How small state regulators punch above their weight

Some state insurance regulators are tougher than others. The extent of how strict they are depends on their staffing levels, which can be measured in three different ways.

This series shows these three metrics: staff levels compared to the number of insurers in the regulator's state, staff levels compared to the amount of premiums insurers collect in the state, and regulators' budgets compared to premiums collected.

These metrics are based on data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, organized by the Revolving Door Project. The information on regulators is from fiscal year 2024, and the annual premium volumes are from 2022.

Depending on the measurement, larger states (in terms of population, geography or both) only sometimes have the resources for stricter regulation.

Comparing premiums to the number of regulatory staff members, represented by the amount of premiums per staff member, reveals that smaller states may have greater oversight potential if they have better resources for their size. By this measurement, relatively small states such as West Virginia and Vermont rank high, while populous states such as Massachusetts, Minnesota and Arizona rank near the bottom.

Vermont is a central location for captive insurance companies, and this specialty led the state's regulator to devote 32 staff members to it, increasing its size beyond what it might have otherwise been. West Virginia has 241 regulatory staff members, comparable to much larger states such as Illinois (272), Michigan (227) and Pennsylvania (288). On the other hand, the populous states mentioned have fewer staff members — Massachusetts with 103, Minnesota with 95 and Arizona with 88.