Well, it just wouldn’t be the holiday season unless we got more of those professional faxes from our friends in Columbus. The spirit of the Grinch is alive indeed. This time it is another pricing structure advisory from the “National Glass Program” on behalf of another insurer. And naturally, the prices contained herein are not the “lowest available” to the insurer. No, they may not be, but, in my opinion, are just low enough to encourage the use of substandard glass and substandard installation procedures.
The notice goes on to advise that, “Our policyholders have the right of personal choice and preference in their selection of an automotive glass shop.” Is that really accurate? In my opinion, there is not a shop among us that does not participate in this network that is not familiar with the tactics that are used by this particular network. And labeling it harassment would be too complimentary.
This advisory, which once again lacks any hint of professionalism, proclaims that the insurer represented “does not consent to any assignment of proceeds of glass claims.” Excuse me, but Mr. Columbus Network, does not every single dispatch that you forward to the shop require our customer to sign your acknowledgement? Perhaps a little refresher is necessary.
“I authorize my insurance, fleet, or leasing company to pay XXXXXXX directly for this claim.” Isn’t that an assignment of proceeds? Is it instructing the glass shop that they better collect upfront, to make certain that they get paid? Or is this another modification intended purely to promote the best interests of the network/insurance company thereby shortchanging the policyholder? Believe me, I would much rather have my customer pay our shop for its services directly and have the insurance company reimburse its customer, the way it should be.
I have to admit, for a publicly traded company and the continued lack of professionalism, you sure keep me laughing like my stomach is a bowl full of jelly. A jolly old elf, indeed.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
New Policy?
Just as I was ready to leave the office the other night, one of those infamous faxes was coming over the fax machine—you know, the one that originates in the Midwest with no corporate letterhead, but appears to be an "official" policy statement from an insurance company. Its contents were the same nonsense that usually comes on any fax that originates out of this Midwestern call center and said something to the effect that if you start to repair a vehicle without the insured or the agent officially reporting the claim to the network, you will not get paid. If you haven't had the opportunity to read this "official" policy statement, please take the time to do so. After you are able to contain your laughter, try to decipher what the underlying motive might be.
You first might begin by asking yourself, are these people for real? Is this what you would expect from an "official" policy statement released by a major insurance company?
Since this document lacks any hint of professionalism, would anyone accept that this is an "official" document originating from the insurance company? An insurance company surely has the right to require any procedure to insure compliance with the product it sells, but issue the directive to the policyholder. After all, you have no business relationship with the shop.
Now, let's use some reasoning and see if we can dissect the real motive here. I believe that the TPA behind forwarding this fax has really stepped up its poaching of claims. You do not need to look too far—there are examples all over the Internet. Just the other day, we had two customers who were called back on at least two attempts to sway them to use the services of another shop. And guess what shop? I ask you Mr. CEO, is this educating the customer like the insurance companies supposedly ask you to do? I ask you Mr. CEO, in light of your company’s proclamation that so few policyholders have a shop in mind when they call in the first notice of loss, why two and three follow-up calls in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they insist on our shops? I ask you, Mr. CEO, why must your company do this when you have publicly proclaimed that your company is not our competition?
So just what is the real reason behind this document? Sorry, time is up. This procedural bulletin is nothing more than an opportunity to steal more of our business. If you haven't performed or started the work, guess what? They have more time on the clock to "educate" the customer. But in my humble opinion, I would rather replace the phrase "educate" with harass. After all, does it make any sense? If our customer has the glass addendum on their policy, they have the right to choose the service provider of their choice—a right protected by laws in many of the fifty states. Technically, all that our customer is doing is using a product, insurance, that they purchased for this very purpose—to indemnify them in the case of an accident. Mr. TPA, I assure you. One way or another we will get paid for our services.
And another thought. Now that we have dispelled the proclamation that "we are not your competition" as nonsense, I challenge you to compete with the independent shops fairly, and let us see who ultimately earns more business. Many independents are giving you more, quality glass and installs according to standards. Unfortunately, independents shops do not have the luxury of an "average guaranteed invoice."
You first might begin by asking yourself, are these people for real? Is this what you would expect from an "official" policy statement released by a major insurance company?
Since this document lacks any hint of professionalism, would anyone accept that this is an "official" document originating from the insurance company? An insurance company surely has the right to require any procedure to insure compliance with the product it sells, but issue the directive to the policyholder. After all, you have no business relationship with the shop.
Now, let's use some reasoning and see if we can dissect the real motive here. I believe that the TPA behind forwarding this fax has really stepped up its poaching of claims. You do not need to look too far—there are examples all over the Internet. Just the other day, we had two customers who were called back on at least two attempts to sway them to use the services of another shop. And guess what shop? I ask you Mr. CEO, is this educating the customer like the insurance companies supposedly ask you to do? I ask you Mr. CEO, in light of your company’s proclamation that so few policyholders have a shop in mind when they call in the first notice of loss, why two and three follow-up calls in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they insist on our shops? I ask you, Mr. CEO, why must your company do this when you have publicly proclaimed that your company is not our competition?
So just what is the real reason behind this document? Sorry, time is up. This procedural bulletin is nothing more than an opportunity to steal more of our business. If you haven't performed or started the work, guess what? They have more time on the clock to "educate" the customer. But in my humble opinion, I would rather replace the phrase "educate" with harass. After all, does it make any sense? If our customer has the glass addendum on their policy, they have the right to choose the service provider of their choice—a right protected by laws in many of the fifty states. Technically, all that our customer is doing is using a product, insurance, that they purchased for this very purpose—to indemnify them in the case of an accident. Mr. TPA, I assure you. One way or another we will get paid for our services.
And another thought. Now that we have dispelled the proclamation that "we are not your competition" as nonsense, I challenge you to compete with the independent shops fairly, and let us see who ultimately earns more business. Many independents are giving you more, quality glass and installs according to standards. Unfortunately, independents shops do not have the luxury of an "average guaranteed invoice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)