Claims adjudicators play a pivotal role in the insurance industry. Their decisions impact policyholders鈥 lives, and they rely heavily on data to make informed choices. But what happens when the quest for data becomes too prescriptive? In a recent issue of Claims Journal, 国标麻豆视频APP Belinda Thorpe, Head of Claims for RGA South Africa, shares insights into how insurers can manage the dilemma of overwhelming data. Together, we can create a claims process that serves everyone鈥攖he numbers and the hearts.
Claims adjudicators rely heavily on data to make informed decisions. It鈥檚 the nature of the work: assessing a claim correctly requires a sizable amount of information, such as policy coverage details, underwriting terms, data on the claimant鈥檚 past health, reason for the claim, current condition, finances, occupation 鈥 the list goes on.
Most claims departments have a requirements matrix that ensures adjudicators gather all the information needed to validate and then process a claim. But some questions remain: Are current evidence-gathering processes too prescriptive, especially around how the evidence is to be gathered? And is this prescriptiveness negatively impacting the experience for both claimants and adjudicators?
Consider a claim for a surgical procedure. Typically, the medical specialist who performed the surgery is required to submit to insurers, upon request, a form containing certain specific information about the procedure so that the adjudicator can process the claim.
In this instance, the surgeon鈥檚 report was readily available and contained all of the necessary details, including the claimant鈥檚 medical history leading up to the procedure and the procedure itself, for the form. Could this report be accepted as sufficient evidence for claims processing, rather than requiring the surgeon to transcribe the report鈥檚 information onto the insurer鈥檚 form? Another issue for claims assessors is determining which of the many available forms to use. Some insurers require specific forms depending on the medical condition or claim scenario. This generally means forms can only be sent to the medical specialists once the adjudicator can determine which form is required.
This can create several inefficiencies:
Consider another scenario: a claimant has submitted high-level information about their occupational duties on their claim form. The claim, however, needs more granular detail, so the adjudicator has follow-up questions. A phone call with specific targeted questions is generally the most efficient way to obtain the information, but standard procedure at many insurers is to send the claimant a follow-up form in order to get the information in writing. As claimants usually believe they have provided sufficient information and are now having to fill out yet another form, this can cause processing delays.
Recent research by RGA鈥檚 Behavioral Science team on occupational disclosures for disability claims has found that if a specific form is required to clarify occupational information, the form鈥檚 questions should be clear and targeted to allow for better disclosures. Specifically, the questions found to produce the clearest and most useful answers were those using a detailed checklist with a range of answers from which a claimant could make a selection, versus free-text questions such as 鈥減lease describe the duties of your occupation.鈥
The research found the following:
Bottom line: a well-formulated checklist, using behavioral science tools, will save time at the information-gathering stage, significantly improve disclosures, and improve the experience for both claimant and adjudicator.
Learn more about Behavioral Science at RGA.
For claims professionals, ensuring good risk management is an essential part of the work. However, rather than sending out form after form in order to obtain needed information, claims departments might benefit from considering the following, so that claims adjudicators can determine what information is absolutely essential, in which specific circumstances, and the best ways to gather it.
The business of claims is at a point where several of its administrative processes will benefit from digitization. Many insurers are already either in the planning or implementation stages, investing in artificial intelligence capabilities to automate claim submission requirements, file setup, scheduling follow-up contacts, and more. Insurers are also examining their current standard procedures and processes carefully, including all the documents that need to be correctly filled out and submitted before actual assessments can begin, as well as expanding the universe of what constitutes acceptable data sources.
As part of this endeavor, claims departments need to review carefully every aspect of the work by examining the relevancy of and need for each of the many information-gathering forms used. The ultimate goal should be making the adjudication process for every claim as painless as possible for both claimants and adjudicators.
Insurers would also benefit from empowering their claims teams to make fair and valid decisions in the course of their assessments, which may include waiving certain requirements or forms if relevant and defendable.
This quote from Henry Ford seems particularly relevant in our context: 鈥淚f you always do what you鈥檝e always done, you鈥檒l always get what you鈥檝e always got鈥 鈥 which for claims assessors would mean heavier workloads and some unhappy customers. Reducing the number of forms required, and opening the process to alternative data sources, could go a long way to streamlining adjudication and improving customer experience.
At RGA, we are eager to engage with clients to better understand and tackle the industry鈥檚 most pressing challenges together. Contact us to discuss and to learn more about 国标麻豆视频APP capabilities, resources, and solutions.
This article was originally published in the February 2024 issue of Claims Journal.
