openIDL Navigation

Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Antitrust Policy

Attendees

  • Sean Bohan (openIDL)
  • Joan Zerkovich (AAIS)
  • Ken Sayers (AAIS)
  • Eric Lowe (VA)
  • Nathan Southern (openIDL)
  • Jeff Braswell (openIDL)_
  • Satish Kasala (The Hartford)
  • David Reale (Travelers)
  • Brian Hoffman (Travelers)
  • Greg Williams (AAIS)
  • Peter Antley (AAIS)
  • Rajesh Sanjeevi (Chainyard)

Agenda:

  1. Architecture WG Harmonized Data Store Task Force
  1. openIDL - Architecture - Member Requirements Files
  2. Regulatory Reporting Requirements from Dale H (Travelers)
  3. Requirements Table


TimeItemWhoNotes




Action items

Notes: 

  • JeffB
  • DaleH's document
  • great input on aspects of arch requirements
  • High level way of looking at the work that might be going forward
  • Trad process: network stack, 1 party talking to another at different levels
  • division between parties
  • division between horizons (business and data)
  • below the line - infrastructure implementing this
  • definitions and stipulations (matrix)
  • looking at requirements on the contributing side
  • carrier node
  • influence, impact on lower levels
  • take a look, great contribution
  • when Dale discussed last week, concept of granting consent to a data call
  • orchestrated workflow transactions
  • might be over the course of days
  • data call req announced, on carrier side can it be provided, consent, other data? in aggregate not just one carriers business dominating the data
  • business orchestration transacting at app level
  • impact on how we implement in fabric
  • good example, kind of req that will impact arch
  • making sure on this call, work contributed
  • KenS
  • worth going thru it
  • give folks a sense of what was contributed, see the value of it, restate what is not clear
  • can walk thru it
  • Dale - organized it - what are the diff things that need to happen for stat reporting on openIDL
  • Reading column D
  • D4
  • DavidR - transactions will be determined by source system
  • any changes to this source will be reflected in HDS
  • Ken - can we clarify it? 
  • Satish - are we saying HDS will maintain time series on the policy AND the claim?
  • Ken - yes, changes as they happen based on what source system says
  • diff - if there is an error moving from source system to HDS, will not correct errors will replace (no onset-offset)
  • Satish - only incremental or delta change?
  • Ken - cant do snapshots, don't know what time period request is asked for
  • need history as unfolded
  • Satish - snapshot - point in time of a policy, if you take a point in time copy of the policy at 3pm on 5/23, take a copy of that same policy tomorrow there could be changes in between, question - are we capturing just changes or complete copy
  • Jeff - data submitted in format of the data standard reqs, would reflect things that have and haven't changed - record format
  • Ken -snapshot on pull, source data must have every possible snapshot, doesn't keep at snapshot
  • David - HDS will be accurate rep of source systems in correct format at any time
  • not incremental
  • will look at entirety of period of relevance
  • David - req captures that "these will be the records"
  • Ken - policy and loss transactions
  • D5 - data freshness
  • D6 - 5 prior years + current in HDS
  • Peter - strawman - need a decision on how long we retain data
  • Ken
  • D7 - data in the HDS will remain within 5% error tolerance per line and state based on openIDL edit package
  • what? Data requested, data loaded? do we need to reevaluate every time we load data?
  • Peter - would like someone to correct - NAIC handbook talking annual reporting
  • Ken - constraining ourselves to annual reporting
  • Jeff - mark for clarification from dale
  • Brian - 5% consistent with AAIS stat plan
  • Ken - we do it on load, 
  • Peter - individual load
  • Ken - unclear of math / thresholds
  • Jeff - biz requirement for arch
  • D8 - access is permissioned
  • Jeff - diff categories
  • David - what Dale wants, any new use is consented to on a use by use basis
  • if there for stat reporting, data not accessible without specific approval
  • Ken
  • permission on extraction
  • David - you could be permissioned party for one use (annual report) not permissioned to pull data for another purposed - granular permission based on use
  • Ken - use = extraction
  • ask for another extraction
  • Jeff - for the staged data, in extract data - single defined use - once you have the data cant use for another purpose (Column F ROW 2)
  • David - nuance - cant extract data, you can only use for cert purpose - yes - use must be approved
  • Satish - internal access? d0 we need to worry about internal access, from a carrier standpoint
  • if you put data into HDS - can we see who put data into HDS from carrier standpoint
  • Jeff - carrier would approve requests
  • Ken - out of openIDL's hands - you own HDS< you control however you want
  • David - HDS is carrier-owned asset they do with as they see fit
  • Ken 
  • E2 - DATA shall be aggregated during extraction, E3 anonymized
  • these two cells are related
  • should we change from during?
  • aggregated ON analytics node
  • Jeff - not every detailed record supplied, some form as part of extraction query
  • David - instead of on extraction - raw data doesn't leave carrier node in its raw form
  • maybe cleaner to write - raw data doesn't leave carrier node
  • Satish - original intent of request data, add requirements: consent, when, time period valid
  • data shall be aggregated should be moved to extract
  • David - columns are confusing stuff
  • Ken - ignore columns for now
  • David - raw data (no extraction pattern that pulls all data out)
  • Carrier node to analytics node
  • Ken
  • E3 - anonymization happens on analytics node
  • Jeff - does this also mean some of it does get transmitted for specific policies without unique identifiers
  • David - where this goes - defining how specific extract patterns might behave
  • don't want a lump travelers dataset sitting on analytics node indefinitely
  • if pulled for purpose - would like to occur immediately, not stored as Travelers data in perpetuity
  • Ken - carrier is the identifier
  • Satish - not about PII but just carrier
  • data source shall be anonymized
  • David - PII should not be stored, etc. 
  • Eric - one of the things, having DL #s in HDS, VA wont get it but if not in the store - other things for useful research doesn't happen
  • PII in and of itself
  • Ken - DURING extraction
  • Eric - not give me permission to get it
  • confusing data request from smart contract that gives me permission 
  • Satish - clarification
  • anonymized
  • do we ever need to know from RR standpoint that this data is from Hartford, Travelers?
  • Eric - either a data call or building HDS and go into other areas, if I call a market conduct of Hartford for this year send me all your info on your policies, you may pull from HDS
  • smart contract negotiated - here is the data you have permission to pull it in this form
  • option there going forward
  • not limiting to what we see today but could happen in the future
  • Jeff - stat report does not need to ID, in aggregate
  • Eric - now stat rep, could be used for other reporting requirements, devil in this detail is the extraction
  • David - lot of reqs driven by extraction pattern
  • is EP says "combine x carriers by y carriers" will be stored that way
  • specific use cases will define that
  • concerned - storage of data will be determined by extraction pattern terms
  • Eric - right now only for member companies, and right now AAIS gets it not totally anonymized
  • you don't give me who carrier is, but AAIS has defined business need
  • Jeff - combined at service but not available or reported
  • Eric - AAIS not get or not reported (have it not reported)
  • David - making sure data used for what it was requested for
  • Eric -c ant envision every use case but if we have raw data and extraction patterns, no free reign for me (or other regulations)
  • David - if intended data call says "all data aggregated with other carriers, noting from AAIS 
  • would have to approve at the time
  • Eric - group needs to figure out min # of carriers to prevent regulators from de-identify who submitted it
  • Ken - E4 - only aggregated and anonymous shall move past analytics node
  • E5 no PII data transmitted beyond private analytics node
  • Satish - do we ever need PII data published in stat reporting?
  • other reporting?
  • BrianH - not as part of stat reporting
  • Satish - other data calls?
  • Jeff - don't need actual PII
  • David - one of the cores - if there is every a use case requiring PII, would want connection to be made prior to transfer out
  • major benefits of this topology
  • doesn't leave carrier node
  • GDPR, CCPA makes it messy if it ever leaves
  • Ken - didn't quite match 
  • could leave the carrier and be used for reporting but it never leaves analytics node
  • David - major Arch req, in former design had to, this winter thought maybe we move it into the carrier node
  • imp requirement - where is that line
  • Jeff - req still stands
  • not analytics node and not carrier
  • Satish - example - age range of drive, sometimes requested, individual elements like date range - is that PII
  • David - fact aggregated would obscure identifying things
  • game is messy to play
  • Ken - how do we from openIDL perspective meet this req
  • Carriers not framework
  • David - messy, say there is a req to put some sort of info considered PII in HDS, obfuscated and de-identified by extraction pattern, would set rule EP do not hold PII - nonfunctional req, needs to exist
  • based on some use cases, will be necessity
  • thinking
  • Satish - in some cases, one of more PII elements, even if not contribute to constructing full ID of a person
  • Jeff - what constitutes PII?
  • David - safeguard req - PII doesn't leave carrier node (for now)
  • Jeff - simplest approach
  • most systems have the audit trail for this kind of data, don't want to create compliance problems
  • David - ideally, don't wand PII in HDS to begin with, some abstraction preferable
  • Travelers haven't considered all components of PII in HDS
  • E6 - timeframes for aggregation need to be defined (when recorded, when extracted,)
  • Jeff - full month?
  • Ken - could be a day - need to know when
  • Satish - start and end data mandatory as part of extraction pattern?
  • Ken - are they all?
  • David - getting into new realm of reqs here about extraction pattern requirements
  • maybe higher level - extraction patterns shall have relevant parameters clearly defined - point to extract pattern document
  • own thing, decouple EP reqs from overall requirements
  • Jeff - int in active policies, but may reach back to prior years
  • Ken - data calls tell you what you are asking for
  • David - defined as its own document
  • this should point to that
  • E7 attributes used in aggregation shall be identified
  • E8 logic for extracting data shall be defined
  • E9 Calculations to be used for aggregation, analysis, reporting shall be defined
  • E10 Specific use of info shall be defined
  • Ken - when you create data call - what and why you want data
  • David - define requirements of a data call (inc reason for it)
  • reason sep - VERY granular - as to what those requirements could be
  • data, retention policies, could get long
  • concerned about data call and the EP is the implementation of data call reqs
  • E11 permitted accessors to the info and users of the data shall be defined
  • Ken - is there anything technical we expect to do to constrain
  • Satish - do we need governance "I will used this data for this purpose"
  • David - might be tech or governance - hold as req and progress which one it is
  • Satish - part of the color coding?
  • Ken part of the data call
  • E12 proportion of carrier info to be used
  • Ken - thing that kicked off what Jeff mentioned
  • "I consented to it" but if you don't get 3 other carriers I don't consent
  • if then - 2 phase
  • David - starting to get into actual contracts and agreements
  • language that needs to be agreed upon
  • "use of the data shall conform to agreements"
  • don't know the form of these things
  • Brian - guess on Dales part
  • bit of a swag estimate (25%)
  • Ken put a place where you can say "this call i cant do x $"
  • if you cant meet it, cancel the call
  • Jeff - how would the arch come up with that answer
  • David - messy part, smart contracts can do on the fly, most will be parsing of every call in language
  • looking for req - the use and retention and access of all this data shall conform to the terms and conditions of this data call
  • go back once arch more formalized "do it the way you promised"
  • Ken - written down - spidey sense
  • Jeff - not a smart contract, synchronous transact, 
  • may take longer to decide if some things can be consented to
  • David - smart contract is short hand in my mind for extraction pattern
  • E12 - only auth approvers may commit to a carrier data request
  • ken - for all carriers?
  • David - there needs to be granular permissions for different functions on the platform
  • dont know all those tasks or user types
  • need ability to have granular permissions
  • Satish - is this openIDL or carrier can implement they way they feel
  • David - openIDL side on the adapter at the least
  • Ken - interacting with UI and credential, cred associated with roles, when you define creds in openIDL have to roles and perms
  • Satish - should extend into HDS?
  • Ken - federated
  • David
  • Ken takeaway
  • connect and document the flow of a data call maps to things moving around to clarify
  • David - nice if some docs uploaded, NAIC docs  - nice if those could be parsed out as requirements

Recording: 

openIDL_ArchWG_052322_video.mp4





  • No labels