Tag Archives: mandel

Opioids: A Stumbling Block to WC Outcomes

On a weekly if not daily basis, there are media reports about the growing impacts of addiction to opioids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 78 people a day are dying from the effects of opioid overdose. Families are being systematically destroyed by the multiplicity of effects of this increasingly pervasive problem. In 2014, there were more than 47,000 drug overdose deaths in the U.S., and more than 28,000 of those deaths were caused by opioids (including heroin). The current overdose epidemic is unfortunately only one symptom of a greater problem in the U.S. Our nation consumes 80% of all opioids produced in the world, yet the American population makes up only 5% of the total world population. This strongly implies there is a societal, cultural profile in America that is unlike anywhere in the world, driving such demand and overuse.

As the national “epidemic” of opioid abuse continues to get increasing attention, it’s important to realize the effect it has on employers. Prescription opioid abuse alone cost employers more than $25 billion in 2007. Even if the injured worker never develops an opioid misuse disorder, long-term opioid use is still extremely problematic. The evidence tells us that the effectiveness of chronic opioid therapy to address pain is modest and that effect on function is minimal. In addition, when injured workers are prescribed opioids long-term, the length of the claim increases dramatically and even more so when other addictive medications like benzodiazepines (alprazolam, lorazepam) are prescribed. Perhaps the most troubling statistic of all: 60% of injured workers on opioids 90 days post-injury will still be on opioids at five years.

See also: Potential Key to Tackling Opioid Issues

Workers’ compensation stakeholders are increasing efforts to call more attention to the use of these potent pain-relieving drugs by injured workers. In the highly complex and diverse field of workers’ compensation, entities from state governments to insurers and other workers’ compensation stakeholders are stepping up to address the issues and impacts of opioid use by injured workers in varying degrees through a myriad of methods.

Most work-related injuries involve the musculoskeletal system, and doctors increasingly prescribe short- and long-term opioids to address even minor to modest pain despite broad medical recommendations against long-term use. Because of the prevalence of back injuries in the workplace, opioids are increasingly becoming the treatment of choice for what often starts as a short-term treatment, but frequently becomes long-term, with the likelihood of addiction occurring before treatment is completed.

Claims professionals should understand that there are many variations of opioids, including fentanyl; morphine; codeine; hydrocodone (Vicodin, Lortab); methadone; oxycodone, (Percocet, OxyContin); hydromorphone (Dilaudid) – each with different levels of potency. For example, fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than heroin. No wonder addiction is so often the result.

Paul Peak, PharmD, assistant vice president of clinical pharmacy at Sedgwick, notes that opioids act on receptors in the brain; therefore, it’s expected that certain changes will occur over time as use continues. Each one of us would realize both opioid dependence (this means withdrawal symptoms occur when the drug is stopped) and opioid tolerance (this means more drug is needed to get the same effect as use continues) if we were to take opioids consistently for weeks or months. In many cases, patients who are prescribed opioids chronically will experience a worsening of pain that is actually caused by the opioids themselves.

Because opioids have these profound effects on our brains, engaging injured workers in their own recovery is a best-claim practice, and it is critical to achieving the best outcomes. This should begin early, and a key part of the process includes encouraging workers to ask their doctors questions when they are being treated with drugs for pain. Some of these questions should include:

  • Is this prescription for pain medicine an opioid?

Doctors should educate patients on what an opioid is and how to use it safely to relieve pain.

  • What are some of the potential adverse effects of opioids?

Opioids can affect breathing and should be used with great caution in patients with respiratory issues. They most often cause moderate to severe constipation. Even short-term use can decrease sleep quality and impair one’s ability while driving.

  • Where can I safely dispose of remaining pills?

To protect others from potential misuse, any excess supply should not be saved for later use. Injured workers should be advised not to give them to friends or family, and to dispose of unused pills appropriately. States often provide disposal options/locations for opioids to reduce the chance of leftovers getting into the hands of unintended users. In addition, CDC guidelines now recommend patients are only given a three-day or seven-day supply of opioids, and some states are now putting laws in place following this recommendation.

  • Am I at risk for abuse?

Providers can use risk assessments to help determine those people at greatest risk for abusing opioids if prescribed. Peak notes that opioids do have some benefit in the acute phase post-injury, say within four to six weeks after injury. However, when improvement doesn’t occur in this time frame, continuing use of opioids is not appropriate, as addiction becomes increasingly assured.

These are among the key questions for treating physicians that injured workers should ask. While engagement is a vital part of patient accountability, physician education is even more critical. Peak explains that more is expected of doctors because they are providing the care. Patients and physicians working together in a close relationship is key.

Injured workers and family members should talk to the treating physician immediately if they see signs of addiction or dependence. There are some possible warning signs of addiction, such as craving the pain pills without pain or when pain is less severe, requesting early refills or stockpiling medication, taking more pills at one time or taking them more often than prescribed, or going to multiple prescribers for opioids or other controlled substances. Early detection can help stop the destructive cycle of addiction before it becomes too powerful to resist. Injured workers can also contact an addiction counseling organization.

A note of caution for all whose accountabilities touch this area of treatment – terminating prescription opioids “cold turkey” can be dangerous and even fatal. Throughout the life of the claim and at the end of the day for injured workers using opioids, the relationship with their doctors will be the primary factor in determining how the treatment will end and the outcome that is achieved.

Strategies for the claims team

So where does all this leave claims professionals who want to see injured workers recover successfully and appropriately from their workplace injuries?

See also: Opioids Are the Opiates of the Masses  

Claims professionals must define a strategy for identifying and then monitoring physician prescribing patterns and the specific use patterns in each case. Some of the tactics that should be considered include:

  • Leveraging pharmacy utilization review services
  • Directing patients to doctors who won’t overprescribe opioids; and those who use prescription drug monitoring programs and tools, which are available in most states
  • Engaging nurse case managers early and regularly; their involvement and intervention can help deter addiction; nurses can advocate for other more clinically appropriate options and advocate for best practices including risk assessments, opioid contracts, pill counts and random drug screens
  • Ensuring that injured workers are getting prescriptions through pharmacy benefit management networks
  • Leveraging fraud and investigative resources that are often useful in uncovering underlying, unrelated patterns of behavior that would indicate a propensity for opioid abuse
  • Considering the cost of opioids versus alternatives; while many alternate treatments are more expensive on the front end, certain drugs may be much more expensive in the long term, especially if they lead to addiction
  • Addressing the opioid issue well before case settlement; as with most longer-term open claims scenarios, those with opioid use will only produce worse outcomes and get more expensive over time without appropriate early interventions

Continued vigilance by claims professionals can enable and facilitate a better result at closure and avoid a lot of potential pain for the injured worker along the recovery path.

In the Weeds on Marijuana and WC

It’s a topic that gets much buzz – how will the cloud of legislation surrounding recreational and medical marijuana use affect businesses, specifically when it comes to compensability for workers’ compensation? I am sure you have all caught up on news about additional states voting to legalize marijuana for medical use and adult recreational use during the November 2016 election. Let’s take a look at those changes, as well as what action they may prompt to shake up the state and federal status quo.

After receiving certified results of a state recount, 2016 closed with Maine Gov. Paul LePage issuing a proclamation of the Referendum Question 1 vote that allows recreational use of marijuana by those at least 21 years of age. Maine joins Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia in voting to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. Arizona was the only state where voters rejected a legalization measure during the November election.

With the passage of ballot initiatives in Arkansas, Florida and North Dakota, medical marijuana is now legal in 28 states and the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico.

An additional 17 states have laws that only allow the use of “low THC, high cannabidiol (CBD)” products for specified medical conditions. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides a summary of those state laws here.

Stickiness in the states

Despite the increase in the number of states that have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, the impact on workers’ compensation claims was limited until about three years ago.

In 2014, New Mexico became the first state to have a state appellate court order a workers’ compensation insurance carrier to provide reimbursement to an injured worker for medical marijuana. The New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Administration began requiring employers and insurers to reimburse injured workers when the state’s healthcare provider fee schedule took effect Jan. 1, 2016. The trend continues.

In two recent decisions, the Appellate Division of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed two different administrative law judge (ALJ) awards reimbursing workers for their medical marijuana expenses, Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co. and Noll v. Lepage Bakeries.

See also: Marijuana and Workers’ Comp  

On Dec. 15, 2016, an administrative law judge in New Jersey issued an order in Watson v. 84 Lumber requiring reimbursement of an injured worker for medical marijuana payment. It should be noted that this is a division level case, so this decision is not binding on other New Jersey courts. The case is not being appealed.

It is noteworthy that in each of the above cases:

  • Marijuana was recommended by physicians only after other treatment regimens for chronic pain were attempted without success, and
  • These judges were not persuaded by the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Federal haze

While there has been some activity on the federal side over the past year, it has not changed the fact that marijuana, even for medicinal use, violates federal law.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law because it is listed under Schedule I in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), along with other drugs such as heroin. Schedule I substances are illegal to distribute, prescribe, purchase or use outside of medical research due to “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.” As a result of this status, physicians recommend the use of marijuana instead of prescribing it.

On July 19, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denied two petitions to reclassify marijuana, concluding that it continues to meet the criteria for control under Schedule I because:

  • Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. This is based on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) evaluation and additional data gathered by DEA.
  • Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. Using an established five-part test, it was determined that marijuana has no “currently accepted medical use” because, as detailed in HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving its effectiveness; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.
  • Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication.

Interestingly, the DEA noted that marijuana could not be placed in a schedule less restrictive than Schedule II in view of U.S. obligations under international drug control treaties.

Although marijuana is not being reclassified at this time, on Aug. 11, 2016 the DEA announced a policy change meant to increase research by expanding the number of DEA-registered facilities allowed to grow and distribute marijuana for FDA-authorized research purposes.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) marijuana enforcement policy is to allow states to create their own “strong, state-based enforcement efforts,” but DOJ reserves its right to challenge the states’ legalization laws at any time necessary.

Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2016 that in Section 542 restricts federal law enforcement activity in states that allow medical marijuana cultivation, distribution and use. Now that voters in half of the states have voted for legalization of medical marijuana, will Congress take action to change its scheduling?

The new administration may change the broad leeway states have been given to regulate marijuana usage and sales.

  • President Trump has expressed varying views regarding medical and recreational marijuana over the years.
  • Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions, a former federal prosecutor, has expressed opposition to medical and recreational marijuana.
  • Tom Price, a physician and nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, has also been a vocal opponent of legalization.

If the conflict between federal and state law is not resolved politically, the U.S. Supreme Court may have the last word. The high court last weighed in on marijuana in 2005. In an unsigned opinion issued March 2016, the high court refused to hear a request from Nebraska and Oklahoma to declare Colorado’s legalization of marijuana unconstitutional because it is against federal law and therefore violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which states federal law trumps state laws. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. Will President Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court make a difference?

See also: How to Think About Marijuana and Work  

Yes, the future of federal marijuana policy and enforcement remains hazy. What is clear is that employers contending with this complex and rapidly changing issue must understand the laws and relevant legal decisions pertaining to marijuana in each of the states where their business operates.

In such an uncertain time, we will continue to provide updates and perspective. We recommend seeking legal assistance to develop a sound company policy addressing the use and reimbursement of medical marijuana for on-the-job injuries.

Industry Trends for 2017

Every day, our colleagues take care of people facing uncertain situations. Whether they have a workplace injury, need time away for the birth of a child, experience a medical situation that will lead to time off, are in an auto accident or suffer product or property damage, we are here to let them know that it’s going to be okay.

Part of our job in caring for these people is to simplify and clarify the process and to explain what consumers can expect. An evolving system, shifting regulations, rapidly advancing technology and economic uncertainties add to the complexities they face. Key areas in the spotlight for the coming year include good health empowerments, regulation transformations, consumer-centric progressions, risk circumventions and tech modernisms.

We will continue to offer our insights as we monitor the following business advancements and challenges throughout 2017:

Good health empowerments

Accessing care via technology

Technology advancements will continue to influence healthcare delivery. Connecting a specific injury or condition with a quality provider in a virtual setting for more immediate treatment will make these advancements more readily acceptable and increase demand.

Balancing the scale of pain management

Increasing opioid addiction and the legalization of medical marijuana will ensure pain management remains at the forefront of industry discussions. Increased education about the dangers of opioid abuse, the availability of marijuana as a medical alternative and the introduction of alternative pain management techniques will continue to dominate the conversation.

Supporting mental health initiatives

The pressures to reduce stigma and strengthen initiatives aimed at psychosocial issues and behavioral health will continue to mount. The linkage between absence at the workplace and mental health will continue to be highlighted.

See also: 10 Insurance Questions for 2017  

Regulation transformations

Compliance enforcement

Employers will continue to manage compliance-related issues as they respond to changes in the ADA/ADAAA, FMLA and other federal and state laws affecting our industry. Political reorganization and shifting administrative priorities may also create regulatory shifts for OSHA and the EEOC.

Navigating regulatory changes

Assessing the impact of provisions introduced by newly elected officials from the federal and state level in the areas of healthcare, workers’ compensation and parental leave will be at the forefront. It will be necessary to monitor newly introduced legislation in key states such as California, New York and Florida to determine how best to respond and comply with new regulations.

Workers’ compensation strategies

Primary steps among industry leaders include finding common ground and developing strategies focused on benefiting all key stakeholders. Those who favor a federal workers’ compensation option point to inconsistent benefits, rules and regulations among the states. Others believe the state systems have proven to be effective and simply need to be updated. By understanding what should be changed or replicated, legislators can work to revitalize workers’ compensation and help ensure that it continues to fulfill its original purpose.

Consumer-centric progressions

Enhancing the claims experience

The current claims paradigm will continue to shift and be characterized by an increasing focus on the consumer. The needs of injured or ill employees and other consumers will assume center stage. Claims expectations will be established early on; information and resources to support the consumers’ needs will become more readily available; and care and concern will drive and transform the claims experience.

Bridging benefit models

Integrated benefit plans have long been discussed, but not widely implemented. Pushing the boundary between various benefit providers, administrators, payers and employers through advanced online platforms could be at the forefront of many discussions. In addition to technology advancements, there is a renewed health, wellness and compliance mindset that is fostering increased interest in integration.

On-demand consumerism

Consumer and customer expectations are on the rise, and providing an immediate response has become expected in many industries. Increased connectivity and immediate communication are now the standard. In the past, it was enough to provide claim and case details through push technology, seamless payment processing and direct bank deposits. Now, the gold standard is to provide a consumer-focused experience where access to resources and data are a click away. With enhanced consumer engagement comes faster resolution, reduced litigation and reallocation of resources to focus on more complex matters.

Risk circumventions

Crisis plans

Building resiliency through new predictive models in pre-catastrophic events and using new technologies in post-disaster recoveries is on the mind of many employers. Whether the emergency is natural or man-made, cyber- or product-related or a supply chain interruption, having the right pre-catastrophe plan in place continues to be a discussion among employers, brokers, carriers and payers.

Geo risks

More organizations are likely to consider an enterprise-wide response to growing political, economic and global risks as customer markets expand. There is also an increasing need to address travel risks for employees servicing global customers on a short-term or interim basis, and ensure preparedness plans are in place.

Talent strategies

There continues to be a need to attract, train and retain new talent as baby boomers enter retirement years. Employers must learn how to accommodate multiple generations with varied preferences – from telecommuting to technology – and ensure successful integration with the existing workforce. Creating strategies and using new tools for knowledge sharing will help enhance communication and understanding.

See also: 2017 Priorities for Innovation, Automation  

Tech modernisms

Artificial and emotional intelligence

The rapid advancement of technology has led to conversations and interest in artificial and emotional intelligence. Developments in these areas and others such as new connected health technologies, Internet of Things, drones, driverless cars and services using virtual technology are contributing to privacy law and ethical guideline debates.

Explosion in actionable data

With today’s technology advancements and increasing number of connected devices come an explosion in actionable data, creating a need for more data miners. There is a growing demand for data scientists and engineers who can interpret actionable information. The use and expectation of having more refined predictive analytics to drive decisions will continue to increase and underscore the need for this specialized talent. Deciphering actionable insights as more data pours in from various connected devices will continue to be an important topic of discussion.

Self-service innovations

Having been introduced in the banking and airlines industries early on, consumer self-service options are becoming increasingly popular in the risk and benefits industry. Consumers of claims services are seeking the same user experiences that they have become accustomed to in the B2C world, including instant information access, connectivity to tech support and two-way communication when and how they want it.

You can find the original report here.

Thought Leader in Action: Chris Mandel

Back in the ’70s, Chris Mandel quite literally stumbled into insurance, as a result of a racketball injury at Virginia Polytech Institute when he suffered a detached retina. After two months of lying flat in a hospital bed, he had to forego his post-graduate job in retail management and start looking for employment in D.C. — he began an unexpected career in managing claims at Liberty Mutual.

Mandel excelled in his job but realized a career in claims management wasn’t what he wanted. So, in the early ’80s, he moved to Marsh brokerage for five years and set up a risk management program for an AT&T spinoff that evolved into what is now Verizon. He then left Marsh to be Verizon’s first risk manager — building its program from scratch.

By the ’90s, he landed in several top corporate risk management positions at the American Red Cross, Pepsico/KFC and Triton Global Restaurants (YUM Brands). Mandel also began his six-year volunteer stint as the president of RIMS (1998-2004), after serving in many different key RIMS leadership roles. He earned an MBA in finance from George Mason University along the way.

By 2001, Mandel was on several advisory boards (i.e. Zurich, AIG, FM Global and Liberty Mutual), before making a career and geographic move to the USAA Group in San Antonio. There, he built an enterprise risk management (ERM) program because he saw a “broken traditional approach” to risk management. After nearly 10 years of developing an ERM program lauded in the industry (including by AM Best, Moody’s and S&P), Mandel was promoted at USAA to head of enterprise risk management, as well as president and vice chair of Enterprise Indemnity, a USAA commercial insurance subsidiary. While at USAA, he was recognized as Business Insurance’s Risk Manager of the Year (2004).

His dream was to be a corporate chief risk officer, but he saw that title more often going to “quants,” (like actuaries), rather than risk professionals. So, as a well-known and sought-out industry spokesperson and visionary, Mandel moved on from USAA in 2010 to found a Nashville-based risk management consulting group, then-called rPM3 Solutions, which holds a patent on a game-changing enterprise risk measurement methodology. Then, in 2013, he moved to Sedgwick as a senior vice president. He is responsible for conducting scholarly research, driving innovation, managing industry relations and forging new business partnerships.

In early 2016, he was appointed director of the newly formed Sedgwick Institute, which is an extension of the firm’s commitment to delivering innovative business solutions to Sedgwick’s clients and business partners — as well as the whole insurance industry. In 2016, Mandel was awarded RIMS’ distinguished Goodell Award (see video below).

When asked what he sees as critical strengths for someone entering risk management, Mandel said: “I try to hire managers who can think strategically and who can convince C-suiters and boards of the value of being resilient in addressing a company’s risk profile. Progressive leaders understand the strategy to leverage risk for value.”

A holistic approach, as he describes it, “seeks a vantage point that can assess both the upside and downside of all foreseeable risks.” He believes true innovation evolves from a company’s risk-taking. “It’s not so much identifying what or when adversity is going to happen, it’s how a company responds to risk in order to minimize disruption,” he said.

In assessing his personal strengths and accomplishments, Mandel feels that a person needs to be “emotionally intelligent” — able to adapt to different people in organizations. He doesn’t consider himself a people person but says he learned to be one the hard way. He advises: “Team spirit is putting other people first and helping them succeed. … Admit your failures and build trustworthiness from your mistakes.”

Besides writing, teaching, speaking and (still) playing racketball, he serves an active role as an advisory board member of Insurance Thought Leadership. He and his wife also serve in church ministries, where he often plays guitar alongside his grown children, who are ordained ministers. Mandel said, “I’m blessed by a Creator who’s had my back.”

How to Use Risk Maturity Models

Over the last 10 years of the “risk leader” portion of my career, as the head of enterprise risk management at USAA (2001-10), as well as during my subsequent work as an ERM consultant, I was challenged by several questions that affect risk management results and, by extension, ultimate success. All fell under the header of “risk management maturity,” and focusing on it can provide huge benefits to you and to your organization.

To start, we need to get two things straight. First, how are you defining “risk,” and have you driven a consensus among key stakeholders about that definition? Second, which risks are you going to manage, and where on the loss curve do they fall?

These questions may sound simple, but the reality is that many risk leaders have responsibilities for only a portion of the risks that organizations face — often, only the insurable risks. If that’s the case, you have your answer to both questions nailed.

See Also: How to Develop Risk Maturity

If, on the other hand, you are a risk leader with broader accountability for more or all risks (via enterprise risk management, or ERM) that could affect an organization (both negatively and positively), then the first question — “how does your firm define risk?” — requires clear definition. The most commonly accepted definition of risk is “uncertainty.” I like this simple definition, and it captures the most central element of concern. However, the real challenge remains the question about the level of uncertainty (aka frequency/likelihood). To many, even more important is the level of impact or severity. My favorite chart to help illustrate this concept is one where the “tail” of the loss distribution represents where the proverbial “black swans” live.

A typical loss curve has as its peak the expected level of loss, and the black swan sits out on the tail of this curve, where the x-axis is impact of severity of loss and the y-axis is the frequency or likelihood of loss. While many hazard-focused leaders put their attention on risks at expected level or to the left along the x-axis where certainty of loss rises, the challenge is where in this region of the curve to the right should one be managing? While the possibility of loss becomes increasingly remote as you move out toward the tail of the curve, the impact of events become more destructive. Key questions that must be answered include:

  • Do we care more about likelihood or impact, or are they equal?
  • What level of investigation do we apply to risks that are remotely likely?
  • How do we apply limited resources to risks that are remotely likely?
  • Do we have a consensus among key stakeholders as to what risks we should focus on and how?
  • Do have or need a process to manage emerging risks?
  • Do we have a consensus on and clear understanding of how we define risk in our organization?

These issues are the starting point to the risk management maturity question, which, if handled well, facilitates organizational success. From these answers, you can chart your course for your firm. The answers will define the process elements of maturity. But we need to define what risk maturity is to track progress toward it and to ensure that stakeholders are aligned around the chosen components.

The various components among the numerous risk maturity models tend to overlap considerably. Here’s one generic set of attributes of maturity:

  • Risk is managed to specifically defined appetite and tolerances
  • There is management support for the defined risk culture and direct ties to the corporate culture
  • A disciplined risk process is aligned with other functional areas
  • There is a process for uncovering the unknown or poorly understood risks
  • Risk is effectively analyzed and measured both quantitatively and qualitatively
  • There is collaboration on a resilient and sustainable enterprise

The first, and I think most thoroughly developed, model comes from the Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS). It was developed some 10 years ago or so but remains in my opinion a simple yet comprehensive view of the seven most important factors that inform risk maturity and that, when well implemented, should drive an effective approach to managing any risk within your purview.

The components of the RIMS model include a focus on:

  • The degree to which an enterprise-wide approach is supported by executive management and is aligned with other relevant functions
  • The degree to which repeatable and scalable process is integrated in the business and culture
  • The degree of accountability for managing risk to a detailed appetite and tolerance strategy
  • The degree of discipline applied to using the elements of good root-cause analysis
  • The degree to which a robust emerging risk process is used to uncover uncertainties to achieving goals
  • The degree to which the vision and strategy are executed considering risk and risk management
  • The degree to which resiliency and sustainability are integrated between operational planning and risk process

As with all risk management strategies (no two of which that I’ve seen are exactly the same), there is no one way to accomplish maturity. Every risk leader needs to do for her organization what the organization needs and will support.

Another maturity model that is worthy of note is the Aon model. Like RIMS’ model, it enables multiple levels of maturity and methodology for charting progress toward an ideal state. Characteristics of the Aon model include:

  • Ensuring the board understands and is committed to the risk strategy
  • Establishing effective risk communications
  • Emphasizing the ties among culture, engagement and accountability
  • Having stakeholder participation in risk management activities
  • Using risk information for decision making
  • Demonstrating value

This is not to say that the RIMS model ignores these issues. There is simply a different emphasis.

Also noteworthy is Protiviti’s perspective on the board of directors’ accountability for risk oversight. A few highlights include:

  • An emphasis on the risks that matter most
  • Alignment between policies and processes
  • Effective education and use of people and their place in the organization
  • Assumptions that are supportable and understood
  • The board’s knowledge of the right questions to ask
  • Focus on understanding the relationship to capability maturity frameworks

Certainly, the good governance of organizations is critical, and the board’s role is paramount. If the board is engaged and accountable for ensuring that its risk oversight is effective, the strategy is likely to be executed successfully and, by inference, risk will have been effectively managed, as well.

See Also: How to Link Risk and Strategy

To complete the foundation for the business case for using a risk maturity model to track progress, consider these key points:

  • There is no one right approach; each organization must chart its own course aligned with its culture and priorities
  • Risk must be treated as an integral aspect of strategy
  • There must be a focus on additive value, as with all corporate processes
  • Risk maturity has produced documented valuation premium for studied users

With the effective use of risk maturity models, you should be able to better chart your risk evolution journey, and how a good maturity strategy related to corporate strategy and priorities is the ultimate nexus for success. Risk and risk management should drive performance results and what remains to be done to achieve longer-term aspirations. This approach to managing your risk strategy should allow you to:

  • Translate the component of risk maturity into a successful ERM journey
  • Refer to ERM results and impacts achieved by others to buttress your efforts
  • Understand key tactics to exploit and pitfalls to avoid as you perfect your risk management strategy.

Using a risk maturity model will, if nothing else, provide the guard-rails and discipline that may otherwise be missing from your current attempts to make a difference in the success of your enterprise.