In a letter dated, Nov. 24, 2004, AMC/NOMA Secretary/Treasurer and Physicians' Advocacy Committee Chair, J. Richard Ludgin, M.D., J.D. outlined to the Director of the Ohio Department of Insurance, Ann Womer Benjermin, three continuing concerns pertaining to the issue of "tail" coverage in Ohio. Within the letter, AMC/NOMA reiterated the need for actual numbers on losses from medical malpractice insurance companies who have written in Ohio in order to independently review and factually determine actual loss forecasts. Dr. Ludgin referred to his Aug. 24 testimony to the Ohio Medical Malpractice Commission in which he suggested some data elements that could further clarify the tail cost and profit/loss conundrum and again solicited his legal, insurance and medical expertise, on behalf of AMC/NOMA, to develop the collection and analysis process. Dr. Ludgin also suggested an adoption of a series of exceptions that will not void the tail coverage such as working in a free clinic, teaching interns and fellows. Within the letter, he points out that the "waiting period" for tail coverage needs to accommodate the realities of the public's need for care. Draft model policy language, suggested by Dr. Ludgin on behalf of AMC/NOMA included: looking at professional liability insurance as an enterprise expense with some form of "JUA-like pool" created out of a portion of the cost of retirement tails built into the ongoing premiums charged to active insureds. Additional model policy language suggested was: limiting the length of time claims can be made against an insurer following death, disability and retirement and, instead, creating a PCF (personal compensation fund), funded by the insurance industry either directly or by a built-in surcharge, against which claims must be made after the pre-determined number of years have elapsed. The AMC/NOMA will keep members apprised when we receive an answer to this inquiry