SUMMARY OF BOSTON COMPACT ROUNDTABLE
Prepared by the Compact Office
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Insurance Compact Roundtable was held on July 15, 2026, in Boston, Massachusetts. Regulators, state legislators, company and industry representatives, consumer representatives and Compact staff gathered to discuss three strategic topics: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Product Compliance and Regulation, Improving Consumer Understanding of Increasingly Complex Products, and What Is Ahead for the Insurance Compact in the Next 20 Years. The discussions were framed through product lifecycle vignettes featuring the fictional Ensured Future: Promise Plus product and focused on opportunities to improve efficiency, consistency, and consumer understanding within the product regulation process.
The agenda, attendee list, and detailed summary follow.
- Participants agreed that AI has significant potential to improve regulatory and compliance processes through efficiencies in research, drafting, reviewing, training, and quality assurance, but that human expertise, judgment, and governance remain essential.
- Companies reported increasing use of AI tools to support product development, compliance review, coding, document comparison, and research activities, while regulators generally described a cautious approach focused on training, governance, and evaluating appropriate use cases.
- There was broad consensus that product illustrations have become increasingly difficult for consumers to understand due to product complexity, non-guaranteed elements, and inconsistent regulatory requirements among states.
- Participants generally supported efforts to improve uniformity and consistency in illustration requirements and discussed whether the Compact could play a future role in promoting greater consistency across jurisdictions.
- Discussions regarding the future of the Compact focused on accelerating Uniform Standards development, expanding review capacity, continuing expedited review options, increasing use of technology, and broadening the Compact's service offerings through initiatives such as the Center of Expertise and Adjunct Services Committee.
- Participants consistently praised the Compact's transparency, responsiveness, expertise, and ability to promote uniformity and speed to market for insurers while creating efficiencies for member states.
DETAILED SUMMARY
On July 15, 2026, regulators, state legislators, insurers, industry representatives, consumer representatives and Compact staff gathered at the Hampshire House in Boston, Massachusetts, for a roundtable discussion focused on emerging issues in product regulation and opportunities for the future evolution of the Insurance Compact. Discussions were structured around three breakout sessions examining the role of artificial intelligence in product regulation, challenges associated with increasingly complex products and illustrations, and the future direction of the Compact as it begins its third decade of operations.
The following is a summary of the feedback on each discussion topic.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Product Compliance and Regulation
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
- How are regulators and companies currently using AI in the product regulation process?
- ;What opportunities and efficiencies could AI create?
- What risks, limitations, and governance concerns should be considered?
- How might AI impact product filing preparation and regulatory review in the future?
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Participants agreed that AI is rapidly becoming an important tool for both industry and regulators, although adoption remains in relatively early stages. Most companies described using AI in a supporting role for activities such as document drafting, summarization, coding, compliance reviews, product specification development, redline comparisons, readability analysis, training, and research. Regulators generally reported taking a measured approach as agencies evaluate use cases, establish governance frameworks, and address operational considerations such as records retention, transparency, and cybersecurity.
There was broad agreement that AI can create significant efficiencies by reducing time spent on routine and repetitive tasks, allowing professionals to focus on higher-value analysis and decision-making. Participants described AI as a useful reviewer that can identify potential inconsistencies, locate relevant requirements, analyze large volumes of information, and support quality assurance efforts. Several participants noted the potential for AI to improve reviewer training and consistency in both industry and regulatory settings.
Participants consistently emphasized that human involvement remains essential. While AI can assist with identifying issues and generating work product, participants agreed that regulatory review and compliance decisions require judgment, interpretation, and an understanding of regulatory intent that cannot be delegated entirely to technology. Human review was viewed as a necessary safeguard regardless of the sophistication of AI tools.
Governance and oversight emerged as major themes throughout the discussions. Companies described implementing internal controls, risk management frameworks, approval processes, and training programs governing AI use. Regulators similarly emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, privacy protections, and appropriate oversight, particularly when AI could influence product design, underwriting, actuarial work, or consumer-facing activities. Participants generally agreed that governance frameworks will need to continue evolving alongside the technology.
Participants also discussed limitations associated with current AI systems. Concerns included inaccurate responses, hallucinations, outdated information, incomplete analysis, and the tendency of AI systems to provide confident answers even when incorrect. As a result, participants agreed that AI-generated output requires independent verification and should be viewed as a tool to assist professionals rather than replace them.
There was significant interest in the future application of AI to regulatory review. Participants discussed tools capable of comparing filings to previously approved forms, evaluating compliance against current laws and standards, identifying inconsistencies, and assisting with reviewer training. Many viewed the Uniform Standards framework as well suited to future automation efforts, provided sufficient testing, oversight, and human review remain part of the process.
Improving Consumer Understanding of Increasingly Complex Products
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
- What are the greatest challenges consumers face when evaluating increasingly complex insurance products?
- How effectively do current product illustrations communicate product features, benefits, and risks?
- ;What opportunities exist to improve consistency and transparency in illustrations and disclosures?
- Is there a role for the Compact in supporting greater uniformity in this area?
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Participants agreed that increasing product complexity poses significant challenges for consumer understanding. Features such as non-guaranteed elements, proprietary indices, optional benefits, riders, and extensive disclosures can make products difficult to explain and compare. Many participants questioned whether current illustrations effectively communicate how products work and whether average consumers are able to fully understand the information they are provided.
A recurring theme was the inconsistency that exists among states and companies in the development and review of illustrations. Participants noted that limited adoption of the current illustration model and differing state requirements can result in substantially different illustrations for similar products. Many viewed broader adoption of uniform requirements as an important step toward improving consistency, transparency, and consumer understanding.
Participants discussed the purpose of illustrations and whether they are currently fulfilling that purpose. Many agreed that illustrations should help consumers understand how a product functions and establish realistic expectations regarding performance. At the same time, participants acknowledged that illustrations often must balance educational objectives with competitive market pressures and disclosure obligations. Several suggested that current illustrations have become overly complex and may contain more information than consumers are able or willing to absorb.
Agent and producer education was identified as another important factor. Participants observed that consumers frequently rely on agents to explain products and that improved training may help consumers better understand illustrations and product features. Several participants noted that disclosure requirements alone may not improve understanding if consumers are unable to interpret the information being presented.
Potential solutions discussed included simplifying illustrations, improving educational materials, creating greater consistency in illustration requirements, and enhancing training for producers. Participants also discussed whether technology, including AI, could help communicate complex concepts in a more understandable manner. While opinions varied regarding the appropriate role of the Compact, there was interest in exploring whether the Compact could support greater consistency in the regulation and review of illustrations in the future.
What Is Ahead for the Insurance Compact in the Next 20 Years
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
- What should the Compact do more of, less of, add, change, or improve?
- How can the Compact continue to promote consistency, uniformity, and speed to market?
- What opportunities exist to expand Compact services and expertise?
- What challenges must the Compact address over the next twenty years?
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Participants expressed strong support for the Compact and its accomplishments over the past twenty years. The Compact's ability to provide uniformity, efficiency, transparency, and speed to market was repeatedly highlighted as one of its greatest strengths. Regulators noted that Compact review allows states to focus resources on other regulatory priorities, while companies emphasized the value of consistent review standards and open communication throughout the filing process.
A significant topic of discussion was the continued development and maintenance of Uniform Standards. Participants expressed support for accelerating the development of new standards and updating existing standards more quickly to keep pace with innovation and evolving products. Several participants noted that the Compact's standards prioritization efforts have been beneficial and encouraged continued focus on identifying areas where additional Uniform Standards would provide value.
Review capacity and turnaround times were also frequently discussed. Participants indicated strong support for expedited review options and emphasized the importance of maintaining speed to market. Several expressed a willingness to support increased fees or additional resources if doing so would improve review timelines and expand review capacity. Suggestions included adding reviewers, increasing actuarial resources, and leveraging technology to improve efficiency.
Participants discussed opportunities for the Compact to continue expanding its services and expertise. Several suggested leveraging the Center of Expertise and Adjunct Services Committee to provide additional support to member states and companies. Potential opportunities included advisory services, educational initiatives, market conduct support, assistance with advertising review, and other services designed to promote consistency and efficiency beyond traditional product approval activities.
The use of mix and match filings generated significant discussion. Participants generally agreed that mix and match remains an important tool when Uniform Standards are unavailable or when innovative features are being introduced. At the same time, several participants encouraged continued evaluation of the process, particularly as it relates to value-added services and emerging products. There was general interest in identifying ways to improve clarity, consistency, and stakeholder understanding of how mix and match should be used.
Participants also discussed opportunities to further strengthen the Compact's role as a forum for collaboration among regulators and industry. Continued communication, educational programming, reviewer outreach, and stakeholder engagement were viewed as important strengths that should be maintained and expanded. Several participants emphasized the importance of maintaining state support for the Compact's authority and continuing efforts to expand consistency among jurisdictions.
Looking forward, participants generally agreed that the Compact is well positioned to continue advancing its core objectives of uniformity, consistency, efficiency, and speed to market while leveraging new technologies and service models to meet the evolving needs of regulators, insurers, and consumers.