About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


23 J. Ins. Regul. [i] (2004-2005)

handle is hein.journals/jloins23 and id is 1 raw text is: Editor's Perspective One of the few perquisites of being the editor of the Journal of Insurance Regulation is that the editor gets to see these articles and the evaluation of these articles before everyone else does. Most submissions go through a blind-review process, which means that the editor solicits outside reviewers to read through the manuscripts to make helpful suggestions or to heap criticism on the authors' work before it can be accepted for publication. The outside reviewers do not know the authors, and the authors do not know the outside reviewers, and that means that the reviewers can be fairly blunt in their observations. Only the editor gets to see both sides, and that means that the editor has to serve as the ultimate referee. While there is often a lot of agreement between the outside reviewers (we usually use at least two), there are often disagreements as well. As the final arbitrator, the editor has to balance all the competing views while upholding the standards of the journal. In the process, the editor gets to see the arguments from all sides, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, this can also add delay to the process when the reviewers are slow to respond. The goal is to turn around reviews as quickly as possible, but that does not always happen. I hope both the reviewers and the authors can be sensitive to the time delays inherent in the process, because the goal is to produce good stuff. This edition of the Journal of Insurance Regulation features several articles on no-fault auto insurance. Interestingly, the submissions all came in independently of one another over a three-month time frame. No-fault auto insurance is like the weather: everyone talks about it, but nobody seems to be able to fix it. What I enjoy about reading these different perspectives on no-fault is not the level of differences, but the degree to which there is agreement about the need to reform the auto liability compensation system if it is to be truly efficient. There have been any number of experiments in the various states, some of which seem to be more successful than others. In this edition, we have diverse experts providing information on why (and why not) these initiatives have worked or not worked. Auto insurance, and particularly no-fault, will continue to be a source of frustration to policymakers. The insights of these authors may help to guide those policymakers as they continue to look for the most efficient way to compensate accident victims. In addition to the three articles on no-fault auto insurance, this edition also features an interesting study of multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs). This is an area that has some overlap between federal and state regulators, and recent legislation has increased the reporting requirements for these entities. This article examines the new reporting requirements and makes a number of suggestions for improvements in that system.