Why flood insurance needs an overhaul: 6 questions answered

Editor’s note: The Trump administration plans to significantly revamp the pricing of flood insurance^[1]. While some homeowners would see their premiums rise, others would benefit from lower rates. We asked an insurance expert to explain what the government program currently works and why it’s in dire need of fixing.

What is flood insurance?

Homeowners’ insurance does not cover damage to a home caused by flooding. A homeowner must have a separate policy to cover flood-related losses, defined as water traveling along or under the ground.

Most such policies are underwritten by the National Flood Insurance Program^[2], which is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The program was established in 1968 to address the lack of availability of flood insurance in the private market and reduce demand for federal disaster assistance. It also contains provisions^[3] intended to reduce flood risk.

The National Flood Insurance Program’s activities are funded largely by the premiums and fees paid by its policyholders, supplemented by a little from the federal budget to help pay for flood risk mapping. Because the program serves the public interest^[4] by promoting “sound land use” and minimizing exposure of property to flood losses, some^[5] believe that more of its funding for flood risk management should be borne by taxpayers.

Homeowners can purchase a federal flood policy directly from the program or through a private insurer. Separately, some private insurers sell their own flood policies on a limited basis for properties that are overcharged by the government’s program.

How many American homeowners have flood insurance?

It is difficult to determine exactly how many homeowners have flood insurance.

The National Flood Insurance Program had just over 5 million policies in force^[7] as of this January. Of these policies, approximately 69 percent were on single-family homes and 20 percent on condo units. There is no source on how many private flood policies are in force, but my sense is that that they represent only about 15 percent of all policies sold nationally.

In recent years, the number of such policies^[8] has been dropping across the country over concerns about the cost and because people underestimate the risk of flooding. In Nebraska, the hardest hit by recent record flooding in the Midwest, there are fewer than 10,000 policies^[9] for a state with almost 2 million residents. The damage is expected to exceed US$1 billion.

Even hurricane-prone areas, such as those hit by Harvey in 2017, are woefully underinsured. In Harris County, which includes Houston, for example, experts estimated^[10] before Harvey that only about 15 percent of homeowners were insured for floods – though the percentage should be higher in areas near coastlines.

Real estate data company CoreLogic^[11] estimated that approximately 75 percent of flood losses from Harvey were uninsured, a figure that totaled about 80 percent for Hurricane Irma.

Why do people at great risk of flooding forgo insurance?

A number of factors^[12] affect a homeowner’s decision to buy flood insurance – or not.

People who perceive that their exposure to floods is high are more likely to buy it, all other things equal. While a mandatory purchase requirement^[13] is intended to force owners of mortgaged homes in areas at high risk of flooding to buy insurance, it’s estimated^[14] that only about half of them do.

One reason might be that 43 percent of homeowners incorrectly believe^[15] that their homeowners’ insurance covers them for flood losses.

Other factors also come into play, such as a lack of information, the difficulty of calculating flood risk and the expectation that the government will provide disaster assistance that will fully cover a homeowner’s uninsured flood losses – which is in fact rarely the case^[16].

What does flood insurance cover?

With a National Flood Insurance Program policy^[18], a homeowner can purchase coverage on a dwelling up to $250,000 and the contents of a home up to $100,000. It does not cover costs associated with “loss of use” of a home.

These limits have been in effect since 1994 and are no longer high enough to account for the increase in the replacement cost of homes and the actual cash value of their contents. As a result, some homeowners buy additional flood protection from private insurers to make up any shortfall.

Why is the National Flood Insurance Program underwater?

The National Flood Insurance Program has faced considerable criticism^[19] over its underwriting and pricing of policies, which have resulted in a substantial debt. Essentially, its premiums are not high enough to cover how much it pays out on claims and its other costs.

Part of the problem is that about 20 percent of the properties^[20] the program insures pay a subsidized rate. But many other National Flood Insurance Program policyholders are also paying premiums substantially less^[21] than what it costs to insure them based largely on whether a home is inside or outside of the 100-year floodplain.

To show how much single storms can cost, the National Flood Insurance Program paid out $8.7 billion^[22] to cover Harvey-related flood losses, $16.3 billion for Katrina and $8.8 billion for Sandy.

These inadequate rates also exacerbate the moral hazard created by flood insurance^[23]. People are more likely to buy, build or rebuild homes in flood-prone areas and have diminished incentives to invest in flood risk mitigation, such as by elevating their home, if they can buy insurance at below-cost rates.

Although Congress forgave^[24] $16 billion in debt in 2017, the National Flood Insurance Program still owed $21 billion^[25] to the U.S. Treasury as of September.

What can be done to fix the program?

Legislative efforts to reform the National Flood Insurance Program to put it on firmer fiscal footing have produced mixed results.

The Biggert-Waters Act of 2012^[26] made a number of changes to the program, such as increasing premiums, to make it “more financially stable^[27].” While that would have gone a long way to restore its fiscal solvency, an outcry from homeowners in high-risk areas led to the 2014 Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act^[28], which limited or rescinded many of the Biggert-Waters rate increases.

Fundamentally, the program that millions of Americans rely on to help them rebuild their lives after a devastating flood needs to be fixed^[29]. Its dire financial straits could be resolved by either making taxpayers foot more of the bill or increasing premiums closer to full-cost rates for most homeowners, while also raising total coverage levels.

The Trump administration for its part proposes calculating premiums^[30] to more accurately reflect the actual flood risk individual homes face beginning in 2020. This could result in higher rates for many homeowners.

But I believe the government also needs to do more to convince or compel more at-risk homeowners to buy flood insurance – which would be harder to do if it were to raise rates. To me, this suggests that increasing taxpayer support for the program will have to be part of the solution so that pricey premiums don’t become a deterrent to someone buying insurance.

This is an updated version of an article^[31] originally published on Sept. 7, 2017.

References

1. ^{^} significantly revamp the pricing of flood insurance (www.bloomberg.com)
2. ^{^} National Flood Insurance Program (www.fema.gov)
3. ^{^} provisions (www.fema.gov)
4. ^{^} serves the public interest (www.fema.gov)
5. ^{^} some (morningconsult.com)
6. ^{^} Reuters/Chris Aluka Berry (pictures.reuters.com)
7. ^{^} had just over 5 million policies in force (www.fema.gov)
8. ^{^} number of such policies (bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov)
9. ^{^} there are fewer than 10,000 policies (www.cbsnews.com)
10. ^{^} experts estimated (abcnews.go.com)
11. ^{^} CoreLogic (www.corelogic.com)
12. ^{^} number of factors (riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu)
13. ^{^} mandatory purchase requirement (www.fema.gov)
14. ^{^} it’s estimated (www.bloomberg.com)
15. ^{^} incorrectly believe (www.iii.org)
16. ^{^} rarely the case (www.nytimes.com)
17. ^{^} Reuters/Tim Larsen (pictures.reuters.com)
18. ^{^} National Flood Insurance Program policy (www.fema.gov)
19. ^{^} has faced considerable criticism (www.gao.gov)
20. ^{^} about 20 percent of the properties (www.fema.gov)
21. ^{^} substantially less (www.foxbusiness.com)
22. ^{^} paid out $8.7 billion (www.fema.gov)
23. ^{^} moral hazard created by flood insurance (blogs.colgate.edu)
24. ^{^} forgave (www.businessinsurance.com)
25. ^{^} $21 billion (www.gao.gov)
26. ^{^} Biggert-Waters Act of 2012 (www.fema.gov)
27. ^{^} more financially stable (www.fema.gov)
28. ^{^} Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act (www.fema.gov)
29. ^{^} needs to be fixed (www.marsh.com)
30. ^{^} proposes calculating premiums (www.bloomberg.com)
31. ^{^} article (theconversation.com)