150 attendees in 2015.
• Generational Transition - Recent NSSTA conferences have highlighted the ongoing "Generational Transition" as a primary industry challenge. Related presentations have addressed the need for succession planning and greater diversity. Because Structures 202 targets NSSTA's "Next Generation" structured settlement participants, the following (not necessarily consistent) speaker comments from the NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference seem relevant when evaluating Structures 202:
  • "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve."
  • "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"
  • "A lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."
  • "Nepotism works in the structured settlement industry."
• Industry Unity -During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) expanded their shared educational dialogue. NSSTA and NASP announced a collaborative legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. During the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn reported continuing state legislative progress in Florida, among other states. These actions help mitigate the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense structured settlement brokers, as well as the primary and secondary markets, and also has arguably hurt the structured settlement industry and limited primary market growth.
• Special Needs and Personal Injury Settlement Planning - Despite its strong public commitment to persons with disabilities, NSSTA has never fully committed itself to analyzing and/or marketing its structured settlement annuity product within the larger and more complex special needs planning and personal injury settlement planning markets. Among other results, and despite shared interests, limited collaborative membership and/or educational/lobbying interaction currently exists between NSSTA and professional associations such as the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), the Special Needs Alliance (SNA), the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) or the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP).

Case Management Curriculum

• With two exceptions, all of this year's Case Management presentations repeated presentations made at the inaugural 2015 NSSTA Structures 202 Conference - although some of the speakers were different. The two exceptions: 1) the Medical Underwriting presentation was new; 2) the Structured Settlement Protection Act Update replaced last year's Structured Settlement Litigation and Factoring Issues.
• Overall, these presentations were excellent and represent NSSTA and structured settlement industry core competencies and best practices. The issues for NSSTA are: 1) whether repeating core elements of Structures 202 will attract new and/or repeat attendees - especially given NSSTA's decision to prospectively feature some Structures 202 presentations on its website; 2) what additional case management fundamentals, if any, should Structures 202 address; and/or 3) should NSSTA rotate and spend more time on fewer issues annually. For example, although the Group Exercise (Review and Fixing Settlement Documents) represented an excellent program feature it would have benefited from more allocated time.
• Additional observations: the selected case management topics 1) omitted key issues that would interest "Next Generation" structured settlement participants such as "needs analysis" and factoring; 2) were not presented sequentially as they actually occur in case management; and 3) could be improved from a learning perspective with the addition of one or more visual maps - process maps, concept maps, etc.

Business Development Curriculum

• Structures 202 evolved from Structures 101 which focused exclusively on case management issues. As one result, the Structures 202 Business Development presentations are less well-defined and/or developed.
• To date, for example, NSSTA's Structures 202 Business Development curriculum has not provided "New Generation" attendees with any overview of the current or potential structured settlement market.
• Among other objectives, such an overview could: 1) identify important structured settlement submarkets; 2) highlight current NSSTA "Growth Initiative" priorities; 3) discuss business opportunities and challenges created by recent legislation; 4) analyze the personal injury settlement planning market; and 5) promote the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product within the personal injury settlement planning market.

Structures 202 and Industry Growth

• NSSTA's Structures 202 already represents an important component of a developing educational curriculum for structured settlement and personal injury settlement professionals. To help generate industry growth, NSSTA should consider marketing Structures 202 beyond current NSSTA members to include: 1) prospective NSSTA members and potential "Next Generation" structured settlement participants; 2) non-NSSTA personal injury settlement planning professionals interested in learning more about NSSTA and structured settlements.
• Otherwise, assuming NSSTA: 1) continues to repeat annually core elements of its Structures 202 curriculum; and 2) continues to restrict attendance to current NSSTA members; Structures 202 will likely (inevitably) have a declining audience - unless NSSTA has an alternative or complementary strategy for increasing its membership.
• As one alternative, NSSTA could simply open Structures 202 to non-NSSTA members (targeting, for example: financial planners, special needs attorneys, life care planners; annuity providers; trust companies) who, if sufficiently interested, could then apply for NSSTA membership. One negative political consideration for NSSTA with open attendance might be an anticipated and unwanted flood of secondary market attendees.
• As an alternative, NSSTA could open Structures 202 attendance selectively to members of other specific professional associations whose members engage in personal injury settlement planning - and/or invite those professional associations to serve as one-time co-sponsors. Among the advantages of this alternative: it would encourage NSSTA and the Structures 202 program to analyze how structured settlement professionals and their work product increasingly interact with other settlement planning professionals and their work product. Two of this year's Structures 202 Business Development presentations ("Working with Financial Planners" and "MSA Professional Administration") addressed these types of evolving professional interaction issues and opportunities.
• During various stages of its history NSSTA has selectively "vetted" various types of professionals and product providers, thereby preventing them from joining NSSTA and/or attending its educational programs. Opening Structures 202 attendance to a broader audience could help NSSTA diversify its institutional thinking as well as expand the structured settlement market.

For S2KM reports of prior educational conferences sponsored by NSSTA and other professional associations whose members participate in personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki .

University of Texas 2016 SNT Conference

Perhaps less well known nationally than the Stetson Law School Special Needs Trust (SNT) Conference, the annual SNT conference presented by the University of Texas (UT) Law School represents a unique and complementary program that more structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning professionals should consider as an educational priority.

Attended by attorneys, financial advisors, trust officers, government agency representatives and care managers, the 12th Annual UT SNT program not only offered an outstanding faculty and comprehensive resource materials, it also integrated federal and Texas state-specific considerations (laws; regulations; current issues and trends; case examples; strategies; best practices) into a detailed learning mosaic that other national (non-state specific) special needs programs are unable to replicate.

Even for attendees venued outside of Texas, however, this integrated federal/state educational perspective provided a valuable analysis of the challenges and alternatives created by the interaction of the multiple sources of ever-changing special needs laws and regulations which sometimes conflict and often are subject to inconsistent administrative rulings.

Kudos to conference co-chairs, Patricia Sitchler and Renee Lovelace, as well as the entire conference faculty. Given the complicated scope and objectives of the UT SNT program, the resulting synthesis could easily have resulted in confusion. Instead, the 12th annual UT SNT conference served both as an excellent updated guidebook for Texas special needs professionals and as a potential model for other state special needs educational institutions and practitioners.

Topics and Speakers

• How to Make a Special Needs Trust - Craig Reaves
• Maximizing Public Benefits - H. Clyde Farrell and Christina Lesher
• Case Law Update - Rebecca Morgan and Elisa Dillard Rainey
• Medicaid Planning for Kids - Christina Lesher
• Texas Health and Human Services Commission Update - Shari Nichols
• Accessible, Available and Affordable Healthcare Resources - Leah Cohen; Anna Marie Mendez; Tresi Moore Weeks
• Working with SSA and the Trust Reviewer Teams - Pi-Yi Mayo (Moderator); Amanda Flood; Dana Marquez
• SNTs and the New SSA Trust Review Procedures - Neal Winston
• The New Texas Supported Decision-Making Agreement Act - Tresi Moore Weeks and Renee Lovelace
• Texas Legislative Update - Craig Hopper
• SNTs and Tax Planning - Bradley Frigon
• IRAs and SNTs - Renee Lovelace
• The Texas ABLE Act - Stephen Dale and Chris Masey
• Veterans Benefits and SNTs - Hon. Robert Davis
• Getting Families to Spend More Time Planning Ahead - Stephen Dale (Moderator); Matthews Badders; H. Clyde Farrell; Nancy Sosa; Scott Stebler
• Paying Caregivers - Katherine Barr; Scott Stebler
• The Role of SNT Attorneys in Personal Injury Settlement Planning - Patricia Flora Sitchler
• Ethical Issues in SNT Planning - Mary Alice Jackson

S2KM Comments About Selected Issues and Presentations

• UT SNT Conference Resources - As stated above, the conference handout materials (1481 pages of conference-specific legal papers and power points, plus sample forms, drafting tips, and other resources) provide valuable and recommended reference and learning resources. These materials are available for purchase in multiple formats on the UT CLE website.
• SNT Professional Education Resources - The number and quality of educational resources available for special needs professionals continues to increase and improve. In addition to the UT SNT conference, S2KM has attended and reviewed the most recent related conferences sponsored by Stetson, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA ) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP ). ASNP has also sponsored a series of special needs planning webinars. Hal Wright's book: "The Complete Guide to Creating a Special Needs Life Care Plan" represents another valuable resource. Wright, a certified financial planner who focused much of his career on special needs clients, recommends and explains "a comprehensive approach integrating life, resource, financial, and legal planning to ensure a brighter future for a person with a disability."
• Personal Injury Settlement Planning - As S2KM has discussed in numerous blog posts (example), personal injury settlement planning represents a strategic, underdeveloped market for both structured settlement and special needs professionals. UT SNT Conference co-Chair Patricia Sitchler's presentation in Austin (see above) highlighted these opportunities for SNT attorneys. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have taken recent steps to expand their collaboration with special needs attorneys. NSSTA has appointed a Special Needs Trust Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorneys and also featured Sitchler as a speaker at NSSTA's 2015 Fall Conference. SSP's 2016 Annual Conference (March 10-12 in Tucson, Arizona) will include a joint session and social event with ASNP which recently hosted its own settlement planning webinar series.
• Supported Decision-Making - Effective Sept. 1, 2015,Texas became the first state to recognize supported decision-making agreements as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship. As defined under Texas' new law, a supported decision-making agreement is an alternative to guardianship for an adult with a disability who may need assistance with making decisions regarding daily living but is not so incapacitated that he or she needs a guardianship. As explained by Tresi Moore Weeks and Renee Lovelace in their UT conference presentation (see above) and accompanying paper, the supported decision-making process "is an outgrowth of person-centered planning" which in turn "is based on the belief that people with disabilities are people first, with their own gifts and contributions. A person-centered plan develops a life plan for the future by focusing on the individual’s preferences and capacities. It provides supports to the individual while giving the individual as much self determination and independence as he or she wants and is able to take on." Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was adopted by the U.N. in 2006 and signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States and signed or ratified by 159 other countries, requires states to "take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity."
• New SSA Trust Review Procedures - As S2KM has previously reported (see: ASNP 2015 Annual Conference and the Stetson 2015 SNT Conference ), the process by which the Social Security Administration (SSA) reviews SNTs has changed dramatically during the past two years as the result of meetings between SSA representatives and advocates who deal with SNT issues. The UT 2016 SNT Conference featured two complementary video presentations explaining the background, processes, status and impact of these changes: 1) Pi-Yi Mayo moderated a discussion with SSA representatives Amanda Flood and Dana Marquez; 2) Neal Winston explained why the problems with inconsistent, erroneous, or vaguely defined SSA SNT decisions occur; reviewed sources of SSA SNT written policy; discussed current SSA SNT policy trends; detailed the new centralized SSA SNT review procedure; and recommended current best practices for communicating with the SSA about SNTs. Both presentations were supported by excellent papers.
• The Texas ABLE Act - Stephen Dale and Chris Masey reported on the Texas ABLE Act under which eligible individuals with disabilities could start an ABLE account, modeled after current Section 529 savings accounts. For additional ABLE Act background, see this S2KM blog post. Their presentations summarized proposed, related IRS regulations as well as new POMS, issued December 21, 2015, in which the SSA explains ABLE accounts and provides instructions for developing and documenting account balances and distributions. In addition, Dale and Masey identified and addressed multiple practical ABLE-related issues to help attendees educate and advise their special needs clients and communities how best and when to utilize this new disability funding option.

For additional S2KM reporting about structured settlements and government benefit issues, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2015 -2

Market Issues and Developments

The 2015 structured settlement marketplace could perhaps best be characterized as "changing the focus of our future" as industry leaders cooperated to create a positive future agenda to overcome, or move beyond, multiple challenges that continued to negatively impact both primary and secondary market performance metrics.

Industry challenges during 2015 included: 1) residual impact of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of low interest rates; 3) unprecedented, negative secondary market publicity; and 4) an ongoing primary market generational transition.

Elements of the future agenda: 1) a shift in the traditional "protect and preserve" focus of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) toward an expanded priority of identifying structured settlement growth opportunities; 2) increasing industry unity evidenced by improved communication and cooperation among NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP); 3) consumer protection amendments to multiple state structured settlement protection statutes; 4) expanding educational offerings with programs that specifically target judges as well as new industry participants; 5) public relations investments to help counteract negative industry publicity; and 6) further development and growth of a professional personal injury settlement planning market.

Primary Market Growth

In a recent S2KM interview, Michael Goodman, current NSSTA President, offered a personal estimate of $8 to $10 billion per year of annuity premium as the potential size of the U.S. structured settlement market.

The U.S. primary structured settlement market, however, has never approached that annual figure and, in fact, has experienced a significant decline since its peak of $6.2 billion in 2008. To better understand and reverse this decline, NSSTA has re-focused its priorities on expanding the use of structured settlements.

As a first step in 2014, in partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provided NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

During 2015 NSSTA organized an "Industry Growth Initiative" to effectuate Goodman's number one priority of "identifying growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry." This Initiative is focusing on three preliminary growth opportunities:

• Rejuvenate defense programs.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA).
• Convertible deferred lump sums.

Goodman has further supported NSSTA's growth priority with these related goals: 1) modifying NSSTA's traditional "protect and preserve" message to inspire primary market growth; 2) moving beyond "interest rate selling"; 3) moving beyond a focus on factoring; 4) identifying and pursuing new markets for structured settlement annuities; 5) adding one or more new life company providers; 6) engaging new, younger structured settlement brokers; 7) providing a new and improved training initiative.

Although NSSTA's renewed focus on industry growth has not yet noticeably improved primary market metrics, an important psychological and organizational foundation has been created which should enhance future performance.

Industry Unity

One significant factor which arguably has hurt the structured settlement industry has been the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets and which has resulted in three professional associations (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) frequently at odds with each other.

In the words of former SSP President Neil Johnson: Lack of structured settlement industry unity has been "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive."

During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP expanded prior educational dialogue which began in 2014 at NSSTA's Fall Educational Conference which served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

SSP's 2015 Annual Conference included an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives of NSSTA and NASP.

During the NASP 2015 Annual Conference , Robin Shapiro moderated an historic "President's Panel" featuring LaBorde and Goodman during which they announced a collaborative NSSTA and NASP legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Personal Injury Settlement Planning

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by many stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Based upon studies by Towers Watson, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of current annual United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represents payments to injury victims and their attorneys compared with a projected $5.4 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation) for 2015.

S2KM has followed the development of personal injury settlement planning during 2015 by reporting on a number of professional conferences peripheral to the traditional structured settlement market:

• Stetson 2015 SNT Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Winter Regional Conference
• SSP 2015 Annual Conference
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
• ASNP 2015 Annual Conference
• NAMSAP 2015 Annual Meeting

As NSSTA continues to evaluate options for growing its market, a new generation of leaders should more carefully analyze how to re-position their product as a fundamental component of post- Affordable Care Act personal injury settlement planning . This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

Secondary Structured Settlement Market

During her association's Annual Conference, NASP President Patricia LaBorde described 2015 as "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges". NASP's "challenges" included:

• Two blistering exposes of "worst case" secondary market business practices which appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post on August 25 and December 27;
• An estimated 7% decline in the number of secondary market transfers compared with 2014;
• A market "leader" (J.G. Wentworth, with an estimated 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market) whose stock price has plummeted to $1.82 per share as of December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014; and
• Judicial decisions such as In re: Rains, a Texas case enforcing a statutory "no-split" payment provision and establishing a new and extensive "best interest" precedent.

The successes included the proactive and collaborative legislative strategy developed by NASP and NSSTA to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. The first success resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute which LaBorde characterized as NASP's "biggest victory since the Model Act", because it overturned the result of the Brenston case and re-opened the Illinois secondary market,

Also during the NASP conference, Goodman and LaBorde jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

During his subsequent "Legislative Report", NASP Lobbyist Jack Kelly identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve structured settlement consumer protection.

Continuing its priority of interactive judicial education about the structured settlement transfer process, NASP's 2015 Annual Conference again featured a judicial panel addressing such topics as:

• Interpreting the best interest standard;
• Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers;
• How to best present a transfer;
• How judges consider objections to transfers;
• What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings;
• How to best protect the seller's privacy;
• Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;
• Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge's analysis;
• Impact of prior transfers on assessments.

NSSTA has likewise initiated its own judicial education program about structured settlement transfers.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement market metrics, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements 2015 - 1

Market Metrics

Although its new "Growth Initiative" has represented a well-publicized, number one priority of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) during 2015, the results of this initiative have not yet produced a noteworthy impact on structured settlement annuity sales.

As reported by Melissa Evola Price, the United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2015 with first nine months annuity sales of $3.96 billion resulting from 18,635 cases - a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.86 billion resulting from 19,778 cases for the same period in 2014. The average per case annuity premium has increased to $212,703 from $195,305.

Based upon these results, 2015 annual structured settlement annuity sales can be expected to approximate $5.4 billion. The projected 2015 annual premium totals, however, will still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Recent Annual Structured Settlement Annuity Premium

• 2015 (third quarter) - $3.96 billion
• 2014 - $5.25 billion
• 2013 - $5.13 billion
• 2012 - $4.82 billion
• 2011 - $4.97 billion
• 2010 - $5.5 billion
• 2009 - $5.4 billion
• 2008 - $6.2 billion

Adding the 2015 Third Quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2015:

• Total annuity premium: $148.7 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 847,200
• Average annuity premium: $175,600.

Nine month 2015 sales results (in millions) for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Price's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2014 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway: $974 MM (-12%)
• Pacific Life: $642 MM (+16%)
• MetLife: $592 MM (-13%)
• Prudential: $563 MM (+22%)
• Liberty Life: $422 MM (-2%)
• Amgen: $408 MM (+8%)
• New York Life: $298 MM (+45%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $65 MM (+63%)

Low Interest Rates

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):

• 2015 (as of December 28) - 2.95%
• 2014 - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Multiple noteworthy submarkets, each with significant structured settlement growth potential, are incorporated within the annuity production numbers set forth above. With the exception of non-qualified assignments funded with life insurance annuities sold by NSSTA members, S2KM is not aware of published metrics for these submarkets.

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. They are generally used to defer taxable damage awards such as punitive damages as well as contingent attorney fees. Because they do not benefit from the favorable tax treatment of IRC 130, most non-qualified assignees are "off-shore" companies located in jurisdictions which do not tax the funds received by the assignee as income.
  • Two NSSTA-member annuity providers (Liberty Life and American General) currently offer and separately report non-qualified sales
  • Reported nine month 2015 non-qualified structured settlement sales by Liberty and Amgen totaled $159.0 million compared with $113.2 million in 2014 - a substantial increase which does not include non-qualified sales by a growing number of non-NSSTA member companies.
  • Release 58 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) features an expanded analysis of the non-qualified market.
• Medicare Set-Asides
  • A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
  • Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
  • Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
  • Although industry reporting does not currently separate MSA annuity sales, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs.
  • Although no specific CMS rules or requirements currently exist for liability MSAs, one professional MSA administrator has informed S2KM that liability MSAs now represent 30% of his company's cases and the percent is growing.
• Special Needs Trusts
  • Established by Congress in 1993 as part of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) provide an authorized method for disabled individuals to hold an unlimited amount of assets in trust without disqualification for certain means-tested government benefits including Social Security Income and Medicaid.
  • When utilized as part of a personal injury settlement, SNTs are frequently funded with structured settlement annuities.
  • Similar to MSAs, industry reporting does not currently separately report SNT annuity sales.
  • Although an important strategic relationship clearly exists between structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys, neither professional community have fully embraced the other for reasons explained in prior S2kM blog posts.
  • As a result, continuing opportunities exist to expand structured settlements funding of SNTs as well as other government benefit programs promoted by special needs attorneys such as the ABLE Act and the Affordable Care Act.

How large is the potential U.S. annual structured settlement market?

Based on recent Towers Watson studies, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys during 2014. Within that framework, and in the context of an S2KM interview, NSSTA President Michael Goodman recently stated his own estimate of potential market size for the structured settlement industry to be $8 to $10 billion range per year.

Secondary Market

Unlike the primary structured settlement market, which has experienced modest annual sales increases since 2012, the secondary market appears to have regressed according to industry experts. As a point of reference, based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market activity to be:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.

Following zero (0%) percent growth in 2013, the number of secondary market transfers appears to have declined as much as 15% during 2014 with another decrease of as much as 7% predicted in 2015, according to various industry sources.

This decline in secondary market transfers received further confirmation from:

• An exhibit to J.G. Wentworth's December 10, 2015 SEC Form 8-K which indicates a $48 million drop in structured settlement revenue for the first three quarters of 2015 compared with the same 2014 period ($764MM vs. $812 MM).
• J.G. Wentworth's current stock price - which closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $1.82 per share on December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014.

Industry experts estimate J.G. Wentworth currently controls between 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.

Based upon the 2013-2015 transfer estimates indicated above, S2KM further updates its estimates of historic (1986-2015) structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• 168,000 transfers - involving 84,000 structured settlement recipients.
• $5 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients.
• $12.9 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement issues and developments, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Surveys - 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), in partnership with CLM Advisors, has recently completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provide NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

Complementing NSSTA's surveys, NSSTA member and structured settlement provider Prudential recently published the results of its own 2013 survey of 400 claimants who had entered into a settlement of a physical injury or workers’ compensation claim of at least $100,000 from 2003 to 2013.

Considered together, these four surveys provide valuable insights into how key stakeholders currently view the structured settlement market. They also provide a point of reference for, and comparison with, other structured settlement market surveys several of which have been completed or updated since S2KM published this previous blog post in November 2008.

What follows are brief summaries of prior structured settlement surveys. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review and evaluate the most recent NSSTA and Prudential surveys.

• NSSTA 2006: Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys and Structured Settlement Recipients - This NSSTA-sponsored survey was titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association" and was directed by Robert E. Hoyt, the Dudley L. Moore, Jr. Chair of Insurance at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. It consisted of attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys). Among the reported results:
  • Only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $100,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million included structured settlements.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?" , surveyed attorneys responded: trust company/department - 30%; Financial planner - 28%; Structured settlement consultant - 23%; No response - 19%.
• American General 2007: Survey about Structured Settlement Public Awareness - Sponsored by AIG American General and conducted by Esearch.com, Inc. in September 2007, this survey included 1000 U.S. participants - 80% had no connection with any personal injury case; 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Respondents who had no connection to a personal injury case were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios and answer questions on how they would react.Those with a direct connection to a personal injury case were not only asked to read the hypothetical scenarios, but also to answer questions based upon their real life experience. AIG's conclusion: the structured settlement industry needs to better educate Americans about structured settlements.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008: Survey of Structured Settlement Recipients - The survey consisted of 115 structured settlement recipients who had previously sold payment rights to J.G. Wentworth. The survey questions addressed both primary and secondary market issues, focusing upon the reasons the respondents: 1) first agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) then subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's primary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's secondary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here.
• Jeremy Babener 2009: Dissipation Legal Research Paper - Titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements," this paper examines and challenges the myth of the squandering injury victim. In it, Babener refutes the existence of any published study supporting the statistic that "90% of lump sum recipients dissipate their recoveries within five years" and identifies 12 existing dissipation studies relevant to structured settlements that reach a contradictory conclusion: injury victims have no greater propensity to dissipate money than non-injury victims.
• Towers Watson 2011: "Update of U.S. Tort Cost Trends" - The 2011 update represents the 15th study of U.S. tort costs, and the most recently published, by Towers Watson. Note: a Tower Watson representative has informed S2KM it has no current plans to publish further updates. The 2011 study reported $264.6 billion of 2010 U.S. tort costs and excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs. Tower Watson's 2002 study had previously translated overall tort costs in 2001 into these additional cost categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs - 21%; 2) defense costs - 14%; 3) plaintiff attorneys -19%; 4) economic loss - 22%; and 5) non-economic loss - 24%. Based on the 2011 study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM has estimated that since 2011 more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.
• Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) 2011: "National Litigation Management Study" - This survey of litigation management executives analyzed 30 litigation-related service areas including structured settlements. Commissioned by CLM (formerly the Council on Litigation Management ) and conducted by Revere Advisory, it identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives. CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
• Daniel Durbin 2013: Survey of Structured Settlement Brokers - Durbin, a former NSSTA President and Senior Structured Settlement Sales Manager with Allstate Life, conducted an informal survey with a group of leading structured settlement brokers to obtain their input and evaluate their interest in representing a potential new structured settlement product provider. Durbin identified himself as part of an investor group of individuals including insurance executives who see underdeveloped opportunities in the structured settlement primary market. Although Durbin has not published the results of his survey, he has presented to several industry groups and stated that the survey showed the interest is high as long as the new firm is financially strong with competitive rates.
• Melissa Evola Price 2002-2015: Quarterly Reports of NSSTA Member Structured Settlement Annuity Provider Sales - Melissa Evola Price's quarterly structured settlement report, selectively distributed to NSSTA members, is now copyrighted by her company, Structured Financial Associates, Inc. (SFA). Price and SFA have granted S2KM permission to publish selected portions of her report on both S2KM's blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and the structured settlement wiki. Her reports include historical data from 1975-2001 which is sourced with permission from "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).  Evola Price most recently reported 2015 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,332,047,252, an increase of more than $230 million (21%) compared with the 2014 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,101,839,529.