Recent headlines report an upward trend in “deaths of despair” among middle-aged, white (non-Hispanic) men, most with less than a college education. For the past 100 years, life expectancy has been increasing, but, among this group, that trend suddenly went into reverse. The explanation that Princeton University economists give includes an increase in suicide, overdoses (mostly from prescription drugs) and liver disease related to alcoholism. When they dug a bit deeper, they found these deaths of despair were related to a reduction of labor force participation, marriage rates and involvement in faith communities — a loss of status, purpose, community — a classic perfect storm of risk for suicide and addiction. National statistics tell us that men die by suicide at a much higher rate than women and that, unless we as a country make significant efforts to prevent suicide among this age group, suicide deaths among working-aged men will continue to increase and affect a significant portion of our population over the next 25 years. Public health and behavioral health leaders are calling for targeting services at males through innovative approaches, including community-based campaigns. Suicide prevention campaigns have been shown to be effective in helping adults in general, but few target working-aged men to promote identifying a need for help-seeking services and increasing knowledge about crisis and mental health counseling services. More research is necessary to identify the most effective mechanisms of public health campaigns and how to best target messages to at-risk populations such as working-aged men. One state is engaging in a statewide campaign to fight this trend. HealthyMenMichigan.org is a free resource designed to engage working-aged men living in Michigan, through online depression and suicide screening and through encouraging help-seeking to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Leaders are demonstrating a commitment to reduce the suicide rate among working-aged men in a state where suicide is a leading cause of injury death among men. Through this campaign, men are offered online mental health screening that can be done any time and from any location, in an effort to educate men about risk for depression and suicide and to encourage help-seeking behavior from community resources. Another men-specific resource called “Man Therapy” is also offered and is designed to provide even greater assessment and support for men on suicide risk and related issues — including stress, substance use and relationship issues. See also: Employers’ Role in Preventing Suicide The online depression screening asks men about depression and suicide using a standardized measure that taps into symptoms such as low energy and motivation; loss of appetite; interruption of sleep; difficulties concentrating and making decisions; and thoughts of and plans for suicide. Based on responses to the online surveys, men may then be invited to participate in the voluntary research study conducted by the University of Maryland. The research team expects to enroll as many as 300 men in the study by Aug. 31, 2018. Partners throughout Michigan include nearly 100 mental health and suicide prevention organizations as well as 50 health and non-health groups. “Non-health” partner organizations include employers in male-dominated workplaces such as first responder and construction workplaces, sports and recreational clubs, faith-based organizations, colleges/universities, fraternities, men’s clubs, barber shops, casinos and hunting and boating clubs. It is through these partnerships that the researchers promote HealthyMenMichigan.org and, subsequently, recruit men for the research study. HealthyMenMichigan.org can be a great free benefit to businesses, where the cost of providing health insurance and wellness benefits (particularly to small-business employees) can be expensive. By providing a free resource — such as HealthyMenMichigan.org, which can be used to check a person's mental health status and receive local resources and supports — employers can communicate care and concern to their employees while promoting good mental health practices and overall employee well-being. HealthyMenMichigan.org is working to meet men where they are at any time — at their home, workplace and in the online community. The campaign helps men learn that taking control of their mental health is a manly thing to do. See also: Blueprint for Suicide Prevention   Results from this important study will inform the field about effective ways in which to engage working-aged men in suicide help-seeking behavior — information that is sorely needed to save lives. Additionally, this study will provide evidence regarding best practices for online screening and referral to treatment that can be scaled and sustained throughout the country. For more information about becoming a partner to help promote Healthy Men Michigan or for questions about the research, contact Dr. Frey at: jfrey@ssw.umaryland.edu.

It is not a secret that I’m an insurtech enthusiastic; I have shared my view about the need for any insurance player (insurer, reinsurer, distributors, etc.) to become an insurtech-player during the next several years. This will mean: organizations where technology will prevail as the key enabler for the achievement of the strategic goals. It was only 12 months ago when I published my four Ps to assess the potential of each insurtech initiative. My approach is based on four axes related to the fundamentals of the insurance business:

1. Productivity: Impact on client acquisition, cross-selling or additional fee collection for services;
2. Proximity: What an insurtech approach can do to enlarge the relationship frequency, by creating numerous touch-points during the customer journey — a proven way to increase the customer’s satisfaction;
3. Profitability: What can be done to improve the loss ratio or cut costs without an increase in volumes; and
4. Persistence: Increasing the renewal rate, and, thus, stabilizing the insurance portfolio.

The insurtech ecosystem has shown terrific growth in the last 20 months, after many VCs complained about the absence of insurtech startups. The updated Venture Scanner’s map shows more than 1,000 initiatives, with more than $17.5 billion invested. The needs for a pragmatic approach, the ability to prioritize the initiatives and a stronger focus on innovation have become more and more relevant. See also: 10 Trends at Heart of Insurtech Revolution   I strongly believe in the effectiveness of the aforementioned four axes to evaluate a business. In the last few months, I followed this view to make investment and career choices. Several months ago, I invested in Neosurance, an insurtech startup currently accelerated by Plug & Play in Silicon Valley, and I’m supporting the company as a strategic adviser. This company developed a platform to enable incumbents to sell the right product with the right message at the right time to the right person. By using artificial intelligence, Neosurance aims to become a virtual insurance agent with the ability to learn and improve how it sells. I fell in love with its model because of its productivity angle, the first of the four Ps. Let’s consider all the non-compulsory insurance coverages. The large part of the purchases have been — and still are — centered on a salesman's ability to stimulate awareness and to show a solution. In a world that is getting increasingly more digital and is becoming less about human interaction, I’m skeptical about the ability to cover the risks with the current approaches of online distribution, comparison websites and on-demand apps. All three of these approaches require a rational act and a lot of attention. But many customers look like more to Homer Simpson than to Mr. Spock. Those are the reasons I’m optimistic about Neosurance’s business model. On one hand, its B2B2C model aims to be present where and when it matters most for the customer. And, its “push” approach is able to preserve underwriting discipline, which is the only way to continue in the middle term and distribute a product that keeps a promise to the customers. My investment choice was based on the business model evaluation, the company's pipeline and the quality of its team. I hope to be able make more investments.

It should come as no surprise that consumers prefer to shop online — for just about everything and anything. Not because they want to but because they have to. Information overload dictates that busy consumers take every opportunity to save every second possible. It's almost an imperative for young, hard-working, multitasking families. See also: How Technology Breaks Down Silos   So perhaps we should have expected McKinsey & Company to report that, soon, “Leading digital carriers will go further by digitally enabling their sales forces, interacting with consumers and intermediaries in real-time omnichannel environments and offering remote and robo-advice at any hour on any platform.” (See McKinsey & Co., Harnessing the Power of Digital in Life Insurance.) What does this mean? We are being warned by the oracle of consulting firms that life insurance consumers want to interact by computer, so insurers should immediately respond by offering them remote, real-time, always-on “robo-advice.” Where does that leave the seasoned insurance professional? Will the agent finally be replaced by the algorithm? If you think this is science fiction, think again. This technology is already here. According to a recent industry study, 88% of consumers of all ages already research life insurance online before they buy (see LIMRA, 2016 Insurance Barometer Study). Of those who buy insurance online or offline, 17% purchase directly from an insurance company after researching online, and a further 22% research and complete the purchase entirely online. In other words, of the 88% who research online, 44% of these consumers are currently bypassing any meaningful back-and-forth planning process with experienced life insurance advisers. In support of these statistics, venture capital-backed insurtech investments rose from $800 million in 2014 to $2.6 billion in 2015 — and that number continues to climb (see KPMG, Pulse of Fintech). See also: This Is Not Your Father’s Life Insurance   The fact that consumers are busy and markets are adapting should in no way imply that the result is better for either the consumer or the insurance agent. Hybrid sites such as Lifester.com may offer the best of both worlds. Like other online sites, Lifester is available to consumers 24/7. But Lifester doesn't sell insurance. Rather, Lifester instantly connects consumers and agents so that life insurance strategies and recommendations can be formulated and developed as digital “projects.” Consumers can then invite family, friends and personal advisers into their projects to contribute comments leading to important feedback and better decision-making. As the pendulum swings from multiple-meeting-based selling to online fast quotes, services like Lifester may provide the most sensible approach. Consumers get free expert advice from licensed life insurance professionals and are even encouraged to seek the counsel of other decision-making advocates. All project members can review information, post comments and communicate using their computers — at any time of day or night, when it is most convenient. Perhaps the life insurance sales process is ready for yet another change — one that taps into the expertise of the agent yet empowers the consumer.

Which is the better marketing strategy? Buying a higher volume of low-quality leads or a lower volume of more expensive leads? Purchased leads have an image problem in the insurance industry. Yes, they can be expensive. But instead of being viewed as premium, purchased leads are often associated with mediocre quality. In fact, 84% of lead buyers say that lead quality is something lead providers need to improve the most. Low-quality leads can mean wasted sales rep time and decreased productivity, as well as lower close rates. But is the amount of skepticism around the quality of purchased leads really warranted? Contrary to popular wisdom, successful insurers and other organizations tell us that purchased leads can and do yield favorable results. Velocify’s newest study, “Lead Trends Report” found that high-growth companies (those with 20%+ annual growth) are relying more heavily on purchased leads than any other lead source. In fact, purchased leads account for a higher percentage of total volume for high-growth companies, regardless of company size. Not only do fast-growing companies have a higher percentage of purchased leads compared to flat or slower growth companies, they are also less reliant on referral and direct mail leads. See also: 10 Trends at Heart of Insurtech Revolution   The discussion of third-party marketing partners and leads is especially pertinent in insurance given that most prospects (89%) who submit leads to third-party insurance sites do not visit a brand site beforehand. This path to purchase can make third-party leads a valuable option for capturing new, in-market shoppers who aren’t likely to visit an insurer’s site. You Get What You Pay For But why are high-growth companies more successful with purchased leads than companies experiencing less growth? The major difference is that fast-growing companies are more willing to invest more per lead to get high quality than are most other companies. The average spend reported by lead buyers was $42 per lead, but companies with significant revenue growth spend $86 per lead. Another difference is that high-growth companies regularly and frequently re-assess the performance of their lead sources. The study found that high-growth companies are 125% more likely than flat/declining companies to evaluate new lead providers at least quarterly. Regular performance evaluations indicate disciplined processes for measuring lead source KPIs and a willingness to change up their marketing program to optimize performance. In contrast, some flat or declining businesses even go a few years without evaluating new lead providers—a practice not reported by high-growth companies. Pro Tips Before increasing your investment in purchased insurance leads, be sure you are ready to follow these best practices:

1. Follow up as soon as you get the lead. Ensure you have a way to automate lead capture into a lead management system that can distribute the leads within seconds to an available rep. Speed is critical when responding to purchased leads. The Ultimate Guide to Inquiry Response shows that conversion rates more than double when leads are called in under one minute.
2. Be persistent. Process and strategy are equally as important to success as speed-to-contact. Make sure you are not only following up fast, but also persisting beyond the first few contact attempts with multiple channels of communication.
3. Prepare for duplicate leads. Understand the policy for duplicate leads going into a relationship with a new lead provider and have a way to report back to your lead provider when you receive duplicates.
4. Frequently monitor key performance indicators (KPIs). Take time each day, or at least each week, to better understand the quality of leads you are purchasing. Track KPIs like contact rate, qualification rate, and conversion rate and adjust your spend accordingly.
5. Meet regularly with lead providers. Keep an open dialogue with lead providers by meeting monthly, or at least quarterly, so you can tweak your program to meet lead generation needs.

See also: The Insurance Model in 2035?   Clearly, purchased leads can be a more impactful part of your customer acquisition program than conventional wisdom would suggest. The key is to invest in higher-quality lead sources like hot transfers, exclusive leads, and leads that are scored or qualified in other ways for quality. Though generating a high volume of leads from free (or near free) lead sources like referral and web channels is a good strategy, our findings show the value of purchased leads cannot be ignored.

President Trump signed an executive order this week that directs federal agencies to implement a “Buy American, Hire American” strategy and to reform the much maligned H-1B visa. No doubt, lobbyists and congressional staffers are working overtime to develop an even more complex visa system that will be riddled with new loopholes. It will benefit large corporations and immigration lawyers and do little for the American worker — and the technology startups that need the skilled talent the most. The right solution isn’t for government to set minimum wages or pick winners; it is to let the free markets do their magic. The H-1B visa is indeed problematic: It puts both American and foreign workers at a disadvantage. It ties the foreign workers to the employer and allows the employer to pay them less than they could be earning. The simple fix is to allow H-1B visa holders to work for any employer that pays them the highest wage or for the startup that offers the most rewarding work. In other words, give immigrants the same rights as American workers and cause companies to pay employees their market value. See also: The Brewing Crisis Over Jobs   Technically, any H-1B worker can change jobs by filing a petition with the government, and some do take advantage of this rule. But there is a catch. The H-1B visa allows a path to permanent residency when an employer sponsors a worker. And this is the carrot that employers offer, one that most people coming to the United States want. Once they accept this carrot, however, they are trapped in limbo. Here is the problem: For decades, the U.S. has been bringing in large numbers of workers on temporary visas such as the H-1B, but it never increased the numbers of permanent resident visas, or green cards, available for those who want to stay. There are 140,000 green cards issued per year to employment-based visa holders, and the law stipulates that each nationality may receive no more than 7 percent of the total number of employment-based green cards. Considering that Indian recipients make up 71 percent and Chinese recipients nearly 10 percent of the total H-1B visa holder pool, their green-card wait times stretch as long as 15 years. Once H-1Bs have started the process of filing for a green card, they cannot change employers or even take new jobs within their existing companies without getting pushed to the back of the queue. Therefore, visa holders are shackled to their sponsoring employer while their careers stagnate and they receive salaries that are lower than they could otherwise make. This is why opponents of the H-1B visa rightfully claim that American workers are disadvantaged, because they are effectively competing with bonded labor. The problem could be fixed if the number of permanent resident visas available for skilled workers was increased and the wait times decreased dramatically. But this is not going to happen in this political climate. The most realistic solution is to untether the visa holder from the hiring company. In other words, if a company hires someone on an H-1B visa, and the employee gets an offer of a higher salary, they can leave the company regardless of the status of their green-card application. This way there’s no cheap labor anymore, and market forces take over. Technology companies won’t support such a measure because it causes them to lose leverage over the employee. Politicians won’t propose such a simple fix because it is not what lobbyists want. Instead, we get a series of convoluted proposals that increase the role of government and disadvantage all workers. Sadly, there is unemployment in the tech industry, and there are many heart-breaking cases of Americans being displaced by cheap foreign labor. This is not an acceptable situation, and it is why we must fix the salary disadvantage. But there is another problem that needs to be recognized. Very often, the unemployed workers are not in the tech centers wherethe skills are neededor their skills are not up to date. This can be remedied by providing job training and relocation assistance. That is what the government should focus on. See also: Why Trump’s Travel Ban Hurts Innovation   Let there not be any doubt, though, that Silicon Valley is starved for talent and needs the best and brightest from all over the world to be working for it. It thrives on competition of every form, including technology and skill. Attacking immigrants and demanding that companies hire Americans over people who are more skilled, as the president is doing, is the fastest way to destroy America’s competitive advantage. It will block the flow of the very lifeblood that built the economic bone structure of this great country and deaden the nerve endings that create the next great thing. The best way to make America great again is to restore this flow.

What is your insurance company telling you about your business interruption values? In preparing annual business interruption values and exposure analysis for clients, we have noticed several red flags that indicate something may be wrong with how these values are being reported to the insurance company. It’s not so much what the insurance company is telling you about your business interruption values, but what it is not telling you. Here are three red flags insurance companies are waving by not saying anything: Great Rates – "We are paying a lot for insurance, but we are getting a great rate!” Beware, great rates for property policies have the potential to be misleading. The business interruption values are one of the many variables in determining rates. If you are over-reporting your values and the insurance company realizes it, your rate will appear better than others reporting more accurate values. Sure, a better rate may sound like a win, but it may just mean that the insurance company is calculating your values for you. Just as you wouldn’t trust a car salesman when he says you’re getting a great deal, you shouldn’t rely on the insurance company to do the same. See also: How to Assess Costs of Business Interruption Free Services – "Our insurer analyzes our values for free.” The insurance company may actually offer to calculate your values for you - for free. Everybody loves free things, right? Unfortunately, the insurance company will use a benchmark approach to underwriting your risks combined with COPE data and any other information you provide. The result will likely be a higher business interruption value that is not representative of your exposures. When your story is vague, the insurance company will make assumptions about your business based on what others are doing. Let all of your hard work creating incident response plans, business continuity plans and other contingency plans pay off where it can have a direct effect on your premiums. No Resistance – “The insurance company accepts what we give them for BI Values.” Watch out - if there are no questions or pushback on your values, that can mean one of two things: 1) you have done your values perfectly and they require no explanation, or; 2) you are reporting higher values than what your insurer is calculating. If you have done your values perfectly, congratulations on being one of a kind. More likely, the insurance company has calculated your values at a lower level than you have. If this is the case, wouldn’t you want to know? At the end of the day, no one is more qualified to value your business interruption risks than the people who run your company, but you have to know the criteria being applied and how to apply them. Underwriting is a mysterious process, so it’s better for your bottom line to take the mystery out of it by bringing clarity to your business interruption values. If you leave it up to the insurance company, chances are that the number is going to be higher than it should be. Don’t expect insurers to guide you to the answer that is best for you. They have a different agenda and process. They will categorize and group your risks based on some information, but if you do not provide what they need, they will default to general assumptions. You may get lucky and end up with a reasonable assessment of your risk. Or you can have a say in your luck by matching your opportunity with preparation.

It’s been four months since many of us vowed to stick with our New Year’s resolutions.  How is yours going?  One study showed that more than half of those who made resolutions gave up within six months, and only 9% feel they successfully met their goals by year-end.  We make resolutions because we know we can improve elements of our lives, and that doing so will make us happier, healthier or more successful. So if we know these changes would be good for us, why are we so bad at acting on that knowledge? Majesco’s recently published research report, Strategic Priorities 2017 – Knowing vs. Doing, illustrates that insurance companies are struggling with their own “resolutions” to respond to a rapidly changing marketplace, and make changes to create growth opportunities. There is a growing gap between insurers that know about the changes and insurers that are doing something about them. Responses to the Strategic Priorities survey reflect an awareness of the pace of change that is unfolding unheralded challenges and opportunities. Unfortunately, turning awareness into doing, with actionable initiatives, is elusive, creating an ever-widening gap between leaders who are taking action and those who are not. The gap between knowing and doing is a common phenomenon most can relate to both personally and professionally. Many have picked up new ideas from a conference, learned new best practices in a best-selling business book, or paid for consulting advice to improve our strategy or operations. After we return to the office, put the book on the shelf or review the consulting recommendations, we too often return to doing things the same ways we always have. See also: How to Plant in the Greenfields   Expand this individual pattern to a larger, organizational level to put our survey results in context: even though most companies know they should respond to key internal and external challenges to create promising growth opportunities – and more importantly to ensure survival – many are still only thinking about doing something, at best. Why is there a gap between knowing and doing?  How can it be overcome? A good starting point for answering both of these questions is the book The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action, by Jeffrey Pfeffer. Knowledge unused is opportunity lost Stanford professor Pfeffer called his research and writing of The Knowing – Doing Gap, “…a quest to explore one of the greatest mysteries in organizational management: why knowledge of what needs to be done frequently fails to result in action or behavior consistent with that knowledge.” Almost as if he didn’t want his book to fall into the same lot of business books that make the best seller list but result in no action, Pfeffer hedges against the actionability of his own recommendations, saying, “We found no simple answers to the knowing-doing dilemma. Given the importance of the knowing-doing problem, if such simple answers existed, they would already have been widely implemented.” Pfeffer’s research uncovered eight recurring themes that help understand the causes of the problem and, by extension, lead to ideas on how to overcome them:

1. Why before how — Philosophy is important. Knowing why you should do something is as critical as how you do it.
2. Knowing comes from doing and teaching others how – Learning by doing, coaching and teaching can be more impactful than by simply thinking or talking.
3. Action counts more than elegant plans and concepts – Taking action before plans are fully formed can accelerate both learning and results, compared to relying on end-to-end, complex plans that rely on flawless execution.
4. There is no doing without mistakes. What is the company’s response to mistakes? – In building a culture of action, one of the most critical elements is what happens when things go wrong. Are mistakes used for learning or as a trigger for punishment?
5. Fear fosters knowing-doing gaps, so drive out fear – If failures are viewed as grounds for punishment (instead of learning) employees will avoid acting on knowledge and new ideas, and continue to take the “safe” route of old habits.
6. Beware of false analogies: fight the competition, not each other – Free markets are based on healthy competition with other companies, but competition within organizations is not healthy.
7. Measure what matters and what can help turn knowledge into action – Just because something is easy to measure (i.e. data is available) doesn’t mean it should be measured; companies have too many metrics that are backward-looking and outcome-focused and too few that are future-looking and process-focused.
8. What leaders do, how they spend their time and how they allocate resources, matters – Good leaders know it is not their job to know and decide everything, but instead create an environment where there are a lot of people who both know and do.

All of these themes are relevant to the current state of insurance companies, but four, five and six are especially relevant in a fast-paced insurance marketplace. Insurers are in the midst of profound change, fueled by trends that are converging and pushing a sometimes slow-to-adapt industry. This seismic shift is creating leaps in innovation and disruption, challenging the traditional business assumptions, operations, processes and products of the last 30-50 years. Our Strategic Initiatives research links the forces of change identified in Majesco’s Future Trends 2017: The Shift Gains Momentum report with the reality of how insurers are responding, both in terms of knowing, planning and doing. The results highlight a significant gap. In addition, those initiatives where insurers are actually doing something tend to be those that are traditional areas of priority and understanding, like security, talent and legacy system replacement. This doesn’t take account of vital areas that require transformational thinking, new approaches and different business models. See also: Innovation — or Just Innovative Thinking?   InsurTech entrants and new competitors within and outside the industry are introducing new products, processes, customer engagement, business models and more. Experimentation and innovation, with a fail-fast/learn fast approach, flies in the face of traditional planning, particularly for the risk-averse insurance industry. When a new business model or product idea does not exist, it is difficult (or nearly impossible) to prove it will work, highlighting the gap between knowing and doing. Contrast this with InsurTech startups who are at the opposite end of the spectrum – they epitomize innovation and experimentation. Many will fail, but their “No Fear” lessons will be leveraged to create a string of new ideas and approaches, eventually landing on one that achieves success and rocks the foundations of the status quo.  Just consider those that failed and eventually succeeded, but in the process disrupted the music, automotive, book, and retail businesses. Who will be the disrupter for insurance? Clearly, it will be an organization with the power to act on its ideas. Insurers need to create an environment where:

• A portfolio of new ideas is like a pot of gold, ready to be invested.
• Testing ideas is common (and fast).
• Mistakes and failures are learning tools.
• The organization is unified behind an action-oriented, innovation-led approach.

In our next blog in the Strategic Priorities series, we’ll discuss how changing some harmful habits will liberate our organizations and enable them to focus on real action. Meanwhile, you can find more transformational insights and insurer survey results in Majesco’s latest report, Strategic Priorities 2017 — Knowing vs. Doing.

Over the past 25 years, the workers’ comp industry has collected vast amounts of data, and organizations within the industry have easy access to this valuable asset. Their challenge now is to profit from it. Experts say medical costs now amount to 60% of claim costs in workers’ comp. If true, organizations should be charging ahead to find ways to optimize medical loss management and monetize their data for profit. See also: Intelligent WC Medical Management   The first step toward monetizing medical data is to integrate it from disparate data silos. All bill review, claims system, pharmacy (PBM) and other relevant data should be integrated at the claim level to gain a full picture of individual claims. Once integrated, predictive analytics methodologies can be applied to convert the data to usable information. You need to analyze historic data using predictive analytics to discover conditions that are cost drivers or cost accelerators. What conditions or combinations initiate or perpetuate high-cost situations? Where are the gaps in timing in operational flow? What actions encourage positive or negative claim resolution? And the information must be made actionable. Predictive analytics has determined the comorbidity of diabetes adds complexity and cost to claims, so an alert can be generated, and key Information conveyed to appropriate persons. Based on predictive analytics, the probable ultimate medical costs for the claim are portrayed for the claims rep along with other key information regarding the claim in question. The claims rep adjusts medical reserves accordingly and moves on. Time is saved, and accuracy is optimized. At the same time, the predictive analytics-informed system automatically notifies the nurse case manager based on the organization’s referral protocol. The claims rep is informed of the referral but is not required to take action. Similar claim information is presented to the nurse case manager for quick review, thereby integrating and coordinating claims and nurse case management initiatives. Data is made intelligent and can be monetized through predictive analytics combined with a timely information delivery system. Searching for decision-support information takes time and is inefficient. Manually entering data is time-consuming, annoying and often inaccurate. On the other hand, intelligent information delivered appropriately is monetized as claim stakeholders make informed decisions quickly, effortlessly and accurately without need for data gathering and data entry. Projected probable ultimate claim cost with comprehensive supportive information displayed for claims reps does not require data search or data entry. Even less-experienced adjusters are accurate and efficient. Accuracy and efficiency is optimized, productivity is increased and profitability follows. Moreover, early intervention through timely alerts allows for action before further damage is incurred. Medical loss management is also monetized by the ability to objectively measure claim cost savings. Having projected the ultimate medical costs for a claim, quantifiable cost savings are available at claim closure due to coordinated medical management initiatives. Monetization is realized through client satisfaction, customer loyalty and client retention. Moreover, the story is proof of value serving the organization’s strategic competitive advantage. See also: Proof of Value for Medical Management   Organizations that monetize their data have greater returns, including return on investment. The intelligent medical management system is monetized internally and externally, thereby paying for itself. Such statements are familiar as sales platitudes, but with intelligent medical management, positive results are objectively measured. Savings are greater than the cost.

We’ve been driving cars for 125 years. We have been talking on telephones for 100 years. We’ve only combined these two activities, to any great degree, in the last 10 to 15 years. Motor vehicle crashes are the No. 1 cause of accidental death in the U.S. Crashes are the leading cause of all death, accidental or otherwise, for everyone between the ages of five and 35. Those between the ages of 15 and 20 are more likely to die in a car crash than the next three leading causes of death combined – homicide, suicide and cancer. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the critical reason for 94% of crashes is driver error, as opposed to vehicle- or environment-related reasons. Recognition and decision errors, which include driver distraction, represent 74% of driver error. Alarmingly, after decades of decline, total fatalities from vehicle crashes and fatalities per million miles driven have been increasing for the past two years. There is a new threat on our nation’s highways, and it’s distracted driving. Drivers have always been at risk of distraction, but today, because of the rapid adoption of mobile communications technology, drivers are now distracted in ways we never dreamed possible 20 years ago. See also: Distracted Driving: a Job for Insurtech?   An Important Issue for Employers and the Insurance Industry Cell phone use while driving has become an important safety and liability issue for all employers. Those who expect employees to use cell phones while driving as part of their business must recognize that doing so exposes their employees to a preventable crash risk and employers to costly liability. Consider a situation in which an employer knew a behavior in some area of its operations exposed employees to a much greater risk of injury. Would employers still expect, or even encourage, that behavior? That is precisely what happens when an employer permits or encourages employee cell phone use while driving. With the intense publicity surrounding cell phone distracted driving in recent years, it would be difficult for employers to argue that they’re not aware of the dangers. Employers are responsible for ensuring employees adhere to applicable federal agency regulations and federal, state and municipal laws. However, what is often not understood is that these regulations and laws are a minimum standard and, in many cases, are not be enough to keep people safe. Employers should establish policies about cell phone use and driving that exceed existing laws. Safety policies and systems in many companies are designed to reduce significant risks and protect employees. Companies whose leaders are committed to safety excellence know that their safety systems and policies often exceed OSHA requirements or applicable laws, because regulations and laws often prescribe minimum standards, not best-in-class safety. Designing safety policies that only comply with federal rules, regulations or state laws often leaves employees vulnerable to injury and companies exposed to liability and financial costs. Cell phone use while driving is, in this way, no different than many other occupational safety issues. No Impact on Business Operations Contrary to what one might think, companies that have implemented total bans on mobile device use while driving have overwhelmingly reported no negative impact on productivity, customer service or other business operations. In two studies conducted by the National Safety Council, 90% of companies with policies reported no impact on productivity. Of the 10% that reported a change, nine out of 10 claimed productivity actually increased. Only 1% thought productivity had decreased. All Distractions Are Not the Same Drivers who use their cell phones while driving expose themselves to a significant safety risk that affects both them and those with whom they share the road. Cell phone distraction involves all three types of driver distraction: visual, manual and cognitive. Distracted driving crashes are the result of two factors; 1) the risk of the activity, and 2) the prevalence of that risk. Most people, including lawmakers and some researchers, only focus on risk and ignore risk exposure. In evaluating what causes crashes, both are equally important. We typically have little concern for a risk to which we are seldom exposed, but we have great concern for a risk to which we are continuously exposed, as in the case of cell phone distracted driving. It is risk exposure that makes cell phone use while driving such a dangerous activity. NHTSA has stated (based on its annual NOPUS study) that more than 10% of all drivers are using their cell phones at any given time. No other distracting behavior or risk comes close to that level of exposure. It is risk exposure that makes cell phones the most dangerous distraction, by far, that drivers face on a continuing basis. The Human Brain Does Not Truly Multi-Task The field of cognitive neuroscience has studied human attention for more than 80 years. These scientists will tell you there is no such thing as true “multi-tasking.” When we are reading a book or magazine article and the phones rings, we naturally stop reading, answer the phone and have a conversation. Most of us would never consider continuing to read as we talk on the phone. That is because the human brain does not multi-task, it toggle tasks. It switches back and forth between two tasks, never engaged in both at precisely the same time. We know that if we try to read and talk on the phone, we are not doing either task well, so we rarely try to do both at the same time. Yet, most of us think it is perfectly fine to talk on the phone and drive a vehicle. If we make a mistake reading a book, we can re-read a paragraph. If we make a mistake driving a vehicle, it can damage our lives or someone else’s. Hands-Free is Not the Answer As traffic safety professionals pursue a culture change around cell phone use while driving, It will be much easier to convince drivers to switch to hands-free rather than to stop using phones altogether while driving. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that hands-free phone use reduces distraction or crashes. More than 30 research studies have found that hands-free devices offer no safety benefit, because they do not reduce the cognitive distraction of the phone conversation. All major U.S. traffic safety organizations, including the National Safety Council (NSC) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), have made public statements, after reviewing research, that hands-free is not safer than hand-held phone use. See also: Don’t Be Distracted by Driverless Cars   NSC and NTSB In January 2009, based on input from many of its 10,000 plus business members, NSC called for a total ban on cell phone driving. In December 2011, the NTSB issued the recommendation that all states enact complete bans of all portable electronic devices for all drivers — including banning the use of hands-free devices. This follows its total ban recommendation for commercial drivers in October 2011. NTSB recommendations are based on their investigations of serious and fatal crashes that found driver or operator cell phone use was a factor in the crashes. Conclusion The rapid advancement of mobile communications technology has enabled drivers to engage in all kinds activities while driving a vehicle that have nothing to do with driving. As long as crashes are killing and seriously injuring so many people, and as long as driver error is the overwhelming leading cause of crashes, does it make sense to allow, and even encourage, the driver to engage in phone calls, Facebook updates, voice based texting and other activities that have nothing to do with the already dangerous task of driving? The auto and consumer electronics industries have claimed that “eyes on the road and hands on the wheel” are the only critical requirements for distraction free driving. They seem to believe the mind is not required to safely operate a vehicle. This contradicts years of science and, most importantly, common sense. It is time that we focus first and exclusively on the task of driving, for our safety and for the safety of everyone with whom we share the road. It is also time for the Insurance Industry to take the lead on this issue by implementing total ban policies for their employees and encouraging their insureds to drive cell phone free.

The Social Network of Things is here! In a complex landscape of old and new, cars and networks are being built to be self-aware, adaptable and communicative with one another and humans in real time. We live in extraordinary times where there is transformative experience with three kinds of cars — some fully automated, others with simple systems for accident avoidance/traffic routing and still others that account for today’s average car. Appliances and sensors in smart homes are network-connected with seamless integration and intelligent collaboration between devices and analytics that puts homeowners in control, making them co-creators of customized experiences. See also: Infrastructure: Risks and Opportunities   From managing chronic diseases at one end of the spectrum to preventing disease at the other, the social network of things is revolutionizing healthcare, too. A person’s data is continuously being gathered and used to diagnose illness and to align the best providers and treatments as quickly as possible. Devices in the predictive realm have the potential to detect the onset of a wide range of health risks, such as high blood pressure and early signs of delirium. See also: What Gets Missed in Risk Management   As insurers, we are paymasters in the business of protection. Not only do we have a vested interest in mitigating loss, but we also have a huge responsibility to support and incorporate prevention and early intervention techniques to provide real value to our consumers. With devices that are highly networked and predict, negotiate and have an impact on outcomes, we find ourselves at the brink of redefining the underlying concept of insurance — from one of pooling risk to sublimating risk altogether.