NextFin News - Lawmakers in a growing number of states are moving to dismantle a cornerstone of modern insurance underwriting, targeting the industry’s reliance on credit history to determine what Americans pay for home and auto coverage. Bills currently pending in Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania seek to ban the use of credit-based insurance scores, a practice that critics argue unfairly penalizes low-income households while proponents claim is essential for accurate risk assessment.
The legislative push comes as insurance costs reach historic highs. According to data from The Zebra, the average cost of home insurance in the U.S. is nearing $3,000 annually in 2026, following a 12% surge in 2025. For auto insurance, the average annual premium has climbed to $2,524, according to U.S. News & World Report. Within this inflationary environment, the "credit penalty" has become a flashpoint for consumer advocates who point to data showing that homeowners with poor credit can pay nearly $2,000 more per year than those with excellent scores, regardless of their claims history.
Michael DeLong, a research and advocacy associate at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), has emerged as a leading voice in this legislative wave. DeLong and the CFA have long maintained that credit-based scoring is a "proxy for race and income" that has little to do with actual risk. In recent testimony, DeLong argued that the practice allows insurers to charge higher rates to responsible drivers and homeowners simply because of their financial standing. While the CFA’s position is influential among consumer-rights groups, it is often viewed by the insurance industry as an oversimplification of actuarial science.
The insurance industry, represented by trade groups and major carriers, contends that credit history is one of the most reliable predictors of future losses. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), insurers use these scores to measure the likelihood of a policyholder filing a claim—not their ability to pay a bill. Carriers argue that banning the practice would force them to raise rates on consumers with good credit to subsidize those with higher risk profiles. This perspective suggests that the removal of credit as a factor would not necessarily lower overall costs but would instead redistribute the premium burden across the entire pool of insured individuals.
In Oklahoma, the debate has reached the Senate floor. State Senator Julia Kirt (D-Oklahoma City) recently noted that Oklahomans with "mildly bad" credit scores are paying upwards of 100% more for home insurance than their neighbors with identical properties. However, the legislative path remains fraught with uncertainty. During committee hearings, Senator Brian Guthrie (R-Bixby) questioned whether states that have already implemented such bans—like California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts—have actually seen a net reduction in rates. The lack of clear, isolated data on the impact of these bans makes it difficult for lawmakers to guarantee that reform will lead to lower bills for the average consumer.
Beyond the legislative chambers, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is expected to increase its scrutiny of insurer modeling throughout 2026. This includes a focus on how artificial intelligence and alternative data sets are being integrated into risk assessment. As traditional credit scores face potential bans, some insurtech companies are already pivoting toward telematics and real-time behavior monitoring. While these methods are marketed as more "equitable," they raise a new set of privacy concerns that may eventually draw the same legislative scrutiny currently focused on credit history.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
