Tag Archives: OEM

IoT: Collaboration Is Now Mandatory

The definition of collaboration is the action of working with someone to produce or create something. That seems far too simplistic a way to describe the many types of collaboration already at work in the insurance industry and moreover does not begin to convey the looming and enormous demand for working together that will be required for success in implementing the Insurance Internet of Things (IoT).

Historically, the insurance industry has had to use a wide variety of collaboration tools to succeed as data, information, consumer behavior, products and regulations changed with increasing velocity. These tools included e-mail, texting, instant messaging, content management systems, enterprise social platforms and formal enterprise collaboration software. Insurers have even begun to leverage the use of digital technology and web-based collaboration tools such as Slack to empower employees, enhance user experiences, improve internal communication and strengthen agent and broker relationships.

See also: Insurance and the Internet of Things  

Looking beyond insurance companies themselves, we note the emergence of insurtech accelerators and incubators, both independent and captive. What is becoming apparent is that there is a convergence taking place between these entrepreneurial startups and the traditional carriers, sparking collaboration between the new, small and fast market entrants with the old, big and slow incumbents. Much more of this kind of collaboration will be required for the insurance industry to survive and thrive in tomorrow’s world.

New forms of collaboration are emerging in the insurance ecosystem, some more formal than others. Strategic alliances and partnerships are being announced daily, as are vendor-vendor and carrier-carrier arrangements. Recent examples are plentiful; CoreLogic joined the Guidewire PartnerConnect program to deliver more accurate property risk pricing and residential estimating more efficiently to Guidewire’s property insurance customer base, and Insurity collaborated with Allstate Business Insurance to quickly deliver a new self-service quoting app with convenient data pre-fill.

Co-opetition is a more innovative form of collaboration that has been gaining traction. Former competitors work together to leverage a common, defined opportunity that yields better results for each company than either could have achieved on its own. In the world of insurance IoT, of which the connected car is a major subset, we increasingly see original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) participating in programs with auto insurers with telematics data exchanges and with each other in developing vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication standards.

In other areas of insurance IoT, we are seeing a rapidly increasing number of health and property insurtech partnership announcements with insurers delivering innovative new risk-management products and services to consumers (e.g. Vitality-John Hancock, Roost-Liberty Mutual, True Motion-Progressive, etc.).

As the number of connected things expands exponentially, so, too, will the frequency and velocity of data generated by these sensors and devices. The ability to receive, normalize, manage and use all of this digital data will quickly exceed the capacity and expertise of even the largest insurers, so collaboration with a new generation of information management and data science providers will be mandatory.

See also: 12 Issues Inhibiting the Internet of Things  

For insurers and others to successfully navigate this burgeoning ecosystem, access to relevant knowledge and competitive information will also be mandatory, and one effective way to gain these insights is participation in subject-specific industry conferences where expert speakers and industry thought leaders share their experiences and insights. One such event is the Insurance IoT USA Summit taking place in Chicago on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1.

So critical will be effective collaboration in the future that it is conceivable that formal courses, certifications and degrees in collaboration will be offered by business schools in response to the exploding demand for this set of business skills and expertise driven by IoT proliferation and adoption. In any event, participants in the insurance ecosystem that best master the art of collaboration are sure to be the market leaders of the IoT future.

Car Makers, Insurers: Becoming Partners?

When “Car and Driver” magazine debuted more than 60 years ago (originally titled Sports Cars Illustrated), nobody could have envisioned the approaching changes that would transform life as we knew it – including all things automotive and consumer. Today, the expression “car and driver” suggests a completely different meaning as automobiles are becoming “driven” by software and technology and their owners are becoming passengers – and increasingly we are riding in vehicles we don’t even own but rather share or rent.

But while we await our future, current innovations in vehicle and consumer technologies have already emerged to create a transition period full of complex challenges and issues accompanied by potentially significant opportunities for all participants. While much attention is being paid to the emergence of telematics and the connected car, and seemingly endless amounts of investment capital are flowing to the many innovative and promising startups sprouting in this fertile global environment, something even more consequential is also beginning to evolve. Auto insurers and auto makers – once basically adversaries – are beginning to cooperate around many of the related opportunities.  

See also: 3 Technology Trends Worth Watching  

These two industries, which serve and share a common customer base, have traditionally been wary of one another because they had so many conflicting interests. Carriers insure the people who drive the cars that OEMs make, and, when accidents inevitably occur, liability is frequently brought into question to protect the interests of one from the other. In addition, franchised new car dealers, upon whose success OEMs depend for sales and vehicle distribution, earn significant revenues from selling a variety of related products and services – including warranties and insurance, another area of potential conflict. Finally, when insured vehicles end up in collision repair shops as a result of accidents (which happens more than 20 million times a year), insurance carriers do their best to manage repair costs by encouraging these shops to find and use less expensive parts, which costs OEMs and their franchised new car dealers significant parts sales revenues. And, at a higher level, insurers and OEMs value and fiercely protect their customer relationships and have no interest in sharing them with others.   

However, these dynamics are quickly changing as new mobile technologies are rapidly transforming consumer behavior and expectations and as new connected car and automated driver assist technologies begin to present significant new challenges as well as exciting opportunities to both auto insurers and OEMs. It is far from a given that today’s auto market share leaders will enjoy similar shares of future autonomous vehicle sales, and it is equally uncertain as to by whom and how these vehicles will be insured.

Tesla is positioning itself to do both. And so the ancient proverb that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to apply very well here. Evidence of insurer/OEM partnerships, both direct and indirect, is plentiful and growing daily.

Insurer/OEM connected car partnerships date back to as early as 2012 and include State Farm/Ford, Progressive/GM OnStar, Allstate/GM OnStar and Nissan/Liberty Mutual. In 2015, Ford conducted a “Data Driven Insurance” pilot program that provided participating drivers with their driver history for use in obtaining auto insurance. In 2017, GM OnStar began offering its subscribers 10% discounts on auto insurance from participating carriers including National General, 21st Century, Liberty Mutual, State Farm and Plymouth Rock.  

And data and analytics information providers Verisk and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which collect data and analytics solutions for use by the insurance industry, have both recently launched telematics data exchanges with OEM participants including GM and Mitsubishi. Consenting connected-car owners have the option to contribute their driving data and seamlessly take advantage of insurers’ usage-based insurance (UBI) programs designed to reward them for how they drive.

Other innovative telematics data models include BMW CarData, which allows owners to share customized data with pre-approved third-parties such as insurers, auto repair shops and other automotive service providers. Drivers can obtain custom insurance coverage based on their exact number of miles driven while repair shops could automatically order parts in advance of service appointments.

For carriers, existing data pools and analytics tools will become less useful than real-time data streaming from connected cars coupled with increased proficiency in predictive modeling and machine learning. OEM/insurer partnerships can enable both parties to share the costs and co-develop big data mining technologies and advanced analytics methodologies to benefit their respective businesses. Insurers can improve underwriting and claims processes while OEMs can improve vehicle safety, design and performance.

Data provided by connected-car devices could be used to initiate claims processing, order damaged parts, triage required collision repair and manage other third-party services (e.g. towing, rental, appraisal) and record accident dynamics as well as occupant placement. OEM/insurer partnerships sharing this data could lead to better claims service and satisfaction and more reliable injury claim evaluation. OEMs could use this data to improve vehicle and occupant safety and could ensure that repairs are performed at properly certified collision repairers and that appropriate parts are used in the repair.

OEMs and insurers can partner to offer customers innovative customer experiences, becoming primary points of contact for risk prevention and new hybrid insurance products as well as dealer parts, service and sales opportunities. New revenue sources for both parties could include Intelligent GPS for theft recovery, real-time notifications of traffic and other travel inconveniences, intelligent parking, location-based services, safety and remote maintenance services. Cost duplication from currently overlapping services such as roadside assistance and towing could be eliminated by single-sourcing such services.

See also: The Evolution in Self-Driving Vehicles  

To be sure, other telematics data business models have emerged that could threaten OEM/insurer partnerships.  In June 2017, BMW and IBM announced the integration of the BMW CarData network with an IBM cloud computing platform that could help as many as 8.5 million German drivers who grant permission to diagnose and repair problems save on car insurance, and take advantage of other third-party services. IBM can also collect data from other OEMs over time, and BMW plans to expand the program to other markets. And technology companies, including Automatics Labs and Otonomo, are seeking consumer consent to sell data through their exchange platforms.

While we await the day that self-driving vehicles dominate our roadways – which will no doubt make many of these driver data initiatives basically irrelevant – we have the most pragmatic of all reasons why OEM/insurer partnerships make sense. Participants can mitigate their risk and reduce their investments in these costly but still relatively short-term opportunities as they position their companies for the as-yet-undefined future of transportation and insurance.

The Evolution in Self-Driving Vehicles

Although driverless cars will become mainstream in more than a decade, there are certain considerations that insurance executives should start thinking about now. We will continue to explore this evolving topic and suggest ways insurers can position themselves to take advantage of the enormous disruption that autonomous technology will cause to the business of risk. We will provide our perspectives on how the risks involved in transportation will be transformed, how financial responsibility will be assigned and how insurance products will need to be adapted – and how the key issues might be influenced by regulators and legislators.

In our view, insurers will face these five key challenges.

Challenge 1: What risks will remain – and will new ones arise?

A primary aim of autonomous technology is to reduce the number of traffic accidents, and the public’s and regulators’ expectations will be very high. We will examine what the residual risk of collisions could be and how the cost of injuries and repairs could change. We will offer our view on how new technologies will improve reporting of claims and change the potential for fraud.

At the same time, new risks will emerge, such as cyber attacks, software bugs and control failures. What will the exposure to systemic risks mean for insurability?

See also: Future of Self-Driving Cars (Infographic)

Challenge 2: Who is the customer, and how will we do business with that customer?

Who is liable for risk will be the key question, especially if a high proportion of remaining accidents will be attributable to failures in control software and systems. We will consider how original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and manufacturers could become liable for claims in the future, and whether they can shift the legal or financial burden to others in the supply chain. For example, could vehicle end users be required to purchase policies to indemnify OEMs, or will the cost of product liability insurance be passed to new vehicle purchasers? If transportation is consumed on a pay-per-use basis, could insurance be wrapped into the charge?

Whatever the outcome, the current insurer-consumer relationship – along with marketing, sales and distribution methods – will be fundamentally altered. Retaining control over this relationship will be essential if insurers are to avoid becoming redundant or marginalized by other players.

Challenge 3: How will the insurance product have to change?

Changes in liability and use will necessitate major revisions to the insurance products to meet the market’s needs. We will examine how autonomous products can be developed and configured to cover gray areas of liability and negligence resulting from the overlap between human and computer control. Would product tiers correspond to the “one-to-five” scale of the vehicle’s automation capability? Pay-per-use (versus “blanket” cover) could imply that short-term rather than annual renewable policies would become the norm – and lessons learned from current ride-sharing products could be employed. How will regulation affect or keep pace with the new products? Considerations for commercial lines might be significantly different when the rate of adoption is expected to increase the fastest and different technologies and enhanced safety overrides could be economical to deploy.

Challenge 4: How will we price it – and can it still be profitable?

The relative importance of different rating factors in pricing will change markedly. First, analysis of risk would depend primarily on the degree of self-driving versus manual control. For autonomous operation, pricing would be based on assessing the vehicle’s level of automation in terms of its technology, quality of implementation and anticipated types of driving. There are nuances between manufacturers even for relatively basic, standardized technologies, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB). For example, fuller automation capability may vary depending on the OEM, sensor quality and software used. How would data on the technical capability and usage statistics be collected? Could this be centralized in some way and retrieved transparently by insurers, rather than having to be disclosed?

The economics of the product will also be very different given a much reduced number of claims, and we will examine the speed of change, the resulting size of the market over time and the return on capital it might sustain compared with the present. Key questions will be to what extent this might be offset by increased overall demand for transportation, given the surge in accessibility of car transportation combined with the anticipated benefits to congestion. Could any alternative, discretionary coverages become more relevant?

Challenge 5: What influence will legislators have?

A large number of agencies are managing pilot programs, and their policies will have a major influence by encouraging or inhibiting adoption in each different country. We will give an overview of the current progress in each jurisdiction and highlight leading models that we foresee will become the templates for broader rollout.

Starting from an overview of the applicability of current insurance legislation to autonomous vehicle operation, we will review how legislation is likely to guide the cover and scope of autonomous insurance products in the future and the likely compulsory minimum cover requirements.

See also: Of Robots, Self-Driving Cars and Insurance  

Conclusion

As we have seen, autonomous vehicles will revolutionize mobility and inevitably automobile insurance. While we cannot predict the pace of these changes, we encourage insurers to prepare accordingly.

The lessons from other industries are stark. Companies content to wait and see, or worse – are oblivious to the threat until it is too late – could share the familiar fate of other household names that have been left behind by a wave of new technology.

In considering the next steps, insurers should analyze their business portfolios and strategies to understand their exposure to these changes. They should conduct what-if scenario analysis to model potential effect and evaluate what actions will be required to transform their organizations in parallel with various levels of car automation.

Early innovators are likely to generate substantial benefit for their businesses. To be successful in this space, insurers will need to aim for agile innovation and improve the way they use increasing volumes of data. They should also explore new collaborative models to shape a connected automotive ecosystem that will include insurers, auto manufacturers, technology companies and regulators.

You can find the full report from EY here.

Is Usage-Based Insurance a Bubble?

In May 2015, the British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) released research showing the figures of usage-based insurance (UBI) in the UK. The research showed that the number of live UBI policies is just under 323,000, which represents only 9% growth from 296,000 UBI policies in December 2013. That figure is well down from the annual growth in 2013 of 64%, and of 80% in 2012. The decline could be understood if the market had reached its apogee, but the market is far from that. Another piece of research shows that the penetration rate of UBI in the UK is only 3% of the total.

The UK is considered to be a mature market for UBI, and the figures in other mature countries are not different. In other countries, even in most developed Western European countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Scandinavia, the penetration of UBI is much lower.

If one can measure risk factors — certain road types, road environment, time of the day, days of the week and driver behavior– it is possible to assess high risks. Telematics enables insurers to assess their risk much better than the traditional proxies, and we could expect much higher adoption of insurance telematics.

So, why it is not the case? Why hasn’t UBI fulfilled the expectations?

UBI BENEFITS

So much has been spoken and presented in telematics conferences about the benefits and value of UBI for both the consumers and the insurers. Just to mention a few:

For the insurance company:

  1. Better assessment of the risk, enabling appropriate pricing
  2. Self-selection of “good” drivers
  3. Attracting safe drivers from the competitors
  4. Developing and strengthening direct relationship between the insurer and its customers
  5. Lowering the risk by advising the customer to drive safer

For the insurant:

  1. Discounted premium (for “good” drivers)
  2. Safer driving
  3. Geo-fencing tools and young-driver monitoring

Let’s examine honestly –

  • Do the above benefits “work” in reality?
  • Does UBI provide enough value to the customer to attract her to be connected and give up privacy?
  • Does UBI provide enough value to the insurer and justify the high investment?

We have to admit that the answer to all those questions is “No.” In other words, it seems that the current business model of UBI is wrong. Neither the insurant nor the insurer gets enough value to make UBI mainstream and a success story.

Let’s imagine a utopian scenario, where 100% of the customers agree to be “connected.” Could the insurer monetize that connection? Could the insurer return the investment it made in telematics (capital expenditures and operating expenses)? The answer is probably “No.” As long as the insurer has to encourage “good” drivers through premium discounts, and is unable to reject or levy a surcharge on “bad” drivers, the insurer cannot see the ROI. We heard voices from several insurers about surcharges for risky drivers, but it doesn’t work in reality. Those customers will simply churn to the competition.

As for the customer, discounted premium was not proven to be strong enough to “connect” customers and get them to give up their privacy.

IS UBI A BUBBLE?

The above draws a gloomy picture. However, the fact is that we see more and more conferences around UBI and new vendors joining the game. Is it a bubble that is about to explode?

Not necessarily, but there is a need for a radical change in the business model.

The connected car is much more than UBI. Therefore, the existing model where the insurer collects the driving data, owns it and uses it for insurance purposes only (underwriting, marketing and claims management) is completely wrong. The insurer cannot see the entire picture of connected car services, and, honestly, most of the insurers are not interested in more than insurance.

So, what is the right way to make the connected car a success story, and UBI part of that success?

KEEPING THE CUSTOMER ENGAGED

To encourage dolphins to do their show, you must feed them with fish continuously. The same is with customers – if you’ll pardon the analogy. You must keep them engaged and provide them monetary value on a daily basis, so they will be intrigued enough to be “connected.” A very good example is the “rewarding” method of Wejo, where a customer collects miles and good scoring and can redeem it for free coffee, car wash, etc. When a customer feels that he gets real value, he is more likely to give up privacy.

UBI AS PART OF A BROADER SUIT OF TELEMATICS SERVICES

Insurers that offer additional services, such as roadside assistance and extended car warranty, can use the telematics device in those services. In that case, insurers can either cover the costs by the customer or spread the cost over the several uses and justify the investment.

A WINNING ECOSYSTEM

As mentioned above, insurance companies cannot see the entire connected car picture and therefore are not the ideal entity to collect and own the driving data. Moreover, as long as they cannot reject or levy a surcharge on “bad” drivers, why would insurance companies fund telematics (devices, connectivity, device management, data analytics) for those customers, if they can purchase a database of “good” drivers from a third party?

Therefore, we can expect in the near future to see the rise of telematics facilitators/aggregators that will collect data from the vehicle and own it, providing value and engagement to the customer and forming a winning ecosystem of multiple players that can benefit from telematics data and insight. Once they have a mass amount of data, they will be able to driver behavior analytics and monetize it for insurance companies.

What will be the profile of such facilitators/aggregators? Obviously, OEMs can play this role for embedded OEM devices. In the aftermarket telematics, we already see some cellular operators that are heavily involved in the connected car space, and we can expect more to come. Other optional players may be existing TSPs and UBI vendors that will see the potential in a multi-player game, as well as new entrepreneurs.

The bottom line is that UBI is here to stay, but its business model will radically change.

How to Remove the Roadblock for UBI

Once upon a time, the auto insurance industry relied on motor vehicle reports, drivers’ records, business addresses, financial credit reports, claims histories, policyholder-stated VIN and mileage information, etc. to make an underwriting and rating decision. This scant information provided a fuzzy picture of risk, at best, so insurers built in a pricing cushion to protect against losses and figured it all out at the end of the year.

Fast forward to today, and insurers have volumes of real-world driving data at their fingertips to inform more precise underwriting and pricing. With the proliferation of telematics devices, whether after-market or factory-installed, and mobile tracking and recording apps, we now can know where, when and how an individual vehicle is driven. We can know area and hours of operation, driving behavior, route histories, vehicle performance characteristics and much, much more. We can even re-create collisions using the data.

With data-driven usage-based insurance (UBI), we now can formulate a clear picture of driving risk and remove the guesswork. In short, we have the potential to write for a group of one, based on observable, verifiable data.

Some numbers to consider:

  • Currently nearly 30% of all commercial vehicles have some form of telematics device installed. This figure is expected to reach 70% in 2017. (C.J. Driscoll & Associates)
  • Today’s telematics devices record nearly 300 billion miles of driving data annually.
  • 94% of all small businesses report using smartphones in their businesses. (2014 AT&T-SBE Council Small Business Technology Poll)
  • Approximately 30 auto manufacturers (original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs) are busily equipping vehicles with data devices today.
  • More than 70 telematics service provider (TSP) fleet management services companies in the U.S. are equipping trucks, cars and utility vehicles with telematics.
  • More than half of small fleet managers are likely to stay with their current insurance carriers if their insurer offers UBI (Lexis Nexis’ 2015 Commercial Usage-Based Insurance Study)
  • Global sales of insurance telematics products are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 80% from 2013-2018, and the subscriber base is expected to reach 85.5 million in 2018. (Research & Markets).

We are quickly reaching a tipping point for UBI programs that rely on data collection and analysis as the basis for a “pay how you drive” approach to auto insurance.

However, insurers looking to take advantage of this driving data face some tough questions: Where does all this data come from? How is it collected? How can different data sets be normalized? How can insurers store, analyze and manage such a huge volume of data?

The solution for insurers large and small very likely will be a telematics data clearinghouse.

Multiple Data Sources: OEMs, TSPs, Mobile Apps and More

The first problem insurers face is negotiating with 70 different TSPs and 30 OEMs for their data, which adds complexity, time and expense to the process of acquiring the driving data needed for an effective UBI program. A clearinghouse solves the problem of accessing data on millions of vehicles by aggregating data from available sources. Rather than negotiate with dozens of data suppliers, an insurance carrier merely subscribes to the clearinghouse for access to all of that data, at a single price. 

Multiple Formats: Not All Data Is the Same

With so many data sources, each using different telematics devices and software, pulling data from different types of vehicles, the aggregated data is a jumble of formats, with no two data sets the same. A clearinghouse plays a critical part in scrubbing, authenticating and normalizing this data for handoff to underwriting.

Making Big Data Digestible… One Byte at a Time

UBI represents a monstrously big IT effort for an individual insurer. With nearly 300 billion miles of driving data available, we’re talking about petabytes of data to acquire and analyze. Even the largest insurers must weigh the benefits of devoting precious IT resources to developing and running a complete UBI data collection, storage and analysis effort. In contrast, a clearinghouse is built to manage big data in a big way, delivering a clean, authenticated data set to the insurer, integrated seamlessly into the underwriting process for easy access and use.

Evolution of a Safe-Driving Scoring Standard

With access to data from millions of vehicles, a clearinghouse is also able to provide comparative analytics and calculate a fleet’s safe-driving score, the driving equivalent of a FICO financial credit score and a much more accurate predictor of risk. A complement to current driver score cards offered by many TSPs (which measure individual driving behaviors such as speeding, harsh braking and hard cornering), a fleet score factors in all drivers, as well as the vehicles they drive and the environment in which they drive. The fleet score analyzes variables including weather, time of day, road surface and traffic dynamics. An overall fleet safety score compares fleets of similar SIC codes and territories to derive an indexed score and ranking – a meaningful risk assessment and underwriting tool more powerful than anything else in use today.

Data Privacy and Protection: Permission-Based

Yet another crucial role played by a clearinghouse is data protection and privacy. Clearly, the vehicle owner owns the data generated by that vehicle in the course of a driving trip. But once it is in the UBI transaction chain, how is that data protected? Who sees it, and what is done with it? The clearinghouse serves as gatekeeper. With the consent of the vehicle owner/policyholder, the clearinghouse facilitates the secure sharing of encrypted data with the insurer, allowing the data owner to control who sees the data and why. Such protection encourages voluntary participation by vehicle owners, helping fuel the growth of UBI. 

Data Transparency and Portability: You CAN Take It with You

Data transparency and portability go hand-in-hand with data ownership. As a consent-based data sharing service, the clearinghouse offers complete transparency to the data owner. The vehicle owner knows what data is being requested and has the option of permitting or denying access. The clearinghouse allows the data owner to share his data and driving safety score with multiple insurers.

Data Clearinghouse or Data Exchange: What’s the Difference?

Aggregated driving data services are taking different forms. While all share the purpose of providing a “one-stop” storehouse of driving and vehicle data, they do not all operate in the same manner or provide the same services.

The primary distinction can be explained as an open marketplace vs. a closed system.

As an open market, a clearinghouse merely facilitates the transfer of data from vehicle owner or TSP to insurer. The insurer then underwrites a policy based on this data (and other factors the insurer deems important) and determines a policy premium. In this open system, there are no regulatory filings required; data is used in the insurer’s existing underwriting process, and the insurer retains complete control over pricing, applying credits as warranted. Furthermore, the marketplace determines the value of the data: How much is an insurer willing to pay for detailed trip histories, for example?

In contrast, an exchange uses driving and vehicle data to compute a rating and pricing recommendation for the insurer. Because the exchange is determining price, this rating system must be filed with state regulators. In this closed system, the exchange assumes the role of underwriter and pricing specialist, leaving the insurer with little room for proprietary pricing, segmentation or differentiation. The exchange controls the data and the insurance product.

Data-Driven, UBI: A Return to Profitable Auto Underwriting

UBI offers auto insurance carriers an unprecedented view of vehicle use and driving behavior. Insurers that embrace UBI and develop a data-driven underwriting and ratings process will benefit from more consistent underwriting, improved segmentation and better selection. Those that do not will likely suffer from adverse selection and an underperforming book of business.

The key to successful UBI adoption will be access to, normalization of and correct interpretation of all this data. Undoubtedly, auto insurance carriers will be hearing more about the clearinghouse concept and the pivotal role it plays in UBI.