Connecticut continues to fashion itself as the nation’s insurance leader, but more frequently it finds itself tracing the footsteps of a newer player for insurance jobs: Iowa.
Having attracted jobs from Connecticut and the Northeast in recent years, the Hawkeye State received more than a handful of references last week when local insurance workers, including Aetna CEO Ronald A. Williams, piled into the legislative office building to press the General Assembly for a more friendly business climate.
They arrived at the behest of a consortium of companies, termed “Insure Connecticut’s Future,” that formed last year. A study commissioned by the group shows that the industry provides 67,000 jobs in the state (or 3.6 percent of all U.S. insurance employment) and contributed more than $500 million in tax revenue in 2005.
“What are we doing to keep Connecticut competitive?” Williams asked.
In terms of retaining jobs, he reminded legislators of one of the key principals of the business.
“You always know that the very best customers you can have are the ones you have today,” he said.
Aggressive Competitor
Perhaps not coincidentally, a similar consortium in Iowa – led by the Federation of Iowa Insurers – released their own report three months ago. That report showed that Iowa’s insurance industry now has 1.6 percent of all U.S. insurance jobs and generates $309 million in annual tax revenue.
But while lawmakers and headlines in Iowa applaud the growth of the industry there, their Connecticut counterparts warn that the birthplace of The Hartford, Aetna and others is slipping from its perch.
“We can no longer take for granted that we’ll always have insurance here,” said economist Jeffrey Blodgett, of the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, author of the study.
Legislators pledged to consider the needs of the industry as they consider plans to insure a greater number of Connecticut’s residents.
“I just cringe when someone uses the word ‘mandate’ because of the connotation,” said Sen. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge), co-chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, referring to the growing number of state- required offerings of health plans.
Nonetheless Crisco, along with other Senate Democrats, has suggested an expanded version of Medicare that would necessitate expanded coverage from insurers. One provision, for instance, would raise the age of coverage for dependent children to 26, from 19 or 23 for full-time students.
“We are cognizant that we don’t want to throw the customer under the bus,” Crisco explained.
