Risk Insider: Jeff Driver

Can ‘Ebola-mania’ Give Way to a National Reset?

By: | December 10, 2014 • 2 min read
Jeff Driver is the Chief Risk Officer- Stanford University Medical Center and the Chief Executive Officer - The Risk Authority, LLC. He can be reached at jdriver@theriskauthority.com.

Ebola is not a new contagion and it is one for which the United States has been preparing for since at least post-9/11 heightened bioterrorism concerns.

While some may be critical of the care provided to the first patient with Ebola in Dallas, as well as resulting communication issues involving hospital and medical officials, clearly all involved intended to do their very best under uniquely stressful conditions that rarely any American hospital had faced before.

In what will surely be a repeating pattern in the near-term, American hospitals, clinics and doctors, as well as employers and other entities will continue to periodically encounter individuals that have acquired the Ebola virus and require treatment.  The country will also have periods where there may be no known cases.

As of Nov. 11, and for the first time in 41 days since the initial U.S. patients, there were no known cases of Ebola in the U.S.  That was short-lived as within days thereafter a surgeon who had contracted the Ebola virus in West Africa was transferred to the United States for treatment, but unfortunately the patient died.

I believe we should attempt a national “reset” to manage this public health issue in America — based on science and evidence.

In order to do so, it is important to understand the causative factors leading to the arguably explicable initial national panic surrounding Ebola.  In the early moments of a risk crisis, leaders get limited chances to establish credibility and trust. The populace and media want to know the risk is understood and under control.

Early slips in Dallas failed this test, as I mention in my first article on this subject.

While some may feel on edge with regard to changing CDC guidance, in fact, the CDC is adjusting to new information and changing their guidelines appropriately; not dissimilar to how managers of risk adjust to any hazard exposure.

As managers of risk, we should be assessing the risks Ebola presents.

Ebola is really no different than other significant risks (e.g., terrorism post-9/11, Y2K, swine flu, grounding of certain airplanes).

There is a common pattern that moves from initial organic obsession to an easing, understanding, and respect of the risk that becomes balanced with other important considerations such as civil liberties, promoting international health, and maintaining world economic balance, for examples in the context of contagion risks.

For the emerging risk of Ebola in America, we are at a pivotal point to learn from the recent past and venture forward with the best of science and evidence-based risk management.

Will America press the reset?  As risk managers, we stand in an influential position within our organizations to utilize the proven methods and tools of managing enterprise risks, including contagion risk.

As such, risk managers are in a unique position to lead with others; to reset the response to the Ebola virus in our unique national microcosm and move to a balanced American view appropriately and respectfully managing our interests while simultaneously attending to world health risk issues, especially in West Africa.

Read all of Jeff Driver’s Risk Insider articles.

Share this article:

Risk Insider: Jeff Driver

A Failure of Trust

By: | December 1, 2014 • 2 min read
Jeff Driver is the Chief Risk Officer- Stanford University Medical Center and the Chief Executive Officer - The Risk Authority, LLC. He can be reached at jdriver@theriskauthority.com.

‘Ebola-mania’ is my term for significant reactions to known public health and risk management issues associated with the Ebola virus.

The arrival of Ebola in the United States has been marked by fever-pitch reactions of alarm that ranged from cries for international travel bans, school closings, state-required quarantines of individuals, airport passenger health screenings, and even calls for national nursing union labor strikes over claimed unsafe hospital working conditions.

Now, let’s take a big collective national breath.  Could it be that what first appeared to be a public health crisis turned out to be more of a significant crisis in public confidence?

Could it be that for America, Ebola is not as significant a risk as it is for the far less advanced medical systems in West Africa where over 5,000 people have died after contracting the virus?

But this fall, in different ways, U.S. hospitals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as state and federal governments arguably failed to fully establish credibility with a hungry media and scared public, exacerbating what should have been a manageable Ebola outbreak.

A trifecta of public confidence shaking moves occurred when missteps were made in treating the first U.S. Ebola patient, accurately communicating with the public, and protecting treating medical providers from contracting the virus.

First, a patient with a history of fever and travel from West Africa was discharged from a hospital back into the community.  Then, information about the patient’s temperature being no greater than the CDC threshold of 101.5 degrees to trigger a serious Ebola concern had to be corrected; and once the patient was readmitted, officials failed to clearly explain delays in blood transfusion from an Ebola survivor and the administration of an experimental drug (Brincidofovir), both which had shown promise in treating Ebola.

Perhaps most alarming, the involved hospital has not been able to explain how two of its nurses contracted the virus, instead seeming to point the finger at the CDC for frequently changing protective gear guidelines and “frustrating” hospital employees and management.

Subsequent blows to public confidence stemmed from uncertainties around CDC guidelines on personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers and the 21-day quarantine guideline for individuals exposed to the Ebola virus.

First, with regard to PPE: After two nurses in Dallas tested positive for the Ebola virus, the CDC changed PPE guidelines to ensure there would be no ambiguity about leaving no skin exposure. It detailed step-by-step instructions to put on and take off the equipment safely, as well as the necessity of having a trained monitor to supervise the process.

Then, there are the still unresolved questions surrounding the necessity of a 21-day quarantine for individuals potentially exposed to the Ebola virus.

The several different approaches to contain the virus from individual states, the CDC and the military have not been resolved, and the current interim CDC recommendations at this point are based on transmission risk assessment.

In part II of this article on Ebola, I will focus on the way risk managers should reset the response to Ebola.

Read all of Jeff Driver’s Risk Insider articles.

Share this article:

Sponsored: Liberty International Underwriters

From Coast to Coast

Planning the Left Coast Lifter's complex voyage demands a specialized team of professionals.
By: | January 7, 2015 • 5 min read

SponsoredContent_LIU
The 3,920-ton Left Coast Lifter, originally built by Fluor Construction to help build the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco, will be integral in rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge by 2018.

The Lifter and the Statue of Liberty

When he got the news, Scot Burford could see it as clearly as if somebody handed him an 8 by 11 color photograph.

On January 30,  the Left Coast Lifter, a massive crane originally built by Fluor Construction to help build the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco, steamed past the Statue of Liberty. Excited observers, who saw the crane entering New York Harbor, dubbed it the “The Hudson River Hoister,” honoring its new role in rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River.

Powered by two stout-hearted tug boats, the Lauren Foss and the Iver Foss, it took more than five weeks for the huge crane to complete the 6,000 mile ocean journey from San Francisco to New York via the Panama Canal.

Scot took a deep breath and reflected on all the work needed to plan every aspect of the crane’s complicated journey.

A risk engineer at Liberty International Underwriters (LIU), Burford worked with a specialized team of marine insurance and risk management professionals which included John Phillips, LIU’s Hull Product Line Leader, Sean Dollahon, an LIU Marine underwriter, and Rick Falcinelli, LIU’s Marine Risk Engineering Manager, to complete a detailed analysis of the crane’s proposed route. Based on a multitude of factors, the LIU team confirmed the safety of the route, produced clear guidelines for the tug captains that included weather restrictions, predetermined ports of refuge in the case of bad weather as well as specifying the ballast conditions and rigging of tow gear on the tugs.

Of equal importance, the deep expertise and extensive experience of the LIU team ensured that the most knowledgeable local surveyors and tugboat captains with the best safety records were selected for the project. After all, the most careful of plans will only be as effective as the people who execute them.

The tremendous size of the Left Coast Lifter presented some unique challenges in preparing for its voyage.

SponsoredContent_LIU

The original intention was to dry tow the crane by loading and securing it on a semi-submersible vessel. However, the lack of an American-flagged vessel that could accommodate the Left Coast Lifter created many logistical complexities and it was decided that the crane would be towed on its own barge.

At first, the LIU team was concerned since the barge was not intended for ocean travel and therefore lacked towing skegs and other structural components typically found on oceangoing barges.

But a detailed review of the plan with the client and contractors gave the LIU team confidence. In this instance, the sheer weight and size of the crane provided sufficient stability, and with the addition of a second tug on the barge’s stern, the LIU team, with its knowledge of barges and tugs, was confident the configuration was seaworthy and the barge would travel in a straight line. The team approved the plan and the crane began its successful voyage.

As impressive as the crane and its voyage were, it was just one piece in hundreds that needed to be underwritten and put in place for the Tappan Zee Bridge project to come off.

Time-Sensitive Quote

SponsoredContent_LIUThe rebuilding of the Tappan Zee Bridge, due to be completed in 2018, is the largest bridge construction project in the modern history of New York. The bridge is 3.1 miles long and will cost more than $3 billion to construct. The twin-span, cable-stayed bridge will be anchored to four mid-river towers.

When veteran contractors American Bridge, Fluor Corp., Granite Construction Northeast and Traylor Bros. formed a joint venture and won the contract to rebuild the Tappan Zee, one of the first things the consortium needed to do was find an insurance partner with the right coverages and technical expertise.

The Marsh broker, Ali Rizvi, Senior Vice President, working with the consortium, was well known to the LIU underwriting and engineering teams. In addition, Burford and the broker had worked on many projects in the past and had a strong relationship. These existing relationships were vital in facilitating efficient communication and data gathering, particularly given the scope and complexity of a project like the Tappan Zee.

And the scope of the project was indeed immense – more than 200 vessels, coming from all over the United States, would be moving construction equipment up the Hudson River.

An integrated team of LIU underwriters and risk engineers (including Burford, Phillips, Dollahon and Falcinelli) got to work evaluating the risk and the proper controls that the project required. Given the global scope of the project, the team’s ability to tap into their tight-knit global network of fellow LIU marine underwriters and engineers with deep industry relationships and expertise was invaluable.

In addition to the large number of vessels, the underwriting process was further complicated by many aspects of the project still being finalized.

“Because the consortium had just won this account, they were still working on contracts and contractors to finalize the deal and were unsure as to where most of the equipment and materials would be coming from,” Burford said.

Despite the massive size of the project and large number of stakeholders, LIU quickly turned around a quote involving three lines of marine coverage, Marine Liability, Project Cargo and Marine Hull & Machinery.

How could LIU produce such a complicated quote in a short period of time? It comes down to integrating risk engineers into the underwriting process, possessing deep industry experience on a global scale and having strong relationships that facilitate communication and trust.

SponsoredContent_LIU

Photo Credit: New York State Thruway Authority

When completed in 2018, the Tappan Zee will be eight lanes, with four emergency pullover lanes. Commuters sailing across it in their sedans and SUVs might appreciate the view of the Hudson, but they might never grasp the complexity of insuring three marine lines, covering the movements of hundreds of marine vessels carrying very expensive cargo.

Not to mention ferrying a 3,920-ton crane from coast to coast without a hitch.

But that’s what insurance does, in its quiet profundity.

SponsoredContent
BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty International Underwriters. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.




LIU is part of the Global Specialty Division of Liberty Mutual Insurance.
Share this article: