When the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) became law in 1996, the internet was an infant. Physicians walked around with paper charts. A “tablet” referred to a pill. And the typical cyber attack aimed to simply deface a website. But with the evolution of the electronic age, the majority of the nearly 1.2 billion annual medical visits in the U.S. are documented, stored and shared in electronic form. And the threat landscape has been evolving, as well. “Now that (the records) are online and connected across multiple providers and exchanges, there will be more breaches if nothing else is done (for security),” says Kurt Roemer, chief security strategist for Citrix, which provides security tools. See also: Restated HIPAA Regulations Require Health Plans To Tighten Privacy Policies And Practices In response, federal authorities have stepped up enforcement actions against healthcare organizations that violate patient privacy rules under HIPAA. As a result, the number of sanctions has reached record levels. In August, Advocate Health Care Network agreed to pay a record $5.6 million HIPAA settlement for a series of 2013 data breaches affecting 4 million patients. The fines levied by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 2016 surpassed any previous year since HIPAA became law. Settlements send a message And the fines levied by OCR in 2016 were hefty, averaging just over $2 million per sanction. This stepped-up enforcement is no doubt sending a message to healthcare providers. “There’s a clear upward trend,” says Matt Mellen, security architect for health care with Palo Alto Networks, which provides a next-generation cybersecurity platform. This “is definitely enough to get the attention of healthcare organizations.” The trend also is reflected in the number of incidents reported by HIPAA-covered entities. OCR’s database, which only includes incidents that affect 500 or more individuals, shows a steady growth each year. In 2010, 198 incidents were reported to OCR, compared with 296 in 2014 and 269 in 2015. This trend has been documented in various cybersecurity reports, including IBM’s 2016 Cybersecurity Intelligence Index, which put healthcare at the top of all other industries for the number of data breaches. And according to Ponemon’s recent “State of Cybersecurity in Healthcare Organizations in 2016,” nearly half of the 535 respondents said their healthcare organizations experienced an incident in the past 12 months involving loss or exposure of patient data. The sector is clearly struggling to keep up with the threats, but the problem is not the law itself, says Niam Yaraghi, a fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the nonprofit Brookings Institution. Sinking teeth into the law “HIPAA is a fairly good law,” he says. “The problem is that healthcare organizations consider (HIPAA) as the ultimate level of security that they have to implement, and they do not have any incentive to go beyond HIPAA.” Jodi Daniel, who worked for the Department of Health and Human Services for 15 years and was one of the key draft writers of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule and Enforcement Rule, says, “When the rules first came out … the focus of enforcement was on education and promoting voluntary compliance.” The goal was to help the industry “get it right, as opposed to penalizing them for getting them wrong.” The first OCR settlement — $100,000 — didn’t come until 2008. And over the next three years, there were only a total of six. The pace picked up in 2012, as has the average amount of the settlements. See also: Will You Be the Broker of the Future?   What happened in the meantime was the passage in 2009 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. The HITECH Act dramatically expanded the penalties, based on “increasing levels of culpability,” and increased the maximum to $1.5 million instead of $25,000 per identical violation. It also extended HIPAA to business associates. The addition of business associates was significant, considering a large number of breaches are attributed to third-party incidents. Risk management more important The increased OCR enforcement also is putting an emphasis on risk management. Of the 39 settlements to date, at least 14 included lack of risk assessments among the violations. Palo Alto’s Mellen says OCR’s emphasis on risk management is a positive trend. “The risk management process is designed to identify all the potential threats to patient data and allows you to define action plans to mitigate those risks,” he says. Cyber attacks, in particular, pose a bigger threat to patient privacy than other types of breaches. Yaraghi’s report shows that nearly 120 million people were affected by about 150 incidents involving cyber attacks versus a little more than 20 million people affected by about 700 incidents involving theft (laptops, media, etc.). And the number of hacking/IT incidents is seeing a dramatic increase. Those reported to OCR between 2010 and 2014 grew from nine to 32. In 2015, there were 57. Yaraghi is a proponent of a third-party HIPAA certification system to serve as a preventative measure. But a true economic incentive, he believes, would be cybersecurity insurance. He recommends every healthcare organization have a policy. “Healthcare organizations will have to take security into account to reduce the cost of premiums,” he says. See also: Can InsurTech Make Miracles in Health?   In the meantime, the increased OCR enforcement could create a stronger incentive for healthcare organizations to step up cybersecurity. It will also get the attention of boards of directors, Citrix’s Roemer says. “It would make it more difficult for the health care institutions and their boards to casually say they aren’t going to invest in security,” Roemer says. “It will definitely drive some changes in behavior.” More stories related to HIPAA and health records: Hospital hacks show HIPAA might be dangerous to our health Encrypting medical records is vital for patient security Healthcare data at risk: Internet of Things facilitates healthcare data breaches This article originally appeared on Third Certainty. It was written by Rodika Tollefson.

The landmark WannaCry ransomware attack, I believe, may have been a proof of concept experiment that inadvertently spun out of control after it got released prematurely. But now that it’s out there, WannaCry signifies two developments of profound consequence to company decision-makers monitoring the cybersecurity threat landscape:

• It revives the self-propagating internet worm as a preferred way to rapidly spread new exploits, machine to machine, with no user action required.
• It lights up the cyber underground like a Las Vegas strip billboard, heralding a very viable style of attack. WannaCry already has begun to spur hackers to revisit self-spreading worms, an old-school, highly invasive type of attack.

The unfolding “kill switch” subplot supports my analysis. First, a recap: WannaCry is an exploit that spreads on its own, seeking out Windows laptops, desktops and servers that lack a certain security patch issued in March by Microsoft. See also: How to Keep Malware in Check   WannaCry first appeared on the internet on a Friday morning and swiftly swept across the globe, reminiscent of the I Love You and Code Red worms of yore. It infected 200,000 Windows machines in 150-plus countries. Hardest-hit were institutions of the U.K.’s National Health Service, as well as Spanish and Russian utility companies. You may recall that self-spreading Windows worms were all in vogue a decade ago. The most infamous probably was Conficker. I wrote extensively about Conficker for USA Today. But for all the attention Conficker drew, it never delivered any overtly malicious payload. It simply spread. WannaCry, by contrast, is spreading with a purpose. It carries with it instructions to encrypt each infected machine’s hard drive. Then it requests a $300 ransom, payable in bitcoin, to decrypt the drive. So why do I think WannaCry was released prematurely? Because $300 is low for a ransom demand, especially for a ransomware attack aimed at the business sector and designed to scale globally. It makes more sense that $300 was a placeholder amount. “This looked like a shotgun approach to compromise as many systems as quickly as possible before anti-virus definitions could catch up,” says Andrew Spangler, principal malware analyst at Nuix, an intelligence, analytics and cybersecurity solutions company. “It’s possible the attackers were not even aware of how effective this propagation method would be.” Kill switch discovered On Friday night, a researcher going by the handle “Malware Tech” reported that he had reverse-engineered WannaCry and discovered a “kill switch” sitting at a domain name that the author had not yet actually registered. A kill switch also is somewhat unusual for ransomware. It could have been included as a tool to give the attacker the ability to release the ransomware in small doses, shutting it down to make tweaks. But WannaCry’s creator neglected to follow through and register his kill switch’s domain name. That made it possible for Malware Tech to come along, discover the unregistered domain name, register it and thus take control of the kill switch. He then was able to shut down the original version of WannaCry—by hitting the kill switch.

Yet to no one’s surprise, within a matter of hours, slightly tweaked variants of the original version began circulating. “Updated WannaCry variations have since been released,” says Ray Pompon, principal threat researcher at F5 Networks, an application services and security company. “The danger is still real.” Good guys, bad guys engage in cyber duel To be specific, new variants with a slightly modified kill-switch domain are spreading. A very small change connects the malware’s kill switch to a slightly different domain and creates a viable variant, says Chris Doman, threat engineer at AlienVault. “This allows WannaCry to continue propagating again,” Doman says. Fortunately, other good-guy researchers have taken it upon themselves to hustle to register the kill switch domains of any new variant that turns up and follow Malware Tech’s example to kill the variant when possible. “The cat-and-mouse (chase) will likely continue until someone makes a larger change to the malware, removing the kill-switch functionality completely,” Doman says. “At that point, it will be harder to stop new variants.” Security patching more vital than ever The kill switch subplot aside, one might ask why did it took this long—nearly a decade after Conficker—for cyber criminals to incorporate a Windows worm into an attack designed for monetary gain? Part of the reason is that Microsoft has put forth a tremendous effort to stay on top of newly discovered Windows vulnerabilities. Under its bug bounty program, it pays researchers handsomely to discover and report fresh Windows vulnerabilities. And it pours vast resources into issuing security patches in a timely manner. See also: It’s Time for the Cyber 101 Discussion   With respect to the specific Windows bug leveraged by WannaCry, Microsoft issued a patch in March. Still, the digital world we live in is both amazing—and amazingly complex. That means implementing security patches across an organization of any size can be an onerous process. The result is that vulnerability management, and security patching, lags well behind in the vast majority of organizations. This is true for patches issued by Microsoft, Oracle, Java, Adobe and any other widely used business system you care to name.

“Numerous organizations have fallen victim to these attacks because they failed to apply the patches in a timely manner or were using legacy systems that could not be patched,” says Andreas Kuehlmann, senior vice president and general manager of the Software Integrity Group at Synopsys. Unintended help from government An X-factor also came into play. It turns out that the National Security Agency knew all about this particular Windows bug and, in fact, possessed a tool to take advantage of it. Nothing wrong with that. Our intelligence agencies need to have the capability to match or exceed the cyber capabilities of China, Russia or North Korea. The X-factor that made a difference was this: Hackers stole that information from the NSA and published it online—delivering it on a silver platter to the creator of WannaCry. “Now that weapons-grade cyber attack tools are in the wrong hands, it is clear that tools and techniques previously reserved for use by nation-states are being integrated into crime ware for profit,” says Josh Gomez, senior security researcher at Anomali. “This means we can expect to see more of these exploits and tools leveraged in future attacks, each one likely surpassing the previous in sophistication and stealth.” Hang on to your hats, folks. Buckle your seat belts. Company networks’ defenses sorely need shoring up: This, we know all too well. And now attacks are all but certain to ratchet to an unprecedented level of intensity. Observes Jonathan Sander, chief technology officer at STEALTHbits Technology: “This massive attack is a potent mix of phishing to attack the human, worm to spread via unpatched Microsoft systems and ransomware to get the bad guys their payday. … The reason for WannaCry’s success is our collective failure to do the basic security blocking and tackling of patches, user education and consistent backups. As long as we fail to remove vulnerabilities and watch our files, bad guys will exploit us by exploiting our systems.”

Hundreds of millions of years ago, Pangaea was a supercontinent formation now commonly explained in terms of plate tectonics.  It began to break apart in three major phases, but at different times.  During this breakup, some species survived, and others struggled. This breakup reset the world.  It reorganized the continents, oceans and seaways that subsequently altered the cooling and heating of land and ocean. And it influenced five major mass extinction events, which resulted in significant loss of marine and terrestrial species. It disrupted the world, while creating a new one that would ultimately shape the future. We recognize this as pre- and post continental split. How does this history lesson relate to insurance?  We are exiting the pre-digital age and entering a post-digital environment where survival will be measured by rapid adaptability. The digital age represents a seismic shift in the insurance industry, due to the converging “tectonic plates” of people, technology and market boundary changes that are disrupting and redefining the world, industries and businesses — including insurance. As we outlined in our report, Future Trends 2017:  The Shift Gains Momentum, the shift is realigning fundamental elements of business that would take more than minor adjustments to survive, let alone succeed. See also: 3 Ways to Leverage Digital Innovation   Just like the tectonic shift millions of years ago that separated the two great continents, we are seeing a similar shift due to the digital age that is pushing a sometimes slow-to-adapt industry by challenging the traditional business assumptions, operations, processes and products. The shift is separating the continents of insurance into two distinctively different business models. The business models of the past 50-plus years (based on the business assumptions, products, processes and channels of the Silent and Baby Boomer generations) will soon be an ocean away from the business models of the next generation (including the Millennials and Gen Z, as well as many in Gen X). To avoid extinction on a pre-digital island, the business models of the past will need to quickly chart a course toward next-generation expectations. It requires a new business paradigm. We must redefine and re-envision insurance, embracing business components that work in the new context of people, technology and market boundaries and discarding the pieces that are outmoded or irrelevant. Most organizations can’t simply flip off their pre-digital switch (traditional business model and products administered on traditional systems) and flip on their digital age model (new services and products on modern, flexible systems that will handle digital integration and better data acquisition and analysis). So, the shift will require steps. Those steps will operate as both a bridge and a proving ground, while the traditional system is still operational as a firm foundation and the new foundation is being constructed. The steps are active and continuing, and they overlap.

1. Keep and grow the existing business, while transforming and building the new business.

This is crucial. Marketing and distribution should not pull back from traditional business in anticipation of the launch of new business models, new products or new channels. Insurers cannot stop pushing for more business of a particular type until or unless new products clearly nudge them out of existence. The current business is funding the future and needs to be kept running efficiently and effectively as the market shifts.

2. Optimize the existing business while building the new business.

A customer engagement improvement is ALWAYS an improvement. If an organization’s teams have been working toward placing digital front ends on the traditional business to engage customers, they shouldn’t stop in the middle of the bridge. Any process that can be optimized on the traditional side will help to maximize the existing business, reduce the cost of doing business and provide a bridge from the past to the future while beginning to enable realignment of resources and investment into the new business. These are very often the incremental changes that will also gently shift the customer base through new ways of doing business.

3. Develop a new business model for a new generation of buyers.

Some insurers have made the mistake of envisioning their digital front end as their big leap into the future, not realizing that they have only just touched the new landscape. They need a strategy for a new business model that supports simultaneous leaps forward that will create new customer engagement experiences underpinned by innovative products and services. This will create growth, competitive differentiation and success in a fast-changing market dynamic. Speeding Into the Digital Age Over the past year, the renaissance of insurance gained momentum due to the convergence of multiple factors or “tectonic plates” that are redefining insurance. The interaction between people, technology and market boundary changes are disrupting the world, industries and businesses that insurance serves. We have seen the introduction of new products, the establishment of new channels, the offering of new services, the launching of new business models and much more. These events have created disruption and opportunity for insurers. See also: The Key to Digital Innovation Success   It is a new age of insurance — a digital age. Each and every day, insurers must recommit to their business strategies and their renaissance journeys. They must avoid falling into an operational trap or resorting to traditional thinking. The appetite for traditional multi-year, multimillion-dollar, on-premise custom configurations has waned, all while new competitors, new business models and new products are being launched to the market in a fraction of the time and cost. In this new age of insurance, the focus is on speed to value including:

• Speed to implementation – get up and running in weeks or a few months versus years
• Speed to market – rapidly develop and launch new products with ready to use rules and tools
• Speed to revenue – rapidly enable business growth with minimal upfront cost

Building these new business models will continue to intensify.  Majesco is increasingly working with existing insurers and reinsurers who are taking new paths to capture the next generation of customers and position themselves for growth and sustainable agility across the new insurance landscape. Because new competitors don’t play by the traditional rules of the past, insurers need to be a part of rewriting the rules for the future. There is less risk in a game where you write the rules. Will you be stranded on pre-digital island in a sea of change?  Or will you join the game?

Could a blockchain platform deliver new markets, more agile products and large-scale cost efficiencies across the industry? Commentators have identified the insurance industry as an ideal candidate for transformation by blockchain technology. Many blockchain Insurtech pilots are exploring alternatives for processes in the insurance value chain such as know your customer (KYC) and claims. But few have seriously explored the more fundamental potential of blockchain for the insurance industry and considered how it could improve a substantial part of the value chain by removing rework and driving efficiencies, thus transforming the industry, including its operating model and cost structures and thereby opening up new market segments. Insurers Are Struggling with Digital Growing digital channels and transforming insurance organizations are hampered by:

• Complicated products. Clients struggle to understand product features while the ticket sizes and commitment durations are often intimidating. Products increasingly fail to meet client expectations and don’t suit new digital distribution channels.
• Legacy systems. Monolithic systems obstruct personalization and require long product development cycles. Straight-through processing remains the exception, not the norm.
• Limited customer service options. Insurers dictate which channels clients use for service while the omni-channel experience remains a dream and far from reality.
• Limited digital options for customers. Digital support is sporadic across the customer journey.

This means Asian insurers struggle to find a model to cost-effectively expand their reach into Asia’s emerging middle class while a growing millennially minded, digitally savvy demographic in mature markets is underserved. See also: Why Blockchain Matters to Insurers   Properties of a Blockchain Blockchain implementations have three fundamental qualities:

• Trust. All parties know their view of the current state is true and devoid of fraud.
• Transparency. Participants can be confident all counterparties have the same information.
• Immutable. The content of the transactions that delivered the current state can never be changed. The code encased in a smart contract will endure for the transaction’s lifecycle.

To understand this potential, let’s decompose the blockchain and understand the technology properties it brings to solving business problems.

• Database. First and foremost, a blockchain is a distributed database, with each node maintaining its own copy with the confidence that its version is identical to the other parties’ and safe in the knowledge that no one can change the history of transactions that have created the current state.
• Codified services. Smart contracts enable code to be executed at various points in the lifecycle of a contract. The executable byte code is enshrined in the contract. The code reacts to the changes in state by executing each time the variables in the contract are updated.
• Middleware. Contracts are replicated to all nodes on the network. Nodes can monitor the network and react to changes in the state of contracts. It’s publish-and-subscribe.
• Business process management. These properties create a perfect environment for BPM. Changes in the state of contracts can orchestrate a workflow described in the contract’s code. This enables the execution of complex processes where different parties (such as insurers and distributors) perform roles and execute a process.

Contracts stored on a blockchain cannot be changed. Once a contract is mined into a block, it is cast in stone. In blockchains like Ethereum, the code can never be changed but the variables can be updated, creating a new state and storing a new version of the contract. As each new version is propagated to the other nodes on the chain, the code will execute and react to the changes in state. This is perfect for updating contracts over the lifecycle of an insurance policy. For example, on each anniversary of a policy there are payments and renewals to be processed and commissions to be paid. The logic for this would be encoded in the policy at its outset. The rules would reflect the terms and conditions of the policy itself, the commission agreements for distributors and the processes of the insurer. All of this would be encoded in a smart contract representing the policy. Claims would be separate contracts, emitted by the policy and coded to follow their own lifecycle as they are assessed and paid. Integrating Industry Participants Blockchain is an ideal distributed platform for connecting participants in an industry that includes distributors, insurers and reinsurers. Like any industry with multiple participants, each party currently maintains its own version of data. At various points in the life cycle, these different perspectives need to be reconciled. This could be commission payments to a distributor or claims against a reinsurance agreement from the insurer to the reinsurer. A shared database means all of the participants are looking at the same single source. All the relevant participants know the current state of a policy or a claim. Many benefits are enabled by a trusted shared platform.

1. There is a single source of truth. Parties to a policy (distributors, insurers and reinsurers) are accessing a single source of information. This has the potential to deliver a true omni-channel experience.
2. The distributor could use a contract to request quotations from insurers on behalf of a client.
3. The terms, conditions and premiums for a policy, once agreed, are permanently encoded in a smart contract.
4. Names, addresses and contact details of the policy owner, the life insured and beneficiaries could be stored in client contracts so that all parties to the policies have up-to-date information.
5. Payments could be made by clients using tokens or be performed using traditional channels and tracked using oracles and contracts.
6. Documents relating to the policy, KYC and claims would be stored off-chain and shared in a parallel environment, with the blockchain used to share their provenance, locations and authenticity.
7. Reinsurers could be participants using contracts documenting reinsurance relationships. If an insurer has an agreement to cover a percentage of all policies written for a product, this could be executed automatically when a policy is underwritten.
8. Claim contracts would be linked to policies and any impact on reinsurance contracts would be instantaneous.
9. The model can be expanded to other participants. Providers of health services could access coverage limits and submit claims on behalf of clients.

Improving Business Agility Existing policy administration systems are cumbersome because their code base must support multiple generations of products. A policy administration system for life insurance, for example, needs to be capable of processing everything from term life to universal life, disability, health and every conceivable rider. Its commission system has to support every possible structure, including those that may have only been used for one or two products. This ever-expanding code base is costly to maintain and slows product development. Changes to accommodate new products need to consider this vast array of legacy to ensure nothing is broken when they are introduced. The policy contract on a blockchain would have its own heartbeat. Its code and business rules remain with it for its life. This may be a matter of days for travel insurance or an entire lifetime for a term life policy. But the code and business rules enshrined in the contract need only support that policy. It is self-contained, and it doesn’t have to include all of the options for every other product ever produced. This simplifies the code base. We no longer need a monolithic application to support all products and commission structures but smaller programs each supporting individual policies. This is the key to product and service innovation enabling experimentation with new designs. This will be important in new distribution channels, partnerships and reaching specific client segments with targeted offerings. See also: What Blockchain Means for Analytics   Keys to Success To realize this vision of an industry platform on a blockchain, a successful solution would need these features:

• Enterprise scale. It would need to be capable of processing the volume of insurance transactions in a jurisdiction.
• Credentials. Access must be limited to properly qualified industry participants. With participants filling different roles (distributors, insurers, reinsurers, etc.), a system of credentials is required to govern the permissions of participants.
• Encryption. Blockchains are typically public. People often confuse the cryptographic structure of a blockchain with encryption of its data. The state of a contract can be seen by all participants in a basic blockchain, whereas policies and insurance transactions need to be confidential. Any solution needs a method for encrypting individual contracts.
• Open APIs. There must be a set of services defined and implemented enabling each node to interact with the participant’s own or third party systems.

Conclusion A blockchain-based industry-wide platform will be the catalyst for entirely new paradigms for selling and administering insurance. The shared platform offers cost-effective adoption of new technologies giving access to new generations and segments of consumers. As business models of existing and new players within the industry flex and evolve, their integration via the platform will deliver a seamless, rewarding client experience. And blockchain technology will uphold the secure, trusted and reliable qualities that are so critical for insurance brands.

“Star Wars” first appeared in theaters on May 25, 1977, unleashing one of the great, galactic pop culture tsunamis ever seen. And while there has been an explosion of technology and innovation since that time (one that would rival the explosion of the Death Star), virtually nothing has been done regarding the way insurance information is shared via forms, certificates of insurance, driver ID cards and the like. Workers' compensation may be leading this backward trend. It’s no wonder that workers' comp insurance draws a lot of attention. Covering more than 90% of the workforce, with more than $45.5 billion in total premiums from both private carriers and state funds and a combined ratio of 94%, workers' comp is one of the few bright spots within the commercial lines market. With payrolls rising $316.5 billion by year-end 2016, not to mention $1.16 trillion in construction projects, there will be billions of dollars in new premiums for workers' comp coverage. If economic growth and hiring continue as projected, workers' comp exposure is likely to remain among the faster-growing major commercial P/C lines of insurance in 2017 and beyond. And this positive outlook takes into account that workers' comp fraud is 25% of the P&C industry-wide annual fraud problem of $34 billion. Many are investing heavily in new systems and technology to reach this rich marketplace. Carriers, brokers, agents and third-party service providers are all positioning themselves for a larger slice of the workers' comp pie through innovative and forward-thinking technology. However, with all the technology available within the workers' comp ecosystem, it consistently takes a giant leap backward when it comes to requesting, generating and delivering proof of insurance. Form-based certificates of insurance are universally produced and passed like a hot potato between different stakeholders, yet they provide no real proof of insurance. As one industry pundit put it, “At best, it’s just a piece of paper that shows proof of coverage at the time it was issued. At worst, it’s fraud.” Some are touting the ability to request proof of workers' comp coverage from a mobile device. Yes, through an app, you can request a workers' comp QR code that can be used to request a certificate PDF. But this PDF has all the usual limitations: no updates, no notice of cancellation, no ability to compare data with coverage needs, no exception processing. See also: How Should Workers’ Compensation Evolve?   Because the form-based certificate of insurance has been the forum for exchanging dead data, people have been attempting all sorts of subterfuge to require wording on the certificate in a vain attempt to make it say something that is not in the workers' comp policy. It’s important to realize, from a business and insurance standpoint, that a certificate has many inherent limitations and weaknesses. For example, a certificate CANNOT:

• Extend or modify policy conditions or rights to the certificate holder. The insurance policy is a contract, and changes to those terms can only be accomplished by following proper procedure as outlined by the insuring company. Extending policy rights, such as additional insured status, can only be accomplished by properly endorsing the insurance policy in question.
• Guarantee a policy will not be canceled in accordance with the conditions of the insurance policy. Cancellation of a workers' comp policy is controlled by state statute and cannot be modified by a certificate.
• Provide insurance coverage to the certificate holder. The insurance certificate only indicates coverage found in place on the policies in force at the time the certificate is issued. A certificate of insurance coveys no insurance coverage to the certificate holder; only proper endorsements to the insurance policy can achieve that.

There are many large industries that are totally dependent on workers' comp coverage and proof of insurance — construction, transportation and agriculture, to name a few. Roads, bridges and buildings don’t get built or repaired without workers' comp insurance. Nothing moves across our highways without workers' comp insurance. Crops, fruit, cattle and food do not get produced, harvested or delivered without workers' comp insurance. As we move forward into a 21st century economy, more companies and workers are shifting into the gig economy where workers' comp is either not there at all or has substantial holes. Under current definitions, gig economy workers, sometimes called on-demand workers, are neither employees nor independent contractors. If a rideshare driver is attacked by a passenger, sustains severe injuries and cannot work for a long period, how is his or her income replaced? For that matter, if any on-demand worker is injured on the job (accident, repetitive motion injury, etc.) how is his or her income replaced? And with the current state of health insurance, or the lack thereof, how are his or her health bills paid? While there are a number of instances where coverage verification is needed for workers' comp alone, many times other lines of business need to be verified simultaneously. General liability, commercial auto, commercial property and other types of insurance also require verification at the same time with workers' comp, by the same stakeholders. These coverages may be within a single business owners policy (BOP), or they can be spread across multiple policies, written by multiple carriers, with different effective/expiration dates. See also: Five Workers’ Compensation Myths   Rather than pushing around forms filled with dead data, workers' comp deserves a digital ecosystem where all stakeholders can securely connect and share coverage information. Online and continuing coverage verification automatically validates that insurance in force. Additionally, the needs of each stakeholder are evaluated, alerting stakeholders on an exception basis. It’s time to move forward from, “May the forms be with you” to “Let the data be with you.” This is GAPro’s vision and mission.

With 3 trillion reasons ($$) to protect the status quo, it should be no surprise that employing frontal assault on healthcare would be laughably ineffective. This would be like the revolutionaries battling the British army via a frontal assault. One could argue that top-down, governmental efforts to reform healthcare are experiencing what happens through a frontal assault -- fierce resistance, rage and lobbying to name a few. Rather, there are two overriding drivers to how the Health Rosetta Institute (HRI) is approaching the daunting challenge of attempting to transform an industry that is remarkably adept at preserving a wildly under-performing status quo. Healthcare is already fixed. Join us to scale the fixes As we state on the Health Rosetta Institute’s website, “Healthcare is already fixed. Join us to scale the fixes.” The genesis for the Health Rosetta was my seven-year quest to find all of the solutions that are actually working. The great news is that we’ve found a wide array of pioneers who’ve proven what works in rural and urban settings, in the private and public sector, in large and small organizations and in every corner of the country. They've shown how to tackle even the most vexing health challenges with extremely demanding populations. These are the sorts of things I capture in my forthcoming book, CEO's Guide to Restoring the American Dream: How to deliver world class healthcare to your employees at half the cost. This is a contrast to what’s happening in DC, which is largely moving deck chairs around on the Titanic debating who pays for a “morbidly obese” healthcare system that is the third leading cause of death (due to preventable medical mistakes) despite pockets of brilliance in our system. Community-driven change from the bottom-up: A network of networks We believe in community-driven change from the bottom up. Central governments have largely reached the limits of what they can achieve, so community-level change is where the real action is. Bruce Katz articulates this in his book, "The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy." Social-impact-investing pioneer Chris Brookfield has put this approach into effect in areas ranging from microfinance to local food production. “Community” can be defined as an employer and its employees, a town, a neighborhood or a group of five women. These are local networks able to drive change in their sphere of influence. See also: A Caribbean Hospital: Healthcare’s Solution?   Nothing about the Health Rosetta is employer-specific or even U.S.-specific. However, employers and unions are two communities that have an imperative to change. The smart ones are embracing that opportunity and spending 20-55% less on health benefits with spectacular benefits packages. A key reason that the goal of universal care is feared by some is that both the private and public sector versions of healthcare in the U.S. have out-of-control costs. Government entities themselves are huge employers. With few exceptions (Kirkland, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh are examples of how to do things right), public sector employers are just as bad at purchasing health benefits as any private-sector employer. Even when there is political will, such as in Vermont, efforts at universal coverage failed as unaffordable. For those seeking universal care as an objective, a logical path is for it to start with public-sector employees in high-value benefits programs. Once proven there (like Kirkland, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh), extend to state-based programs such as Medicaid, and then there will be a large body of evidence that it won't bankrupt citizens. In fact, it will do quite the opposite if the smart path is chosen. The Season of Resilience Speaking broadly, Brookfield points out how 1950-2001 was the Efficiency Era - or what he calls “The Great Moderation” that had key attributes such as conglomeration and centralized production and control. 2001-2016 was about hierarchies fracturing with tumult such as Brexit and American populism that led to the success of the Sanders and Trump campaigns. Hierarchies are fracturing in healthcare such as an explosion in employers taking control of their healthcare spending and doctors leaving insurance-centric practice models -- in both cases, they’re cutting out middlemen that are out of touch with specific communities. Looking forward from 2017 is what Brookfield calls the Season of Resilience, where geography is resurgent and grassroots is the dominant lever of change. Just as the electrification of America happened at different rates in different locales, the move toward Health 3.0 will happen in some geographies faster than others. However, we draw from the lessons of the Internet and open, distributed systems, which is a network of networks. For too long, healthcare has operated as a set of isolated tribes with limitations on tribal knowledge being passed around slowly. We believe the Health Rosetta Institute’s greatest value is serving as a network of networks to accelerate the dissemination of proven approaches that can then be adapted to local market conditions. The first network we're building, due to their outsized influence on the health ecosystem, is benefits consultants. Despite not promoting it at all and it being buried on our website, we're getting tremendous interest in our first phase rollout. One of the individuals most responsible for the explosion of Internet growth was Tom Evslin who has a blog called Fractals of Change. The depiction of fractals show how a fractal is a never-ending pattern (click for an interactive version). Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – examples include trees, clouds, coral reefs and the Internet in a virtual context. Another visual is at the heart of the approach we’re taking with the Health Rosetta. The non-profit institute is gathering and sharing insights in an open, distributed manner. It has a sister organization, the Health Rosetta Group (HRG), that is focused on bringing capital to ideas that fuel the positive transformation of the health ecosystem. Brookfield created the graphic depiction below to describe how his social impact investing approach is replicated in a distributed manner. Health and healthcare are very local but there are approaches that can be shared to rapidly accelerate transformation. [caption id="attachment_26112" align="alignnone" width="968"] Graphic courtesy of Chris Brookfield[/caption] The HRG believes sustainable investing requires focus on a particular region/sector with an eye towards social and economic benefits that reflect aligned values. It has a long-term focus that taps motivated local entrepreneurs to create businesses that enhances economic resilience which creates sustainable economic development (“Economic Development 3.0”). These emerging organizations are strengthened through local business and ultimately can create value for investors that ensures long-term resilience of local interests. We believe the path to optimizing health is a move away from centralized massive assets whether that is massive food production producing low-value food or massive medical centers that produce high volumes of low-value procedures (e.g., where 90% of spinal procedures were of no help). A strategy that is more aligned with community interests will deliver resilience, variability and locality that is part and parcel of Health 3.0. See also: Healthcare Buyers Need Clearer Choices   I wrapped up by TEDx talk with the following that seems appropriate here:

For too long, we’ve let healthcare crush the American Dream. We can’t stand for 20 more years of an economic depression for the middle class. No country has smarter or more compassionate nurses and doctors and no country has more innovators that have reinvented our country time and again. In every corner of healthcare, people went into healthcare for all the right reasons but perverse incentives and outdated approaches have shackled them. Whether we knew it or not, we all contributed to this mess. Now, it’s on us to fix it. When change happens community by community, it’s impossible to stop. Yes, healthcare stole the American Dream. But it’s absolutely possible to take it back. Join us to make it happen in your community.

We are working on catalytic events to accelerate the change. The institute is helping raise awareness of the rising risk to corporations and boards that will compel them to act. In parallel, we continue work on The Big Heist film (think The Big Short for healthcare) that will wake up America to the greatest heist in American history. Please share Ted talk: Healthcare stole the American Dream. Here is how we take it back. Sign up for The Future Health Ecosystem Today newsletter to be in the know about healthcare's future.

Much has been written of late about how technology — referred to as “insurtech” — is transforming insurance. While some of these solutions are actually in use, many more are still conceptual and speculative, so adoption is anticipated. But make no mistake: The majority of these technologies will be adopted in time, and they will ultimately transform the ways that insurance products are created, priced, packaged, marketed, sold, distributed and serviced. And the claims function — along with the insurance policyholders who incur those claims —is the most likely early beneficiary, with auto insurance leading the way. In a 2017 survey of 400 North American claims executives conducted by Insurance Nexus, a significant 78% of respondents confirmed that “the American insurance claims industry is in the midst of significant disruption,” and 82% confirmed that “our executive teams are dedicated to transforming the claims function.” Claims innovation ranked as the most important project for 61% of the audience, and 60% agreed that “my organization has a specific plan for how they are going to achieve claims innovation, utilizing technology, focused on customer experience and meeting the challenges of disruption.” Note the words “utilizing technology, focused on customer experience.” Now overlay on top of all this a recent, unexpected and somewhat counter-intuitive spike in auto claims frequency courtesy of a negative by-product of gradual (but welcome) economic recovery. Most of us had assumed — wrongly, it turns out — that the recent trend of declining auto claims frequency would continue. Most expected that auto claims might even decline further as accident avoidance and automated driver assistance technology and the specter of autonomous vehicles began to appear. Finally, add one additional element to this “perfect storm” of forces converging on auto claims: The very accident-avoidance technology whose main purpose was to reduce accidents has actually increased the cost and severity of repairing these technology-laden vehicles that become involved in accidents (frequently with older-model, less-well-equipped cars). See also: Insurtechs Are Pushing for Transparency   While claims organizations are busy trying to figure out how to contain the rising numbers and costs of auto claims, and, at the same time, piloting insurtech solutions are trying to help, the customer experience for policyholders that have been involved in these accidents is often getting overlooked. In an effort to accomplish cost reductions while also making the accident claim reporting process simpler and faster for policyholders, some carriers have begun providing smartphone apps for use in reporting accident claims and submitting photos of the damage. In some cases, these photos may enable the carrier to estimate the cost of repairing the damage, refer the customer to a convenient, qualified repair facility or even close the claim online with an electronic payment for the estimate amount. In fact, Allstate, the nation’s largest publicly traded auto insurance carrier, just announced that it has begun a countrywide transition from drive-in inspection centers to customer photo-estimating; the company expects the vast majority of drivable auto claims to be virtually inspected nationally in 2017. The next wave of insurtech will introduce automation, voice recognition, artificial intelligence and chatbots to the insurance claims reporting and customer service process as these more-efficient technologies begin to replace more expensive humans. This evolution will definitely benefit carriers from a cost-reduction perspective and will likely satisfy a growing number of customers who trust — and even prefer — such digital interactions. Drivers who use a telematics system — an electronic concierge or in-vehicle personal communications system — can request emergency roadside assistance and receive limited advice and support regarding insurance claims as the result of an accident. You may have already noticed that police in many urban markets are no longer responding to auto accident calls. Law enforcement budgets are shrinking, and police officers are busy handling higher-priority tasks, such as criminal investigations. So we can’t rely on the police showing up after an accident any more. The missing piece in all of this is what happens immediately after an accident occurs and before your insurance company starts to process your claim. For individuals involved in car accidents who are not “digital natives” and who may be injured or just too shaken up to deal with all of that or who just need the comfort and assistance of a trained and compassionate person, innovative programs will emerge to bridge the gap between the accident and the claim report. One such solution, originally established in Canada, is ASSI’s Collision Reporting Centers (CRC). These facilities provide drivers with the assistance, advice and support they need at that critical time immediately following an accident. The CRC is a private-public partnership between local police departments and privately managed reporting centers. Insurtech solutions are used in the CRC to electronically notify insurance carriers of collisions. The CRC provides electronic copies of written statements, vehicle damage photos and state-mandated reports needed to expedite a quick resolution of claims. Recently, ASSI expanded into the U.S., opening its first Collision Reporting Center in Roanoke, VA, in the fall of 2016, with plans to open many more centers nationally. New functionality being introduced includes electronic first notice of loss, possible total loss warnings and photo estimating. See also: Insurtech: Unstoppable Momentum   As we move toward self-driving automobiles and the elimination of most accidents, we will see many innovative accident and claim management programs emerge to bridge the gap between the auto accident and the resolution of the claim process. The insurance industry is working hard to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions, and technology offers promising solutions as well as difficult challenges — finding the appropriate balance between efficiency and the necessary human touch in the claim process will separate tomorrow’s leading brands from their competitors. Not only can insurtech and claims customer experience co-exist, they will have to!

The concept of microinsurance has been around for a long time, and the activity in that area is now increasing rapidly, especially due to the InsurTech movement. Pervasive mobile and digital capabilities along with cloud computing have made it much easier to insure a wide range of individual events, activities, or things for a short period. On the other end of the spectrum, the idea of a unified, all-risks coverage for an individual has long been theorized, but underwriting a person for auto, home, liability, life, disability, and other risks in one bundle has not yet been practical.

I’m going to call this one-policy-covers-all-risk approach macro-insurance. Now that technology is advancing so rapidly, and customer expectations for innovative solutions are high, could macro-insurance become a reality? Will we face a time in the future when customers must choose between the micro or macro approaches for insurance coverage?

See also: Big New Role for Microinsurance  

This might seem like an academic question, but there is at least one new entity that plans to offer a type of macro-insurance. An InsurTech called Sherpa promises to provide customers coverage across all insurance sectors using a single underwriting process and capitalizing on a direct business model (no agents or commissions). The company claims to have a process that uses new data sources, artificial intelligence, and deep analytics. This could be dismissed as another hare-brained idea from people that do not really understand insurance. However, Sherpa is collaborating with Gen RE and Guy Carpenter, which adds instant credibility to the venture.

Whether Sherpa will be successful remains to be seen, but it might be worthwhile to explore the opportunities and challenges related macro-insurance to get a glimpse into how these developments might affect the insurance industry from different perspectives.

Customer: From a customer perspective, the idea of an all-risks policy with no agent commission seems quite appealing. Who wouldn’t want to go through an underwriting process once and have coverage for all the typical risks a person (or business) is likely to face? However, some people might have an issue with “putting all of one’s eggs in the same basket.” That could be a deterrent to the macro approach for some customers.

Agent: At least in the Sherpa example, there are no agents. So this is a non-starter for distribution partners. However, other models may arise that offer macro-coverage and rely on the advice and council from either a fee-based or commissioned agent.

Actuary: Yikes, where to start! The macro approach is an actuary’s nightmare. There are two possible approaches. First, it may be that a team of actuaries works together to contribute in their areas of expertise to design new products. The second possibility is that actuarial is completely revolutionized, with AI and advanced analytics playing a key role, using a blend of traditional and new data elements. In either case, pricing precision will likely take some time to evolve.

Underwriter: Underwriting the person is a different approach and will require some blend of human expertise in different fields with new data and advanced technologies. Any way you look at it, underwriting becomes a completely new game in the macro-insurance world.

We could continue to explore other roles and other implications of these approaches, especially the complex regulation angle. But these initial discussions provide a preview into the kinds of issues that the industry needs to tackle. At this stage, micro-insurance is off and running, with companies like Trov, Slice, and LenderBot making strides. Macro-insurance is in its infancy and may take a long time to develop, but the concept is intriguing, and it appears that the industry is willing to begin to explore the potential.

See also: 5 Innovations in Microinsurance  

So, what’s gonna happen? The most likely scenario is that traditional insurance lines of business will remain for a long time, supplemented by rapid growth in micro-insurance that often extends into new coverage areas, while macro-insurance begins a period of discovery and slow evolution.

When I consider friends and family who have been blessed with happy partnerships, I realize there are many roads to establishing a successful relationship. Yet I also recognize there are a number of common factors that exist throughout the process. The same, I believe, can be said for the underwriter/broker relationship. While there are many roads leading to success, there is a common set of rules to establishing long-term, productive relationships. What follows are a few observations I have gained during more than 20 years working on the insurance company and brokerage sides of the business.

1. It is a relationship.

Try to find the human endeavor that does not include a relationship, and you are likely to be looking for a long time. The keys to success in just about any relationship also apply to the underwriter/broker relationship: respect, honesty, regard for each other’s abilities, an understanding of each other’s constraints, reasonable expectations, collaboration, communication and consistency.

2. Brokers often play offense, while underwriters typically play defense.

While brokers and underwriters share a common goal — a long-term, mutually profitable relationship — there are also basic differences that could potentially sabotage this relationship. A broker, by nature, is usually extroverted, competitive and persistent. On the other hand, an underwriter may be more analytical, possess a more conservative view and be specifically task-focused. Understanding each other’s points of view allows us to build a trusting, productive relationship. See also: Data Opportunities in Underwriting  

3. Submission quality is critical.

Each time a broker provides a submission to an underwriter, he or she hopes to receive a timely acknowledgement; however, this response is predicated on the quality of the information provided. A thorough description of operations; historical and future exposure data; currently valued loss information that includes detailed summaries of large losses; and completed and in-progress risk management initiatives improving the insured’s risk profile are vital to the triage process and underwriter assessment regarding whether to dedicate resources to move forward.

4. Watch the clock.

Waste, plain and simple, is wrong. It is wrong whether the item being wasted is food, water, money, talent, effort or precious natural resources. It is also wrong when the resource being wasted is time. Any time a broker takes shortcuts in crafting a submission, he or she is wasting the underwriter’s time. Imagine the underwriter as a quarterback with a finite amount of time left on the game clock. The quarterback only has time enough to run a certain number of plays. The submission sent in by a broker is the equivalent of one of those plays. By presenting a poorly constructed submission with inadequate detail and information, a broker is using up one of the underwriter’s valuable plays. This is why brokers must help underwriters manage the clock by only sending in opportunities with a reasonable chance for success and “points on the board.”

5. Pick your partners wisely.

As previously noted, it’s a relationship. And, it should go without saying, not everyone is meant to end up together. Carriers typically have defined areas of expertise and underwriting appetite. Brokers have the responsibility of understanding these parameters but, when appropriate, underwriters should be approached through a phone call or in-person meeting to discuss the interest level and viability of an opportunity.  During this process, underwriters have a duty to listen to the story until a final determination can be made.

6. “No” is not an answer; it is a choice.

Underwriters do not like to say no to a broker’s submission because there are no winners in that situation. In an ideal world, all submissions would result in a quote being delivered that adequately balances risk with expected return for the carrier. While there will inevitably be the occasional judgment call, a broker who has done his or her homework regarding both the prospective insured and the underwriter’s appetite for risk will be able to determine with a high degree of confidence whether or not the submission will receive the desired response. The underwriter, who will typically be long on pending proposals and short on time, will appreciate the consideration shown by a broker who does not clutter his or her in-basket with born losers. In turn, the underwriter should appropriately show appreciation by considering proposals submitted by brokers who have demonstrated a clear understanding of the respective carrier’s underwriting appetite by responding in a timely manner.

7. Work hard for each other.

Brokers need underwriters to insure their clients. Underwriters need brokers to present new opportunities for profitable growth. Neither party can exist or succeed without the earnest efforts of the other. As in any codependent relationship, neither party will achieve its full potential if one half of the relationship is simply dialing it in. Brokers and underwriters owe it to each other to show up, challenge each other and succeed together.

8. Each party has a job to do.

Although brokers and underwriters are engaged in a mutual effort, each has separate and unique responsibilities. Brokers must continually generate a sufficient flow of high-quality, profitable leads for carriers. They must also service their books of business with dependable back-room support, resulting in long-term client satisfaction. Carriers must maintain financial stability, diverse product offerings and a credible reputation of prompt and amicable claim resolution. Each party must be able to depend on the other’s consistently earnest effort. It is unjust for the carrier to supply high-quality products while the broker delivers poor-quality service. It is equally unjust for the broker to provide high-quality deliverables while the carrier struggles to deliver on its contractual obligations.

9. Underwriters should leave mystery to the Sphinx.

The more brokers that know about an underwriter’s appetite for risk, the better able they will be to deliver reasonable submission flow. Upon rejecting a proposal, the underwriter should clearly specify the reasons why to the broker. Do so in a constructive manner meant to help the broker submit stronger, more targeted opportunities in the future. Brokers, on their part, should look past rejection to gain insight, potentially resulting in greater opportunities for success.

10. Represent your company while remembering you also represent yourself.

How many of us will work for only one company throughout our careers? The answer is a precious few. While each one of us owes a debt of loyalty to the company whose name is on our paycheck, we must, at all times, also represent our own sense of right and wrong. Our reputation is the most important thing you possess throughout our professional career.

11. Spread the joy.

Both underwriters and brokers are engaged in the risk management business. It is only reasonable, therefore, that neither party place too many eggs in too few baskets. While diversity for diversity’s sake is not a good idea, establishing multiple high-quality relationships is. See also: The 5 I’s of Underwriting  

12. Underwriters should take special care to support new brokerages.

The industry needs the large brokerages, regional representatives and new organizations working to establish themselves. The insurance community will only become stronger with the addition of new brokerage competitors and distribution channels as they pump fresh energy and ideas into the industry. Be on the lookout for talented newcomers and support them to the extent of your ability; they are the stepping-stones leading all of us to a brighter future for the community.

13. Respect the confidentiality of each relationship.

Each broker works with many underwriters, just as each underwriter works with multiple brokerages. Honoring the confidentiality of each relationship is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. The betrayal of a confidence can lead to the loss of trust — irreparably damaging a productive, profitable relationship.

14. Remember to have fun.

Each spring, our company hosts an annual party to which we invite underwriters. We see this as an opportunity to express our gratitude to the underwriting community and to celebrate our mutual successes. We are on a shared journey with our carrier partners, and, like all journeys, this one becomes more enjoyable if we can have a few laughs together. This article originally appeared on CarrierManagement.

If we take a stroll in the woods today, there are unlikely to be the fabled Teddy Bear picnics waiting for us on a pleasant spring day in the bluebell-filled woodlands. In all probability, as we take some well-deserved time out from the high pressure, cut and thrust of daily business, we’ll start to contemplate what the future holds. It’s likely that we will swiftly move from thinking about our home and family life, to the current issues that we would rather have left at the office. Such is life. The insurance industry is no spring chicken; it’s been around for hundreds of years.  Smoky coffee houses have been replaced with sterile air-conditioned offices where computer systems dictate to a large extent the modus operandi for the company as a whole. The goal, however, is to use technology to recapture some of the simplicity of the Teddy Bear picnic. Can we bring some of that relaxed peace of mind to the insurance process? Infrastructure Impacts Customers Everyone acknowledges that modern software and technology are required to support a 21^stcentury commercial enterprise; the difficulties arise when they no longer keep pace with the realities of the “modern world”. According to Majesco’s research, insurance operations are affected by three primary factors; people, technology and shifting market boundaries.  The cold reality is that existing infrastructures are not up to coping with the new challenges presented. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the standard IT project runs into the tens of millions of pounds over multi-year implementations. See also: Infrastructure: Risks and Opportunities   Consumers, including business owners, use technology every day. It is, for the most part, highly responsive and accessible to their needs.   We all carry mobile phones, portable offices in their own right, providing a gateway to the wonderful world of digital commerce. Sadly in contrast, most insurance interactions are woefully short of providing an intuitive, functionally-rich customer experience.  As a consumer, all I want is an easy-to-use application that feels friendly and delivers options that fit my need. Infrastructure Impacts Insurer Opportunities Emerging technology coming to market, like the Internet of things (IOT), is a logical extension of the Internet.  Data is now all around us. The Internet provides a conduit to create and collect data and, in theory, allows the consumer and organisations to make better commercial decisions. However, many traditional insurers are struggling to capture this new data, let alone know how to use and interpret the data to improve their products and services.  Historical rating processes were not designed to use the raft of data now available. We’re surrounded by a sea of data that should improve our lot. But traditional insurers are slow in the use of this data, compared to new market entrants that are exploiting data’s opportunities. Living in a connected, data-rich world is opening up tremendous opportunities for new greenfields or start-ups that are deft in their thinking and brave enough to take on the established market.  Some will succeed and some will fail.  Those that fail will likely lack the commercial muscle to rise above the market noise and bring new business models and products to market.  Ultimately it’s the customer who will make the choice and drive the change, regardless of incumbent players who may overtly offer support to new initiatives, but have little imperative to change. Times are a changing…. gradually. Infrastructure Transformation is Now More Accessible The days of multimillion-pound, multi-year programs to create a modern business platform for today’s modern insurance needs is no longer viable. Majesco is highly engaged in these market changes, working with both new startups and greenfields, as well as existing traditional insurers to provide a path to this new future.  Our cloud business platform, Majesco CloudInsurer, provides an “out of the box” pay-as-you-grow option that delivers speed to value – speed to implementation, speed to market and speed to revenue.  The requisite connections to new data sources like IOT, reporting bureaus and more are all ready to use.  This allows new or existing businesses to concentrate on creating differentiation through the diversity and uniqueness of their products, services, and channels to their existing or new customer segments, helping to drive growth. Does it matter? Will it make a difference?  In a recent Majesco survey, consumers overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for insurers to provide an easier customer journey. This was also the case in our SMB research, The Rise of the New Small Medium Business Insurance Customer. See also: New Approach to Risk and Infrastructure? A combination of highly tailored, personalized products, dynamically priced based on new data sources, delivered via the channel of choice is what the market demands and is clearly the order of the day.  Majesco provides the modern business platform to help our customers meet these new demands with a speed to value proposition that is highly responsive to changing conditions. Can you find the Teddy Bear picnic among the stresses of infrastructure need? It might be tough. Can you give your customers a Teddy Bear picnic experience when they are purchasing insurance? Perhaps modernizing your insurance infrastructure will help you come fairly close. This article originally appeared on Majesco and was written by Mike Smart.