As they discuss their “merger of equals,” John Haley and Dominic Casserley emphasize a willingness to let the chemistry between their two legacy organizations develop naturally, rather than through top-down directives.
Haley, CEO of the newly created Willis Towers Watson, and Casserley, the company’s deputy CEO and president, sat down with Risk & Insurance® at the RIMS convention in San Diego to talk about the progress of their company since the Willis/Towers Watson merger was completed in January.
The merger combined a benefits firm with a global large cap network — Towers Watson — with Willis, which had a strong large cap presence in commercial property/casualty insurance broking globally, but was best known as a middle market player in the United States.
“When Dominic and I were sitting down and talking about this, we thought the real prize is if we can create an environment where we have people working together and where we think of ourselves as an integrated firm,” said Haley, a Rutgers University mathematics major who rose up the ranks from the early roots of the Towers Watson organization in 1977.
Sure, the two leaders talk to their teams about their talent mix and the business opportunities the merger presents.
But since the firms merged in January, Haley and Casserley say they have been happy to let members of the two legacy firms reach out to one another, to start solving customer challenges together under their own steam and see how they gel as teammates.
He reiterated that point in a May 6 WTW earnings call with analysts.
“As I travel to the various offices and see firsthand the collaborative sales efforts and hear about our market success, it’s clear our colleagues are not waiting for a top-down integration mandate or reporting tools to go to market,” Haley said.
“We don’t know exactly what all the new capabilities, the new products and services are going to be,” Casserley said in San Diego in April.
“We do know that we are creating a unique organization, which is truly global and which is integrated as opposed to operating in silos,” said Casserley, a University of Cambridge graduate who before the Towers Watson marriage oversaw the completion of Willis’ acquisition of the large French brokerage Gras Savoye and its 3,900 colleagues at the end of 2015.
Willis bought its first stake in Gras Savoye back in 1995, taking a third of the French firm at that point in time.
The Relevance of Scale
Both men lead firms with a history of making big deals.
Just to name a couple, Towers Watson was formed by the merger of Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt back in 2010. Haley oversaw that merger.
A big part of the Willis middle market presence in the United States stems from its 2008 acquisition of Hilb, Rogal and Hobbs.
Scale comes into the Willis Towers Watson combination in a couple of ways. Haley sees the fact that Towers Watson and Willis are coming together as two same-sized companies as an advantage.
“It is much easier to create a working environment when you have two roughly equal-sized firms than when you have one that is much larger than the other,” Haley said.
Pre-merger, according to company statements, Willis had more than 18,000 employees. Towers Watson had approximately 15,000.
Scale, as in bigger size, is also a consideration in the investment realm according to Casserley.
Among other responsibilities, Casserley oversees investment and reinsurance for WTW.
“The merger enables an uptick in client service and enables us to make some investments that might have been harder for us to do as separate firms,” Casserley said.
Although both Casserley and Haley have plenty of experience in acquisitions, and this is a busy time for M&A in general, Haley said Willis Towers Watson and its leaders are concentrating on clients and merging their cultures, rather than casting about for more acquisition targets, at least for now.
“For the first 12 to 18 months, it would have to be an exceptional opportunity,” said Haley.
“It would have to be unique and something that if we let it pass we would never have the chance again,” he said.
As it stands, the global reach of Towers Watson and its client list are a grand opportunity for Willis.
“One of the things we know is that if you don’t have the relationships ahead of time it is very difficult not to finish second,” Haley said.
“The merger enables an uptick in client service and enables us to make some investments that might have been harder for us to do as separate firms.” — Dominic Casserley, deputy CEO and president, Willis Towers Watson
On the other side, adding the legacy Willis expertise in property/casualty insurance broking gives legacy Towers Watson team members one more tool to bring into their conversations with clients.
“We have client relationship directors that are responsible for understanding their whole business strategy and for understanding the key people and for bringing together the appropriate subject matter experts. What we are doing now is we are adding one more subject matter expert,” Haley said.
“We are not asking them to do something new or fundamentally different from what they’ve done before.”
“The grand prize is having our folks work together across lines and work cooperatively with clients to identify and solve those problems.” — John Haley, CEO, Willis Towers Watson
Casserley stressed that the fact that Willis can now take advantage of Towers Watson’s large cap relationships doesn’t mean that Willis is turning away from its strength or its relationships in the middle market.
“This is not a pivot,” Casserley said.
The merger also allows the benefits-focused legacy Towers Watson employees to bring yet another tool to their clients, the insurance expertise of the legacy Willis employees.
“We don’t know what the solutions we come up with will be,” Haley said.
“But we do know that the human side and the risk side are related. We think they are not only related today but they are going to be increasingly related in the future.
“The grand prize is having our folks work together across lines and work cooperatively with clients to identify and solve those problems.”
Casserley said how the Willis Towers Watson colleagues find those solutions as part of a new, integrated platform is an exciting unknown.
“It may well be applying property and casualty techniques to a benefits problem and vice versa,” he said.
“Or it might be applying an actuarial analysis to a property/casualty risk in a way that hasn’t been done before. You won’t know that until you see the teams literally intertwined,” he said.
Momentum Builds for Single Leave Mandate
Earlier this year I identified the key disability management-related themes of 2016. The trend of offering paid parental leave is now gaining momentum.
At the end of March, New York state became the fifth state to mandate this type of leave. The program provides employees up to 12 weeks paid time to bond with a new child or to care for a parent, child, spouse, domestic partner, or other family member with a serious health condition.
The duration of the leave doubles the six weeks allotted in California and New Jersey, and is triple the four weeks of paid leave Rhode Island offers.
New York’s law does away with many of the exceptions in similar laws. It will cover full-time and part-time employees, and there will be no exemptions for small businesses. Employees only need to be employed by the company for six months to be eligible.
This raises an important point. Most of the paid leave action is with large companies.
The law does allow employers to limit two employees from taking this benefit at the same time for the same family member, limiting exposure in the case of more than one family member working for the same employer.
Although New York’s paid leave law takes effect on January 1, 2018, it will be gradually phased in with only eight weeks of leave with a 50 percent of pay cap, increasing ultimately to the full 12 weeks at a 67 percent cap by 2021. As is the trend, this is an employee funded benefit through a weekly payroll tax of approximately $1 per employee.
In April, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed the Paid Parental Leave Ordinance (PPLO), making it the first city in the country to enact such an ordinance.
This new law provides supplemental compensation for California employees receiving partially paid leave under California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) law to bond with a newborn child or newly placed child for adoption or foster care, among other reasons.
During the leave period, the employer will be required to supplement employee pay, so the combination of monies received under the PFL (currently 55 percent wage replacement) and the PPLO will provide compensation equal to 100 percent of the employee’s gross weekly wage.
Payment is made from a worker-funded state disability program and calculated as a percentage of the employee’s wages (55 percent) subject to the maximum weekly benefit amount set by the PFL program. Very similar to the state PFL, there is a cap on the maximum weekly benefit amount of $924, which equates to an individual with a salary of $106,740.
San Francisco’s law will be phased in quickly. In January 2018, all companies with 20 or more employees, with any of those individuals regularly employed in San Francisco, will be required to comply.
Since February, there have been almost weekly announcements about employers adopting or improving their paid leave policies. Here is just a sampling:
- Twitter: 20 weeks of paid parental leave
- Wells Fargo: 16 weeks of paid leave
- Anheuser-Busch: 16 weeks of maternal leave; 2 weeks of paid leave for secondary caregiver (male or female)
Whether aimed at employee attraction or retention, paid leave is now becoming a “must-have” for large organizations.
This raises an important point. Most of the paid leave action is with large companies.
According to the American Action Forum, in companies with 500 or more employees, paid family leave rose a solid 5 percent, from 17 percent in 2010 to 22 percent in 2015. But in companies with fewer than 50 employees, the needle has only moved from 7 percent to 8 percent from 2010 through 2015.
The myriad of laws, regulations, and policies is creating an administrative burden for all companies. And, for many smaller employers, the varying laws and policies are creating an actual competitive disadvantage.
It is likely that employers of all sizes would welcome some consistency in these laws that are leaving some to ask, “Who is going to pay for all of this?”
Advocacy: The Impact of Continuous Triage
In the world of workers’ compensation, timing is everything. Many studies have shown that the earlier a workplace incident or injury is acted upon, the more successful the results*. However, there is further evidence indicating there is even more of an impact seen when a claim is not only filed promptly, but also effective triage is conducted and management of the claim takes place consistently through closure.
Typically, every program incorporates a form of early intervention. But then what? While it is common knowledge that early claims reporting and medical treatment are the most critical parts of a claim, if left alone after management, an injured worker could – and often does – fall through the cracks.
All Claims Paths are Not Created Equal
Even with early intervention and the best intentions of the adjuster, things can still go wrong. What if we could follow one injury down two paths, resulting in two entirely different outcomes? This case study illustrates the difference between two claims management processes – one of proactive, continuous claims triage and one of inactivity after initial intervention – and the impact, or lack thereof, it can have on the outcome of a claim. By addressing all indicators, effective triage can drastically change the trajectory of a claim.
While working at a factory, David, a 40-year-old employee, experienced sudden shoulder pain while lifting a heavy box. He reported the incident to his supervisor, who contacted their 24/7 triage call center to report the incident. After speaking with a triage nurse, the nurse recommended he go to an occupational medicine clinic for further evaluation, based on his self-reported symptoms of significant swelling, a lack of range of motion and a pain level described as greater than “8.”
The physician diagnosed David with a shoulder sprain and prescribed two weeks of rest, ice and prescription strength ibuprofen. He restricted David from any lifting over his head.
By all accounts, early intervention was working. Utilizing 24/7 nurse triage, there was no lag time between the incident and care. David received timely medical attention and had a treatment plan in place within one day.
A critical factor in any program is a return to work date, yet David was not given a return to work date from the physician at the occupational medicine clinic; therefore, no date was entered in the system.
One small, crucial detail needs just as much attention as when an incident is initially reported. What happens the third week of a claim is just as important as what happens on the day the injury occurs. Involvement with a claim must take place through claim closure and not just at initial triage.
The Same Old Story
After three weeks of physical therapy, no further medical interventions and a lack of communication from his adjuster, David returned to his physician complaining of continued pain. The physician encouraged him to continue physical therapy to improve his mobility and added an opioid prescription to help with his pain.
At home, with no return to work in sight, David became depressed and continued to experience pain in his shoulder. He scheduled an appointment with the physician months later, stating physical therapy was not helping. Since David’s pain had not subsided, the physician ordered an MRI, which came back negative, and wrote David a prescription for medication to manage his depression. The physician referred him to an orthopedic specialist and wrote him a new prescription for additional opioids to address his pain…
Costly medical interventions continued to accrue for the employer and the surmounting risk of the claim continued to go unmanaged. His claim was much more severe than anyone knew.
What if his injury had been managed?
A Model Example
Using a claims system that incorporated a predictive modeling rules engine, the adjuster was immediately prompted to retrieve a return to work date from the physician. Therefore, David’s file was flagged and submitted for a further level of nurse triage intervention and validation. A nurse contacted the physician and verified that there was no return to work date listed on the medical file because the physician’s initial assessment restricted David to no lifting.
As a result of these triage validations, further interventions were needed and a telephonic case manager was assigned to help coordinate care and pursue a proactive return to work plan. Working with the physical therapist and treating physician resulted in a change in David’s medication and a modified physical therapy regimen.
After a few weeks, David reported an improvement in his mobility and his pain level was a “3,” thus prompting the case manager’s request for a re-evaluation. After his assessment, the physician lifted the restriction, allowing David to lift 10 pounds overhead. With this revision, David was able to return to work at modified duty right away. Within six weeks he returned to full duty.
With access to all of the David’s data and a rules engine to keep adjusters on top of the claim, the medical interventions that were needed for his recovery were validated, therefore effectively managing his recovery by continuing to triage his claim. By coordinating care plans with the physician and the physical therapist, and involving a case manager early on, the active management of David’s claim enabled him to remain engaged in his recovery. There was no lapse in communication, treatment or activity.
After 24/7 nurse triage is conducted and an injured worker receives initial care, CorVel’s claims system, CareMC, conducts continuous triage of all data points collected at claim inception and throughout the life of a claim utilizing its integrated rules engine. Predictive indicators send alerts to prompt the adjuster to take action when needed until the claim is closed – not just at the beginning of the claim.
This predictive modeling tool flags potentially complex claims with the risk for high exposure, marking claims that need intervention so that CorVel can assign appropriate resources to mitigate risk.
Claims triage is constant – that is the necessary model. Even on an adjuster’s best day, humans aren’t perfect. A rules engine helps flag things that people can miss. A combination of predictive systems and human intervention ensures claims management is never stagnant – that there is no lapse in communication, activity or treatment. With an advocacy team in the form of an adjuster empowered by a powerful rules engine and a case manager looking out for the best care, injured employees remain engaged in their recovery. By perpetuating patient advocacy, continuous triage reduces claim severity and improves claim outcomes, returning injured workers to the workforce and reducing payors’ risk.