After my 10-year old daughter caught me reading “Snoopy the Destroyer,” Paul Krugman’s column in the April 11, 2016, New York Times, I had to reassure her that Snoopy was still safe to watch. Krugman may scare little girls with his article arguing for more federal regulation of financial institutions, including MetLife, owner of the Snoopy logo, lest the economy blow up. But consumers and the broader economy should not be scared, due to the work of state insurance regulators. The idea, as suggested by Krugman, that federal regulators know best would have Charlie Brown saying, “Good grief.” As Iowa’s state insurance commissioner, I work closely with 55 other insurance commissioners, directors or superintendents through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) to supervise the nation’s insurance market.  I serve as chair of the NAIC life and annuity (“A”) committee, which sets national policy on matters that affect the life insurance and annuity industry. Through these roles, I know our state-based regulatory system works to protect all American consumers and the financial soundness of the carriers we regulate. The myth that federal regulators know best has long been dispelled, but it is still front and center today, particularly when those same federal officials are challenged on their decisions. Alarm bells are going off at the Treasury Department after a U.S. District Court recently threw out the designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI). Treasury Secretary Jack Lew lashed out at the court in public statements and in the pages of major U.S. newspapers that MetLife, a company that is almost 150 years old, somehow presents a threat to the U.S. unless the company is subjected to additional oversight and federal regulation that accompanies the SIFI designation. Secretary Lew fails to acknowledge that MetLife, Prudential and hundreds of other insurance companies are closely and successfully regulated and supervised by state insurance commissioners, and have been for decades. Critics of the court’s decision - including Lew – argue that the court did not defer to the “experts” at the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which found that MetLife posed a threat to the economy. However, the FSOC itself ignored its own true experts. The FSOC designated MetLife as a SIFI in December 2014 over the objections of the only two independent FSOC members with true expertise and experience in insurance regulation. What we have learned following the 2008 financial crisis – and what Congress should keep in mind – is that the near collapse of AIG, and the accompanying $180 billion check from taxpayers to save it, was due to suspect federal oversight of AIG, not to any inadequacy in our state-based insurance regulatory system. AIG was a large, complex financial company. The insurance operations were supervised by the state insurance regulators, while its financial products division was supervised by the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”). It was AIG’s financial products division that became overextended by offering credit default swaps backed by the sizable balance sheet of AIG. OTS did not require AIG’s financial products division to have sufficient capital, and the company was left exposed. I want to ensure that the economy is protected from a financial crisis as much as anyone, but the thought of federal regulation and supervision of traditional insurance activities does not allow me to sleep easier. To the contrary, we need a coordinated regulatory approach where regulators work together. The federal government’s supervision shouldn’t expand into areas where it lacks expertise and where states are already working effectively. Consumers will bear the costs of this unnecessary overlap and duplication. The insurance industry is under the watchful eye of state insurance departments, and our track record of solvency regulation of large national and multinational insurers speaks for itself. The NAIC and state insurance departments have updated solvency oversight through transformational model laws that allow state insurance regulators to maintain a close watch on the insurance activities of the carriers domiciled in our respective states. When Judge Rosemary Collyer rescinded MetLife’s designation, she found that FSOC failed to take into account existing regulatory regimes. In short, the court found that FSOC failed to consider the level of scrutiny that insurance carriers like MetLife face from state regulators. Through strong statutory schemes and strong financial oversight, state regulators have detailed knowledge of insurance companies and successfully protect policyholders in all 50 states. Insurance companies do fail, as part of a healthy and competitive market, but it is a rare occurrence, because state insurance regulations require that insurance companies hold significant amounts of capital in reserve. Even when a company fails, policyholders are protected through our receivership process. In addition to the amount of capital a carrier is required to hold, states also maintain strict rules on the kinds of investments an insurance carrier may make with policyholders’ money. If the OTS maintained this same type of oversight and approach, AIG would not have required a massive taxpayer bailout. Alarmists like Secretary Lew insist that a large insurance company poses a threat to the U.S. economy and thereby requires federal supervision. They claim that Judge Collyer’s decision throwing out MetLife’s SIFI designation undermines broader efforts to reform our financial system in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But Judge Collyer’s decision is focused on the process that the Financial Stability Oversight Council used for designating MetLife as a SIFI in 2014, not the broader law. Dodd-Frank anticipated the fallibility of FSOC designations, as the law allows companies to challenge their designation. I do not blame MetLife for challenging the FSOC. FSOC continues to dismiss the legacy and expertise of state regulators like myself and has announced that it will appeal the District Court’s decision. It is puzzling why the federal government believes it can do a better job than on-the-ground state commissioners. As state commissioners, our top priority is protecting policyholders and providing robust oversight. This allows me to tell my daughter that Snoopy isn’t the bad guy, but she may learn to fear alarmists like Krugman and Secretary Lew as she begins to read past the funny pages.

The P&C insurers that will win in our increasingly data-driven market are the companies that embrace the possibilities of technology and are able to own the “micro-moment”: Companies that reach consumers when they are making decisions and forming preferences will be ahead of the curve. Communication technology now makes it possible for insurers to reach out to customers using automated voice, text, social media, email and other platforms. For example, when catastrophe looms, such as a major weather event, insurance companies have a great opportunity to protect policyholders and minimize losses by contacting customers. This is not only good for the bottom line, because it avoids losses; it's a great way to deliver an exceptional customer experience, which confers a competitive advantage. Insurance company executives instinctively see the value of using personalized communication to build loyalty and strengthen relationships. But not all companies are fully ready to take advantage of the possibilities of a closer connection with customers. See Also: Data Science: Methods Matter Executives worry about the quality and accuracy of the data they have on hand. That’s because many insurance companies only contact customers when processing a claim or following up on a late payment. Some use these opportunities to update their customer data, but since records verification only happens around transactions, a sizable portion of the company’s customer information is always outdated, and that can stymie efforts to own the micro-moment. Take the connected catastrophe scenario, for example — because much of the customer base is always connected and has higher expectations around personalized communication than ever before, it makes sense to conduct customer outreach when a catastrophe is likely. By reaching out to customers, companies can contribute to customer safety, reduce losses and strengthen relationships. A P&C company, with an insured population in the path of a hurricane or wildfire, might reach out via automated voice message, text, social media (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) or email to alert customers of the danger, provide advice on documenting insured property and inform customers on how to file claims once the event is over. The P&C company might also identify the location of mobile service centers. The message this type of initiative sends to customers is unmistakable: The company is looking out for the customer and stands ready to assist during a tough time. And with modern communication technology, companies can implement a system capable of managing affordably customer outreach across multiple platforms, using automation to handle most of the workload. Another issue is that many P&C companies don’t make a practice of asking for permission to contact customers or recording customer communication preferences. In addition to up-to-date contact information (including landline and mobile numbers), companies need to request communication preferences, such as whether the subscriber prefers to be contacted by voice, text or tweet. Getting P&C company databases where they need to be to conduct widespread customer outreach in a personalized manner that respects customer communication preferences will take a large-scale data scrubbing effort at most companies. It can be conducted in-house if the insurer has sufficient resources to tackle such a project, or the company can choose to hire a third-party vendor. When P&C insurers have the clean data they need, they can contact policyholders to help keep them safe, but that’s just the beginning. With clean data and the ability to automate communications using customer preferences, companies can reach out to customers about changing coverage needs, inquire about policy lapses, address late payments and much more. The first step in fostering closer relationships with customers via personalized communication is making sure the information on hand is clean — data that has been verified as accurate. With clean data, forward-thinking insurance company leaders can ensure that consumer demand for greater personalization is met and that their company thrives in an increasingly data-driven economy.

The use of telematics in car insurance isn’t new. For the past few years, more and more drivers have been signing up to have little black boxes installed in their cars that monitor their driving behavior, as insurance companies offer incentives such as lower premiums and discounted rates for safe drivers. By allowing insurers to track their driving behaviors – including average speed, braking force and distance driven – drivers are able to negotiate lower premiums and other benefits, which many view as a fairer and less discriminatory way of assessing risk. From a commercial point of view, if we can promote and encourage safer driving on the road then the number of crashes will come down, and the cost to the insurance industry will reduce accordingly – and those savings will be passed on to the public. Premiums for 17-year-olds with telematics boxes are half what they were four years ago overall, and statistics suggest accident rates within this age bracket are also coming down. Technology, and technology-enabled propositions, have really reduced claims costs, especially for young drivers. "Black box insurance" has other benefits, too. Many insurers also offer free anti-theft tracking and roadside assistance through the device, and so far RSA has a 100% return rate on stolen vehicles that have a telematics device fitted. Enter the era of the smart home With the benefits of telematics so clearly proven within the automotive industry, insurers are now turning their focus to the residential realm – in a bid to create "smart homes" that are intuitive and responsive to internal and external risks. For many homeowners, the ability to control their climate, lighting and entertainment devices is one of the main attractions when it comes to home telematics, whereas insurers are drawn to the security benefits offered. Luckily, telematics-based home insurance offers both parties the best of both worlds – convenience and risk mitigation, all in one handy tech-savvy package. Smart home = smarter home insurance? Just as black boxes in cars reward safe driving behaviors with lower premiums and discounts, smart home owners could reap the benefits of a connected abode. From discounts for locking the door and setting the alarm, to a fairer, up-to-date assessment based on moisture, flooding or carbon monoxide monitoring, home telematics can give consumers more control over their insurance rates and premiums, as well as a more in-depth understanding of their utilities usage, environmental risks and overall home security. In fact, smart home technology-based insurance has the potential to improve on existing discounts or lower premiums for features like security systems – simply by ensuring that these features are regularly used. With people buying smart switches and systems, insurers are looking initially for propositions that help reduce the impact, even eliminate, some claims around water, theft and fire. What’s next, connected pets? It may seem like a sci-fi fantasy, but telematics for pets is set to be the next game-changer in the insurance industry, which is no surprise given that around 2.6 million people in the U.K. have pet insurance. Pets are seen as part of the family, and owners spend a considerable amount on maintaining their furry best friends’ health, well-being and fitness. But how do we keep an extra close eye on our four-legged friends when we don’t speak their language? Pet telematics: Going beyond the microchipping process It’s not as disturbing or invasive as it sounds. All it takes for pets to join the telematics generation is a small GPS device – which is clipped to a collar or inserted under the dog’s skin to record its movements and activities throughout the day. When paired with a smartphone app, this safe, easy technique allows owners and insurers to monitor pets’ body temperatures, hormones and heart rates, with some even going as far as tracking bowel movements – and this data is collated to form a comprehensive picture of a pet’s health and lifestyle. Pet insurance is really a well-being product – private medical insurance for cats and dogs, effectively. Pet obesity results in a lot of claims, so if pet telematics can encourage owners to have healthier, more active pets, he’s for it. What’s in it for consumers?  The use of telematics in everyday life and activities puts consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to their insurance policies and premiums. By having access to detailed data on their driving, home security and pet care, ordinary consumers can become more aware of the risks around them, which could spur them to change or improve their behavior. People want to be healthy and happy, and not have to deal with the aftermath of an insurance event. The common thread across telematics is that technology creates proposition that either prevent or minimize the impact of claim events. What about privacy concerns? While many customers may balk at the thought of having their lives monitored, a recent Deloitte survey has shown that more than half of respondents were willing to share private information for a premium discount. This shows that, although privacy concerns remain top of mind for most, a sizable incentive can override that resistance to transform consumers into adopters. See the Deloitte report here. What’s in it for insurers? Telematics enables insurers to create products and services that accurately reflect customers’ risk. Perhaps that explains why telematics has become increasingly popular among consumers and insurers over the past few years. A study by ABI research estimates that global insurance telematics subscriptions could exceed 107 million in 2018, up from 5.5 million at the end of 2013. It also predicts that usage-based insurance will represent more than 100 million telematics policies and generate in excess of €50 billion in premiums globally by 2020. Telematics can move insurers from dealing with incidents, to stopping those incidents from being as bad as they could otherwise be. Using technology lets insurers move into that prevention mitigation space. This article originally appeared on www.rsagroup.com/the-thread.

It’s no secret that cyber attacks have the potential to cause massive business disruption – affecting both financial performance and corporate reputations. But when it comes to C-suite preparedness for cyber attacks, organizational silos are preventing businesses from taking a comprehensive approach. Cybersecurity is a threat that affects the entire C-suite, and managing this emerging risk requires an integrated mindset. Many senior executives lack full knowledge about how cyber attacks could affect their organization and how to make cybersecurity a C-suite priority. Moreover, across organizations different leaders are addressing different parts of the cybersecurity challenge: where the chief  information officer (CIO) and chief information security officer (CISO) are focused on physical and virtual data security, the CFO is concerned about ensuring financial stability in case of an attack. The chief legal officer may be concerned with the potential litigation effect, while the chief marketing officer (CMO) is responsible for mitigating bad PR and preserving the brand. In sophisticated organizations, the chief human resources officer (CHRO) is developing cyber training and awareness programs for employees to address threats that can originate within the company. Cybersecurity is clearly a distributed problem that requires integration across the entire C-suite. Aon’s latest findings reveal that more than half of companies do not plan to buy cyber insurance even though there is an increased threat of attack. This disconnect exists primarily at the board level -- the C-suite knows cybersecurity is an issue, but struggles to define its effect on financial performance. As cyber attacks become more prevalent, organizations will need to take an integrated approach toward preparedness.

Imagine that you were a major investor in a leading company, and its board of directors had no members with independent, world-class financial expertise. Who would look after your interests? You could probably coach the directors to ask good questions, but they would lack the competence to judge the answers. The board would not be able to engage management in robust conversations about the complexities of capital structure, mergers and acquisitions, financial accounting, reporting, regulatory compliance or risk management. Most investors and regulators would deem such a board unfit to carry out its fiduciary guidance and governance responsibilities. Yet that’s precisely where many companies are when it comes to information technology. Digitally driven change is becoming as critical an issue to most companies as finance. Companies are being called on to reimagine and reconstruct every aspect of their business; customers, suppliers and markets expect no less. Consider the rapidly expanding use of mobile phones in retail and banking. Or the changes foreseen in the transportation industry due to car-hailing algorithms and driverless vehicles. Already, one MIT study has found that digitally adept companies are, on average, as much as 26% more profitable than their competitors. And that advantage is only likely to increase. The boards of many large companies are ill-equipped for these shifts. That was the conclusion of our 2015 study of more than 1,000 nonexecutive and executive directors at 112 of the largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. and Europe. By analyzing company filings and public information, we found that all too many boards lacked the expertise needed to understand how technology informs strategy and affects execution. In Europe, for example, 95% of the companies we assessed, excluding technology and telecommunications companies, still had no non-executive directors with deep technology fluency. In the U.S., almost half of the surveyed companies had no technology expertise on their boards. These included major financial-services, insurance, industrial and consumer products companies. Yet each of those industries is grappling with complex strategic questions that hinge on technology. See Also: How Leadership Will Look in 20 Years Even boards with world-class technology expertise can have blind spots in areas of strategic importance; these include analytics, cybersecurity and digital fabrication. And even experts who keep up with particular technologies may miss the general effects of rapid technologically driven change on core products, business models and customer preferences. Many board members are aware of these deficiencies. They know that their companies will either embrace technological change and claim the markets of the future or be put out of business. In 2015, a PwC global survey of large-company directors found that 85% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the way their companies were “anticipating the competitive advantages enabled by technology.” Almost as many, 79%, said their boards did not sufficiently understand technology. The pervasiveness of the problem is troubling for anyone who cares about these companies — but it also represents an enormous opportunity. At the board level, there is a need for knowledgeable, incisive “geeks”: independent directors with experience and perspective in putting technology to use. In the past, many boards have compensated by relying on management or external consultants for strategic advice. But the stakes are now too high to take that approach. Boards can no longer duck the responsibility for the company’s digital transformation. They must take real ownership by ensuring that they are equipped to fully understand this part of the board agenda. Otherwise, how can they adequately oversee their company’s strategy, investments and expense base? How can they guide profitability, manage risk, assess management performance and ensure proper talent supply? Below are three critical steps you can take to better prepare your company for these challenges. 1. Hold out for sufficiently broad and deep expertise. Although company leaders agree on the need to attract technology-fluent directors, they often approach the undertaking as an exercise in diversity. They “check the box” by bringing in one person to stand for the full technological field, rather than seeking multiple directors with relevant experience and insight. To assess the severity of this deficiency in the companies we studied, we analyzed the resumes of their nonexecutive directors on four distinct aspects of technology: pure-play disruptive digital business, enterprise-level IT, cybersecurity and the digital transformation of Fortune 500–sized enterprises. Each is critical to boards’ oversight responsibilities, and fluency in each requires a distinct body of knowledge and experience. Few experts in enterprise-level value-chain IT could offer expert guidance on building disruptive digital business, and vice versa. We found that more than 90% of the companies, including technology and telecommunications firms, lacked expertise in one or more of these critical technology areas. Our research revealed only two companies that addressed all areas: Google and Wells Fargo. To address the gap, you must open multiple board seats for people with technological experience. Just as having only one woman on a board has proven to be insufficient, having just one IT-savvy member is problematic. To fill these seats, you may have to reach beyond the traditional search targets of former CEOs and CFOs. Tap into recent CIOs, CTOs and other C-level leaders at successful information-intensive companies; retired military officers with large information-technology commands; and senior consulting and private equity partners with deep cross-industry expertise in enterprise technology transformations. Resist the urge to rely solely on Silicon Valley experience. Start-up experience is valuable, but addresses just a small part of the large enterprise technology challenge. Likewise, the “move fast and break things” attitude in Silicon Valley often does not translate well to other industries. When recruiting these board members, be wary of candidates without fresh experience; in fast-moving fields such as cybersecurity or disruptive digital technology, people who are no longer active don’t always keep up with the latest trends. If executives in the business sector are scarce, look elsewhere; other sectors may be surprisingly relevant. In financial services, for example, understanding sophisticated process control is increasingly important. The best prospective board member may come from the logistics industry — from, say, FedEx or UPS. 2. Support robust discussions of technology with the right kinds of practices and management structures. There are two possible mechanisms for accomplishing suitably robust discussions. The first is to establish a formal technology-focused subcommittee of the full board, on par with other oversight functions such as audit or compensation. This can be helpful in raising critical issues and promoting deep discussion of complex topics. It also creates a mechanism for engaging external advisers. Alternatively, set up a technology advisory committee that meets regularly with top management and periodically reports to the board. AT&T does this. It may be easier, with such a committee, to attract best-in-class expertise, given that the time commitment is low and there are no full fiduciary responsibilities. Typically, advisory committees can also rotate members more frequently than a board can. It must be remembered, however, that an advisory committee reports to management, not the board. This will color its advice. Whatever the structure, it is important for this group to address topics that go beyond technology strategy and IT governance. The most important priority may be enterprise strategy and the ways in which technology makes new value propositions possible. FedEx, which is as much a technology company as a transportation icon, has used such a board to great effect for many years. 3. Set the right context. Alan Kay, one of the foremost pioneers in personal computer conception and design, once said, “Point of view is worth 80 IQ points.” The context with which your board of directors views technology is a critical element for enterprise success. They must collectively understand the 10 to 15 drivers of technology that have taken quantum leaps in the past decade — for example, big data and analytics, cloud computing, mobile technology, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and autonomous transportation — and the potential implications each has for the company. They must also have a clear view of their own company’s IT landscape: their existing hardware and software, including estimates of redundancy, age, robustness, any risk of obsolescence and costs. For example, how many marketing systems, customer databases and human resource systems does the company have? How interoperable are those systems? The need to ask these types of questions about a factory or back-office footprint would be obvious, but boards have generally neglected such inquiries regarding technology. The board must also understand risks related to technology, the defenses currently in play and any weaknesses in those defenses. Most important, the board must understand how the company’s IT systems relate to the company’s overall strategy, and what capabilities are needed to support it. It falls to the board to ensure that the company has a multiyear plan to address technology needs while reducing costs and risk. Boards need not grant a license to spend. On the contrary, the hallmark of computers and networks is that they continually get faster, better and cheaper. These benefits accrue only to those with modern gear, however, so frequent upgrades are essential. Finally, the board must incorporate its expanded technology context into larger deliberations. Talent recruiting and leadership development should be designed to fill gaps in technological fields. The criticality of IT should inform the review of proposed mergers and acquisitions. A close link to the audit committee is important because technology affects regulatory compliance and ethical issues. And the relationship to full board strategy discussions is critical. Of course, placing someone with world-class technology expertise on a board does not guarantee success. Many technically proficient companies have lost to upstarts with a better product or service. But without this expertise, boards cannot play their most important role: intervening with substantive conversations about strategic decisions early enough to make a difference. And without these focused conversations about technological investments and decisions, boards cannot fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities. Today, every board of directors has a once-in-a-generation chance to leapfrog the competition through technology competency. The opportunity is great because the task is difficult, and there is no large pool of talent waiting to be recruited. Those companies that meet this challenge successfully will capture the markets of the future. A version of this article appeared in the Summer 2016 issue of strategy+business.

(Adapted from A Manager’s Guide to Suicide Postvention in the Workplace: 10 Action Steps for Dealing With the Aftermath of a Suicide) Death jars our concept of the way life is supposed to be. That dissonance is multiplied when the death is by suicide. Following the tragedy of death by suicide, the workforce will include people whose personal struggles already leave them vulnerable and who now face increased risk for destructive behavior, including suicide. Tragedy can beget additional tragedies. Sometimes irrational blaming behavior includes violence. Sometimes suicide contagion, or “copycat suicides,” occur. How leaders respond (postvention) after death by suicide is critical to stopping that negative momentum. "Postvention" can be prevention Defined by the Suicide Prevention Resource Council as “the provision of crisis intervention and other support after a suicide has occurred to address and alleviate possible effects of suicide,” effective postvention has been found to stabilize community, prevent contagion and facilitate return to a new normal.

1. Coordinate: Contain the crisis. Like the highway patrolmen on-sight at a traffic accident, postvention aims to prevent one tragedy from leading to another and return normal progression as soon as is safely possible.

2. Notify: Protect and respect the privacy rights of the deceased employee and the person's loved ones during death notification.

3. Communicate: Reduce the potential for contagion. Communicate, communicate, communicate meaningful information. Keep it simple. Make it practical. Focus on solutions to immediate issues. Repeat it. Repeat it again.

Crisis Care Network, the largest provider of critical incident response services to the workplace, developed a crisis communication process that has been helpful for business leaders. The acronym ACT describes a means of acknowledging, communicating and transitioning amid a crisis. See Also: 6 Things to Do to Prevent Suicide Acknowledge and name the incident

• Have an accurate understanding of the facts and avoid conjecture.
• Demonstrate the courage to use real language that names what occurred.
• Acknowledge that the incident has an impact on team members and that it is okay that individuals will be affected differently.

Communicate pertinent information with both compassion and competence

• In the absence of information, people create it. Providing information reduces the likelihood of rumors, builds trust and provides a sense of order that supports moving forward.
• Although very difficult to do when affected by traumatic stress oneself, communicating with both competence and compassion demonstrates leadership effectiveness in a caring way. Employee assistance program (EAP) consultants often help business leaders by scripting and coaching their messaging.

Transition toward a future focus

• Communicate an expectation of recovery. Those affected must gain a vision of “survivor” rather than “victim.” Research indicates that humans are an amazingly resilient species and overwhelmingly bounces back from adversity.
• Communicate flexible and reasonable accommodations as people progress to a new normal. Employees should not all be expected to immediately function at full productivity (although some will) but will recover quicker if assigned to simple, concrete tasks. Structure and focus are helpful, and extended time away from work often inhibits recovery. “If you fall off a horse…..get back on a pony.”

4. Support: Offer practical assistance to the family and those affected.

5. Link: Identify and link affected employees to additional support resources and refer those most affected to professional mental health services.

How to lead effective suicide postvention was likely not part of most business leaders' education or training. When these tragedies occur, leaders often engage their EAP to deploy critical incident response experts – behavioral health professionals with unique training in response to tragedies. These consultants will:

• Consult with the organization’s leadership regarding crisis communication strategies that facilitate resilience
• Draw circles of impact and shape an appropriate response
• Let people talk if they wish to do so
• Identify normal reactions to an abnormal event so that people don’t panic regarding their own reactions
• Build group support
• Outline self-help recovery strategies
• Brainstorm solutions to overcome immediate return-to-function and return-to-life obstacles
• Assess movement toward either immediate business-as-usual functioning or additional care. Following death by suicide, they will be especially attuned to assess others for risk of self-harm.

6. Comfort: Support, comfort and promote healthy grieving of the employees who have been affected by the loss. Critical incident response consultants will guide, coach, and script leaders regarding compassionate messaging. Leaders must “give permission” for help-seeking behavior.

7. Restore: Restore equilibrium and optimal functioning in the workplace.

Sensitively resume a familiar schedule. People do best when their natural rhythms kick back in. Routine. No surprises. One foot in front of the other, just like yesterday. Facilitate successful completion of familiar tasks. Doing something tangible reduces that sense of powerlessness and helps people focus on what they can do, rather than panic about what they cannot. The structure of doing what one knows how to do is helpful in finding a “new normal.”

8. Lead: Build and sustain trust and confidence in organizational leadership. The team will never forget the leader’s response. Neither will the leader. Effective provision of both guidance and support will lead to the team feeling cared for in the workplace and result in loyalty and faith in their leadership’s abilities. People will go through the crisis with or without leadership. Lead them.

9. Honor: Prepare for anniversary reactions and other milestone dates. Mark these dates on the calendar and then respectfully acknowledge them in large or small ways. Honor those affected by the death.

• Sustain: Move from postvention to suicide prevention.

All involved stakeholders will now own the fact that “it can happen here.” Use that momentum to keep others safer. Following death by suicide, leaders all become “first responders.” Rather than being overwhelmed by the first tragedy, they can prevent others.

I am committed to helping shape a system for securities litigation defense that helps directors and officers get through securities litigation safely and efficiently, without losing their serenity or dignity, or facing any real risk of paying any personal funds. But we are actually moving in the opposite direction of this goal, and, unless some changes are made, securities litigation will pose greater and greater risk to individual directors and officers. It is time for the “repeat players” in securities litigation defense – D&O insurers and brokers, defense lawyers and economists – to make some fundamental changes to how we do things. Although most cases still seem to turn out fine for the individual defendants, resolved by a dismissal or a settlement that is fully funded by D&O insurance, the bigger picture is not pretty. The law firms that have defended most cases since securities class actions gained footing through Basic v. Levinson – primarily “biglaw” firms based in the country’s several largest cities – are no longer suitable for many, or even most, securities class actions. Fueled by high billing rates and profit-focused staffing, those firms’ skyrocketing defense costs threaten to exhaust most or all of the D&O insurance towers in cases that are not ended on a motion to dismiss. Rarely can such firms defend cases vigorously through summary judgment and toward trial anymore. Worse, these high prices too often do not yield strategic benefits. A strong motion to dismiss focuses on the truth of what the defendants said, with support from the context of the statements, as directed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tellabs and Omnicare. Yet, far too often, the motion-to-dismiss briefs that come out of these large firms are little more than cookie-cutter arguments based on the structure of the Reform Act. And if a motion is lost, settlements are higher than necessary because the defendants often have no option but to settle to avoid an avalanche of defense costs that would exhaust their D&O insurance limits. On the other hand, if settlement occurs later, it can be difficult to keep settlement within D&O insurance limits – and defense counsel’s analysis of a “reasonable” settlement can influenced by a desire to justify the amount it has billed. At the same time that defense costs are continuing to soar, securities class actions are becoming smaller and smaller, with two-thirds of cases brought against companies with market caps less than $2 billion, and almost half less than $750 million. Although catawampus securities litigation economics is a systemic problem, affecting cases of all sizes, the problem is especially acute in the smaller half of cases. Some of those cases simply cannot be defended both well and economically by typical defense firms. Either defense costs become ridiculously large for the size of the case and the amount of the D&O insurance limits, or firms try to reduce costs by cutting corners on staffing and projects – or both. We see large law firms routinely chase smaller and smaller cases. From a market perspective, it makes no sense at all. So how do we achieve a better securities litigation system?  Five changes would have a profound impact:

1. Require an interview process for the selection of defense counsel, to allow the defendants to understand their options; to evaluate conflicts of interest and the advantages and disadvantages of using their corporate firm to defend the litigation; and to achieve cost concessions that only a competitive interview process can yield.
2. Move damages expert reports and discovery ahead of fact discovery, to allow the defendants and their D&O insurers to understand the real economics of cases that survive a motion to dismiss, and to make more informed litigation and settlement decisions.
3. Increase the involvement of D&O insurers in defense-counsel selection and in other strategic defense decisions, to put those that have the greatest overall experience and economic stake in securities class action defense in a position to provide meaningful input.
4. Increase the involvement of boards of directors in decisions concerning D&O insurance and the defense of securities litigation, including counsel selection, to ensure their personal protection and good oversight of the defense of the company and themselves.
5. Make the Supreme Court’s Omnicare decision a primary tool in the defense of securities class actions. Obviously, Omnicare should be used to defend against challenges to all forms of opinions, including statements regarded as “puffery” and forward-looking statements protected by the Reform Act’s Safe Harbor. But defense counsel should also take advantage of the Supreme Court’s direction in Omnicare that courts evaluate challenged statements in their full factual context. Omnicare supplements the court’s previous direction in Tellabs that courts evaluate scienter by considering not just the complaint’s allegations, but also documents incorporated by reference and documents subject to judicial notice.  Together, Omnicare and Tellabs allow defense counsel to defend their clients’ honesty with a robust factual record at the motion to dismiss stage.

These five changes are among the top wishes I have to improve securities litigation defense, and to preserve the protections of directors and officers who face securities litigation.

When start-ups jumped into insurance, many focused on the personal auto industry. Not surprising, considering it is arguably the least complex line of insurance and is often the first to be disrupted (going back to Progressive in the ‘90s). Now that InsurTech investment is at an all-time high, more start-ups are entering the market and have become increasingly confident in their ability to tackle complex lines of business. If recent start-ups like CoverWallet and Next Insurance are any indication, small commercial business is the next line to face aggressive disruption. If carriers want to stay competitive and grab profitable market share, they will have to adapt to today's standards for the customer experience. Small Commercial an Obvious Move for Startups Targeting the small commercial business market makes sense, given a recent McKinsey study that calls the line “one of the few bright spots in P/C insurance.” The study points out that, since the 2008 recession, the number of small businesses has grown, and 40% of sole proprietorships don’t have insurance. Unfortunately for the traditional carrier, the majority of small businesses are also open to purchasing policies online. But remember that saying you’re open to purchasing online and actually purchasing online are two very different things - especially if we use the recent past as an indicator. See Also: So Your Start-Up Will Sell Insurance Google Compare terminated operations after sluggish growth across the U.S., with many of their leads failing to purchase. This is not atypical for this insurance shopping method. Several years ago, Overstock also tried selling insurance online outside of personal auto - including commercial business - and that closed down quickly. That two business giants failed doesn’t mean online purchasing won’t eventually catch on. Start-up culture is largely a test-and-learn environment. But these initial growing pains do indicate that traditional insurance still has a chance to stay alive amid disruption if they provide an efficient, engaging consumer experience. Consumers Want Both Confidence and Efficiency It’s not that consumers don’t want to work with carriers and agents, it’s that the customer efficiency of 30 years ago is no longer an appropriate benchmark. Of course small business owners are open to purchasing online, because traditional insurance has not yet given them the experience they desire. According to a PIA study from last year, small commercial businesses would much prefer the personal attention from agents (and by extension the carriers they work with) as long as they do a better job of adapting to technologies and the Internet. From the customer’s perspective, an experience with an insurance carrier isn’t compared only with other carriers – but to other companies they do business with regardless of industry. Whether it’s Amazon, Apple, Google, etc., your customer experience will be rated against the companies leading in the modern, digital world. This explains many of the start-ups entering the space now and why they have the potential to gain the upper hand. To achieve better communication, carriers need to think more broadly about their usage of data and predictive analytics. You have to gain an incredibly detailed view of your customers, their behaviors and their responses to your communication and product offerings. We always recommend an incremental rollout of analytics to get your feet wet before diving in. At the same time, it’s critically important to be ready to build off that early momentum and develop an overall predictive analytics strategy that seamlessly merges with business goals. Recognize that this evolution to becoming more data-driven is as much about organizational change as it is about technology. When carriers understand how predictive analytics benefits them, they can confidently make data-driven decisions that improve every aspect of their business - including the customer experience. For example, using underwriting analytics to achieve real-time insights into pricing policies doesn’t just help a carrier's bottom line - it also greatly streamlines and expedites the communication chain between consumers, agents and carriers. At the recent Dig In insurance conference, a panel of InsurTech CEOs discussed how start-ups dissect insurance data – in ways that differ from traditional insurers and agents. A member of the audience asked, “Why are start-ups so combative in their approach?” It was an intriguing question that highlights the digital divide in terms of how the industry thinks about evolving versus how technology and Internet entrepreneurs think about playing in industries ripe for disruption. What feels “combative” to the incumbent is often seen as “customer-centric” to the new entrant. It’s important that carriers understand that there is a way to co-exist, but counting on new entrants to accept the status quo is a bad bet. Think of start-ups as an advocate for a better customer experience, and see those that fit your business as innovation partners. Adopt the mantra that the customer always wins, and you’ll remain relevant in the customer value chain.

A tsunami of change is poised to disrupt the life and annuity market in terms of regulation, products, distribution channels, business strategies and customer expectations. The new regulatory ruling from the Department of Labor (DoL) will initially disrupt annuity product sales related to IRA rollovers but will likely have significant impact in the medium to long term with all the products that U.S. life insurance companies provide. The new ruling places a fiduciary standard on all types of financial services companies and advisers that provide investment advice or sell insurance or other products that affect qualified retirement accounts. Unlike the previous suitability standard that applied to most annuity and other investment product sales, the new fiduciary standard will require that financial advisers be completely transparent about their conflicts of interest and compensation and will make it very difficult to justify commission payments by product companies. To help guarantee objectivity, the preferred fee structure for retirement account-oriented advice and product sales will become fees directly from the consumer. While the fiduciary standard will apply initially to qualified retirement accounts, the recent experience in other countries like the UK and Australia makes it clear that consumers will come to expect a similar level of transparency and objectivity for other types of financial advice and financial products like life insurance. See Also: 8 Start-ups Aiming to Revive Life Insurance Life insurance companies that write a large volume of high-commission, retirement-oriented products like variable and indexed annuities will experience the most significant, immediate and potentially negative impact. Traditional life insurance and other lines of business will experience the impact of the fiduciary ruling more gradually, giving life insurance companies early warning and much-needed time to evolve their products, technologies and distribution strategies. Insurers should assume that group-led individual product sales sold under something resembling the fiduciary standard will ultimately become the norm for the whole life insurance portfolio. Adding further momentum to this wave of change are Millennials, now the largest living generation. As also the most educated living generation, they expect objective advice and fees for products that represent fair value. While often very self-directed, Millennials want advice from experts in complex, important areas like employee benefits. Millennials want to receive employee benefits advice from their current employers but then often buy individual products that can follow them to future jobs at new employers. This represents another wave of change because of the dynamic, “gig” economy. Right behind, Gen Z, is a generation ‘born digital,’ with technology incorporated into all aspects of their lives. They live and breathe innovation, as noted in our Future Trends: A Seismic Shift Underway report. What does this mean to their employers and their desire to build employee loyalty? This new customer expectation is reinforced in a recent MetLife employee benefits study where nearly two-thirds (62%) of employees say they’re looking to their employer for more help in achieving financial security through employee benefits as compared with 49% in 2011.  Furthermore, the study noted that Millennials were twice as likely compared with baby boomers, 44% versus 20%, to say that their employers “ought to help them solve their financial concerns.” So what does this mean for life insurance companies? It means a new world of transparency, objectivity, fee-based adviser compensation, lower-fee products and employee job hopping will together create a wave of change to long-held business assumptions, operations and more. With the pace of change gathering strength and with limited resources, life insurance companies should seek partnerships that will help them ride this wave. This could involve partnering with technology companies to provide a single modern platform to support both individual and group needs that match the emerging customer needs. It may mean working within an ecosystem of innovative, new investment and insurance distribution platforms that were built with business and operating models that fit properly into the context of this new world. Rather than acquiring these platforms and stifling innovation, the distribution partnerships provide valuable insights to understand how the platforms connect with Millennials and Gen Z and how to provide value to them. The new “robo adviser” technology-enabled platforms act as fiduciaries and have shown strong, early success with accumulating investment assets from Millennials and other types of consumers by providing automated, institutional-style asset management. Some of the robo platforms like Betterment express an interest in implementing retirement income-oriented advice and product delivery capabilities but will need help understanding the nuances and complexities of retirement income. Interestingly, life insurance companies are in a stronger position than other types of financial services companies to explain the benefits of having a “retirement income floor” and then providing the deferred or immediate income products that can actually provide that floor. With insurance protection products, the new employee benefits distribution platforms focus almost exclusively on health insurance benefits, but will inevitably diversify into non-health employee benefits products. While technology will help with making protection products more consumer-friendly, combining technology with expert advice from people will provide the formula that Millennials will want. To provide the multi-channel employee benefits advice that Millennials prefer, life insurance companies should consider investing in dedicated agents/advisers who can act as fiduciary equivalents for employee benefits products and provide objective advice based on the employee’s particular needs. These dedicated agents will find an attractive opportunity in helping employers with fewer than 100 employees level the playing field with larger employers — providing a compelling service to Millennials and other employees that will help to retain and motivate them. Furthermore, life insurance companies should also seek to partner, tightly integrate with and learn from a few of the early self-service enrollment platforms for employee benefits like Gravie and Connecture, even though they are currently focused on health insurance products. Only by partnering with these types of companies and by understanding how they generate revenue by providing objective advice to Millennials will life insurance companies be able to succeed. For an industry that has relied for many decades on selling commission-based products through traditional, third party intermediaries, this will require a completely new way of thinking and a new business model that is currently foreign to most U.S. life insurance companies. Finally, to put this all together as a “platform” solution, insurers must look to new technology software that will provide some key elements, including:

• a core platform that supports both individual and group, to enable portability of insurance,
• a digital platform that will enable multi-channel environments and provide a compelling customer experience, and,
• a platform that will easily integrate innovative solutions and partners to differentiate the organization within its market.

It all comes down to adaptability, innovation and speed in life insurers’ ability to ride the wave. These corporate mandates are explained in greater detail in Majesco’s latest research paper, Riding the Wave of Change in Group and Employee Benefits.   Why not treat partners and new players like expert surfers that can help to ride the new  wave?

Healthcare Matters sits down with Dr. Richard Anderson, chairman and CEO of the Doctors Company. In Part 4 of the series, we ask Dr. Anderson to share his impressions of alternative dispute resolution systems, ranging from mediation and arbitration, to specialized health courts staffed by independent panels of medical experts, to “safe harbor” systems, in which physicians who showed they followed best practices would be immune from litigation.