{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016728624535315983, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.298245614035087, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The unavailability of information on insurance unavailability: Insurance redlining and the absence of geocoded disclosure data

Abstract The availability of insurance in urban communities has long been a contested public policy issue. One of the central points of contention has been the value of publicly available data on the geographic distribution of property insurance policies. This debate has intensified since the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which requires geocoded disclosure of mortgage lending activity, was passed. A small number of states have required disclosure of limited data. But precisely what data are available has been unclear, and their utility has been debated. This survey of all state insurance commissioners documents what is in fact the very limited availability of insurance disclosure data. Only eight states require any disclosure of geocoded data, and just four of them make company‐level data available to the public. Data from one of those states, Wisconsin, are used to show how such data could benefit insurers, consumers, and regulators.