For quite some time now, the industry has been told that insurers approve the scripts used by the customer service representatives employed by third-party administrators (TPAs). Those same people who justify these scripts also advise that the purpose of the scripts is to educate the consumers about “choice.” I have heard comments like, “yes, in the end, we honor the customer’s right to choose, but our clients want us to educate the customers about all of their options.”
However, at what point does education cross the line to become harassment or infringement on a consumer’s right to choose a repair shop? The Independent Glass Association has been collecting data on these exchanges between CSRs, glass shops and the customers, and I have had the opportunity to read and even listen to them. If what I have been seeing and hearing to this point can be labeled education, then I am the best auto glass technician on the planet and I have never installed a windshield.
Let me give you one example. Recently, I had the opportunity to listen to an audio tape in which I actually could not believe what I was hearing. In the conversation, after the CSR advised all of the parties on the line what the insurer would be willing to pay for the service, after a quick calculation, the shop owner advised the CSR that his invoice would be less than what the insurer was offering to pay. With the pricing issue no longer a factor, the CSR proceeded to continue with the reading of the script, including the threat to the customer that she might incur out-of-pocket expenses. At that point, the shop owner interjected with a comeback to the effect of, “Excuse me, but did you hear what I just said? I told you that I would be billing less than what the insurance company is willing to pay.” The CSR proceeded to say that she must continue to read her script. The immediate question that comes to mind is this: how often does this go on?
I believe that insurance companies should have the right to educate their policyholders, but that right should be an exclusive right between the insurance company and its policyholder, not passed on to a third-party who has everything to gain by stealing that business for personal gain. Any one of us on the other end of the TPA call knows that the scripts and the tactics contained therein go far beyond anything required to educate the consumer. The example above is proof of that. And if you truly want to educate the consumer, educate them about safe drive-away times, the brand/quality of the glass being installed and emphasize that most state laws give them the right to choose the repair shop of their choice. That’s right, educate them about the importance of proper and safe windshield installation. Now that’s a brilliant idea.
What has always amazed me was the line, “We have a customer on the line who has requested your shop, but before I bring him on, we need to discuss pricing.” Let me make sure that I have this down. The customer called the TPA wanting to use my shop as long as the price is acceptable to the insurance company. In our example above, without a doubt the price was acceptable to the client’s insurance company, but the scripting procedures are written in such a way that the CSR should continue until the outcome of the conversation is acceptable to the TPA, using every opportunity to secure that business. After all, every consumer we talk to is naive. In our example, the insurance company had what it wanted, but the TPA was not getting what it wanted. I think that any rational person would conclude that steering (I personally prefer the word stealing) does indeed exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment