4 Keys to Managing a Successful Outsourced Claims Operation

GettyImages_174670671To be Successful One Must Have Strong Oversight and Controls From the Beginning

So you have decided to hire a Third Party Administrator to handle your claims and it seems like a reasonable decision at the time. You either have some new specialized business you are writing and don’t have the expertise in-house, or you don’t want to set up a new regional claim office or you are a new company and want to have an experienced claim department in place. Yes – the TPA is the answer to all your concerns.

All things being equal there are many fine TPAs in the market that will provide wonderful service to your insureds in a cost effective and comprehensive manner. Initially you think you have chosen a good one. However, as time goes on you realize you are not exactly getting what you expected from your TPA. So what happened?

It matters little what your reasons for outsourcing were. Bottom line is if you didn’t take certain steps to properly select and manage a TPA you are likely to end up with problems. The partnership you form with your TPA will be fruitful if you take these key steps to select and manage them in a way designed to foster long term success.

  1. TPA Selection – Do your due diligence.  If you are handling claims over to a Third Party Administrator remember they will be the face of your company to your customers. Take their selection seriously. Form a multidisciplinary selection team and engage IT, Finance and Operations in the selection process. Besides the basic questions, look at their staffing and turnover rates. Ask to speak to references and understand how they manage their accounts internally.  Do they have dedicated claim units? How strong is their technology? How flexible are they in producing reports? When was the last time they had an independent audit? There are many more questions to be asked but this is not the time to be shy. Dig deep and understand who they are and what they can do.
  2. Oversight – General Guidelines. Don’t rely on the TPA’s claims guidelines. You should develop, and expect the TPA to adhere to, a very specific set of best practices to suit your company’s requirements. Tell the TPA what you expect and hold them to it. When drafting guidelines pay attention to sections involving the retention of counsel, vendors and experts. Make sure they seek approval where appropriate and drive the selection to vendors that have been vetted by you or better make them use your own panel.  Be specific about what claims you want to know about and when. Make sure you review these guidelines regularly and adjust them where appropriate. Remind the TPA will be using these guidelines to measure their compliance.
  3. Strong Internal Formal Claims Program.  Just because you have outsourced your claims management to a TPA does not mean you do not need to maintain a strong internal claims program. The successfully managed programs work with a combination of oversight and strong in-house claims account managers watching the TPA’s activities.  It is important that internal claims staff be well versed in the expected handling practices and the ability to spot issues before they become problems. Internal claims professionals should have skills similar to a department manager that can handle trend analysis as well as being able to have difficult performance discussions with the TPA.  No successful program works without skilled in-house claims resources.
  4.  Audit – Review and Re-review. Unless you are reviewing the TPA’s work for compliance through regular claim audits you are setting your program up to fail. Reacting to individual claim issues will not create a balanced efficient program and will cause the TPA to react to whatever the issue of the month is.  Regular audits identify problems and force solutions to be addressed by the TPA. Some of the best run programs audit their TPA’s 3-4 times per year.  In addition to regular best practice compliance reviews conducting specific targeted reviews can strengthen a program’s effectiveness (i.e. reserve review, vendor management  or financial controls).

Working with TPAs can be a very rewarding and cost effective method for handling claims. Many are experts at what they do and have well run efficient operations. Regardless, the old adage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease is never truer than in the oversight of a TPA.  Get squeaky!

What are other things needed when selecting and managing a TPA?

A Claims Tale Of Three Little Managers And Their Review Programs

My Take On The Old Story Of The Three Little Pigs

Once upon a time there were three claims managers who were told by their CEO to go out and make sure they have the best organization possible. Since they all knew that the best way to a good organization was to develop process and procedures and make sure all who worked there understood them, that’s just what they did.  Each built an oversight program to ensure all was well and to prevent being attacked by all those wolves out there.

The first manager built a review program out of straw, the second out of sticks and the third out of bricks…..

Please work with me here as I am trying to be metaphorical.

The Manager Review of Straw

The first manager was a proud manager. She knew she had a good group and they worked just fine. She had instructed them on her way of doing things and had provided sufficient training to let them know was expected. Her “straw” review program was to wait for something to happen and then if there was a problem to fix it.  One day a huge claim showed up on her desk. She had never seen or heard of this claim, but it was big – the type of claim that could really cause her a problem. Well that claim, it turns out, had been in the office for over a year. Information had been received to provide sufficient warning for everyone to make sure the company was ready. If only she had known about it.

After dealing with “fixing” the problem a knock came on the door. It was the manager’s big reinsurance company.  This reinsurer was large and seemed to come out of no where.  The manager was shocked.  This reinsurer said….”manager, manager, let me come in”  the manager responded “not by the hair of my chinny chin chin!” The reinsurer responded, “then I will huff and I will puff and I will blow your department down.”  And that’s exactly what the reinsurer did.

The manager lost his house of straw and somehow landed a new job at her manager friend who said come on over you will feel protected in my department of sticks.

The Manager Review of Sticks

The Manger of Straw’s friend, the Manager of Sticks, sat her down and told her how it was going to be.  We here in the land of sticks are prepared for any possible problem. We have a wonderful review program made of sticks.  This program is so good we can prevent all those problems that got you blown down in the house of straw. We also have procedures in place, the Manager of Sticks said, but we oversee it all with regular reviews. We spend time reviewing claim files and recoding all that information on these sheets of paper.  We catch it all before a problem arises so he told the Manager of Straw that she will be fine here in the house of sticks.

The stick reviews went on every quarter. The sticks were filled with all this great information and captured all this detail about the claims and what was working and not working. The problem is the sticks piled up and once they were in that pile it was hard to understand what was working. Someone had to put the sticks in an order to really understand how many problem sticks there were. Low and behold a day came when a whole series of claims came in all seemingly insignificant.  It turns out there was a trend and a real problem brewing with a particular type of claim.  Individually they seemed fine, collectively they were significantly under reserved. Those sticks had the information but it was so spread out and disorganized that the information was lost. Without the information available, the company rewrote that book of business and was now going to face a very big problem to explain to the shareholders.

The Manager of Sticks was about to get a knock on the door!

Knock knock….”who is it” asked the Manager of Sticks?  It’s the Chief Underwriting Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the CEO. See it turns out that they had some explaining to do to the board about a reserve charge that seemed to have come out of no where. “Manager Manager please let us in” with the Manager of Straw next to him nodding her head thinking oh I know what’s next, the Manager of Sticks responded “not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.” Well those executives were not about to be shut out and said “then we will huff and we will puff and we will blow your house in!” and that is exactly what they did.

Amazingly, the Manager of Sticks and the Manager of Straw were able to find jobs again in their friend the Manager of Brick’s company.

The Manager Review of Bricks

Working for the Manager of Bricks was actually not as bad as people thought it would be. Yes he was a tough manager and expected a lot from his people, but in the end he wanted them and the organization to succeed. The Manager of Bricks was keenly aware that when procedures were working and followed there was less of a chance of surprise. He also knew that the way to avoid those surprises was to have a very specific audit and oversight program in place. Because the Manager of Bricks also knew that using technology in the right way was a benefit, he made sure he had an oversight tool in place to manage the review process and make sure he captured, and not wasted, all the hard work performed by his reviewers.

The Manger of Straw and the Manager of Sticks had never seen anything like it.  All the reviews were coordinated in one place online (of course they used the Audit Portal).  Issues were categorized and follow-ups documented.  Trends just popped off various dashboards and made it so simple to proactively run the department.

Then one day there was a knock on the door.  It was the big bad mean regulator trying to find a violation.  “Manager, manager let me come in” the regulator yelled.  The manager of Bricks responded….”sure come on in and look around.” The regulator had apparently wanted to see the offices the Managers of Straw and Sticks but there was nothing left there to see.  The Manager of Bricks had nothing to fear.  When the regulator asked for controls and a plan it was all ready to be shown.  Issues that had been identified and corrective action plans were clearly in place and the regulator was pleasantly surprised. After giving the Manager of Bricks a clean bill oh health he left with no adverse claims findings.

Don’t you love a good story? Maybe if we were all like the Manager of Bricks things would be better!

At Lanzko we can help shore up operations to become more like the Manager of Bricks using our Audit Portal application. Give us a call to learn more.

 

Claim Reviews Empower Better Decisions By Putting Critical Information In Hand

Are making blind decisions the way to go?

Insurance is as much about having the right information at the right time as anything. Whether it’s an underwriting choice to price a risk correctly or a claim decision to when to pay a claim, having the best data available can make or break an organization. Despite this fact, many organizations fail to take advantage of tools and rights available to them prior to making critical business decisions (see our previous post “The Importance of the Pre Bind Claims Review in the Reinsurance Context“).

A reinsurance company looking to bind a new risk, or an excess carrier following the fortunes of a primary, should not leave decision making to what is found on a loss run or in an application.  Loss runs can be misleading without an understanding of what is behind them. At Lanzko we recently found an audit where the underlying carrier failed to reserve for expense in what was a well run claims department.  In that particular company, expense reserves were handled by actuarial. Our client had not been aware of this and was able to adjust pricing accordingly, avoiding a significant underpricing of the risk.

It is important to understand that most reinsurance or excess contracts allow companies to inspect the organizations they underwrite.  If this right is available then why not take advantage of it to learn more information? Data runs can give you a basic overview of a firm’s existing losses, but they will do little to give you an understanding of the underlying organization that created those numbers.  To get a complete picture of how a claims department functions one has to go beyond the numbers and conduct a claims department and file review.

Resources, Resources, Resources

Not every account can be reviewed.  Whether you in-source or outsource claims reviews, the costs can add up. There are also other things that come to mind when determining when a review is cost effective.  If you conduct reviews using claims staff focused on handling claims there is a risk that the time out of the office is not as valuable as the time spent on existing file management. It should also be noted that in-house claims staff may not be properly equipped to understand other parts of the operation they are reviewing.

If you outsource, it may increase your costs and your vendor may not provide enough value for the report they provide. Unfortunately, many companies do not even budget for a review program. It was suggested to me that if you had a $100 million book of business and set a budget of  0.0025% of premium you would be able to conduct an outsourced reviews of your top 15 accounts.

Is 0.0025% of premium a reasonable cost to pay to get better information about the risks you underwrite?

8 reasons when a claims review becomes critical

Whether it’s a resource allocation issue, or just simply enough time, getting to conduct reviews regularly may be difficult. Nonetheless, there are times when a review must be done and should seriously be considered in these situations:

  1. Account Renewal
  2. Late, inadequate or infrequent claim reports
  3. Significant management changes or turnover
  4. Financial problems with Cedent or Primary
  5. Loss results are too good to be true
  6. Unexpected claims in lines of business
  7. Historically volatile product lines
  8. Change in company participation

A successful review means going beyond the claims files

Reviewing the highest exposure claims is certainly of value, however it will not give you a complete picture of the organization and their ability to consistently manage claims. High exposure claims are almost always reviewed by various layers of management and are usually well worked up. Despite this, many organizations only choose to review those files that may impact their layer.  What about the files that don’t make it to the senior level?

Understanding the process for how claims move through the system is critical to ensuring they are properly reserved and manged. Consistent claims handling comes from an organization that has good process, strong systems, good technical results and an oversight program. When looking at a claims department you need to look at the whole operation to learn more about:

  • Organizational overview and structure
  • Authority levels
  • Systems
  • Management/Staff Experience
  • Reserve Management and Expense Control
  • Quality, Controls and Compliance
  • Best practices
  • Spend management (vendors and counsel)

Doing a claims review is not just smart business, it is becoming a requirement

In Europe, new risk management standards are being implemented as part of sweeping regulatory changes contained in Solvency II. As part of these new regulations, companies that rely on others for their claims are going to be more responsible to ensure those third parties are operating effectively. This will effect everyone from reinsurance companies to cover holders to those who outsource claims to third-party administrators. The United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) described it best in a proposed CEO letter about reserve adequacy when they wrote:

[W]e expect firms to take a considered and proportionate approach to the reserve-setting process, and have robust processes in place which adequately capture the risks associated with an increasingly challenging claims environment. We expect such processes to include, as a minimum, the monitoring and assessment of:

  • The adequacy of individual case reserves;
  • Underlying claims processes;
  • The adequacy of data quality; and,
  • The reserve projection and selection process.

Claim reviews, if not already being done, will be a requirement in order to truly understand the “underlying claims process” as well as the “adequacy of individual case reserves.”  If you are not able to answer these questions you may be subjecting yourself to significant regulatory scrutiny.

Create a process around your process

The importance of these reviews cannot be overstated. But having accepted the fact that you need to do more reviews, make sure you are managing that process properly.  Develop a “best practices” guideline for claims reviews which should include:

  • When reviews are done and what are triggering events for the reviews (see examples above)
  • How are files selected for claim reviews
  • Outline different types of reviews with standard objectives
  • What department criteria will be reviewed and what claim file criteria will be examined
  • Understand who will be doing the reviews (claim handlers may be good at reviewing a claim file but may lack in experience when it comes to other operational aspects of a department)
  • Have a standard understandable rating system
  • Manage your claim reviews in a central location
  • Document the process to be able to respond to inquires from interested parties (regulators and stakeholders)

Even if you decide to outsource your claim reviews, it is important that you ensure your vendors have a documented process to provide consistent reviews and can maintain appropriate records.

When managed correctly, a proper claims review program can save the company from making bad decisions. Given that the costs, relative to the risk, are relatively minor, along with changes in regulation and oversight requirements, failing to make claims reviews a regular part of your organization could be a critical mistake.

There Is No Such Thing As A Pro Forma Signature On A Document – If You Sign It You Own It

Don’t let doing something for the sake of doing something come back to bite you

I have written a number of articles on the importance of avoiding processes that have no added value to an operation. For example, I spoke of how making a “check” in the process is no assurance that things are being done right in the posting In Claims Don’t Let The Process “Thing” Get In The Way Of Doing The “Right” Thing.  Making sure that a process is adding value is essential in claims to avoid the “we have to just say we did it” way of doing things. The putting a note in the file that adds nothing to the file just because it is part of the process does nothing to increase value to the claim process and should be scrutinized. In “What’s The Point” Claims Process And How To Avoid Them I raised the issues that to be truly successful in claims it is important to focus on what’s truly important.

Mortgage foreclosures all in doubt because of a process for the sake of process

Doing things for the sake of doing things can have significant adverse consequences for an organization. It is important to realize that one day you may have to answer for every action you take on a claim file. The concept of how doing a pro forma task can come back to bite you is being highlighted as a yet another fallout of the mortgage crisis. Thousands of foreclosures are in doubt because a mortgage bank executive did not verify the documents used to justify home seizures. Tens of thousands of foreclosures are being halted because of a process in place where an individual just signed hundreds of documents without ensuring the information contained on the documents were correct.

In one of those cases an executive at JP Morgan Chase & Co. testified that her review was more or less signing the documents unless it was questionable and someone else told her there was a problem. She was among 8 others who signed over 18,000 documents a month (see JPMorgan Based Foreclosures on Faulty Documents, Lawyers Claim, Bloomberg 9/27/2010). At another bank, Wells Fargo, it was reported in the New York Times that an executive only verified the dates on up to 150 foreclosure documents signed daily (see Bank Exec Checked Only Date on Foreclosure Docs, NYT 10/3/2010).  The complete fallout from these events is still being sorted out, however it will certainly expose the banks, their attorneys and title companies to possible liability.

Claims organizations are often subjected to a variety of sign offs and controls that are instituted to prevent fraud and protect company assets. Given the volume in a typical claims organization, signatures for the sake of signatures are a possibility. Regardless, as seen in the mortgage situation, such a process can have significant implications.

Suggestion to avoid the process trap

Clearly, doing something for the sake of doing something can really have negative consequences for the organization. How many signatures do you put on documents in a given day? Do you really know why your signature is needed? Are you taking the appropriate steps to verify what you are signing? If you do not have an answer to these questions then you should be asking one more – what will happen if something goes wrong with the document that I just signed?

I believe strongly in supporting process and controls that are adding value. For example, it is clearly a good idea to have a second set of eyes prior to settling claims over a certain dollar amount to ensure company assets are being spent wisely. As a claim handler you would not want a settlement of a million dollars to go out the door without a manager’s approval and as a manager you would never want that check sent unless you were fully aware of the circumstances of the loss and the reasons for the settlement. It is this type of clear common sense that needs to be used on all processes where you are being asked to sign something.

Prior to signing a document make sure to ask yourself the following:

  • Why am I being asked to sign this and for what purpose?
  • Is my signature needed to control something, or am I just putting it down because there is a signature line?
  • Do I understand what went into preparing the documents that are asking for my signature?
  • What are the consequences if the document turns out to be faulty?
  • Do I tend to sign everything put in front of me without review?

It cannot be an excuse that “it’s just a process and it has always been done that way”.  If you had to testify about signing the documents would saying you just “signed everything unless someone told you it was a problem” sound like a reasonable response? Don’t read me wrong, controls and signatures are required for good reasons on many documents. Nonetheless, if you are the one asked to sign – make sure there is a good reason for your signature and know what your signing before you put your name down. If not, stop and ask the questions and revisit the whole process.

7 Considerations When Drafting Claims Guidelines

I recently wrote about bad faith concerns with reinsurance companies when a cedent company fails to have written procedures in my post Absence of procedures to notify reinsurance is a basis for bad faith. In the post I also raised issues around having written procedural guidelines. As expected, I received some comments and support from those who want to use those guidelines against the company. In addition, some pointed out claim guideline requirements of some state insurance departments for some lines of business. Before drafting guidelines there are a few things that should be considered. Our friend Phil Loree, Jr. of the Loree Insurance and Arbitration Law Forum suggested 7 things a company should consider when drafting claims guidelines.

Continue reading

5 Claims issues cited for non-compliance on market conduct exams & 3 tools to avoid them

Insurance Market Conduct examinations are a regular part of the insurance business. Besides the stress of the exam itself, being cited for violations can result in costly fines. Regardless, many citations can be avoided.

Every year, insurance compliance solutions provider Walters Kluwer releases its annual study of top ten reasons insurance companies are found to be out of compliance in state market conduct examinations. In the most recent 2008 study, five of the ten issues of non-compliance were claims related.

If you look at the Walters Kluwer studies performed in 2007 and 2006, you will see similar results around claims. As in the past, documentation and customer service issues are the primary culprit for claims non-compliance.

5 Claims issues found as non-compliant

  1. Failure to acknowledge, pay or deny claims within specified time frames
  2. Failure to pay claims properly (sales, tax, loss of use)
  3. Improper documentation of claim files
  4. Failure to communicate a delay in the settlement of claims in writing
  5. Use of unlicensed claims adjusters or appraisers

All of these findings could have been avoided with enforcement of best practices and an internal review process. With some basic actions, a company can  minimize or eliminate their risk of being out of compliance.

3 Simple tools to avoid costly fines

There are very simple tools that should be employed to help prevent negative claims findings on market conduct reviews. Here are some basic preventative steps to eliminate or mitigate against being cited in a review:

  1. Manage to best practices – Establish and manage claims departments to meet industry best practice standards. Set guidelines and educate staff as to the importance of proper file documentation and notification requirements.
  2. Self audit –  Regularly reinforce good handling practices and customer service expectations through internal audits. A self-audit program should be designed to look for deficiencies and establish plans of action to correct any issues promptly. These compliance audits of staff should be done at least annually.
  3. Vendor management program – Set up a standard vetting process to make sure vendors are appropriately licensed and will comply with company guidelines. Where appropriate, audit these vendors as well to ensure information originally supplied during the application process remains current.

So many of the 5 issues cited above are avoidable. Setting standards and monitoring for compliance will minimize your risks in a market conduct examination. As an added benefit your files will be in better shape and your customers will be happier for it.