Surgeon and author, Dr. Atul Gawande outlined how, at the turn of the 20th century, more than forty per cent of household income went to paying for food, and food production consumed roughly half the workforce. The drive to change that began in a small town in Texas where an array of new methods of food production were tested. The results were stunning. Today, food accounts for 8% of household budgets and 2% of the workforce.

As a swarm of small innovations led to the transformation of farming, so too is a rapidly building wave of innovative new care and payment models leading to similar breakthroughs in healthcare. The winners in the next epoch of healthcare will be those that have agility in contrast to the lumbering nature of traditional healthcare systems.

In old line models, attempting a new care or payment model meant long planning and development cycles. The cost and complexity of testing new models prevent many from being tried. Demonstrating how healthcare hasn't experienced the benefits of modern, cloud-based software, the leading HealthIT vendor is known to charge $100 million and up for its software and it takes a year or two to start realizing any benefit. [See also Health Systems Spending Billions to Prepare for the Last Battle]

Iterative Testing And Refinement Will Prevail
There's a striking parallel between the transformation of healthcare and what happened with advertising campaigns as a result of traditional media getting disrupted by digital media.

Once upon a time, because the stakes were high with large ad campaigns, 90% of the effort around an ad campaign was in the planning/building of a campaign — i.e., creating ads, focus grouping creative/promotions, planning where to place ads, etc. When ads were created and it was decided where to run the ads, marketers sat back and watched to see how it would play out with little ability to change the course of a campaign.

Today, as little as 20% of the marketing effort is done upfront before putting elements to the test. The Internet is much more effective at testing offers and ad creative than a contrived focus group. Likewise, smart marketers can tap very sophisticated tools to optimize their ad spending so that the actual place ads run can be radically different than what an ad director may have thought initally.

I'd expect a similar transition to happen in healthcare. As Dr. Farzad Mostashari (National Coordinator for Health IT) said, "what's transformative isn't just harvesting & analyzing Big Data — it's instrumenting what we do, testing predictions, A/B trials..."

It's well understood that the mega healthIT systems (e.g., a $900M implementation was announced not long ago in the Northeast) take a couple years to implement. The reason for the long implementation, in part, is due to all of the decisions that have to be made regarding customization. The stakes are high as it's only logical to do system-wide changes when 100's of millions are at stake, leading some healthcare providers to have weak operating results as a result of healthIT costs as Zina Moukheiber reported. The market leader is noted for its customizability. However, once customized, it's also noted for its rigidity. That is, if a workflow changes, it's a major project to change the supporting healthIT to support the new workflow.

Where processes are well understood and predictable (e.g., surgeries), applying a manufacturing mindset is very appropriate. It's akin to setting up an assembly line at an auto plant at great expense. Once that is done, it can be used for a long period of time and is worth the upfront investment. The danger comes in when it comes to chronic disease management (where more than 75% of healthcare dollars are spent). With accountable models and recognition that the patient or family members have the greatest impact on outcomes (i.e., not healthcare professionals), setting up a rigid system is a recipe for disaster.

If there's one thing we know for certain, it's going to take iteration for many years to hone how to tackle chronic conditions as it involves complexity of the variety humans present to the healthcare system. In an agile system that has modern software economics (i.e., dramatically lower cost), it's feasible to do smaller scale tests. If they prove successful, they can be expanded. Listening to a recent podcast from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement on reducing readmissions echo'ed this point — i.e., addressing an issue like this will take a series of changes vs. one silver bullet.

The rigid mega healthIT systems are a vestige of the "do more, bill more" model of reimbursement, particularly given that healthcare is a supply-driven market (e.g., MDs who own a stake in imaging equipment order scans at three times the rate of MDs who don't). Spending nine figures doesn't sound as bad when you have capital projects planned in excess of $1 Billion. Perhaps we should refer to the legacy model as the "build more, do more, bill more" model. Any health analyst will tell you that the cure for healthcare's hyperinflation is NOT building more healthcare facilities. It would be as if a fire department argued that the way to solve a wave of structural fires was to buy more fire fighting equipment. Indeed, that might help, however there's a much more cost-effective approach such as having buildings inspected for fire prevention capabilities.

In their book, The Innovator's Prescription, Clayton Christensen and Dr. Jason Hwang point out how applying technology into old business models has only raised costs. Thus, buying new technology isn't a silver bullet if it's put into an old business model. Rather, the new technologies need to go hand-in-hand with agile, new processes. The organizations who optimize their approaches for a more agile model will prevail.

Images are courtesy of Jason Hwang, M.D., M.B.A. Co-author of The Innovator's Prescription.

Dramatic Gains From New Care And Payment Models
Innovators such as Iora Health, WhiteGlove Health and Qliance rethought the care delivery and payment models from the ground up. Their results have been impressive. For example, Qliance has Net Promoter Scores higher than Google or Apple, while reducing the direct costs of healthcare (i.e., their service coupled with a high deductible wrap-around policy) 20-40%. More impressively, they have reduced utilization of the most expensive downstream costs (surgical, specialist and emergency visits) 40-80%. Iora has reported similar outcomes with some of the toughest patient populations out there. [See "David Clause" in Obamacare Ready to Slay the Healthcare Cost Beast for more on the outcomes Iora and Qliance have reported.]

The next wave of innovators are taking advantage of second-mover advantage as the wave of healthtech startups provide them off-the-shelf software that is an order of magnitude less investment than the first wave of innovators. It's a couple orders of magnitude less expensive than legacy healthIT. More importantly for the innovators is the speed that they can not only stand up the new technology but also easily iterate based on real world experience. Rather than months or years, it's hours or days. This is a key component of IT agility. They also make the most of investment others make rather than be threatened by them. A simple example: WebMD is used by over 100M consumers per month. Clinicians can curate information that they think will be useful for patients from WebMD and others (e.g., medical societies) who've made large investments in consumer-friendly content. Healthcare can no longer afford to reinvent the wheel. [See Khan Academy Approach to Solve Wicked Problem in Healthcare for examples of new approaches taken.]

Change is already happening faster than many expected. Oliver Wyman's recent paper highlighted the rapidity of the market shift in The ACO Surprise (PDF). When I was presenting to the Pioneer ACOs over the summer (see summary here), it was already apparent to the pioneering organizations that their new models required new systems. They went on to state they didn't expect to get anything for the new requirements from their traditional healthIT suppliers for at least the next two years. Meanwhile, the market shift is taking place much quicker than that.

New York Digital Health Accelerator Is A Model To Emulate
Zina Moukheiber highlighted a program that is a key plank of perhaps the largest effort in the country to reinvent healthcare delivery and payment.

The New York Health Home program was designed to make obsolete the traditional uncoordinated and unaccountable "system" that has cared for Medicaid patients in New York. Managing a $50B budget gives Dr. Nirav Shah (NY's state Commissioner of Health) the clout to attract hundreds of companies that want to enable the reinvention of healthcare. Dr. Shah and other leaders in New York's public and private sector recognized that with an entirely new set of objectives a new set of technology requirements naturally emanates from that. Through the New York Digital Health Accelerator (NYDHA), they are supporting the growth of agile startups to meet these new requirements. [Disclosure: My company was one of the 8 companies selected for the accelerator program.] Just two months into the program, there are pilots and deployments with the accelerator companies underway in the leading healthcare providers in New York.

The graphic below depicts the transition from the slide rule to the mainframe and then back out to mobile devices. Dr. Shah's comments in the video above echo'ed the shift from an old "mainframe" method of healthcare delivery to a more distributed "smartphone" model.

New business models require new technology. As David Whitlinger (head of the New York eHealth Collaborative) highlighted in the video above, his organization has built a state health information network but what it needs are the applications riding on top of that network to realize its full value. The startups in the NYDHA will be the first to get access to the statewide network due to their agility in taking advantage of the state's health information exchange.

The trucking industry accounted for nearly 20 percent of all days-away-from-work cases in 2011. Correspondingly, trucking was among the seven occupations which had an incidence rate greater than 300 cases per 10,000 full-time workers and who had greater than 20,000 days-away-from-work cases.

OSHA defines a Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) as an injury of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs. They identify examples of Musculoskeletal Disorders to include: carpal tunnel syndrome, rotator cuff syndrome, De Quervain's disease, trigger finger, tarsal tunnel syndrome, sciatica, epicondylitis, tendinitis, Raynaud's phenomenon, carpet layers knee, herniated spinal disc, and low back pain.

The average cost of a work-related soft tissue injury in the trucking industry exceeds any other industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Musculoskeletal Disorders nationwide typically account for 33% of work-related injuries, while the incidence of Musculoskeletal Disorders in the transportation industry is 60-67%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also noted that there were 1.4 million total transportation workers, and each year 1 in 18 is injured or made ill by the job.

These higher rates of injury can be attributed in part to several factors. Due to the nature of their work, many drivers maintain a poor diet, rarely get enough sleep, and are sedentary. As a result, they find themselves more susceptible to heart attacks and diabetes, as well as a myriad of strains, sprains and various other Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Additionally, the percentage of older workers is higher in transportation than in most industries, with the Transportation Research Board estimating that up to 25 percent of truck drivers will be older than 65 by 2025, translating into more severe Musculoskeletal Disorder claims.

These factors are contributing to more workers' compensation claims for drivers which increase employers' costs. As part of the job, many truck drivers are required to unload the goods they transport, leading to serious sprains and strains. Heavy lifting after long periods of sitting can increase the likelihood of severe sprains and strains. In addition, drivers often rush at the delivery site in an effort to meet the demands of tight schedules. This combination contributes to 52% of the non-fatal injuries in this industry, with trunk and back claims accounting for 70% of these cases.

Due to its unique workplace circumstances, the commercial transportation industry is at higher risk for increased frequency of injuries and costs to the industry. The following describes the framework of this dilemma:

1. Commercial transportation jobs expose workers to high physical demands and extended hours of exposure.
2. The transportation industry experiences one of the highest work-related injury rates among all workplace sectors.
3. The transportation industry experiences a high level of turnover on an annual basis, which results in a high number of newly hired employees exposed to unfamiliar and physically demanding tasks.

While this is an industry-wide issue, we will focus on California in order to illustrate how problematic it truly is. In March of 2010, the California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) issued its latest scorecard for the California Trucking Industry. Over eight years, $480 million dollars was paid in medical and indemnity costs alone. The study found that, even though this industry accounted for only 1% of all California industrial claims, they accounted for 1.8% of the state's workers' compensation paid benefits. It was also found that medical and indemnity payments were higher than any other industry. The average lost-time direct claim cost at $18,587 is 41% higher than the industry average in California. The indirect costs in this industry range from a 2x to a 10x multiple, and in an industry known for low profit margins, controlling costs is critical.

It should also be noted that California can retain jurisdiction of a workers' compensation claim even if the injury did not occur in that state; the employee only has to live in California, drive through California or have been hired out of California. This is such a significant problem that in 2010 the U.S. Department of Transportation initiated the Compliance Safety Accountability measure of driver's fitness. This is specific to transportation, is publicly available, and the ratings are tied to insurance rates and letters of credit.

With the numerous reforms taking place in 2013 and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Mandatory Reporting Act, it is now essential that employers become proactive and only accept claims that arise out of the course and scope of employment. Medicare has mandated all work-related and general liability injuries be reported to CMS in an electronic format. This means that CMS has the mechanism to look back and identify work comp-related medical care payments made by Medicare. This is a retroactive statute that will ultimately hold the employer and/or insurance carrier responsible for these payments.

Should CMS have to pursue the employer in court, the amount owed is doubled. The insured or employer could pay the future medical cost twice — once to the claimant at settlement and later when Medicare seeks reimbursement of the medical care they paid on behalf of the claimant. There is no statute of limitations on compliance with the MSA requirements. CMS can review claims closed last year, five years ago, or even longer to check for compliance. Penalties and fees for noncompliance are $1,000 per day if medical care is not paid within 30 days.

Historically, soft tissue injuries have been difficult to diagnose and even harder to treat due to the broad spectrum of disorders related to soft tissue. Most diagnostic tests are not designed to address Musculoskeletal Disorders and are unable to document the presence of pain or loss of function ... two key complaints.

Employers need a way to manage their Musculoskeletal Disorder exposure and provide better care to their injured workers. The key to managing this problem is for employers to obtain the ability to only accept claims that arise out of the course and scope of employment. The only viable solution for employers is to conduct a baseline soft tissue assessment in order to establish pre-injury status. The baseline must be job and body part specific and objective to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.

The baseline assessments are not read or interpreted unless and until there is an injury. By not identifying a potential disability, employers are able to conduct baseline assessments on new hires as well as existing employees while maintaining compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act. If there is a soft tissue injury, the employee is sent for a post-loss assessment to determine what and if there is any change from the baseline assessment. If no change is noted (no acute pathology), then there is no valid claim. This proven baseline program is known as the EFA Soft Tissue Management Program (EFA-STM Program), which utilizes the Electrodiagnostic Functional Assessment to objectively provide this data.

SB 863 was passed on the last day of August 2012. It is the largest and most comprehensive change to the California workers compensation system since April 2004 when SB 899 passed.

To make sure that the new law is implemented properly, the California Division of Workers Compensation and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board have both promulgated extensive regulations. Some of the regulations, by their nature, were considered "emergency" and were approved by OAL on December 31.

Because of the extensive impact of the various articles in the legislation, there will be ongoing regulatory efforts at least through the first six months of this year.

I strongly encourage all claims operations to review these regulations and provide their insight, thoughts, and comments on a timely basis to the Division of Workers Compensation. You can find all of the regulations on the California Department of Industrial Relations web site or the California Division of Workers Compensation web site.

Implementing SB 863
On the front lines there are many legitimate questions, such as:

• How much of the new law applies to my existing cases?
• If I have started Permanent Disability (PD) advances, and if the employee has returned to his/her regular work, do I still need to advance Permanent Disability?
• What is Independent Medical Review (IMR)?
• How will I pay for the Independent Medical Review evaluation?
• Under what circumstances will I have to use Independent Medical Review?
• What happens if I have an old case and the applicant attorney claims a sleep disorder?
• What are the new ways to rate Permanent Disability?
• What happens if the lien holders have not paid their lien filing fee?

To assist with helping claims operations and claims departments implementing the new law, I have provided an SB 863 Implementation and Survival Guide, organized by Mark Webb. It is intended to assist claims operations in the day-to-day implementation of SB863.

The original wording of the bill can be viewed here.

Napoleon's Corporal
Napoleon Bonaparte conquered most of Europe and North Africa. Many do not know the inside story of why he was a successful a military leader. One reason was his unique and extensive use of cannon. However he also had a secret weapon ... His advantage was his use of a corporal.

Napoleon realized that war was a complex endeavor. When his generals outlined the battle plan, he had a random corporal assigned to shine his boots. After the plan was explained to Napoleon, he would look down at the corporal and ask if he understood the plan. If the corporal (who had been listening to the explanation of the plan) understood, Napoleon would then authorize the attack. However if the corporal was confused or did not understand the plan, then Napoleon had his generals re-do the plan to simplify it.

Napoleon understood that it was his front line that needed to execute the battle plan. If the plan was confusing, the front line would not be successful.

I recommend that this concept be considered when implementing SB863.

Here are some additional comments and observations on developing claim procedures to implement SB 863:

• Usually the best and the brightest are used to develop procedures in claims departments. That does not always result in simple processes. This is because the focus is usually only on compliance with the new laws (which does not include simplifying the existing processes or the new process).
• When the claims departments are developing their policies, rules and procedures, front line claims assistants and examiners should be included in the development of the processes and should also review the proposed plans to determine if they can be understood and implemented.
• Unfortunately many times the new procedures result in processes that reflect the axiom "we have always done it this way." Include folks who think "out of the box" and allow their voices to be heard.
• SB 863 will result in major changes within the claims offices procedures and claims handling. Now is the time to take advantage of the change and embrace the change rather than to resist the change.
• The focus on implementation should be: Benefit provision, Compliance, Cost Savings, Simplification, Documentation, Training.
• For many claims adjusters, this will be the third system that they will be working with (Pre-899, 899 and 863).
• Segregating claims by system may help but is not a panacea (because many of the provisions of SB863 apply to all existing claims).
• Claims systems will also have to be changed. Limitations of some of the claims systems will result in problematic work-around procedures for awhile.
• Sometimes working out a manual process first allows one to identify efficiencies. Do not be afraid to use a manual process for awhile (as the bugs are worked out).
• Regular reviews of the implementation team specifically focused on simplification are productive.
• The team should have a dedicated focus on the new law's cost-saving provisions.
• The team should keep track of its costs and also develop an analysis of costs of implementing the laws.
• The new laws may change the claims staffing model.
• Third Party Administrators should notify their customers of the potential increased costs (Permanent Disability, for example) and also projected savings (lien reduction and resolution).
• Third Party Administrators should review their contracts with their customers to determine if the changes in the laws impact their current pricing models and are best for their clients and for their success.
• Bill review vendors and Utilization Review companies both have major changes to implement.
• Special Investigations Units and Fraud Reporting have new issues to report because of the increased conflict of interest provisions in the law. Include the Special Investigations Unit as part of the implementation team.
• I recommend an implementation team include: A senior claims executive, a senior claims supervisor, a claims examiner, a claims assistant, a bill specialist, a hearing representative, a finance person, a claims system expert, an attorney who knows the new law, and a person who is responsible for documenting the discussions, processes and procedures.
• Training of the entire staff will take more than just one meeting and more than one month. Assume that there will be a need for re-training on a regular basis for the first nine months.

Properly encrypt and protected electronic protected health information (ePHI) on laptops and in other mediums!

That's the clear message of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in its announcement of its first settlement under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule involving a breach of ePHI of fewer than 500 individuals by a HIPAA-covered entity, Hospice of North Idaho (HONI).

The settlement shows that the Office of Civil Rights stands ready to penalize these healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) when their failure to properly secure and protect ePHI on laptops or in other systems results in a breach of ePHI even when the breach affects fewer than 500 individuals.

HIPAA Security & Breach Notification For ePHI
Under the originally enacted requirements of HIPAA, covered entities and their business associates are required to restrict the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and establish and administer various other policies and safeguards in relation to protected health information. Additionally, the Security Rules require specific encryption and other safeguards when covered entities collect, create, use, access, retain or disclose ePHI.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act amended HIPAA, among other things to tighten certain HIPAA requirements, expand its provisions to directly apply to business associates, as well as covered entities and to impose specific breach notification requirements. The HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a "breach," of 500 individuals or more (Large Breach) to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach. Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals (Small Breach) must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis.

Since the Breach Notification Rule took effect, the Office of Civil Rights' announced policy has been to investigate all Large Breaches and such investigations have resulted in settlements or other corrective action in relation to various Large Breaches. Until now, however, the Office of Civil Rights has not made public any resolution agreements requiring settlement payments involving any Small Breaches.

Hospice Of North Idaho Settlement
On January 2, 2013, the Office of Civil Rights announced that Hospice of North Idaho will pay the Office of Civil Rights $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The Hospice of North Idaho settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals. Read the full HONI Resolution Agreement here.

The Office of Civil Rights opened an investigation after Hospice of North Idaho reported to the Department of Health and Human Services that an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010. Hospice of North Idaho team members regularly use laptops containing ePHI in their field work.

Over the course of the investigation, the Office of Civil Rights discovered that Hospice of North Idaho had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI or have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Since the June 2010 theft, Hospice of North Idaho has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities
While the Hospice of North Idaho settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time the Office of Civil Rights has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a laptop, storage device or other computer device. In fact, the Office of Civil Rights' first resolution agreement — reached before the enactment of the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules — stemmed from such a breach (see Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards).

Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach. Coupled with statements by the Office of Civil Rights about its intolerance, the Hospice of North Idaho and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities to properly encrypt ePHI on mobile and other devices.

Furthermore, the Hospice of North Idaho settlement also adds to growing evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; and, HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warnings by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

Office of Civil Rights Director Leon Rodriguez, in OCR's announcement of the Hospice of North Idaho settlement, reiterated the Office of Civil Rights' expectation that covered entities will properly encrypt ePHI on mobile or other devices. "This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients' health information." said Rodriguez. "Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable."

In the face of rising enforcement and fines, the Office of Civil Rights' initiation of HIPAA audits and other recent developments, covered entities and their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to reduce potential HIPAA exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration the Office of Civil Rights' investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

New Office Of Civil Rights HIPAA Mobile Device Educational Tool
While the Office of Civil Rights' enforcement of HIPAA has significantly increased, compliance and enforcement of the encryption and other Security Rule requirements of HIPAA are a special focus of the Office of Civil Rights.

To further promote compliance with the Breach Notification Rule as it relates to ePHI on mobile devices, the Office of Civil Rights and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently kicked off a new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information. The program offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients' health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. For more information, see here.

For more information on HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

A few weeks ago I taped the first episode of my new public radio show. I thought I sounded good enough, and the producer assured me that I would sound even better after I got over my cold. This would have been reassuring, except that I didn't have a cold.

Fearful of being fired my first day on the job, I immediately called my primary care physician (PCP) to get some advice on how to sound less hoarse. The doctor's office promptly scheduled a visit with an Ear, Nose & Throat specialist, only four days later.

The specialist scoped my nose and announced that I had polyps in my sinuses. She said she would schedule me for a CT scan of the sinuses, and offered three alternative treatments, which, she added truthfully, may or may not work.

1. Steroid-based nasal spray
2. Steroid-based nasal spray with a three-week course of antibiotics
3. Day surgery followed by a saline flush for a week

"So," she asked, about seven minutes into the appointment, "which do you want to do?"

"Um," I replied. "Shouldn't we try the most conservative therapy first?"

"Well, you could."

I begged off the surgery by quite correctly observing that I wasn't very adept at flushing my nose out, so that I would prefer one of the non-surgical alternatives. "I'm not sure I need the antibiotics because I don't think this is bacterial," I said.

"A lot of patients report relief with the antibiotics," she replied, almost as if she were cast as the "before" picture in an evidence-based medicine textbook.

"Isn't three weeks a long time to be taking antibiotics?" I asked.

"Yes. Some people say that."

I opted for the nasal spray. I elected not to schedule the sinus CT scan. Seemed like a lot of cost and inconvenience ... and didn't I just get a diagnosis anyway? So I didn't follow up on it.

Except that the sinus scan was thoughtfully scheduled for me, as I learned when a scheduler called me the very same day. I ignored my first voicemail from the scheduler, but after the third I realized they really did expect me to show up (that very Friday, no less), and it occurred to me I might get billed unless I affirmatively called to cancel the appointment.

And, that is what is wrong with fee-for-service medicine. Most well-insured people would have gone along with the recommended program, getting the scan, the surgery, and who knows what else.

The bottom line is, in twelve short minutes, this visit encapsulated everything that is wrong with traditional fee-for-service medicine, of the type that someday, with any luck, is going to be replaced by capitated ACOs using patient-centered medical homes, supported by electronic medical records (EMRs), to refer to salaried specialists who don't get to bill a big chunk of money each time they do a surgery.

Except that this practice is already a designated patient-centered medical home, it already uses an EMR, it is already partially capitated by its major health plan, and its specialists are already salaried.

That is the "punchline," and explaining a joke often ruins it, but healthcare isn't a joke so I'll explain.

Just changing practice incentives may not change the behavior of individual physicians, especially specialists who even in most capitated practices are/will still be paid on the basis of work performed, somehow, to some degree. (In this practice, work performed affects physician salary for the following year.)

Further, patient satisfaction also factors into compensation, and what can be more satisfying for patients than promptness and responsiveness and action? As for the checks-and-balances provided by the EMR, it turns out that the EMR is what expedited the referral in the first place. Years ago it had been noted that I had a deviated septum (like about half the world, as it turns out). That information was duly stored in my EMR, so that my primary care physician had grounds to make a referral at her fingertips, without needing me to see her first.

The coda on this story? To try to overcome this hoarseness, I took the steroidal nasal spray twice a day for a week. Then I read the FDA insert, which listed the following as a side effect: hoarseness. I stopped the spray, and told this story to my producer. My producer suggested tea with honey during each taping, surely the most conservative therapy ... and I still have my job.

So domestic policy wonks in the Washington, DC market can now hear me on The Big Fix Saturdays at 4 PM on WAMU 88.5, at least through January 15, when the funding runs out. I'm still a bit hoarse, but thanks to my producer I no longer sound like that guy on Boardwalk Empire whose vocal chords were blown up during World War I.

Postscript: The first episodes have already aired, and while a few people complained, not without justification, about my hosting skills, no one wrote in to say: "This guy sounds like he needs his polyps removed."

Where May Care Occur?
The best policies pay for care in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or at home. Benefits are typically expressed in daily amounts, with a lifetime maximum. Some policies pay half as much per day for at-home care as for nursing home care. Others pay the same amount, or have a "pool of benefits" that can be used as needed.

Under What Conditions Will The Policy Begin Paying Benefits?
The policy should state the various conditions that must be met.

• The inability to perform two or three specific "activities of daily living" without help. These include bathing, dressing, eating, toileting and "transferring" or being able to move from place to place or between a bed and a chair.
• Cognitive impairment. Most policies cover stroke and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, but other forms of mental incapacity may be excluded.
• Medical necessity, or certification by a doctor that long-term care is necessary.

What Events Must Occur Before The Policy Begins Paying Benefits?

• Some older policies require a hospital stay of at least three days before benefits can be paid. This requirement is very restrictive — you should avoid it.
• Most policies have a "waiting period" or "elimination" period. This is a period that begins when you first need long-term care and lasts as long as the policy provides. During the waiting period, the policy will not pay benefits. If you recover before the waiting period ends, the policy doesn't pay for expenses you incur during the waiting period. The policy pays only for expenses that occur after the waiting period is over, if you continue to need care. In general, the longer the waiting period, the lower the premium for the long-term care policy.

How Long Will Benefits Last?
A benefit period may range from two years to lifetime. You can keep premiums down by electing coverage for three to four years — longer than the average nursing home stay — instead of lifetime.

Indemnity vs. Reimbursement
Most long-term care policies pay on a reimbursement (or expense-incurred) basis, up to the policy limits. In other words, if you have a $150 per day benefit but spend only $130 per day for a home long-term care provider, the policy will pay only $130. The "extra" $20 each day will, in some policies, go into a "pool" of unused funds that can be used to extend the length of time for which the policy will pay benefits. Other policies pay on an indemnity basis. Using the same example as above, an indemnity policy would pay $150 per day as long as the insured needs and receives long-term care services, regardless of the actual outlay.

Inflation Protection
Inflation protection is an important feature, especially if you are under 65, when you buy benefits that you may not use for 20 years or more. A good inflation provision compounds benefits at 5 percent a year. Without inflation protection, even 3 percent annual inflation will, over 24 years, reduce the purchasing power of a $150 daily benefit to the equivalent of $75.

Six Other Important Policy Provisions

1. 1=7 Elimination period. Under some policies, if the insured has qualifying long-term care expenses on one day during a seven-day period, he or she will be credited with having satisfied seven days toward the elimination period. This type of provision reflects the way home care is often delivered — some days by professionals and some days by family members.
2. Guaranteed renewable policies must be renewed by the insurance company, although premiums can go up if they are increased for an entire class of policyholders.
3. Waiver of premium, so that no further premiums are due once you start to receive benefits.
4. Third-party notification, so that a relative, friend or professional adviser will be notified if you forget to pay a premium.
5. Nonforfeiture benefits keep a lesser amount of insurance in force if you let the policy lapse. This provision is required by some states.
6. Restoration of benefits, which ensures that maximum benefits are put back in place if you receive benefits for a time, then recover and go for a specified period (typically six months) without receiving benefits.

Sales is really simple. It's a contact sport — being in the presence of the prospect or client either by phone or face-to-face. Sometimes when we get away from the basics and fundamentals we find ourselves full of fear, worry and anxiety. I heard a wise man once say, "Work, don't worry."

I remember what Tom Vanyo said to me at a sales meeting in May of 1984, "If you don't make a major change today, you will be doing exactly the same thing next month or next year." I had been putting off keeping track of the number of calls I made each day and how many new prospects I talked to. I personally thought that keeping track of my numbers was a waste of time and paper.

At first it was depressing. The numbers were so revealing. I thought I was so productive. I couldn't believe how much time I was wasting each day. The numbers told me how few new prospects I was actually talking to each week. After all, prospecting is the foundation of all successful salespeople. After disciplining myself to keep track of each dial, contact, prospect, and sale, I was able to determine how many dials it took to reach a qualified prospect which turned into a sale. By keeping track of my numbers it began to motivate me. Each day I could see real progress.

I know that sales is more than a numbers game. But how will you ever know what's working and what's not unless you keep track? You see, it's too easy to get faked out by being busy as I learned by keeping track of my numbers. By keeping track of my numbers each day it revealed how productive I was and how much time I was wasting with prospects who would never say yes.

There are two major reasons for keeping track of your numbers each day:

• Number one, you want to know what's working and what's not. Most salespeople avoid keeping track of their numbers because it reveals too much about what they really don't want to know.
• The second major reason for keeping track is the discipline of doing it. The discipline of keeping track each day will affect all other disciplines. In my search for the secrets to success in sales I have found there are no secrets. Sales is a highly disciplined activity repeated every day.

Happy Prospecting!

SB 863 was signed by California's Governor back in October but with an official start date of January 1, 2013. For that reason and just because I don't trust either the legislature or the courts to change their minds, I thought I would wait until now to start talking about what is good, what is bad and what is downright ugly.

Let's Start With A Good...
In 1917, the first Industrial Accident and Safety Act went into effect. There were lots of pieces, but one that has endured the test of time is the one that allows an injured employee to choose to be treated by his own consulting or attending physician, at the employee's own expense. The current version of that section is now Labor Code Section 4605 (until 1/1/2013). In my mind, it has been used, or should I say abused, over the past years with an ongoing controversy over this section and what it really means.

There are two major issues surrounding this section of the code. The first has been the question of who is really responsible to pay the bill. The second is whether or not the non-Medical Provider Network doctors' reports are admissible in court. Well, thanks to an energetic applicants' attorney (A/A) named Mendoza, both of these issues became ripe for the courts with the recent 2012 Valdez case.

First, I must note that there was a viable Medical Provider Network in place at the time of the injury. The employee initially went to the carrier's Medical Provider Network doctor, but he also self-procured his own, non-Medical Provider Network doctor.

The carrier objected on the basis that the Medical Provider Network controlled all medical treatment. However, the trial judge admitted and relied totally on the report of the self-procured, non-Medical Provider Network doctor in making his decision as to compensability and the amount that would be due the injured employee. This matter was then taken up by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board who reversed the trial judge not once but twice.

However, Mr. Valdez' attorney was not letting go so easily. So the matter was then taken up by the Court of Appeals who agreed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Mr. Mendoza was still not satisfied and took the matter to the California Supreme Court for consideration. The matter has been accepted by the Supreme Court and we await their decision which I predict will be in our favor.

However, while all of this was going on in the courts, the legislature was in the process of passing SB 863, which has some interesting changes ... one of which is directly related to this issue. To put it in perspective, you must understand the current language of 4605 which reads as follows:

L/C 4605 — Consulting or attending physicians provided at employee's expense. Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his own expense to a consulting or attending physicians whom he desires.

As noted above, one of the problems has been who has been paying the non-Medical Provider Network doctors' fees. Up to this point in time, the applicant's attorneys have been burying these costs when they send the injured employees to their doctors. The doctors are instructed to treat and to then file a lien for their fees which are normally dealt with at the time the claim itself is decided. I am sorry to say, that in the end, the carriers have rolled over and have been picking up these costs without a fight. This, even when there is a valid Medical Provider Network in place and all such services by the non-Medical Provider Network doctor should be objected to and paid for by either the injured employee or better yet, his attorney.

Non-Medical Provider Network Doctors' Reports
The next issue is the admissibility of the non-Medical Provider Network doctor's report. The argument has been that since the employee is paying for it, it should be allowed to have weight in the final determination of the claim. Needless to say, we have vigorously objected and in many cases have won. However, the issue was still there until the legislature made a significant change to L/C 4605 which clarified whether these reports could or should be admitted. L/C 4605 has been changed to read as follows effective 1/1/2013:

Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians who he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis for an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator (QME) or authorized treating physician (read MPN Primary Treating Physician — PTP) shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report and shall identify the bases for this opinion.

So you can see that the legislature has spoken and the issue of the admissibility of the reports has been addressed and settled. That is why I feel we will win at the Supreme Court as the legislature has already made the necessary changes to make clear their intent with the law.

So You Ask, "How Does All This Affect Me?"
Effective January 1, 2013, when you have a strong Medical Provider Network in place, the "consulting or attending physician's" reports will be admissible but will be sent only to the Medical Provider Network's Primary Treating Physician. That doctor will either accept what the non-Medical Provider Network doctor has stated or reject it. If our doctor rejects it, he/she must justify why they disagree with what the report says. And of greater import is that if they reject it, there is now a dispute over the diagnosis and treatment of the injury and the matter will be sent out for a second opinion by our Medical Provider Network doctor and not the non-Medical Provider Network one chosen by the injured employee.

This approach will save both time and a great deal of money by shortening how long it takes to get an acceptable medical opinion. This will allow the claim to be moved forward and closed in a timely manner and at a much reduced cost.

What Your Injured Employee Needs To Know When Reporting An Injury
The most important thing to remember here is that when an injury occurs to one of your employees, you need to make sure that they know and understand their right to secure outside treatment but at their own expense. This has already had the affect of limiting applicant attorneys from sending their clients out to doctors who list every possible body part available and then treat and treat and treat and treat.

Medicaid has several components, but at its core it is a health insurance program for the poor. States can differ, but most provide for those below the poverty level. Federal health reform requires expanding Medicaid to those earning up to 138% of the poverty level (about $25,000 for a family of 3). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that each state can accept or reject the expansion of Medicaid. Like other states, Georgia must make that choice. This analysis addresses the human impact — not state financing, our national debt, or deficit spending. The key question: Is Medicaid expansion beyond the poverty level a "hand up" or a "handcuff?"

Unlike other income levels in America, getting ahead is less likely if you are in the bottom 20%. The Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts shows 65% of children born in the lowest 20% of incomes stay in the bottom two quintiles.

If the core philosophy of Conservatives is producing upward economic mobility and Progressives are for helping the poor, why have both ideologies failed the poorest among us? Scott Winship, a researcher at the Brookings Institute has said, "The bottom 20% in the U.S. looks very different from the bottom 20% in other countries." Americans are more likely than foreign peers to grow up with single mothers. In poor communities, drugs, alcohol, violence, and ineffective primary and secondary schools represent a huge barrier to economic mobility. The United States also has uniquely high incarceration rates, and a longer history of racial stratification.

With all those challenges, the Brookings study showed that regardless of race or ethnic background, if you stay in school at least through high school, don't have a child until you're married and over 21, and work full-time at any job, your chances of being poor are only 2 percent and your chances of joining the middle class are 74 percent.

More than other countries, poor Americans have to educate and work their way up from the lower levels. The United States provides many benefits for the poor, disabled, and unfortunate. No one of any rational political or ideological persuasion is opposed to helping those in need.

The key part of Medicaid is also called "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" or TANF. Under health reform Medicaid would be expanded to 18-20 million new lives. Other health reform subsidies through exchanges are available up to 400% of the poverty level (about $92,000 for a family of 4). Programs affecting larger percentages of the population can create an attitude of entitlement and a culture of dependency that traps segments into intransigent generational poverty.

A study of entitlement programs in Colorado illuminates the concerns for Georgia and other states. Programs are available to low income families to provide housing, food, healthcare, educational, and other subsidies. A single mother with two children making $25,000 could be eligible to receive about $18,000 in government benefits.

Medicaid expansion and other health reforms add new subsidies for low and middle income families. Using the same example of a single mother with two children, Medicaid expansion to 138% of the poverty level can provide an additional $7,500 in benefits to those making $25,000.

What are the effects on real people as they try to advance economically? The marginal effective tax rate from federal income taxes, payroll taxes, and state income taxes, for a single mom with two children earning $25,000 is about 29.4 percent. If one includes other programs, SNAP (food stamps), state children's health insurance program, and the new health reform subsidies, the marginal tax rate rises to 54.5 percent.

If benefits like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, federal housing subsidies, and WIC (nutritional program for Women, Infants, and Children) are considered, the marginal tax rate is as high as 81.9 percent because families lose even more benefits due to higher earnings.

Who would work harder, take that extra job, or seek a promotion when most of the added earnings would be taxed away or government benefits are reduced? The destruction of initiative can be the inevitable consequence of expanding Medicaid with an additional $7,500 (for a total of over $18,000) to someone making $25,000, but providing nothing to a similar family making $75,000.

Clearly, even the most compassionate among us can see that accumulated effects of entitlement programs can break the spirit of personal responsibility and the motivation for upward mobility. Medicaid expansion and the new health reform subsidies to over 50% of the population are likely to produce the same dependence and economic barriers to upward mobility already evident in the lower 20%.

The standard of living in Georgia is directly related to its citizens' ability to produce goods and services others want to purchase. Subsidizing able-bodied populations does not create economic growth for those individuals or for the state. In our compassion to help those in need, we tend to look away from the politically driven expansion of those programs and the debilitating dependency culture they enable. Georgia has apparently decided not to play that destructive game. Good for us.

As we look to the future and better ways to solve the problems of healthcare and health insurance, maybe Georgia can create an island of opportunity within a sea of growing dependency. Maybe we can remove the handcuffs of those chained to the programs and ideas of the past and offer a hand up rather than a handout.

Data-driven analysis is a critical decision-making tool for Construction Financial Managers and other industry leaders.

Decision-making is arguably the most important responsibility of company leadership.

Companies that make better decisions make fewer mistakes, and achieve a distinct competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The underlying purpose of benchmarking is to continually improve the quality of organizational decision-making.

Overview
As construction risk management consultants, we help contractors prevent accidents, mitigate claims, and reduce the total cost of risk through a continuous improvement process.

We believe companies must instill management accountability for continuous improvement by linking performance measurement to both prevention activities (leading indicators) and operational results (lagging indicators). As the adage goes:

"What gets measured is what gets done."

In our consulting roles, we frequently help companies establish realistic performance measures by conducting various types of claim and loss analysis.

This type of data analysis is usually the starting point in a performance improvement process — and a common practice among insurance agencies, brokerages, carriers, and risk management consulting firms.

In addition, we are often asked to conduct a benchmarking analysis that compares one company's claim and loss data against peer companies or to the construction industry as a whole.

Benchmarking
The term "benchmarking" refers to the comparison of a company's performance results against those of similar peer companies. Benchmarking evolved out of the quality improvement movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Its initial intent was to identify leading companies regardless of industry sector, and apply their best practices to improve one's own company. Over time, benchmarking has become synonymous with process improvement.

The traditional view of benchmarking required two separate disciplines focused on performance improvement: measures and methods. Identifying and capturing performance indicators (the measures) is only the first step; developing and implementing performance improvement (the methods) is the second and most important step for the benchmarking process to be truly effective.

The Health Club Analogy
There is limited value in benchmarking without applying new methods to address continuous performance improvement. Performance improvement requires more than the measurement of performance indicators; it requires the implementation of changes in management disciplines to attain improved operational results.

Using only performance indicators without implementing new methods to improve operations is akin to joining a health club and expecting the benefits without actually using the equipment or committing to an exercise program.

Merely jumping on the scale and gauging your weight relative to others doesn't help you achieve your own weight loss goals anymore than comparing your pulse and respiration rate to others helps you attain your aerobic or cardiovascular fitness goals. What matters most is that a person embarking on a weight loss or fitness program stays committed to the process and monitors his or her own progress.

Similarly, we believe the ongoing monitoring of claim and loss data specific to an individual company is even more important than the initial measurement of insurance claim and loss data relative to other companies.

Baselining As Benchmarking
The term "baselining" refers to the internal benchmarking process that occurs when a company compares its performance against its own results year after year. Ongoing, internal monitoring allows a contractor to determine if the company's claim and loss trends are improving or deteriorating, and to make the critical performance improvement decisions necessary to facilitate a change in results.

Referring back to the health club analogy, baselining does not compare an individual's weight and aerobic fitness to that of the other health club members. Instead, individual fitness goals and measures are established, monitored, and tracked to verify continuous personal improvement.

Similarly, a construction company can develop a baseline analysis of its loss cost performance by reviewing loss and claim data for a minimum of 3-5 years. Company results are compared from year to year, and ideally are broken down by operating entity, division, project, manager, or even crew levels.

Exhibit 1 provides a sample of a baseline analysis that compares one company's relative claim and loss performance within all of its operating divisions.

This analysis reviews the historical loss cost data for the entire company and breaks it down into meaningful data relative to each operating division. The total workers' comp, Comprehensive General Liability, and auto liability incurred claim costs (sum of paid and reserves) for each company division over a five-year period were compared to the total man-hours for each division, producing a cost per man-hour figure.

The results illustrate dramatic differences in total claim costs per man-hour for each division. This baseline analysis was the first step in raising awareness of the predominant loss leaders within the company. This increased awareness led to a detailed analysis that established plans of action and realistic cost targets by company division for the upcoming year.

External Benchmarking
We acknowledge that there are numerous benefits to measuring the frequency, type, and cost of insurance claims compared to peer groups and/or the entire construction industry. Such analyses provide the ability to:

• Identify leading types and sources of claims
• Establish strategic objectives to prevent the occurrence of common industry claims
• Increase knowledge of industry best practices
• Determine operational performance improvement priorities
• Create awareness among managers and employees about the costs of claims and the impact on profitability
• Post positive results on company websites and for use in other marketing materials

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides safety-related data so that companies can externally benchmark injury and illness data against specific industry groups. (Check out the Web Resources section at the end of this article for more information.)

In addition, Bureau of Labor Statistics data is used to calculate and compare OSHA Recordable Incident Rates and Lost Workday Incident Rates, both of which are common construction industry benchmarks. This data is useful when making high-level comparisons within construction industry segments relative to injury and illness rates.

We also use external benchmarking analyses to establish risk reduction, loss prevention, or cost containment goals. In "Risk Performance Metrics" by Calvin E. Beyer in the September/October 2007 issue of Building Profits, a sample benchmarking comparison shows a representative contractor's duration of lost workdays workers' comp cases in median number of days compared against the median duration for the industry. Results such as these can highlight the importance of an increased focus on injury management and return-to-work programs.

The benchmarking analysis in Exhibits 2A and 2B compares a contractor's workers' comp claim and loss performance to an established group of peer contractors in the same specialty trade. (These companies engaged in similar work, and performed in states with similar insurance laws and legal climates.)

The analysis was based on total incurred workers' comp costs and total number of workers' comp claims as compared to payroll for each entity. Overall, Company D had worse results than the other three companies.

This prompted an in-depth review of Company D's workers' comp losses by division and occupation. As shown in Exhibit 3, the company experienced significant claim frequency and severity issues within the first six months of employment.

These findings triggered the development and implementation of specific activities designed for Company D's new employees.

Below are some of the activities that were incorporated into the formal improvement plan:

• hiring processes
• new hire skills assessments
• orientations
• daily planning meetings
• formal training

Other Sources Of Benchmarking Data
Professional associations and industry trade/peer groups also provide comparative data for benchmarking purposes.

The Construction Financial Management Association's Construction Industry Annual Financial Survey is an excellent source for understanding the key drivers of contractor profitability. We use the survey data to determine comparative profit margins for different types and classes of contractors when we calculate a revenue replacement analysis to show the additional sales volume needed to offset the cost of insurance claims. (This technique was highlighted in the "Risk Performance Metrics" article previously mentioned.)

Similarly, the Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS) conducts an annual benchmarking survey that reviews insurance rates, program coverages, and measures of total cost of risk.

An example of a peer group data source for benchmarking is the Construction Industry Institute (CII). The Construction Industry Institute is a voluntary "consortium of more than 100 leading owner, engineering-contractor, and supplier firms from both the public and private arenas" (www.construction-institute.org). It develops industry best practices and maintains a benchmarking and metrics database for its participating members.

Another peer group example involves members of captive insurance companies sharing and comparing claim and loss data for the group as a whole. There is a major advantage when a true peer group shares benchmarking data: Such data sharing often leads to peer pressure in the form of increased ownership and accountability for improvement by the companies shown to be the poorest performing members.

We continue to search for more new sources of industry best practices and comparator data. A possible emerging source for the construction industry is the National Business Group on Health. This organization has developed standardized metrics known as Employer Measures of Productivity, Absence and Quality™ (EMPAQ®).

EMPAQ® helps member companies gauge the effectiveness of their injury and absence management and return-to-work programs. The founder and principal of HDM Solutions, Maria Henderson, served as a project sponsor for EMPAQ® from 2003-2007, and co-presented with Calvin E. Beyer on "Return to Work as a Workforce Development Strategy" at CFMA's 2008 Annual Conference & Exhibition in Orlando, Florida.

Limitations Of External Benchmarking
We fear that the increasing popularity of external benchmarking analyses may indicate that it has become a "quick fix" solution or a management fad. When asked to conduct an external benchmarking analysis, we always ask the following questions:

• What is your purpose in seeking these comparisons with other companies?
• Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them to do?
• What specific peer companies should be used for comparative purposes?
• Are these companies (and their operations and exposures) truly similar enough for a fair comparison?

Beware Of Pitfalls
There are many hurdles to surmount in locating suitable companies for external benchmarking comparisons. Generally, when benchmarking comparisons can be made, more often than not the greatest value lies in the workers' comp line of insurance coverage.

Here are some key factors to consider when choosing contractors for external benchmarking comparisons:

• Percent of self-performed work vs. subcontracted work
• Payroll class codes and hazard groupings of selfperformed work
• Differential geographic labor wage rates
• Payroll rate variances between union and merit shop operations
• Size of insurance deductibles
• Claim reporting practices

For example, claim reporting practices must be similar in order to minimize distorting the frequency or average cost of a claim. If one or more comparison companies self-administers minor claims or does not report all claims to their carrier, using carrier loss reports for the comparison is an invalid method.

We also find that comparing the frequency of claims and total loss dollars divided by thousands or millions of dollars of payroll (exposure basis) is a helpful workers' comp benchmark between companies of similar operations in similar states.

Likewise, a suitable benchmark for auto liability performance compares the frequency of claims and total loss dollars per one hundred vehicles.

When benchmarking fleet-related claims, ensure that the number and size of fleet vehicles — as well as the type of driving (urban vs. rural) and the total number of miles driven annually — are similar among the contractors whose claims are being compared.

Benchmarking comparisons of Comprehensive General Liability insurance results are especially challenging due to delays in reporting third-party bodily injury and property damage claims, in addition to the expected long tail of loss development for these claims.

All of these factors are compounded by vastly different litigation trends and liability settlements in various states and regions of the country.

Common Limitations Of Data Sources
Whether or not you intend to develop a baseline of your company's claim data or to benchmark your company's performance against a peer company, there are several issues that must be successfully resolved regarding the data's quality and integrity.

Based on our experience, we classify the key challenges associated with exposure and claim/loss data into the categories shown in Exhibit 4: availability, accuracy, accessibility, standardization, reliability, comparability, and date-related problems.

Value Of Multiple Measures
Evaluating data from various sources and different angles is also valuable. Why? Because it's possible to gain a better understanding of the whole by dissecting the parts. This practice illustrates the principle of multiple measures.

This approach is substantiated by 2006 research, which concluded that the "simultaneous consideration" of frequency and severity provides a more comprehensive result than performing analysis based solely on one factor.¹

This is similar to our approach when we conduct a "Claim to Exposure Analysis" and review historical frequency and severity vs. the relative bases of exposure for each line of casualty insurance coverage.

Returning to the health club analogy, when starting a formal exercise program, you often begin with such general baseline measurements as height and weight; this is usually followed by additional measurements, such as BMI, body fat content, and the girth of arms, legs, and chest (the baseline).

As we all know, weight alone is not always the best indicator of success in fitness efforts. In fact, since muscle weighs more than fat, an increase in total body weight may actually occur after beginning and maintaining a fitness program.

Although you might not experience a dramatic weight drop, you could see a reduction in waist size and BMI — positive changes that would not be evident unless multiple measures were being used and reviewed.

Benchmarking insurance claim and loss data performance is like comparing one person's height and weight against the ideal height and weight charts based on the entire population.

Wouldn't it be more effective to establish your baseline weight and other multiple measures initially so you can see the progress you are making?

This is similar to the baseline measurements that a company should take (as well as the multiple measures) that are necessary to meet your company's performance improvement goals for financial success, operational excellence, or risk reduction.

Web Resources:

1. U.S. Department of Labor BLS Incidence Rate Calculator and Comparison Tool
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Work-Related Injury Statistics Query System
3. Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. Benchmark Survey
4. Construction Industry Institute Benchmarking & Metrics
5. National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI Holdings, Inc.) Benchmarking Tools
6. Employer Measures of Productivity, Absence and Quality EMPAQ
7. CFMA's Construction Industry Annual Financial Survey with Benchmarking Builder CD

Authors
Cal Beyer collaborated with Greg Stefan in writing this article. Greg is Assistant Vice President, Construction Risk Control Solutions, at Arch Insurance Group. As a member of the Southeast Regional team in Atlanta, GA, Greg supports underwriting and claims in risk selection, claim mitigation, and risk improvement activities. He is also responsible for high-risk liability risk reduction initiatives including contractual risk transfer, construction defect prevention, and work zone liability management.

¹ Baradan, Selim, and Usmen, Mumtaz A., "Comparative Injury and Fatality Risk Analysis of Building Trades," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, May 2006, pp. 533-539.