WORKERS’ COMPENSATION & RETURN TO WORK PROGRAMS: 3 REASONS FOR FAILURE AND HOW TO OVERCOME THEM (PART 3)
Gary Jennings, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, AIC, ARe, SCLA
Principal of Strategic Claims Direction, LLC
In the two previous blogs, we mentioned three reasons why many Return to Work (RTW) programs are not successful. They are:
- The leaders who can make it happen are not willing to lead,
- The program lacks incentives and rewards for the people most responsible for its success, and
- It is treated as a “shiny object” program rather than a behavior change.
This third and final blog in the series will cover the final topic:
REASON # 3: IT IS TREATED AS A “SHINY OBJECT” PROGRAM RATHER THAN A BEHAVIOR CHANGE.
While working in the corporate world, you may see senior leadership roll out new ideas, concepts, and programs that have a short shelf life because leadership moves on to another “shiny object”. In some cases, the leaders have good intentions. In other cases, these programs are intended to address a short-term issue that has arisen, which leads to the program being forgotten once conditions improve. On other occasions, the program may be the program du jour that we have seen over the years, meeting a perceived need that an industry pundit has identified and solved for their financial benefit. In fact, the word “program” has been used to describe so many quickly forgotten ideas that it has developed a negative connotation.
If that is the case, how does senior leadership convince everyone that this is a real goal or project that will live on and not just a brief blip in the corporate history? Leaders must convince everyone that both the problem and the solution to the problem is real. Senior leadership must give the RTW program:
- Top-level attention in discussions and presentations
- Sufficient resources (people, processes and systems) to reasonably accomplish the goals or program that has been presented
- Clear target dates for completion of various steps toward the desired state, some of which must be short-term to demonstrate continuing commitment
- Regular reports on accomplishments and targets met, and
- A method for maintaining resources for the program when other tempting ideas (“shiny objects”) surface.
Some corporations and public entities have a good reputation for identifying problems and solutions and sticking to their guns to make things happen. Others do not, so they must continuously emphasize the program so that it is recognized as something that is going to be a new behavior, not just another program du jour.
All three of the reasons presented that lead to unsuccessful RTW programs are certainly not exhaustive, but rather some of the most basic. Hopefully you will provide your recommendations on ways to address these and other barriers that will lead to success.
By: Gary Jennings, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, AIC, ARe, SCLA
Principal of Strategic Claims Direction, LLC
Summary of Qualifications
Gary Jennings, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, AIC, ARe, SCLE, is a property/casualty claims consultant with over 40 years of claims experience. He has worked over 20 years as a claims consultant and has served many public entity clients. Since forming Strategic Claims Direction (SCD) over 7 years ago, most of his clients have been in the public entity sector. Prior to forming SCD, Gary worked for insurers, third party administrators, corporations, independent adjusters, and two of the "Big 4" consulting firms (PwC LLP and KPMG LLP). His employment experience allows him to bring a wide range of expertise to his clients to help them develop their claims programs. Gary is a frequent speaker at professional conferences and has authored numerous articles, some of them being included in PUBLIC Risk magazine. His next PUBLIC RISK article is scheduled for October 2016.
Reponsibilities
SCD performs a wide variety of claims-related engagements. Gary leads and performs all engagements. He works throughout the United States performing:
1. Claims audits, to compare the program to leading industry practices and/or contract requirements, These audits may be to meet statutory requirements, to meet AGRiP certification, or to meet requirements set out by the board of directors or commissioners.
2. Reserve reviews to evaluate the reasonableness of reserving procedures and the estimates. This may be needed when public entity risk management programs merge, when a concern arises about reserving by a TPA or self-administered program, or to support a casualty actuarial evaluation.
3. Claims efficiency studies, which include an analysis of the claims processes to identify redundant or unnecessary steps, to determine if the claims personnel should be realigned to optimize Return on Investment (ROI), to determine if system enhancements are necessary to improve efficiency, or if other steps are needed.
4. Assistance in TPA selection, including development of the claims-related requirements, creation of a grading methodology, identifying TPAs that meet the clients' needs regarding expertise and geographic spread, evaluating proposals as received, and working throughout the TPA selection process to select the TPA that best meets the clients' needs.
5. Developing claims manuals or other procedural documentation to provide direction for public entity risk management staff, TPAs, medical management organizations, and others.
6. Provide expert testimony relative to claims handling, reserving, and excess insurance reporting.
Business Experience
Prior to forming SCD Gary worked for the following firms:
Crawford & Company - Director Technology & Process Management
KPMG LLP - Manager, Claims Consulting
PwC LLP - Director, Claims Consulting
International Paper - Supervisor, Workers' Compensation Claims
Travelers Insurance - Claims Supervisor
This broad experience from several different perspectives provides Gary with the ability to provide his clients with "real world" answers to improve their programs.
Professional Affliliations
CPCU
Georgia PRIMA
Education
BS BA - University of Tennessee, Knoxville
