Small, well-funded states show potential for stricter regulatory oversight

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.

Previously, a comparison of regulatory personnel to the number of insurers showed that certain large states had resources for stricter oversight.

By another comparison, the percentage of premiums matching the budget of the states' regulators, smaller states show even greater effectiveness. Smaller states including Alabama and Alaska ranked even higher, and some large states, including Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, were at the bottom. 

Alabama's adoption of the IBHS Fortified Homes program benefitted that state's insurance market, as the state's former insurance commissioner, Jim Ridling, stated in a May 2025 press release. Alaska reduced its insurance premiums by 4% in 2017 through a reinsurance waiver program, contributing to its top five ratio in this comparison. The states in the bottom five of the comparison generally have pro-business regulatory philosophies, especially Delaware.