Tag Archives: cnn

On-Demand Economy Is Just Starting

Fifteen years ago, the idea of having access to any bit of information you could possibly want at your fingertips was outrageous. In 2001, you could get access to the Internet from your phone, but the experience would be slooooow, and it might cost you hundreds of dollars. Dial-up Internet from desktop computers – remember them? – was still very much a thing. Now, people carry smartphones that give them instant access to just about anyone, to every bit of news and to almost all the knowledge in recorded history.

People use those devices mostly to watch videos of singing goats and people failing at dunking a basketball, but that’s a different story.

The point is that technology, such as smartphones and smart watches, has created an on-demand world where gratification needs to be instant. When someone decides he wants something, he doesn’t want it in two hours. He doesn’t want it in 20 minutes. He wants it now. And, he wants it at the push of a button.

As the trajectory of the last 15 years shows, the trend toward on-demand will only continue, perhaps even accelerate.

The main driver, as usual, is good, old Moore’s Law, which has seen the computing power of a chip double every year and a half to two years since the 1960s at no increase in cost. Moore’s Law is why a gigabyte of memory, which cost $300,000 in the mid-1980s, today costs less than a penny, and why, despite some technology headwinds for Moore’s Law, we’ll have devices hundreds of times as powerful as today’s before kids born this year enter high school.

Other “laws,” such as Metcalfe’s, continue to drive the value of networks at an exponential rate. So-called “network effects” are why millennials rarely have their phones more than a foot away and why there is so much effort to make devices even more accessible – in front of your eyes, a la the failed-but-not-forever-dead Google Glass, or on your wrist as a “watch.” Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the MIT Media Lab, has argued for years that we’ll eventually wind up with cellphones surgically implanted behind our jaws, where they will have easy access to our vocal cords and our ears.

But Moore’s Law and Metcalfe’s and the others that have driven the unbelievable progress in computing are just the start. Now, three more factors are kicking in, increasing the pace toward the on-demand world. First, sensors and cameras are wiring more and more of the world every day. Second, people are coming up with new business models that build on these new capabilities in surprising and powerful ways. Third, the effects will spread to what is sometimes referred to as “the next billion” (and the billion after that). Those of us in the developed world won’t have all the fun; the rest of the world will join in.

Sensors and Cameras

Fitbit et al. track every step you take and every calorie you burn, and they’re just the beginning. People have begun talking about the “Internet in Me.” The idea is that you might ingest some small sensor that will report from inside your blood stream about blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. A wireless signal – powered by the abundant electricity inside us – would send the information to your phone or watch, which would relay any necessary information to a doctor or some sort of healthcare provider.

Drones are everywhere. They can check crops, monitor disasters or do whatever. In fact, woe to the next generation of teenagers – parents can now just keep a drone in the home and have it fly around from time to time to see if Junior is having a party while they’re away.

Our mobile phones constantly provide information on traffic flow, based simply on how fast they’re moving in our cars. (When is the last time you saw a traffic copter, let alone a thin rubber hose across a road that tripped a counter every time a car ran over it?) Waze has layered crowdsourcing on top of the data from mobile phones, encouraging people to report accidents and other delays, to fine-tune maps and so forth. Nauto, a start-up, is trying to add another layer by getting fleet operators—and, eventually, individual drivers—to put cameras in vehicles (one looking at the road, one looking at the driver) with the initial goal to improve safety. If enough of Nauto’s cameras are on the road, they will provide a real-time look at the world. Want a parking spot right now? Nauto can tell you about the one that opened up 30 seconds ago a block away.

Google is gathering information in real time about diseases like the flu – it can report when and where a lot of people start searching for information about certain symptoms. Even our thoughts and emotions are getting wired. Historically, in presidential elections, people conducted the occasional opinion poll, so you’d have a sense of the result of the debate a week or so later. Now, people monitor Twitter streams and Google searches in real time to assess who won and who lost. Those feelings then get aggregated in prediction markets that are far more accurate than political observers ever were. Of course, a lot of effort gets put into figuring out presidential elections because of the stakes involved, but this kind of wiring and immediate response will spread into other areas, as well.

The physical world is being folded into the digital one through hacks such as QR codes, which let magazine readers scan them to figure out where they can purchase an outfit or whatever else is in an image. Amazon’s voice-activated Alexa sits in the middle of a room and allows people to buy something through Amazon right when they think of it, even if they don’t have their phone near them.

Our lives divide into two parts these days: Those that are wired and those that will be wired. 

New Business Models

Just Google “the Uber of,” and you’ll see how much a single inventive business model can change things. You’ll be prompted with companies offering the Uber of trucking, dog walking, laundry, snowplows, tennis partners dentistry and much more. There is a powerful example in the insurance industry: WeGoLook, which is being called the “Uber of claims handling.” If a carrier needs a picture of a car, it can send someone out from the office, or it can draw on the tens of thousands of freelancers affiliated with WeGoLook and have one of them take the necessary pictures and gather the information. Especially in rural areas, it can be a lot cheaper to have a local person gather the information than to send someone out from a regional office. And, through the wonders of information technology, WeGoLook can be so thoroughly integrated into a carrier’s system that the person asking for the photos, etc. doesn’t need to even think about whether the request is being fed to an internal person or to WeGoLook.

Even without totally new business models, tweaks are accelerating the pace of the economy. Seamless, the on-demand food delivery service, has shaken things up by making it much easier for customers to order food for takeout or delivery. Venmo has become popular among millennials by greatly simplifying the process of sharing costs and, in general, making small payments to each other.

Amazon went from “delivery some time” to mostly two-day delivery, via Prime. Now it is working hard to get to same-day delivery and is even experimenting with drones that could deliver within perhaps 20 minutes.

These business model changes will keep unfolding, too, in many cases like a slow-motion train wreck. You can already see some of the ways that 3D printing will step up the pace – you just click on the image of a hairbrush you want and have it start printing in your office immediately. Or look at the news business. Remember weekly news magazines like Time, Newsweek and BusinessWeek? Not only have they gone away but even daily publications like the Wall Street Journal have had to switch to instantaneous publication online – no more holding the big stories for the print edition the next morning. Those of us of a certain age remember what a big deal it was when Monday Night Football showed highlights from the day before. Now, we don’t even have to wait for Sports Center at the end of a game. We can just call up a highlight on our phones. If you look at the changes going on at CNN, you can see that its mission has changed, because there is a new form of 24-hour news network: It’s called the Internet, and it’s “on-demand” — no need to keep Wolf Blitzer droning on in the background.

The Next Billion

As more and more people from countries such as China and India and places in Africa enter the middle class, they will get access to all the technologies that drive the on-demand economy in the rest of the world. In some cases, they will even leapfrog us. In Kenya, for instance, growth in the traditional sort of banking is stunted even as the economy grows, because people use their mobile phones to exchange money. Who wants to go to a bank and wait for a teller?

And these changes in technology, business models and demographics are just the things we know about. You can be quite sure that lots of clever people are already at work on other ways that will speed the move toward the high-speed economy.

Think of the shift in the economy as the move from the demand curve to the on-demand curve.

Unnecessary Surgery: When Will It End?

Unnecessary surgery: When is it going to end? Not any time soon, unless a documented and proven approach is used by health benefit plan sponsors.

I began my healthcare career 35 years ago when, as a graduate student at Columbia University School of Public Health, I was awarded a full scholarship as a public health intern at Cornell Medical College in New York City. Dr. Eugene McCarthy at Cornell was the medical director of a Taft-Hartley joint union/management health benefits self-administered fund at the time and my mentor. I worked on the Building Service 32 B-J Health Fund, which was the focus of an eight-year study sponsored by the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services, or HHS) and which was the first study on second surgical opinions.

The study (1972-1980) followed union members and their families who were told they needed elective surgery and documented that roughly 30% of recommended surgeries turned out to be medically unnecessary. The study found 12 surgeries that generated the most second opinions that didn’t confirm the original diagnosis. This list comprises: back surgery, bone surgery and bunions of the foot, cataract removal, cholecystectomy, coronary bypass, hysterectomy, knee surgery, mastectomy, prostatectomy, hip surgery, repair of deviated septum and tonsillectomy.

What has changed on this list 35 years later? Very little, if anything.

USA Today on March 12, 2013, reported on a study that found that; “tens of thousands of times each year patients undergo surgery they don’t need.” After the release of this study, a former surgeon and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that: “It is a very serious issue, and there really hasn’t been much movement to address it.”

A CNN special on March 10, 2013, reported that the U.S. spent $2.7 trillion on healthcare per year and that 30%, or roughly $800 billion, was wasted on care that did not improve outcomes. Sound familiar? The Cornell study said the same thing 31 years earlier.

Public and private employers, health, disability and workers’ comp insurers and state and federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are doing very little, if anything, to effectively address this problem. The solution to preventing unnecessary care and surgery is not in raising co-pays and deductibles and other out of pocket costs unless they are tied to consumer education and well-designed second-opinion programs.

In response to the USA Today article, a leading medical expert said, “You can shop for a toaster better than prostate surgery, because we don’t give patients enough information.” Another leading surgeon stated; “Far too many patients are having surgeries they don’t need, with associated major and severe complications such as long-term disability and even death.” Furthermore, “I see patients with neck and back problems, and at least 1/3 are scheduled for operations they don’t need, with no clinical findings except pain.”

What is the principal focus of today’s multibillion-dollar managed care industry, especially in workers’ compensation? Provider discounts, that’s what. But how is it a savings if the patient receives a discount on an operation he doesn’t need?

Most often, when I ask that question I am met with blank stares.

The New England Journal of Medicine in 2009 stated that a common knee surgery for osteoarthritis “isn’t effective in treating patients with moderate to severe forms of the disease.” Yet, according to federal researchers, 985,000 Americans have arthroscopic knee surgery each year, and 33% (more than 300,000) are for osteoarthritis “despite overwhelming medical evidence that arthroscopic surgery is not effective therapy for advanced osteoarthritis of the knee.”

According to the chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, the U.S. health system is “doing a lot of heart procedures that people don’t need.” For example, angioplasty stent surgery in heart patients will likely relieve pain but “will not help a person live longer and will not protect against having another heart attack… What’s worse is that many of these surgeries will lead to bad outcomes.” He said, “This procedure should be performed for patients having a heart attack, but 95% of patients who have angioplasty surgery are not the result of a heart attack.”

The estimate on the direct medical costs to American businesses for low back pain is $90 billion a year; this doesn’t include workers’ compensation indemnity and litigation costs, disability costs, sick days and indirect costs such as lost productivity. As reported in my previous article, The Truth about Treating Low Back Pain, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimated that 40% of initial back surgeries, which amounts to more than 80,000 patients per year, have “failed back surgeries.” These unsuccessful back surgeries most often lead to a lifetime of debilitating back pain and billions more in long-term disability and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) costs. These patients — four out of every 10 — all wish they had received a second opinion now. Yet when I recommended a second-opinion program to a union health fund in New Jersey, the manager said: “I am not going to tell my union members they need to get a second opinion.” True story.

Although we were scheduled to have an informal lunch meeting, after I recommended the fund consider a second-opinion program the “lunch” part of the meeting disappeared, even though I had driven two hours to get there. Maybe that is where the expression there is “no such thing as a free lunch” comes from? The health fund manager was downright indignant about my suggestion even though the first-second opinion program was conducted on behalf of a union health fund and was overwhelmingly successful.

He did describe, however, how upset he was about the fund’s rising healthcare costs. I guess he just wanted to be able to complain about it instead of actually doing something about it on behalf of his members. (The president of the union confided in me afterward that he had failed back surgery many years ago and wished he had gone for a second opinion.)

A colleague of my mine who is a senior vice president of product development for a leading third-party administrator (TPA) confided that insurance companies and TPAs will not implement programs that I could design and implement for their clients because they would never admit it was a good idea, given that they didn’t invent it.

I also hear all the time from so-called experts that second surgical opinions don’t work and don’t save money.

But large self-insured employers and health, disability and workers’ comp insurers should follow the lead of the top sports teams who send their top athletes for second opinions all the time to places like the Hospital for Special Surgery (HHS) and New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia Medical Center in Manhattan or UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

When I send client employees or friends and neighbors for second opinions, they often tell me that their appointment was with the same doctor Tiger Woods or Derek Jeter went to. My response is, “exactly.” Very often, conservative treatment is recommended and produces great patient outcomes, especially for back injuries and diagnoses for conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome. (See Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: It’s Time to Explode the Myth.)

Most, if not all, top surgeons I have met welcome second opinions for their patients because, when surgery is recommended, they want their patients to be assured that another expert also believes it is in their best interests.

I interned at the first second-surgical opinion in the country. I wrote my master’s thesis at Columbia on what I learned and how to improve upon the design and administration of the very successful Cornell program. Although the phrase, “I want a second opinion,” is now common terminology in America from auto repair to surgery, it has not reduced the overall amount of unnecessary surgery. If your program is not successful or not saving money it is because there is a serious flaw in the design and administration.

What I have documented since I designed or administered the first corporate second-opinion benefit programs back in the early 1980s are several key components of a successful program. First, it must be mandatory for the plan member to receive a second opinion for selected elective surgeries. Remember, elective surgery, by definition, means scheduled in advance, not for life-threatening conditions. Second, the second-opinion physician must not be associated with the physician recommending surgery. The physician must truly be an independent board-certified expert. Third, the second-opinion physician cannot perform the surgery; this provision removes any conflict of interest.

In addition, although a plan member should be required to receive a second opinion to receive full benefits under the health plan, the decision on whether to have surgery is entirely up to the patient. The whole idea is to educate the patient on the pros and cons of proposed surgery and the potential benefits for non-surgical treatment or different type of surgery (lumpectomy vs total mastectomy, for example). (I also developed a process of administrative deferrals for instances when it would be impractical to obtain a second opinion or when the conditions were so overwhelming that the need for a second opinion could be waived.)

It is only by helping to make patients truly informed consumers of healthcare and educating them on the benefits of alternative surgical treatments that a program can be successful. Voluntary programs simply don’t work. Rarely do patients seek second opinions on their own, and most often do not know where to obtain and arrange for a top-notch second opinion. In addition, they often feel uncomfortable and do not want to tell their physician they are seeking a second opinion. That is why I found that a program only really works when patients can state that their “health plan requires that I get a second opinion.” The mandatory approach reduces unnecessary surgery dramatically and saves the plan sponsor money with at least 10:1 return on investment.

The most amazing reduction of unnecessary surgery and resulting savings to the plan sponsor comes simply by implementing and communicating the benefits and requirements of the program design that I outlined above. The reason is known as the “Sentinel Effect.” What the original Cornell study and others have documented is at least a 10% reduction in the amount of recommended elective surgery simply from announcing the program is now in effect. No need for an actual second opinion; merely require one!

Now that is cost-effective!

Urgency of Rising Medicare Fraud

Ho-hum: The FBI arrested 46 doctors and nurses…largest Medicare fraud bust ever.

That is from a headline in a recent CNN story. Seems the thieving doctors and nurses got away with $712 million before getting busted.

Per the story, “In total, 243 people were arrested in 17 cities for allegedly billing Medicare for $712 million worth of patient care that was never given or unnecessary.”

Note the word “unnecessary.” If there are doctors and nurses doing this to Medicare patients, they are defrauding self-insured benefit plan patients, too.

This has been getting worse and worse every year for 20 or so years. I say “ho-hum” at the beginning of this post because almost no one in the private sector takes stopping this kind of thing seriously. There is a lot of talk and little action.

I urge readers to start taking steps to stop this mess.

How Google Is Wrong About the Internet

Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, said this week that the Internet will disappear — “There will be so many IP addresses, so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with, that you won’t even sense it,” he said. Now, Eric is a very smart fellow; he’s worth several billion dollars more than I am (the score is Schmidt, $8.3 billion, me, $0 billion); and he even has a better hairline than I do despite being two years older. He made his comments in Davos at the World Economic Forum, known as the gathering spot for very serious people. So his remarks have been getting quite a bit of attention and consideration. 

But he’s wrong.

He’s wrong for the same reason that people have been wrong since I started covering technology for the Wall Street Journal going on 30 years ago. That suggests to me that people will keep being wrong for the same reasons for some time to come, including in the world of insurance, where we are all having to try to figure out how the Internet of Things will play out. So let me point out the two issues that mean that even very smart people in very serious settings can’t just assume the sort of technological utopia that Schmidt is describing.

They are:

  • Decision rights
  • Transaction costs

Let’s look at those issues in the context of an article in the New York Times many years ago that got me mad enough to start thinking about the blind spot in the first place. A very bright reporter, and something of a friend, began by painting an idyllic vision of an automated future: A person hopping out of bed would step on a sensing device that would let the house know he was up. The house would then turn on CNN in the family room, start the coffee and probably do some other things that I no longer remember at this remove.

Nice image, right?

Decision rights

But what if I don’t want to watch CNN? What if I’m more interested in watching ESPN that morning? Or my kids were already awake and watching cartoons — would my stepping on the pad change the channel despite the screams that would surely result? What if I’m heading off to meet someone for breakfast and will have coffee there, not at home that day?

A key question with any sort of automation is: Who owns the decision rights? In the case of CNN and the coffee, do I want the house to have the decision rights, or do I want to retain them?

Transaction costs

How much effort do I have to put into the automation? Is it really worth it to put a sensor under my carpet or even to lay something on top of the carpet? What does that cost? How long does it take me to configure the TV and other systems in the house so that they react appropriately?

Those transaction costs then have to be compared against the benefits, which, in the case of CNN and the coffee, are trivial. It’s just not that hard to pick up the remote and click the TV on or to fix the coffee in the morning (which you would have had to do before going to bed in the automated scenario.)

People tend to get so excited about the George Jetson-like possibilities that they ignore decision rights and transaction costs and paint visions that simply won’t occur in any reasonable timeframe.

That’s how we ended up with:

— The talk back in the early ’90s about “agents” that would pull together what some called “The Daily Me,” a personalized newspaper that would gather all the news that it knew you were interested in and mix it in with your schedule and other things to lay out your day for you. The problem was that these personalized papers took a huge amount of effort and were so inaccurate that no one would turn all the decision rights over to an agent. What if you didn’t have time to read the news that day? What if you had become interested in some topic that you’d never read about before — how would your agent know?

(I took the talk of agents somewhat personally because the three pieces I wrote for the Wall Street Journal that easily got the most response from readers in my 17 years there were about: a time I sailed across the Atlantic in a small boat, having never sailed before, in what turned out to be some monster storms; my two-week career as a professional wrestler; and my mother (a piece written with my younger brother). I guarantee you that no one who picked up the Wall Street Journal the day those pieces appeared was looking for anything about sailing, professional wrestling, my mother or me, so no one would have ever seen them in a world of agents.)

This talk of agents is cropping up again, by the way, and is surely part of the reason that Schmidt wants to talk about having the Internet disappear. Google wants to make search so efficient that its engine knows what you want to find even before you think to look. The company has made impressive strides — if you type in Elm Street while looking for directions on your Android phone, Google Maps usually guesses quickly and correctly which Elm Street you want — but that’s a long way from the world that Google is describing, and the transaction-cost and decision-rights issues will still get in the way.

— The fuss over the “Internet refrigerator” that still crops up from time to time. The idea is that your refrigerator would sense when, say, you were low on milk and reorder it for you. But that requires an awful lot of engineering, both in the refrigerator and in whatever system of grocery delivery would be used, and only makes sense if you’re turning just about all your shopping over to your refrigerator — if you have to go to store anyway, it’s simple to grab some milk.

And there is always the issue of decision rights. What if a family goes on vacation? How long will the refrigerator keep ordering? I have a friend whose 21-year-old son drinks a gallon of whole milk a day. When the son — who is 6’5″, weighs 285 pounds and looks like he could bench press a cow — is home, they can’t buy milk fast enough, but when he’s gone at school they don’t need any. Do they have to let a few gallons of milk sour before the refrigerator figures out the son is gone?

— The excitement about home controls: remote-controlled lighting, the Internet thermostat that will sense who’s in a room and adjust lighting levels and temperature to personal preferences and so on. Those are just an awful lot of work for not much benefit — you can always flip a light switch or adjust a rheostat — and doesn’t resolve the issues that come up when one person likes a room cooler than the other.

Technology will make plenty of tasks disappear, but let’s not be too hasty. We need to think through the costs, the benefits and the potential for errors and conflicts in automated systems, to make sure we don’t fall victim to the seductive tendency to ignore transaction costs and decision rights.

The Internet won’t disappear in my lifetime, which I’m assuming will be at least 30 more years. I won’t even have sensors that turn on CNN and start my coffee when I get out of bed.

9 Technologies That Will Change Insurance

“We’re at maybe 1% of what is possible. Despite the faster change, we’re still moving slow relative to the opportunities we have.”

This compelling statement from Larry Page, CEO and co-founder of Google epitomizes the power and potential of emerging technologies. Yet most insurers have difficult comprehending how fast emerging technologies are being introduced. And the pace is gathering speed, having a profound impact on our lives, our businesses and our industry. Moore’s Law tells us that computing power doubles every 18 – 24 months, but even that seems to be irrelevant compared with the power of emerging technologies, because they are coming faster, and they are more formidable than ever before.

This rapidly accelerating pace comes at a time when the convergence of advancing technologies, increasing customer expectations and access to capital for new technology start-ups are magnifying the extremes, and the impact to the insurance industry is more game-changing than ever before. Never before has technology advancement had as much influence as what we are experiencing now.

Technologies promise breakthroughs that will challenge long-held business assumptions and shift the boundaries between business and industry – creating completely new businesses and industries. SMA is actively tracking nine emerging technologies: 3D printing, the Internet of Things (IoT), drones/aerial imagery, driverless vehicles, wearable devices, “gamification,” artificial intelligence, semantic technologies and biotechnology. We are following them from a perspective inside the industry as well as taking an “outside-the-industry” view. 

Not surprisingly, adoption is being led by the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT is followed by artificial intelligence (AI), drones/aerial imagery and then gamification. The insurance industry’s rapid adoption is impressive. Five of the nine technologies are projected to arrive at or go well beyond the tipping point within three years. All nine are projected to surpass the tipping point within five years.

Adding to the momentum, individuals and companies that are a part of SMA’s Innovation Ecosystem and represent outside-the-industry perspectives see an even faster rate of adoption and greater potential for the transformation of insurance. This underscores that the insurance industry is on the crest of a massive wave of change.

Over the next five years, these emerging technologies, just like the Internet, smartphones and social media before them, are expected to drive new business models and foster the formation of companies from unexpected combinations of companies and industries — capturing the customer relationship and revenue. The astounding influence of these technologies — over a relatively short period — will begin to delineate a new generation of market leaders within and outside the insurance industry. Who will be the next Facebook, Uber or eBay?

So how should insurers respond to this rapid adoption? Insurers must quickly begin to develop strategies and experiment with and invest in these technologies today. If not, many insurers will be placed at significant risk, because there is typically a minimum two-year lag time between leaders and the mainstream and a minimum four- to five-year lag time between leaders and laggards. And given the pace of adoption of these technologies by insurance customers, the lag time carries more potential for damage than it did in the past. Consider that Apple introduced the iPhone just seven years ago, in June 2007. The result has been massive destruction and transformation that has created new leaders while forcing others into increasing irrelevance.

While it may be difficult to grasp the sheer magnitude of the change coming from the emerging technologies, remember that Larry Page of Google says we are only seeing 1% of the potential. Insurers must aggressively find a way to engage these technologies and uncover the potential, first to stay in the game, and then to win it. To do so, insurers must have modern core systems as a foundation to integrate the use of these technologies.

Consider these questions: How will product liability need to be redefined for driverless vehicles? If individuals or businesses no longer need auto insurance, what is the impact on other products? Multi-policy discounts? Will the driverless car encourage shopping for alternative options? Will it drive commoditization into other products? How will insurers assess the value and risk of a 3D-printed structure, body organs or vehicle parts? How will biotechnology-based agriculture change risk factors? How will drones help underwriting and claims? Can drones also provide resources needed during catastrophes, creating new services and value? Could gamification be a new channel to help drive increased market penetration through engagement and education about life insurance, health, medical, liability, home, umbrella and more?

These are but a few of the implications for insurance. They are inter-related and complex. They stress the significant disruption that is coming, and coming fast, as represented by the five out of nine emerging technologies that will reach the tipping point within three years … and some much sooner. Insurers that have not begun to pilot these technologies are already lagging behind and will struggle to keep up with this accelerated pace of adoption, not just from today’s competitors, but also from tomorrow’s competitors, as well as their customers. That poses a question: Will you remain relevant, or become the next Kodak, Blockbuster Video, Borders or CNN of insurance – the iconic brand that dies?

The coming years hold unparalleled opportunities for innovation and matchless potential for becoming market leaders that leverage emerging technologies to increase customer value, engagement and loyalty to insurers. As Steve Jobs stated, “Everyone here has the sense that right now is one of those moments when we are influencing the future.” The question to you is: Will you influence the future or be a remnant of the past?

This article is adapted from a new research report, Emerging Technologies: Reshaping the Next-Gen Insurer.