How About a Flat Fee?
More employers wanting predictability in the fees they pay workers’ comp third-party administrators are negotiating to pay a single, flat fee for bill-review services, sources tell me. The arrangements follow from criticisms some employers, their brokers and consultants have heaped on TPAs, saying traditional TPA charges for bill-review services obscure the ultimate cost of those services.
Under traditional arrangements, a TPA might charge an employer on a per-bill basis for each medical-provider bill reviewed. Or, they might charge on a per-line basis, tallying a fee for each expense line on a bill. They can also charge the employer according to the percentage of savings produced by the bill-review process.
The inconsistency in billing methods has fueled suspicion that some TPAs — operating in a highly competitive environment — win business by bidding to provide basic claim-handling and administration at a low cost, and then boost their revenue with additional charges.
TPA executives have countered that their billing measures are transparent, at times even arguing that brokers stir the controversy to attract consulting business. But questions remain.
TPAs also differ from one to the next in their billing formats for the broad range of other claims management services they offer. So employers with the resources to do so often pay their brokers or consultants additional sums to analyze their bills and to help them select the best TPA agreement for them.
Srivatsan Sridharan, senior vice president, product development for TPA Gallagher Bassett Services Inc., said more large employers are negotiating to pay a consistent flat, per-bill fee for all bill-review-related services for each claim. The employer then pays additional amounts for claims handling and all of the other TPA services required to resolve a claim, although the charges for those other services have tended to be more predictable than the bill-review fees.
Data collection has made it possible for TPAs to model an employer’s expected claims-management expenses and accommodate flat-fee deals, Sridharan said. Such arrangements won’t reduce the cost of managing a claim, but they can make bill review costs more predictable, he added.
In a similar vein, brokers meeting privately with TPA executives during the National Workers’ Compensation and Disability Conference® & Expo, held in late November, asked TPAs about their willingness to charge one, all-inclusive fee for an employer’s entire book of claims business, said Joe Picone, chief claim officer for Willis of North America.
Ultimately, employers want to know the “true cost” of managing their claims and this “could be the next evolution of TPA pricing,” Picone said. “Why don’t we just say, ‘Instead of paying $1,500 per claim, my whole contract is worth $1 million or $500,000.’ ”
The mountain of workers’ comp claims data that TPAs collect could help make the broader flat-fee arrangement possible, at least theoretically, because TPAs could mine the data to predict the claims management costs an employer will generate when operating in a specific region and industry, with certain employee demographics and exposure differences.
We will have to wait and see whether innovative employers and TPAs go down that path.
But additional employer options for paying workers’ comp expenses would be a good thing. And with data increasingly available to help TPAs and employers understand claims-management costs, the time is right for employers wanting pricing predictability to seek change.
Proposed Rule Aimed at Clarifying GINA Violations
Employers have increasingly raised questions about whether their wellness programs could violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is hoping a newly proposed rule will answer them.
GINA was created to prevent employment discrimination based on a person’s genetic information.
The issue for employers concerns potential violations of GINA where spouses are involved, particularly the issue of inducements to participate in wellness programs.
Such programs often require “a health risk assessment administered in connection with the employer’s offer of health services as part of an employer-sponsored wellness program,” according to a summary of the proposed regulations in the “Federal Register.”
Wellness programs cannot “condition inducements to employees on the provision of genetic information,” the EEOC said.
Wellness programs cannot “condition inducements to employees on the provision of genetic information,” the EEOC said.
“Read in one way, conditioning all or part of an inducement on the provision of the spouse’s current or past health information could be read to violate the … prohibition on providing financial inducements in return for an employee’s protected genetic information.”
The proposal seeks to clarify that employers are allowed to offer “limited inducements (whether in the form of rewards or penalties avoided) for the provision by spouses covered by the employer’s group health plan of information about their current or past health status as part of a health risk assessment, which may include a medical questionnaire, a medical examination (e.g., to detect high blood pressure or high cholesterol), or both, as long as the requirements of 29 CFR 1635.8(b)(2)(i) are satisfied,” the notice states.
“These requirements include that the provision of genetic information be voluntary and that the individual from whom the genetic information is being obtained provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization, which may include authorization in electronic format.”
Among the changes the EEOC proposes are:
- Add a section explaining that “employers may request, require, or purchase genetic information as part of health or genetic services only when those services, including any acquisition of genetic information that is part of those services, are reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.”
- Add a section explaining that “a covered entity may offer, as part of its health plan, an inducement to an employee whose spouse: 1) is covered under the employee’s health plan; 2) receives health or genetic services offered by the employer, including as part of a wellness program; and 3) provides information about his or her current or past health status as part of a health risk assessment. No inducement may be offered, however, in return for the spouse providing his or her own genetic information, including results of his or her genetic tests.”
- Add a section to explain the way inducements for employees and spouses may be dispensed. The proposed rule would explain that “the maximum share of the inducement attributable to the employee’s participation in an employer wellness program … be equal to 30 percent of the cost of self-only coverage,” the EEOC said.
- “The remainder of the inducement — equal to 30 percent of the total cost of coverage for the plan in which the employee and any dependents are enrolled minus 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage — may be provided in exchange for the spouse providing information to an employer wellness program … about his or her current or past health status.”
- Eliminate the term “financial” as related to inducements and clarify that both financial and in-kind inducements such as time-off awards, prizes, or other items of value would be allowed.
When the Going Gets Rough, the Smart Come to Aspen Insurance
Sometimes, renewals don’t go as expected.
Perhaps your company experienced a particularly costly claim last year. Or maybe it was just one too many smaller incidents that added to a long claims history.
No matter the cause, few words are scarier to hear this time of year than, “Renewal denied.”
But new options are now emerging for companies that are willing to tackle their product liability challenges head-on.
Aspen Insurance’s products liability team – underwriters, loss control engineers and claims professionals – welcome clients who have been denied coverage from other, more traditional carriers.
“For our team, we view our best opportunities to be with clients who have specific problems to solve. In these cases, we leverage our deep expertise and integrated team approach to help the client identify root causes and fix issues,” said Roxanne Mitchell, Aspen U.S. Insurance’s executive vice president and chief casualty officer.
“The result is a much improved product or manufacturing process and the start of a new business relationship that we can grow for many years to come.”
“We want to work with insureds as partners, long after a problem has been resolved. We seek clients who are going to stick with us, just as we will with them. As the insured’s experience improves over time, pricing will improve with it.”
— Roxanne Mitchell, Executive Vice President, Chief Casualty Officer, Aspen Insurance
Of course, this specialized approach is not applicable to all situations and clients. Aspen Insurance only offers coverage if the team is confident the problems can be solved and that the client genuinely wants to engage in improving their business and moving forward.
“Our robust and detailed problem-solving approach quickly identifies pressing issues. Once we know what it will take to rectify the problem, it’s up to the client to make the investments and take the necessary actions,” added Mitchell. “As a specialty carrier operating within the E&S market, we have the ability to develop custom-tailored solutions to unique and complex problems.”
For clients who are eager to learn from managing through a unique, pressing issue, and apply the consequential lessons to improve, Aspen Insurance can be their best, and sometimes only, insurance friend.
The Strategy: Collaboration from Underwriting, Claims and Loss Control
Aspen offers a proven combination of experienced underwriting professionals collaborating with the company’s outstanding loss control/risk engineering and seasoned claims experts.
“We deliver experts who understand the industries in which they work, which is another critical differentiator for us,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell described the Aspen underwriting process as a team approach. In diagnosing the causes of a specific problem, the Aspen team thoroughly vets the client’s claims history, talks to the broker about the exposures and circumstances, peruses user manuals and manufacturing processes, evaluates the supply chain structure – whatever needs to be done to get to the root of a problem.
“Aspen pulls from every resource we have in our arsenal,” she said.
After the Aspen team explores the underlying reason(s) and root cause(s) producing the client’s problem in the first place, it will offer a solution along with corresponding price and coverage specifics.
“We have a very specific business appetite and approach,” Mitchell said. “We don’t treat products liability as a commodity.”
As noted, a major component of Aspen’s approach is that they seek to work with clients who are equally interested in solving their problems and put in the work required to reach that end.
Mitchell cited two recent client examples of manufacturers of expensive products that could endure large claim losses but had some serious problems that needed to be solved.
A conveyor systems manufacturer had a few unexpected large claims and lost its coverage in the traditional insurance market. The manufacturer never managed a product recall in the past, and Aspen’s loss control engineers dug into why several systems failed. Aspen also helped the company alert customers about the impending repairs.
Another company that manufactured firetrucks had three or four large losses, when telescoping ladders collapsed, resulting in serious injuries. The company’s claim history was clean until this particular product defect. When Aspen researched the issue, it found that the specific metal and welding used to make the telescoping ladders didn’t have the required torque to keep the ladders from collapsing.
Both companies worked with Aspen to correct the issues. Problem solved.
“It is so important that our clients are willing to actively engage in finding out what is causing their losses so they can learn from the experience,” Mitchell said.
Apart from the company’s problem-solving philosophy, Mitchell said, the willingness to allow qualified clients to manage their own claims is the second biggest reason companies come to Aspen.
“We are willing to work with clients who have demonstrated the expertise to handle their own claims — with our monitoring — rather than hiring a TPA,” she said. “It is a useful option that can save them money.”
Mitchell explained that customers who stay with Aspen for the long-term can be confident that Aspen will help them – whatever the challenge. For instance, if they need a coverage modification for a new product that they bring to market, Aspen can help make it happen. Mitchell noted, “We pride ourselves on the ability to develop custom-tailored solutions to address the complex and challenging risks that our clients face.”
Aspen’s desire to help solve difficult client problems comes with a caveat, but one that benefits both Aspen and the insured: It wants to move forward as a true partner – one with clear long-term relationship potential.
In a nutshell, Aspen’s products liability worldview is to partner with a manufacturer who is facing a difficult situation with claims or coverage, help them solve that problem, and then, engage in a long-term, committed relationship with the client.
“We want to work with insureds as partners, long after a problem has been resolved,” she said. “We seek clients who are going to stick with us, just as we will with them. As the insured’s experience improves over time, pricing will improve with it. This partnership approach can be a clear win-win.”
This article is provided for news and information purposes only and does not necessarily represent Aspen’s views and does constitute legal advice. This article reflects the opinion of the author at the time it was written taking into account market, regulatory and other conditions at the time of writing which may change over time. Aspen does not undertake a duty to update the article.
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Aspen Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.