Whether you commute to work on public transport to work or fly between busy airports to serve your clients, wherever you go you will see people glued to their phones, tablets or e-readers. More than likely, all these devices are connected to the Internet in real time over a mobile network or capable of connecting via Wi-Fi.
There is so much written on the connected car and the connected (“smart”) home, but we also need to open a discussion about connected humans.
Let me clarify: I have no interest in talking about social networking. I’m more interested in connections from the perspective of tracking health and biometric data to be used by the healthcare and insurance industries for pricing.
A decade ago, we were limited by the technology and the computing power of hand-held devices. Wearables and ingestible devices were nowhere in the ecosystem. It made perfect sense to use historical data to price and sell products based on stale census information.
Fast forward to the current time. Computing power has scaled exponentially over the last decade. We have devices that can track, store and filter essential lifestyle and health data, and we have predictive analytic capabilities that would make historic rating methods look like the Stone Age.
The growth rate of Millennials earning paychecks is not keeping pace with the growth in the aging population living off savings. If that was not bad enough , buying behaviors of Millennials indicate that insurance is not one of their top priorities. There are numerous surveys you can find online that point to this problem.
We have heard of “gamification” and customer engagement in the context of banking and financial services, to attract Millennials, but insurance and healthcare companies have barely touched the tip of the iceberg on this. The amount of biometric data that can be harvested and used for predictive analytics could include a host of items, including blood pressure, heart rate, vitamin count, sleep patterns, activity metrics and blood sugar, just to name a few. All this information, harvested and analyzed to price and sell a host of new products to new market segments with lifestyle diseases like diabetes or obesity, opens the route to gamification of healthcare apps and much better life insurance pricing. Providers today stop at just providing discounts on the fringes as I see it, not truly revisiting pricing.
With technology evolving at the pace it is and with our ability to get more out of the data through predictive analysis, the healthcare and insurance segment could look very different 10 years from now.
There is a school of thought that says privacy issues will limit the use of biometric data, but, if there is a business model that works for weight watchers and diabetic forums, there is a business case and a market segment to change the way insurance and healthcare products are priced and sold.
Hertz has begun to pitch itself as a used-car sales channel, allowing the consumer to test drive a car for an extended renting period and then buy or not buy the car. In the insurance or healthcare context, if pricing were driven by behavioral patterns and biometric statistics, you could offer an extended free look or evaluation period allowing a skeptical diabetic or obese customer to try devices, see the effects on their health and the corresponding premium discounts and then make a decision on locking into the product.
Insurance and healthcare have not truly embraced the technology and buying behavioral shift of customers. What remains to be seen is who leads the charge. Will it be insurance and healthcare companies? Will it be technology giants like Google, which are already tracking a lot of what people do? Or will it be a company like Tesla and Uber, which have disrupted traditional industry segments where they were never the incumbent.
I recently read an article about “digital insurance stores.” The article made some good points, though this was not one of them: “Agents need to go beyond their traditional roles as sellers of auto insurance because auto is fast becoming more commoditized.” [emphasis added]
Once again, we’re told that auto insurance is a commodity. In articles (see the “Price Check” article, for example) and webinars, we’ve communicated why auto insurance in particular, and personal lines insurance in general, is not a commodity, nor is it “fast becoming more commoditized.” If anything, the opposite is true. In his paper, “Reevaluating Standardized Insurance Policies,” University of Minnesota Law School Professor Daniel Schwarcz writes about homeowners insurance:
“The current personal-lines insurance marketplace is largely organized around a myth. That myth is that personal-lines insurance policies are completely uniform. This myth explains regulatory rules that do nothing to promote insurance contract transparency….
“Different carriers’ homeowners policies differ radically with respect to numerous important coverage provisions. A substantial majority of these deviations produce decreases in the amount of coverage relative to the presumptive industry standard….”
“If regulators do not act to substantially improve consumer protection in this domain, then it can be expected that coverage will continue to degrade for most carriers, in a modern-day reenactment of the race to the bottom in fire insurance that triggered the first wave of standardized insurance policies….”
Most of the agents I know recognize the demonstrated market share threat of direct, price-focused sales but don’t fear it. Transparent competition is generally a good thing. Historically, intensified industry competition has, more often than not, resulted in more broadened, innovative products. That’s no longer the case given the lack of transparency in the marketing of direct/online insurance products.
Given a focus almost entirely based on low-price, “painless” marketing by increasingly data-driven, tunnel-visioned and short-sighted financial bean counters, what we’re likely seeing now is the beginning of a lemming-like stampede over a coverage oblivion cliff. Too many carriers today couldn’t care less about the role their products play in protecting American families from financial ruin. They’ve convinced themselves (and much of America) that what consumers really want and need is fast, cheap and funny and that the way to sell that is through lizards with Australian accents and box store clerks who’ll sell you a generic brown-paper-packaged insurance product at whatever price you tell her.
So-called experts and researchers who likely have never read their own auto policies and almost certainly have never compared two or more policies tell us that car insurance is a commodity where the best deal is the cheapest price that can be quoted in two minutes (yes, one company implies that it can ascertain your unique exposures and quote you the right product in two minutes, not 15, 7.5, or five). The experts tout the efficiencies of the Internet as the marketing channel that can bring even greater riches to insurers, as they predict the imminent demise of ignorant, un-hip Baby Boomer insurance agents who foolishly believe that consumers need consultation and advocacy. Note, too, that virtually all of these research reports focus on the advantages to the insurance company, with almost complete disregard to the obvious disadvantages to the American consumer.
But let’s say they’re right, that the Internet provides efficiencies that traditional marketing and sales channels cannot compete with. When all you can offer is “fast and cheap,” at some point you can’t provide that product any faster or cheaper. You’ve become as efficient as you possibly can be. So, when price is your only value proposition, what do you do at this point when you can’t cut the expense ratio any closer? Presumably, you’d look to, by far, the biggest component of premium – losses and loss adjustment expenses. So, how do you reduce that component, which accounts for 75% to 80% of premium, to continue to compete on price?
One way would be to actually return to underwriting. But you can’t do that when you’re quoting in two minutes. So, what does that leave? Reducing coverage or becoming more restrictive in claims handling practices. After all, who will know? Everyone agrees that “car insurance” is a commodity, so no one is considering what the policy actually covers or doesn’t cover. Until claim time. And, on average, that’s only once every seven years or so. So, again, no one much will notice…other than the families who lose just about everything they own because they bought an inferior product.
As Mr. Schwarcz opines, that’s exactly where the industry is headed in auto insurance unless agents make their case to the consuming public about the value of consultative selling and claims advocacy. And unless regulators return to carefully vetting the products they approve for the marketplace to ensure that they do not leave unreasonable, potentially catastrophic coverage gaps for insureds and that they reasonably protect the public from becoming victims to overly restrictive policy exclusions and limitations.
Copyright 2015 by the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America. Reprinted with permission.
OK, there have been some amazingly stupid contracts written over the years. But among people who really ought to know what they’re doing, one from France probably does take the biscuit. It’s a hybrid life insurance/savings product that allows a policy holder to allocate capital among various funds. Nothing very strange or stupid there. However, here’s the catch:
It allows the policy holder to switch funds this Friday based on the prices of the funds last Friday. And that isn’t just stupid, that’s doolally. It may be the worst policy ever issued.
The basic background is that this was a reasonably popular sort of contract among French insurance companies back in the 1980s and ’90s. Take out a life insurance contract (usually, to get the tax privileges that go with such a contract) and use it as a savings vehicle. You can swap between bond, equity funds and so on as you go along. Given the speed of the post in those days, and the general rarity with which people fiddled with their investments, prices of the funds would be published on a Friday, and you had until the next one to switch around your investments based on those prices.
The world has changed since then: We can all look up asset prices in seconds now. And some of those insurance policy holders noticed. They started aggressively managing (as they have every right to do) the savings in their funds. You can see what’s coming here. If I can trade Thursday on last Friday’s prices, I’m likely to do pretty well, because I know what has happened to prices. And so it is with some of these players.
Does a 70% compound profit per annum sound like a juicy investment return to you? It does to me.
Of course, there has been all sorts of scrambling to try and get out of this. The company managing the contracts, Aviva, has been refusing to move funds, for example. And it should be said that most of the people with these contracts were, umm, gently maneuvered out of them over the years both from this company and others. You know the sort of thing: “Sirs, we want to make a slight change to the T&Cs of your contract; here is €100 for your trouble in signing this and returning it to us.” That change being that you’re no longer allowed to shift on the basis of 20/20 hindsight.
Max Herve-George was not tempted by such offers. So, he’s been making those alarmingly high profits, isn’t budging and has been up and down the courts system (winning pretty much all the while) to hold Aviva to that contract.
It gets better: Herve-George is, under the terms of the contract, allowed to add more funds. He’s made arrangements with a hedge fund or two (who wouldn’t like 70%-per-annum returns?) to inject perhaps a further €20 million…..and you can see where this is going, can’t you? At some point, he owns the company, then France and then the entire planet. FT Alphaville gleefully calculates for us when this is going to happen. Might not be in my lifetime. but it’s likely to be in Max’s.
Of course, this isn’t actually going to happen. As Herb Stein pointed out, if something cannot go on forever, then it won’t. But the interesting question is, well, what is going to stop it?
There are really only two possibilities. One is that France, or the French courts, shred contract law. And, believe me, over things like savings and life insurance, the French are very serious indeed about that law. Or, Max ends up owning Aviva, the company that sold him the contract.
As it happens, an old friend of mine is working as an adviser somewhere in this case. And we’ve been chewing the fat over which way it’s going to turn out. Our best bet is that Max ends up owning Aviva France.
The thinking is along these lines: First, France really does take extremely serious ly the law surrounding these sorts of investment, life insurance and pension policies.
We’re both reminded of the case of Jeanne Calment. France has a system of reverse mortgages. You, a nice little bourgeois lawyer, say, look around you and see some little old lady living in a nice apartment that she owns. Say, a 90-year-old little old la dy with no surviving descendants. So, she’d quite like to swap the apartment after her death for an income stream now. A reverse mortgage of sorts. So you do this, and she goes on to be the longest-living human being ever (OK, for completists, leaving out the Antediluvians). In 1965, at age 90 and with no heirs, Calment signed a deal to sell her apartment to lawyer André-François Raffray, on a contingency contract. Raffray, then aged 47 years, agreed to pay her a monthly sum of 2,500 francs until she died. Raffray ended up paying Calment the equivalent of more than $180,000, which was more than double the apartment’s value. After Raffray’s death from cancer at the age of 77, in 1995, his widow continued the payments until Calment’s death in 1997, at age 122.
French law is really very strict about such things. So, we just don’t think that the courts are going to shred the contract: Yo do so would be shredding that basic sanctity of contract law.
Yes, it’s true, you can’t write a contract making yourself a slave, and there are some other restrictions. But you are indeed allowed to write some amazingly stupid contracts, and you will be held to them.
Many life insurance executives with whom we have spoken say that their business needs to fundamentally change to be relevant in today’s market. Life insurance does face formidable challenges.
First, let’s take a hard look at some statistics. In 1950, there were approximately 23 million life policies in the U.S., covering a population of 156 million. In 2010, there were approximately 29 million policies covering a population of 311 million. The percentage of families owning life insurance assets has decreased from more than a third in 1992 to less than a quarter in 2007. By contrast, while less than a third of the population owned mutual funds in 1990, more than two-fifths (or 51 million households and 88 million investors) did by 2009.
A number of socio-demographic, behavioral economic, competitive and technological changes explain the trends — and the need for reinventing life insurance:
Changing demography: Around 12% of men and an equal number of women were between the ages of 25 and 40 in 1950. However, only 10% of males and 9.9% of females were in that age cohort in 2010, and the percentage is set to drop to 9.6% and 9.1%, respectively, by 2050. This hurts life insurance in two main ways. First, the segment of the overall population that is in the typical age bracket for purchasing life insurance decreases. Second, as people see their parents and grandparents live longer, they tend to de-value the death benefits associated with life insurance.
Increasingly complex products: The life insurance industry initially offered simple products with easily understood death benefits. Over the past 30 years, the advent of universal and variable universal life, the proliferation of various riders to existing products and new types of annuities that highlight living benefits significantly increased product diversity but often have been difficult for customers to understand. Moreover, in the wake of the financial crisis, some complex products had both surprising and unwelcome effects on insurers themselves.
Individual decision-making takes the place of institutional decision-making: From the 1930s to the 1980s, the government and employers were providing many people life insurance, disability coverage and pensions. However, since then, individuals increasingly have had to make protection/investment decisions on their own. Unfortunately for insurers, many people have eschewed life insurance and spent their money elsewhere. If they have elected to invest, they often have chosen mutual funds, which often featured high returns from the mid-1980s to early 2000s.
Growth of intermediated distribution: The above factors and the need to explain complex new products led to the growth of intermediated distribution. Many insurers now distribute their products through independent brokers, captive agents, broker-dealers, bank channels and aggregators and also directly. It is expensive and difficult to effectively recruit, train and retain such a diffuse workforce, which has led to problems catering to existing customers.
Increasingly unfavorable distribution economics: Insurance agents are paid front-loaded commissions, some of which can be as high as the entire first-year premiums, with a small recurring percentage of the premium thereafter. Moreover, each layer adds a percentage commission to the premiums. All of this increases costs for both insurers and consumers. In contrast, mutual fund management fees are only 0.25% for passive funds and 1% to 2% for actively managed funds. In addition, while it is difficult to compare insurance agency fees, it is relatively easy to do so with mutual fund management fees.
New and changing customer preferences and expectations: Unlike their more patient forebears, Gens X and Y – who have increasing economic clout – demand simple products, transparent pricing and relationships, quick delivery and the convenience of dealing with insurers when and where they want. Insurers have been slower than other financial service providers in recognizing and reacting to this need.
A vicious cycle has begun (see graphic below). Insurers claim that, in large part because of product complexity, life insurance is “sold and not bought,” which justifies expensive, intermediated distribution. For many customers, product complexity, the need to deal with an agent, the lack of perceived need for death benefits and cost-of-living benefits make life products unappealing. In contrast, the mutual fund industry has grown tremendously by exploiting a more virtuous cycle: It offers many fairly simple products that often are available for direct purchase at a nominal fee.
Reasons for optimism
Despite the bleak picture we have painted so far, we believe that reinventing life insurance and redesigning its business model are possible. This will require fundamental rethinking of value propositions, product design, distribution and delivery mechanisms and economics. Some of the most prescient insurers are already doing this and focusing on the following to become more attractive to consumers:
From living benefits to well-being benefits: There is no incentive built into life policy calculations for better living habits because there traditionally has been very little data for determining the correlation between these behaviors and life expectancy. However, the advent of wearable devices, real-time monitoring of exercise and activity levels and advances in medical sciences have resulted in a large body of behavioral data and some preliminary results. There are now websites that can help people determine their medical age based on their physical, psychological and physiological behaviors and conditions. We refer to all these factors collectively as “well-being behaviors.” Using the notion of a medical age or similar test as part of the life underwriting process, insurers can create an explicit link between “well-being behaviors” and expected mortality. This link can fundamentally alter the relevance and utility of life insurance by helping policyholders live longer and more healthily and by helping insurers understand and price risk better.
From death benefits to quality of life: Well-being benefits promise to create a more meaningful connection between insurers and policyholders. Rather than just offering benefits when a policyholder dies, insurers can play a more active role in changing policyholder behaviors to delay or help prevent the onset of certain health conditions, promote a better quality of life and even extend insureds’ life spans. This would give insurers the opportunity to engage with policyholders on a daily (or even more frequent) basis to collect behavioral data on their behalf and educate them on more healthy behaviors and lifestyle changes. To encourage sharing of such personal information, insurers could provide policyholders financial (e.g., lower premiums) and non-financial (e.g., health) benefits.
From limited to broad appeal: Life insurance purchases are increasingly limited to the risk-averse, young couples and families with children. Well-being benefits are likely to appeal to additional, typically affluent segments that tend to focus on staying fit and healthy, including both younger and active older customers. For a sector that has had significant challenges attracting young, single, healthy individuals, this represents a great opportunity to expand the life market, as well as attract older customers who may think it is too late to purchase life products.
From long-term to short-term renewable contracts: Typical life insurance contracts are for the long term. However, this is a deterrent to most customers today. Moreover, behavioral economics shows us that individuals are not particularly good at making long-term saving decisions, especially when there may be a high cost (i.e., surrender charges) to recover from a mistake. Therefore, individuals tend to delay purchasing or rationalize not having life insurance at all. With well-being benefits, contract durations can be much shorter — even only one year.
Toward a disintermediated direct model: Prevailing industry sentiment is that “life insurance is sold, not bought,” and by advisers who can educate and advise customers on complex products. However, well-being benefits offer a value proposition that customers can easily understand (e.g., consuming X calories per day and exercising Y hours a day can lead to a decrease in medical age by Z months), as well as much shorter contract durations. Because of their transparency, these products can be sold to the consumer without intermediaries. More health-conscious segments (e.g., the young, professional and wealthy) also are likely to be more technologically savvy and hence prefer direct online/call center distribution. Over time, this model could bring down distribution costs because there will be fewer commissions for intermediaries and fixed costs that can be amortized over a large group of early adopters.
We realize that life insurers tend to be very conservative and skeptical about wholesale re-engineering. They often demand proof that new value propositions can be successful over the long term. However, there are markets in which life insurers have successfully deployed the well-being value proposition and have consistently demonstrated superior performance over the past decade. Moreover, there are clear similarities to what has happened in the U.S. auto insurance market over the last 20 years. Auto insurance has progressively moved from a face-to-face, agency-driven sale to a real-time, telematics-supported, transparent and direct or multi-channel distribution model. As a result, price transparency has increased, products are more standardized, customer switching has increased and real-time information is increasingly informing product pricing and servicing.
Significantly changing products and redesigning a long-established business model is no easy task. The company will have to redefine its value proposition, target individuals through different messages and channels, simplify product design, re-engineer distribution and product economics, change the underwriting process to take into account real-time sensor information and make the intake and policy administration process more straight-through and real-time.
So, where should life insurers start? We propose a four step “LITE” (Learn-Insight-Test-Enhance) approach:
Learn your target segments’ needs. Life insurers should partner with health insurers, wellness companies and manufacturers of wearable sensors to collect data and understand the exercise and dietary behaviors of different customer segments. Some leading health and life insurers have started doing this with group plans, where employers have an incentive to encourage healthy lifestyles among their employees and therefore reduce claims and premiums.
Build the models that can provide insight. Building simulation models of exercise and dietary behavior and their impact on medical age is critical. Collecting data from sensors to calibrate these models and ascertain the efficacy of these models will help insurers determine appropriate underwriting factors.
Test initial hypotheses with behavioral pilots. Building and calibrating simulation models will provide insights into the behavioral interventions that need field testing. Running pilots with target individuals or specific employer groups in a group plan will help test concepts and refine the value proposition.
Enhance and roll out the new value proposition. Based on the results of pilot programs, insurers can refine and enhance the value proposition for specific segments. Then, redesign of the marketing, distribution, product design, new business, operations and servicing can occur with these changes in mind.
It was an event maybe even more anticipated than Neil Armstrong’s Moon shot in 1969. I had never tuned into one before, yet there I was, sitting in my pajamas at 1 a.m., frantically trying to get back onto the streaming podcast that my iPad had just dropped, as millions of other nerds the world over were trying to do the same thing.
Apple’s product announcement event on Sept. 9, 2014, had drawn unprecedented interest. I certainly was expecting Apple to “do it again” – you know, change the world in a subtle yet pervasive way, as I am sure many others struggling to get onto the live webcast also believed would happen. After all, the company that Steve built had done it with iTunes, with the iPhone and with the iPad. And now we all wanted to see if Apple’s first wearable device – the Apple Watch, was going to change our lives in the same way.
Well, we definitely saw something that early morning in September, but the realization of the promise still lies ahead, with the first retail delivery of Apple Watches not until late April 2015. What is certain is that Apple has successfully moved the idea of a connected wrist health and fitness tracker from the niche arena of health-conscious individuals to the mainstream “Joe Public.”
Interestingly, even if Apple falls short this time, it has set in motion a great race with Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Fitbit and many others to fulfill and surpass the vision that we all saw in September. In 2014, world-wide revenue from the sale of wearables was roughly $4.5 billion, but, in 2015, expectations are sky-high. Some experts predict sales will increase as much as three times, fueled in the most part by the Apple Watch.
So why are wearables a good thing for insurance?
The rise of wearable fitness trackers as part of corporate wellness programs has been an emerging trend over the last 10 years. In the past, enlightened companies were giving out Fitbits to help employees track their own fitness. More recently, companies have been trading program participation and fitness data captured from such programs for discounts on their corporate health insurance. For example, Appirio, a San Francisco-based cloud computing consultancy, was able to get a 5% discount ($300,000) off its insurance bill in 2014, while BP America distributed around 16,000 Fitbits to employees as part of an integrated wellness program and claim to have put a brake on corporate healthcare cost increases by slowing them to below the U.S. national growth rate in 2013.
A key ingredient to the success of these programs is the engagement of the members, so that healthy behaviors are encouraged and rewarded. In the BP example, the Fitbit data was easy to “gamify” because of the connected nature of the device. Members competed on a number of challenges, including the “1 million step” challenge, simply by wirelessly “syncing” their devices. Cory Slagle, the spouse of a BP employee, was able to trim $1,200 off his insurance bill through participation in this program — dropping nearly 32 kilograms and 10 pants sizes and reducing his high blood pressure and cholesterol back to normal range in just 12 months.
Vitality of South Africa has recognized the importance of a holistic health and wellness program for well over a decade and has built up an impressive array of statistics, including:
The only trouble is that participation in such programs remains minuscule, with opt-in rates in some cases of just 5% for those eligible to join. Despite the programs’ value propositions being augmented with an affinity network of providers supplying goods and services at a discount for participating members, opt-in rates and persistency remain problematic.
A recent survey by PWC found that, if the connected wearable device was free to the member, then about two-thirds said they would wear a smart watch or fitness band provided by their employer or insurer. Cigna completed a connected wearable pilot in 2013 involving 600 subjects, which indicated 80% of the participants were “more motivated to manage their health at the end of the study than at the beginning.” In the U.S., United Health, Cigna and Humana have already created programs to integrate connected wearables into their policies, to create reward systems based on data sharing. In one innovative program, a “wager” penalty system was found to be three times more effective in motivating healthy behavior than the typical rewards these programs offer. The “wager” involved the member’s signing up to achieve and then maintain reasonable fitness targets over the course of the year to avoid having the cost of the health screening be deducted from their salary.
A key hurdle to overcome with the data generated from connected wearables is privacy and security. Individuals want to know what insights are being generated from the data being collected and want to selectively share with the program based on the perceived value they get back. They also need to know that the data continues to be secure and private once shared. Apple is working this angle through its HealthKit, which is positioned as the data control room for consolidating and securely sharing health- and fitness-related data to selected parties. There are already in-the-field health trials in progress with Stanford and Duke universities that are being powered by HealthKit. Google, Samsung and several others have also launched similar competing frameworks, so the data privacy issue is understood and being addressed by the technology companies offering products in this space.
I want to mention an innovative, data-driven, life insurance program that currently doesn’t use any wearables but easily could. AllLife of South Africa provides affordable life and disability insurance to policyholders who suffer from manageable chronic diseases, such as HIV and diabetes, and who sign up to a strict medical program. Patients get monthly health checks and receive personalized advice on managing their conditions. Data driving the program is pulled directly from medical providers, based on client permission. If a client fails to follow or stops the treatment, then the benefits will be lowered or the policy will be canceled after a warning. The company assesses its risk continuously during the policy period, contrasting with the approach of other companies, which typically only assess risk once, in the beginning. This approach allows AllLife to profitably serve an overlooked market segment and improve the health and outlook for its customers. It plans to cover more than 300,000 HIV patients by 2016.
The video of AllLife’s CEO, Ross Beerman, on YouTube is quite inspirational, and I recommend you see it. He says, “Our clients get healthier just by being our clients.” He also mentions the challenges of building an administration system to support AllLife’s customer-engagement model.
In summary, several intersecting trends have conspired to make this the perfect time to consider the launch of insurance programs and products powered by the new insights from the data being made available through wearable fitness and health trackers:
The whole fitness and healthy lifestyle perspective has entered into the mainstream culture
Devices like the Apple Watch have become fashionable, objects of desire
The data from these devices is easy to capture and share – no forms to fill in
–The data is of clinical quality, in at least some cases, and therefore useful for actuarial models
–Insurers have already started to jump on the idea of “telematics” for humans for risk pricing
–Feedback from this data is able to positively modify behavior to reduce health risks and improve the quality of life for those participating
I am still undecided if I’m going to be up at 1am again, this time outside the Apple Store, waiting for the Apple Watch to go on sale. However, the line outside the Apple Store that night could be very fertile ground for agents selling polices driven by the data these new devices will provide, if only companies act now and get their programs in place.