Florida insurance regulators question oversight by office run by newly elected U.S. rep
In an extraordinary criticism of one state agency by another, Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation told legislators that a department led by then-Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis may have buried thousands of complaints Floridians made against property insurance companies.
Patronis' office referred 5.2% of the property insurance complaints it received over a five-year period to regulators for possible violations of state law, indicating 'potential underreporting,' Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation wrote in newly disclosed memos obtained by the Herald/Times.
That low referral rate made it harder for regulators to police the industry, the memos said. Consumers lodged more than 52,000 complaints against property insurers during the period.
The memos, given to legislative leaders, were produced as part of a tug-of-war between two agencies and a bid to consolidate insurance oversight under one roof. Florida is the only state that splits insurance regulation between two agencies.
The consolidation push began before this year's legislative session and after Patronis announced he was leaving to run for Congress. He won a special election to the Panhandle seat Tuesday after serving seven years as CFO.
'This bifurcation has hindered the state's ability to adequately protect consumers,' one of the memos states.
The memos questioned the training of Patronis' employees, said that his office was missing complaints against pharmacy benefit managers and argued that consolidation would allow the state to better police insurers' use of affiliate companies.
House and Senate leaders haven't endorsed the idea of consolidating insurance oversight, and it's not in legislation introduced this session. Spokespeople for House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, and Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, said they were open to the idea, however.
On one side is the Office of Insurance Regulation. It handles insurers' rate filings, polices their conduct and determines when companies are insolvent. It's led by the state's insurance commissioner, Mike Yaworsky, who is appointed by the governor and Cabinet.
On the other side is the Department of Financial Services. It oversees consumer insurance complaints, regulates insurance agents and takes over insolvent insurers. It's usually led by the elected chief financial officer, but that position is now vacant.
The split dates to 2003, and it has rankled insurance commissioners ever since.
Yaworsky for one is open to reform. He said he wanted 'a vigorous defense of consumers when they're approaching their state with an insurance problem.'
'I'm hoping that if there is discussion around this, whatever the outcome is, it leads to a really robust framework around ensuring that consumers are protected,' Yaworsky told the Herald/Times.
Yaworsky spelled out in the memos the downsides of splitting regulation, saying his office can see what insurers are doing but often doesn't hear about consumer complaints.
'It has hindered the state's ability to evaluate and regulate the entire insurance market,' the memos state.
Yaworsky has stepped up enforcement of the industry since DeSantis nominated him for the job in 2023. He's ordered insurers to stop gaming their rate increase requests to avoid public hearings, stopped them from hiring executives of failed companies and asked lawmakers for more enforcement powers.
Yaworsky's memos questioned the quality of the complaints his office was being sent by the Department of Financial Services.
The department is supposed to send complaints where companies might have violated state law. But of the complaints Yaworsky's office received, nearly half didn't name any violations, the memos said.
Such a low rate was a 'likely indicator' that staff in Patronis' office is 'not adequately trained to identify violations,' the memos state.
The 'issue is made even more stark,' the memos state, when looking at complaints pharmacists have made about pharmacy benefit managers, health care middlemen that have been blamed for skyrocketing drug prices.
In 2024, pharmacists made 142 complaints to Patronis' department about pharmacy benefit managers. The department closed 34 and referred 11 to the Office of Insurance Regulation. It's not clear what happened with the rest. Meanwhile, the memos asserted, the department wasn't capturing complaints made by patients because the department wasn't coding them properly.
Consolidating regulation would also give the Office of Insurance Regulation more oversight of insurers' affiliate companies, the office wrote. A 2022 analysis produced by the office and revealed by the Herald/Times last month found that insurance companies claimed to lose money between 2017 and 2019 while their affiliates made billions.
The Department of Financial Services did not respond to questions by the Herald/Times about the memos.
One reason why so few complaints are being forwarded to the Office of Insurance Regulation could be because Patronis' department doesn't investigate complaints if the homeowner has also sued their insurer. That fact isn't mentioned in the office's memos.
Patronis historically took a light touch to the insurance industry.
He did not come out in favor of Yaworsky fining an insurance company $1 million for Hurricane Ian violations last year. Patronis also pushed to seal records that would shed light about why insurance companies go out of business.
His office was supposed to investigate claims by insurance adjusters who said the companies they worked for manipulated their estimates to lowball homeowners. But Patronis' office never brought charges against the companies and never released the records about his office's investigations.
Two Republican state senators vying to replace Patronis said they saw the memos but had different conclusions.
Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, called the lack of information-sharing 'very concerning.'
'By withholding some of that information, we're not doing what we are probably supposed to be doing,' he said. 'It's a disservice to the people who are making those complaints.'
Ingoglia said he didn't know enough to say whether insurance regulation should be consolidated.
Sen. Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, said he spoke to Patronis about the idea, who 'thought it was a mistake, really, on numerous fronts.'
He said splitting regulation resulted in a 'checks and balances' of oversight.
He said the Office of Insurance Regulation was making a 'power move' by trying to assume control. He said the office already had access to the state's complaint data. (Yaworsky said the data is 'problematic' and makes it 'difficult' for his office to find violations of law.)
If anything, insurance regulation should be solely under the elected chief financial officer so 'that person can be held accountable,' Gruters said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills," Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm." The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper, after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report.

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @