Tag Archives: insurance market

InsurTech Forces Industry to Rethink

Actors in the insurance industry put the whole sector under universal suspicion in the minds of customers.

Customers want to be able to identify with a company. This can only be achieved by successful branding campaigns that target establishing a relationship between the company and the consumer. If consumers agree with the values a company stands for, they are more inclined to trust the company. Young companies have the advantage of a fresh start; while traditional insurance carriers, as well as traditional insurance agents, are suffering a decline in reputation and need to win back trust, young companies can position themselves as an alternative to an unpopular industry and therefore benefit from unbiased consumers.

See Also: A Mental Framework for InsurTech

In a way, InsurTech start-ups can provide a more personal service than traditional agents can, making use of marketing and branding advertising, as well as social media presence and availability. This becomes increasingly important as customers will use a vast variety of channels to interact with their insurance agent — brick-and-mortar agents will have a hard time keeping up.

Besides reputation, the use of technological advances will be an essential determinant for the success of insurance agents. As consumers use more and more online sources or digital agents to manage their insurance policies, local insurance agents will become less important. A report recently released by consulting firm McKinsey includes a chapter on “the end of an era for the local insurance agent.” This sums up the future of traditional, analogue agents, whose business model will no longer be able to withstand innovative alternatives. In addition to digital solutions and mobile-first applications, traditional agents will face competition from insurance carriers that will focus more on establishing a direct relationship with their customers and will gradually factor agents out of the equation.

Technology and simplification are changing nearly every aspect of our lives. Customers have become increasingly used to managing everything from shopping to paying bills with the help of apps. Our always-on culture is bringing more customized options into the very personal areas of finance through technology. Therefore, managing insurance policies offline is beginning to seem like an unnecessary and tedious task. Comparing insurance online has been popular ever since the first portals came up, but the gap in consulting was harder to close. Insurance brokers watched the onset of insurance portals with ease, knowing those portals were unable to provide advice for the mostly helpless customer when it came to insurance.

However, the development and distribution of insurance apps that offer an easy-to-understand overview of complicated insurance products, as well as independent advice, led to fierce competition on the insurance market. Consumers don’t want to store tons of paperwork in large folders and block out their spare time to meet their insurance agent for coffee. As a result, these agents are losing customers to the innovative alternative. New players provide comprehensive services, replacing traditional broker services and thereby replacing traditional agents who do not have the resources to develop the tools necessary for better customer service. The new market players figure out what kind of solution consumers want and need, and they adapt accordingly. This can only be forced by pushing into the market and spending money — investors’ money that established companies usually do not have.

Providers of mobile-first insurance solutions drive change in the insurance industry with a clear focus on advisory automation and mobile service experience. Apps like Knip do not just use technological advances as an addition to traditional services; they change the business model the insurance industry is based on, following a consumer-friendly approach and making products more transparent. That benefit will be hard for traditional brokers and insurers to copy. They can implement technological features and develop their own apps, but their business is based on sales rather than advisory, which will make them lose customers to more innovative companies.

Both traditional agents and insurance carriers are pondering this development. Their inflexible organizational structures will be hard to overcome to provide more technology- and customer-oriented services. Sure, traditional brokers and advisers will still be needed as technology advances. Some people prefer to welcome their insurance broker in their home and would not dream of a mobile customer-broker relationship. Yet, this group will continue to shrink and become more specialized with time, something everyone working in this sector should be aware of. Only the best of the best of the traditional brokers will survive, be it because of their special expertise, their marketing and brand advertising success or their operational efficiency. Consumers are so used to digital products they will not hesitate to punish any provider that cannot or does not offer them such.

There are still some challenges ahead for start-ups and innovative companies; patience and persistence are crucial. As they are innovating in a very traditional industry, not everyone is excited about digital solutions — mostly because they don’t know what to expect. Informing and educating are important to overcome this fear. It might take a while, but it is starting to work.

See Also: InsurTech: Golden Opportunity to Innovate

What everyone needs to be aware of is that ignoring the development will not end it. Those who turn a blind eye to it now will end up being left behind. Ten years ago, online banking was something extraordinary. Today, it is hard to imagine life without it, and very few people still fill out transfer forms at their local bank. This development will continue with more innovative ideas and more technological progress. Insurance is undergoing the same process, and, a few years from now, it will be perfectly normal to manage policies online and via mobile. The insurance industry realizes it needs to adjust to customers’ expectations if it does not want to be left behind.

3 Things to Know on PPO Networks

Employers across the country are looking to provide employees with the largest and widest PPO networks as a means of giving employees choice.  Somehow the health insurance industry has determined that networks should be “all-inclusive.” The more medical professionals and facilities in your network, the better your network is. It is time to raise a red flag on this kind of thinking. Before your organization looks to increase employee access to doctors and hospitals, there are three things you must understand about PPO networks.

Larger Networks Can Lead to Larger Plan Costs

You hear it all the time. Insurance carriers battle over who has the largest network both locally and nationally. Now, having a network with a national presence can be appealing if you are an employer with facilities and a workforce scattered across the country. However, a larger network opens the door for greater access to poor-performing physicians and medical facilities. The bigger the network, the greater the odds your employees are accessing doctors and hospitals who are not on the right side of cost, quality and outcomes. As a result, your medical plan’s costs continue to rise year after year.

See Also: Untapped Opportunity in Healthcare

A Network “Discount” Can Be Misleading

In a typical medical plan, the majority of the member population will use the plan via day-to-day services such as preventive exams, sick children and the occasional medication. For these folks, a network discount does an adequate job reducing costs for both the member and the health plan. However, imaging, surgeries and hospital stays are driving plan costs today, and it is here where a network “discount” can be misleading. Yes, network discounts are still applied to these services and, yes, the discounts can be 50% or more. However, when facilities are allowed to charge 400%+ of the limit allowed by Medicare, you are not getting much of a deal at all. To put it into simple terms, if I told you my iPhone is worth $2,000 but agreed to sell it to you for a 50% discount, I would still be ripping you off.

Networks Often Block Creativity

Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a national insurance carrier about a mutual client. After a thorough review of the client’s claim activity, we uncovered several facilities that were providing imaging services (MRIs, CT scans, etc.) at a low cost, much lower than the same services provided at other facilities. Knowing this, the client wanted to give members incentives to choose the low-cost facilities when needing imaging services by agreeing to have the health plan pay 100% of the service, saving both the member and the health plan money. However, we were told “no” by the insurance carrier because it had a duty to “keep the rest of the network happy.” If we are going to create change in the health insurance market, employers need to implement creativity into health-plan design. Unfortunately, most PPO networks discourage this kind of thinking.

Remember, there is a place for PPO networks within the healthcare industry. However, if you are an employer looking for creative ways to give your employees access to high-quality, low-cost doctors and hospitals, do not count on PPO networks to pave the way.

 

Group Insurance: On the Path to Maturity

The group insurance market shows real promise, but most carriers are still trying to determine the best path forward. Moving from being in a quiet sector to the front lines of new ways of doing business has shaken the industry and confronted it with challenges – and opportunities – that many could not have foreseen even a decade ago.

For starters, let’s take a look at where the market is right now. Three recent trends, in particular, are having a profound impact:

  • The Affordable Care Act, which has led health carriers to increase their focus on non-major medical aspects of the parts of their business that the legislation has not affected. In turn, this has led to intensifying competition.
  • Consumerism, which has resulted largely from workers’ increasing responsibility for choosing their own benefits. This has created disruption as employees/consumers have become increasingly dissatisfied with the gap between group insurance service, information and advice and what they have come to expect from other industries.
  • The aging distribution force, which means that experienced brokers/agents are leaving the work force and are being replaced by inexperienced producers at decreasing rates or are not being replaced at all.

Group players – which historically have been conservative in their market strategies – focus on aggressively driving profitable growth. To do this, they are concentrating on four key areas: 1) growing their voluntary business, 2) streamlining their operating models, 3) re-shaping their distribution strategies and 4) making significant investments in technology.

See Also: Long-Term Care Insurance: Group Plans vs. Individual

Group insurance is no longer a quiet sector of the industry but instead is in the front lines of developments in customer-centricity and technological innovation.

Growing the voluntary business – The voluntary market has been of interest to traditional group insurance carriers for more than two decades, but the success of the core employer paid group insurance business has resulted in a lack of robust voluntary capabilities. However, with employers shifting more costs to employees, voluntary products have become a key way to manage group benefit costs while expanding the portfolio of employee products.

Some carriers are expanding their voluntary businesses by offering a modified employer paid group product in which the employee “checks the box” to pay an incremental premium and receive additional group coverage (e.g., long term disability (LTD), life and dental). Other carriers are exploring models where employees can sign up for an individual policy at a special premium rate. The former example is a traditional voluntary product, while the latter example is a traditional worksite product. For most carriers, adding the traditional voluntary product is fairly straightforward because it is still a product that the group underwrites. However, more carriers are looking into the worksite product (which AFLAC and Colonial Life & Accident have executed particularly well) because, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, some see a potential opportunity to reach small businesses that previously may not have been interested in group benefits.

Streamlining operating models – Group carriers also are trying to develop streamlined, cost-effective, customer-centric operating models. The traditional group insurance operating model has been built around product groups such as group LTD, short-term LTD, dental, etc. However, the product-based model is inefficient because it increases service costs, slows speed to market and fails to support the holistic views of the customer that enables carriers to serve customers in the ways they prefer.

Group insurers are now investing both time and capital to understand how to remove inefficient product-focused layers of their operations and streamline their processes to profitably grow. Many have focused on enrollment, which cuts across products and is a frequent source of frustration for everyone. Carriers are frustrated because they can spend days and weeks trying to ensure that everyone is properly enrolled in the right plan. Moreover, what should be a fairly straightforward, automated process often can require considerable manual intervention to ensure that employees are properly enrolled. In the meantime, employees are frustrated with recurring requests for information and the slowness of the enrollment process. Employers are frustrated by the additional time and effort that they have to expend and the poor enrollee experience. Producers become frustrated because the employer often holds them accountable for the recommended carriers’ performance.

Reshaping distribution strategies – In terms of distribution, private exchanges initially promised to connect group carriers with the right customers using extremely efficient exchange platforms. As a result, many group carriers joined multiple exchanges expecting that this model would put them on the cusp of the next wave of growth. However, success has proven more elusive than they expected, largely because they’ve spread themselves too thin across too many, often unproven exchanges. And, while private exchanges still offer great potential, many carriers have now begun to rethink their private exchange strategies with the realization that the channel is not yet a fully mature group insurance platform.

Investing in technology – Whether group carriers are focusing most on entering the voluntary market, streamlining operations or refining their private exchange strategies, successful in all these areas depends on technology. Group technology investments have lagged behind the rest of the industry. The reasons for this range from a lack of proven technology solutions that truly focus on the group market to downright stinginess and the resulting reliance on “heroic acts” and dedication of committed employees to drive growth, profits and customer satisfaction. However, viable technological solutions now exist – and they are probably the most critical element in the march toward effective data integration, efficient customer service and ultimately profitable growth. Every facet of the business –underwriting, marketing, claims, billing, policy administration, enrollment, renewal and more – is critically dependent upon technological solutions that have been designed to meet the unique needs of the group business and its customers. Prescient group carriers understand this and have been investing in developing their own solutions and partnering with on-shore and offshore solutions providers to fill gaps in non-core areas.

Whatever their primary focus – growth, operations or distribution – a necessary element for success is up-to-date and effective technology.

A market in flux

In conclusion, group insurance is in a time of transition. Major mergers and acquisitions have already started to reshape the market landscape, and existing players are likely to use acquisitions and divestitures as a way to refine their market focus. Moreover, new entrants are looking to exploit openings in the group space by providing the kind of focus, cutting-edge product offerings and service capabilities that many incumbents have not. These developments show group’s promise. The winners will be the companies that wisely refine their business models and effectively employ technology to meet the unique needs of new, consumer-driven markets.

Implications

  • We will continue to see group carriers focus on the voluntary market, especially traditional group-underwritten products. They will look to not only round out their product bundle by providing solutions that meet consumer needs, but also integrate their offerings with other employee solutions like wealth and retirement products.
  • Group insurers will continue to aggressively streamline processes to promote productive and profitable customer interactions.
  • Private exchange participation strategy needs to align with target markets goals, including matching products with appropriate exchanges. Focusing on participation means that group carriers avoid spreading themselves too thin trying to support the various exchanges (often with manual back-end processes).
  • Group carriers can no longer compete with antiquated and inadequate technology. Fortunately, there are now group-specific solutions that can make modernization a reality, not just an aspiration.

Better Way to Assess Cyber Risks?

As the saying goes, there are two kinds of motorcyclists: Those who have fallen off their bikes and those who will.

The insurance industry assesses the corporate world’s cybersecurity risk much the same way. Everyone is equally at risk, and, therefore, everyone pays the price for higher insurance premiums.

Not a day seems to go by without news of a high-profile security breach. It’s no surprise, then, that the cybersecurity insurance market is expected to rise to $7.5 billion by 2020, according to PwC. Even worse, the industry does not have effective actuarial models for corporate cybersecurity, say Mike Baukes and Alan Sharp-Paul, the co-founders and co-CEOs of UpGuard.

The two audacious Australians have developed what they say is a better way to assess the risk for cybersecurity breaches.

peep

Alan Sharp-Paul (L) and Mike Baukes (R), Co-Founders and CO-CEOs, UpGuard

The pair’s company recently unveiled its Cybersecurity Threat Assessment Rating (CSTAR), the industry’s first cybersecurity preparedness score for businesses. UpGuard’s CSTAR ranking is a FICO-like score that allows businesses to measurably understand the risk of data breaches and unplanned outages because of misconfigurations and software vulnerabilities, while also offering insurance carriers a new standard by which to more effectively assess risk and compliance profiles.

According to Baukes and Sharp-Paul, many companies forego available policies due to perceived high cost and uncertainty that their organizations will suffer an attack. With countless patches and endpoint fixes slapped onto IT infrastructure to hastily remediate breaches, companies have found themselves with less visibility into their core systems than ever before and, as a result, no way to understand how at-risk they are for hacks. With CSTAR, businesses are able to regain transparency into their own stack and take the appropriate steps to bolster their cybersecurity. Insurance carriers, meanwhile, can make smarter underwriting decisions while accelerating the availability of comprehensive and cost-effective cybersecurity insurance policies for businesses. It’s a win-win for both the insurance industry and for businesses.

After spending years in financial services in Australia and the U.K. and witnessing the disarray of corporate IT, Up-Guard’s two co-founders decided they could make a difference by developing a better way for corporations to understand their software portfolios and their associated potential risk for security breaches. Baukes says, “Our experience showed that that there were thousands of applications and thousands of machines powering all of this critical infrastructure. And the thing that we learned throughout all this was just how hard it is for an IT organization to understand and get a handle on what they’ve got.”

“Today, everything is out in the cloud,” Sharp-Paul says. “We’re all more connected. Employees are connected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Now what keeps CIOs and CEOs up at night is, ‘If we get breached, I could get thrown in jail. I could get sued.’ It’s a very, very different world we live in today. We built a system to help companies understand and prevent downtime, and helping them save on project costs is just as relevant today from a security perspective.”

The two initially started a consulting company to help companies catalogue and manage their software platforms and applications. According to Sharp-Paul, “We realized the biggest problem companies have from an IT perspective is that they don’t really have appropriate visibility into what they’ve got and how it’s changing because so many things are changing daily in these environments that it’s really hard for them to know what ‘good’ looks like.”

Sharp-Paul and Baukes’s consulting led them to develop software to automate the process, providing the means to quickly and effectively crawl every server and software application to present a profile of what needed to be updated or patched and to identify the system holes that allowed for security breaches.

As Baukes tells it, “Getting that all to mix well and be safe, secure and capable of pinpointing where problems go wrong really quickly is an incredibly difficult task. So, we built up the first commercial version of the product—a very rudimentary version—and we shopped it around, and people were very excited at the time.”

From there, the pair realized their software had commercial potential and implications more far-reaching than what they had first thought. “We started with that very simple version with a few sales and no sales force—just Alan and [me] at the time—growing to the point now where we now have 3,000-plus customers, and the team is steadily being built,” Baukes says.

Now, the company has nearly 50 employees and is growing fast. The Mountain View, CA–based company attracted early seed funding from the likes of Peter Thiel, Dave McClure and Scott Petry, leading to a near $9 million Series A funding underwritten by August Capital.

The co-CEOs admit the co-managing arrangement is unconventional and would be challenging to make work under different circumstances. However, Baukes and Sharp-Paul feel their skills and temperament complement each other.

“To be honest, when people ask us about it, my first response is always that it’s a terrible idea,” Sharp-Paul says. “And that’s not because it’s been a horrible experience for us. It’s because I kind of think we’re really the exception. And the only reason I say that is that I know the unique things we went through and the type of people we are that makes this work. I can’t imagine that being a common thing at all.”

Baukes is generally a more aggressive and strategic thinker, while Sharp-Paul describes himself as more pragmatic and conservative.

Sharp-Paul and Baukes first worked together at the Colonial First State Investment firm back in Sydney, where the two lived the DevOps experience before DevOps became the buzzy concept that it is today. There, Sharp-Paul was a web developer, and Baukes was a systems administrator, and they talked a lot about things like continuous integration and continuous delivery.

“Now these are all fantastic things,” Sharp-Paul says. “But you need a foundation or a basis of understanding what you have. I mean, we like to say you can’t automate what you don’t understand. Or you can’t secure or fix what you don’t understand. And that’s always missing. Everyone’s trying to rush to this goal of DevOps or moving to the cloud. Everyone wanted to be there, but companies and vendors in particular weren’t helping businesses on the journey there.”

Baukes says, “Once you have that base understanding of what you have, then that opens everything else up. You can think about DevOps. You can think about automation. At the time, we were thinking, ‘Why hasn’t anyone thought to do this before?’ It seemed like such a foundational, basic thing. It was almost like it was so foundational that everyone just moved past it, and they were looking at the next shiny thing down the road. I think that was the white space. That was our opportunity. We jumped on it.”

As it turns out, in the world of corporate IT, applications never get retired. Even worse, the people who manage them move on because the life cycle of an employee at a company is short. As as result, the institutional knowledge about these applications is lost.

“Corporate memory is so short typically,” Sharp-Paul says. “They often get to this point five years down the track where they rediscover this server or this application, and everyone’s too scared to touch it because they don’t know what it does. They don’t know how it works. The people with the knowledge just left with it all in their heads. We come across that all the time.”

Sharp-Paul and Baukes had always seemed destined to do something on their own.

“I always had a healthy disrespect for authority. Throughout my corporate life, I was looking outside to see what else is [WAS?] out there,” Sharp-Paul says. “I actually started the first step of creating a business on my own—with something as mundane as a French language website that I used when I moved overseas for a couple of years. … It taught me that I can actually build something myself that makes money.”

Baukes agrees.

“The big difference is that I grew up in an immigrant family in the middle of nowhere, effectively. I won’t say the Australian Outback, but really rural,” he says. “We built everything ourselves. My father was a great wheeler and dealer. So, I learned a lot of from him. I fell into all of this by playing computer games and was really good at it, frankly. For me, that was a springboard into an accidental corporate life. I always knew that I would do something else.”

Now, for the future?

Baukes says, “It makes good business sense to quantify the risk in your company’s IT systems and report it effectively. And I think that for us, we could continue growing our business with that in mind—giving people visibility, helping them get to the truth of what they’ve got, teaching them how to configure it, and showing them if they’re vulnerable. That is beginning to accelerate for us, and we’re incredibly proud of that.

“We truly believe that, over time, CSTAR will be adopted as an industry standard that companies and carriers alike can rely on to make critical coverage and cybersecurity decisions.”

blockchain

Why Insurers Caught the Blockchain Bug

In April 2015, Lloyd’s of London launched the Target Operating Model (TOM) project. TOM is a central body responsible for delivering modernization to the still heavily paper-based wholesale insurance transactions in the London insurance markets.

You can state, “I Support TOM,” on a registration site or you can “like” TOM on social media. The project has had several “innovation” events. It has an orange logo reminiscent of the 1990s, when orange was the new black. The project has even tried to coin yet another tech mashup term for the London insurance markets surrounding Lloyd’s: InsTech.

This is not the first time the London insurance markets have tried to modernize. They are serial reformers, and their attempts have had varying degrees of success (from total failure to middling impact).

Limnet (London Insurance Market Network) made progress with electronic data interchange in the 1980s and early 1990s. Electronic Placement Support (EPS) worked in the late 1990s, but few used it. Kinnect, at a cost conservatively quoted as £70 million, was abandoned in 2006. Project Darwin, which operated from 2011 to 2013, achieved little. The Message Exchange Limited (TMEL) is a messaging hub for ACORD messages that has had modest success, but most people still use email.

Numerous private exchanges or electronic messaging ventures have gained only partial market shares. Xchanging Ins-Sure Services (XIS), a claims and premiums processing joint venture, was formed in 2000 and runs adequately but still has a lot of paper involved.

A swift walk round Lloyd’s, perhaps passing by the famous Lamb Tavern in Leadenhall Market, reveals a lot of heavy bundles of paper, lengthening the arms of long-term insurers.

Does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) was a German biologist and philosopher who proposed a (now largely discredited) biological hypothesis, the “theory of recapitulation.” He proposed that, in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. His catchphrase was “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

In a similar way, TOM seems to be going through all the previous stages of former wholesale insurance modernization projects, databases, networks and messaging centers, but it may come out at the end to realize the potential of mutual distributed ledgers (aka blockchain technology).

Information technology systems may have now evolved to meet the demanding requirements of wholesale insurance. And wholesale insurance differs from capital market finance in some important ways.

First, insurance is a “promise to pay in future,” not an asset transfer today. Second, while capital markets trade on information asymmetry, insurance is theoretically a market of perfect information and symmetry—you have to reveal everything of possible relevance to your insurer, but each of you has different exposure positions and interpretations of risk. Third, wholesale insurance is “bespoke.” You can’t give your insurance cover to someone else.

These three points lead to a complex set of interactions among numerous parties. Clients, brokers, underwriters, claims assessors, valuation experts, legal firms, actuaries and accountants all have a part in writing a policy, not to mention in handling subsequent claims.

People from the capital markets who believe insurance should become a traded market miss some key points. Let’s examine two: one about market structure, and one about technology.

TIn terms of market structure: People use trusted third parties in many roles—in finance, for settlement, as custodians, as payment providers and as poolers of risk. Trusted third parties perform three roles, to:

  • Validate — confirming the existence of something to be traded and the membership of the trading community
  • Safeguard — preventing duplicate transactions, i.e. someone selling the same thing twice or “double-spending”
  • Preserve — holding the history of transactions to help analysis and oversight and in the event of disputes.

Concerns over centralization

The hundreds of firms in the London markets are rightly concerned about a central third party that might hold their information to ransom. The firms want to avoid natural monopolies, particularly as agreed information is crucial over multi-year contracts. They are also concerned about a central third party that must be used for messaging because, without choice, the natural monopoly rents might become excessive.

Many historic reforms failed to propose technology that recognized this market structure. Mutual distributed ledgers (MDLs), however, provide pervasive, persistent and permanent records. MDL technology securely stores transaction records in multiple locations with no central ownership. MDLs allow groups of people to validate, record and track transactions across a network of decentralized computer systems with varying degrees of control of the ledger. In such a system, everyone shares the ledger. The ledger itself is a distributed data structure, held in part or in its entirety by each participating computer system. Trust in safeguarding and preservation moves from a central third-party to the technology.

Emerging techniques, such as smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations, might, in the future, also permit MDLs to act as automated agents.

Beat the TOM-TOM

Because MDLs enable organizations to work together on common data, they exhibit a paradox. MDLs are logically central but are technically distributed. They act as if they are central databases, where everyone shares the same information.

However, the information is distributed across multiple (or multitudinous) sites so that no one person can gain control over the value of the information. Everyone has a copy. Everyone can recreate the entire market from someone else’s copy. However, everyone can only “see” what their cryptographic keys permit.

How do we know this works? We at Z/Yen, a commercial think tank, have built several insurance application prototypes for clients who seek examples, such as motor, small business and insurance deal-rooms. The technical success of blockchain technologies in cryptocurrencies—such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple—have shown that complex multi-party transactions are possible using MDLs. And, we have built a system that handles ACORD messages with no need for “messaging.”

Z/Yen’s work in this space dates to 1995. Until recently, though, most in financial services dismissed MDLs as too complex and insecure. The recent mania around cryptocurrencies has led to a reappraisal of their potential, as blockchains are just one form of MDL. That said, MDLs are “mutual,” and a number of people need to move ahead together. Further, traditional commercial models of controlling and licensing intellectual property are less likely to be successful at the core of the market. The intellectual property needs to be shared.

A message is getting out on the jungle drums that MDLs, while not easy, do work at a time when people are rethinking the future of wholesale insurance.

If TOM helps push people to work together, perhaps, this time, market reform will embrace a generation of technology that will finally meet the demands of a difficult, yet essential and successful, centuries-old market.

Perhaps TOM should be beating the MDL drums more loudly.