Foreign Travel Risk

Overseas Employees at Risk

Undisciplined insurance purchasing practices leave dangerous gaps for expats.
By: | May 24, 2016 • 6 min read
062016_02_Travel_Risk

A rogue wave pulled a vacationing military contractor walking on a foreign beach into the ocean. He hit his head on a rock and was paralyzed.

Advertisement




Because his employer sent him on the trip for some R&R, the contractor’s Foreign Voluntary Workers’ Compensation insurance responded for his medical injuries even though he was vacationing instead of at a job site.

Luckily for the worker, his employer had the right coverage in place to forestall painful financial and health consequences.

But a substantial risk for employees and the companies they work for is that how and when coverage responds overseas often doesn’t track how coverage responds stateside, said Mary Quillen, manager, international workers’ compensation, AkesoCare.

Multinationals tend to carry many overlapping lines of insurance for their overseas business travelers, which is a help.

“You may have six or seven lines of insurance responding to a single claim,” said Logan Payne, assistant vice president, international practice, Lockton.

The primary policies are Foreign Voluntary Worker’s Compensation, Business Travelers Accident, and Kidnap, Ransom and Extortion, Payne said. Purchased effectively the coverages can be powerful. Purchased without the proper consideration, they may suffer from gaps as well as redundancies. Such gaps can cost employees dearly at a desperate time of their lives, Payne said.

To prevent that, he recommends centralizing insurance purchasing for expats instead of delegating it piecemeal to departments or regional offices. “Get all the insurance buyers in the same room to reach one comprehensive answer,” he said.

“Who does the traveler call if he loses his prescription drugs or needs medical evacuation? Who does he call if he hears gunshots outside his hotel?” — Chris Chao, senior vice president, Aon

International benefits from domestic health care insurance can range from nonexistent to “pretty good,” said Arno Chrispeels, owner, Health Insurance International. “A plan might cover emergency medical treatment but not evacuation or repatriation,” he said.

Since these are hefty expenses — $20,000 to $100,000 for a helicopter evacuation and $15,000 to $25,000 for repatriation — companies should review their domestic policies and fill in gaps by using international insurance for short- and long-term travelers.

Chris Chao, a senior vice president at Aon, said it is generally the travel assistance provider that keeps expats safe.

“Who does the traveler call if he loses his prescription drugs or needs medical evacuation? Who does he call if he hears gunshots outside his hotel?” Chao asked.

Duties of Care and Loyalty

When companies send workers out of the country, they have a “duty of care” to keep employees safe and healthy, while the expat workers have a “duty of loyalty” to follow their employers’ safety practices. Sometimes this requires workarounds and major effort. For example, said Denise Buckland, senior vice president, operations, International Medical Group, if a worker is diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, doctors will try staged medications.

Denise Buckland, senior vice president, operations, International Medical Group

Denise Buckland, senior vice president, operations, International Medical Group

“You try one, and if it doesn’t work, you try another,” she said. But the options can be very limited.

Let’s say a U.S. employee working in Thailand requires the injectable Humira to manage her condition, and no other drug gives her the relief she needs. Humira is illegal in Thailand, however. The carrier could contact the Thai and U.S. governments to help the employee get an importer’s license, but in the meantime, Buckland said, “the worker may get so sick that she has to go home.”

Especially in regions where the medical infrastructure is underdeveloped by Western standards, an acute but treatable event, such as a compound bone fracture, could quickly escalate into a life-threatening medical issue, said Alison Swanz, senior consultant, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Advertisement




Duty of care is still an “unregulated philosophy,” said Hart Brown, senior vice president, practice leader, organizational resilience, HUB International. It depends on a number of interrelated steps, beginning with a vetted travel assistance provider and adequate insurance.

An employer “hasn’t met its duty of care” if its travel assistance provider does not have the right protocols or its expats don’t know the provider’s toll-free number, he said.

“Compliance is hard to enforce. You can’t sit on an adult to make him take his meds.” — Alison Swanz, senior consultant, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Coverage gaps and potential risks should be exposed in a thorough pre-trip screening, said Rob Howard, director of corporate sales, GeoBlue, a major provider of international insurance for expatriates.

When employees need medical help while on assignment, carriers will tap their provider networks to find care equivalent to what they would get at home, said Howard.

Pre-assignment evaluations should extend beyond known health issues, said Nick Dobelbower, vice president, global benefits practice, Lockton, to include language training if necessary, and alert the traveler to cultural differences and sensitivities.

Chris Chao, senior vice president, Aon

Chris Chao, senior vice president, Aon

The onus is on the employee to make a responsible decision whether to go on an overseas assignment. Sometimes, employees should decline assignments, Swanz said. A worker with asthma probably shouldn’t accept an offer in Beijing, where air pollution is a health hazard.

“An executive expat assignment is a huge investment for the company,” Howard said, and may include high compensation, language training, housing, security, a driver and private schools.

To recoup that investment, companies expect an executive assignment to last three to five years, but more than 50 percent end in failure after six to nine months. Among the top reasons for failure are the expat’s benefits package and health care, according to Cigna’s “2015 Global Mobility Survey.”

Duty of care and duty of loyalty should align during pre-trip planning, said Howard. He recommends a sit-down orientation with travelers as a group before they leave to review the size and scope of risks.

Other issues such as domestic employees can arise, Chrispeels said. “Employees may think they have international coverage for the entire household [such as nannies], but they don’t.”

The organization should also consider issues such as family mental health problems. A one-on-one meeting or a follow-up phone call may bring issues to light when travelers have medical issues they don’t want to share with a group.

One aspect of an employee’s duty of loyalty applies to medical compliance, especially to taking prescribed medications for common diseases such as heart conditions or asthma.

Alison Swanz, senior consultant, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Alison Swanz, senior consultant, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

“Compliance is hard to enforce. You can’t sit on an adult to make him take his meds,” Swanz said.

U.S. companies that send U.S. citizens overseas are subject to the Affordable Care Act, but the law is so complex — despite Congress’ attempt at guidance in the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 (EHCCA) — that “people get glassy-eyed looking at it,” said Mark Holloway, senior vice president, co-director, compliance services, Lockton.

Holloway recommends that companies write their expat coverage on U.S. paper as a practical way to satisfy the individual mandate — but to work with professionals who deal in expatriate insurance every day.

“Companies will want to work with a broker or counsel who plays in the sandbox because it’s such an arcane area of the law.”

Susannah Levine writes about health care, education and technology. She can be reached at [email protected]
Share this article:

Risk Insider: Jack Hampton

Cyber Security: Don’t Pay for a Landslide

By: | May 16, 2016 • 2 min read
Jack Hampton is a Professor of Business at St. Peter’s University in New Jersey and a former Executive Director of the Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS). He was named a Risk Innovator in 2008 by Risk and Insurance®. He can be reached at [email protected]

At 8 p.m. on the evening of the 1960 presidential election, the television news networks reported Republican Richard M. Nixon leading Democrat John F. Kennedy by more than 400,000 votes in Illinois. The Chicago precincts were not included in those early figures.

Advertisement




When those precincts finally sent in their totals — very late that night — the voting tally produced a 9,000 vote margin for JFK and victory in the presidential race.

The announced “turnout” by the Daley political machine in Chicago was a historic 89 percent.

Thirty years later, allegations surfaced that mob boss Sam Giancana helped rig the election, partly by using money from Joseph Kennedy, the father of the incoming president.

After the 2011 breach, we might ask, “Did Sony have second thoughts about what it should spend on cyber security?”

We also became familiar with an alleged quote by the senior Mr. Kennedy, “Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.”

Cyber security today reminds us of the Joe Kennedy philosophy in Chicago in 1960.

The issue was succinctly expressed in 2007, when the executive director of information security at Sony Pictures reportedly said, “It is a valid business decision to accept the risk of a security breach. Sony would not invest $10 million to avoid a possible $1 million loss.”

Subsequently, a Sony unit experienced a destructive 2011 cyber attack that brought down its systems for 24 days and compromised personal details and other data on 77 million user accounts.

The attack resulted in more than 50 class action lawsuits, and caused a financial loss in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 2014, hackers struck Sony Pictures again. They lit up Sony websites with annoying sounds and threatening pictures, stole or erased software and data on 4,000 computers and servers, and publicly released completed and unreleased movie films, unfinished movie scripts, embarrassing emails, and salary data and Social Security numbers for 47,000 employees.

The event represented another loss in the hundreds of millions.

After the 2011 breach, we might ask, “Did Sony have second thoughts about what it should spend on cyber security?”

The evidence is not comforting, at least when we consider a lengthy July 2015 investigative article in “Fortune” magazine that documented a failure in the risk management culture at Sony Pictures.

A few days before the attack, Sony requested a meeting with a “threat-intelligence” firm to discuss protecting Sony against computer and system hacking.

A four-man team from Norse Corp. were sent to a room in the IT building that had unattended computers logged in to Sony’s international data network.

The magazine learned Sony Pictures assigned only 11 people to its information security team. The team consisted of a senior vice president, executive director, three directors, three managers and three information security analysts.

The presence of two high-ranking officers on the team seems to indicate top management interest in cyber security, but “Fortune” described problems with the personalities of Sony leaders and conflicts between U.S. and Tokyo executives.

Advertisement




The presence of only three security analysts seems to be inadequate for such a complex and visible organization, with 6,000 employees, $7 billion in revenues and dozens of subsidiaries and joint ventures.

At this point we could analyze the problems and suggest solutions. That would be redundant.

Suffice it to conclude that Sony needed a stronger and more proactive risk-awareness culture in 2007, 2011 and 2014. We don’t know if changes have been made. We can offer encouragement that is good advice for any organization evaluating its cyber risk management activities.

“Sony, don’t pay for a landslide but buy enough ballots to win.”

Share this article:

Sponsored Content by CorVel

Advocacy: The Impact of Continuous Triage

Claims management is never stagnant. Utilizing a continuous triage model keeps injured employees on track to recovery.
By: | May 4, 2016 • 6 min read

SponsoredContent_CorVel

Introduction

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.

The Injury

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.

But Wait…

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.

CorVel’s Model

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.

*WCRI.

This article was produced by CorVel Corporation and not the Risk & Insurance® editorial team.



CorVel is a national provider of risk management solutions for employers, third party administrators, insurance companies and government agencies seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.
Share this article: