In my new position as executive director of the Independent Glass Association (IGA), I have had the tremendous opportunity to take the pulse of the membership, both past and present, and industry suppliers. I can say that it has been interesting, to say the least.
In my discussions with the membership, most of the current members say they support the IGA and welcome the new direction. One said to me, “You know that over the years, the shops were focused on doing battle with the insurance companies and their TPA partners, but we never really looked at what it was doing to our customers.” I could not agree more. When an insurer sends out a directive to shops instructing that they will only pay for the least expensive glass, what message is that sending about their concern for the safety of their policyholders? Or when an insurer pays a low rate per NAGS hour? What message is that sending about their concern for the safety of their policyholders? I have said it before and I will say it again, consumer safety is being compromised under the current scenario. And believe me when I say that legislators and attorneys general are asking a very specific question: how are consumers being harmed? To that I reply that information is being collected.
I also have spoken with former members, who remember the lawsuit and thought that the IGA was too radical. In hindsight, the lawsuit was divisive, but hindsight is 20/20. And how would those same people feel if the IGA had been victorious? However, those days are behind us and, for the past few years, the IGA has taken on a new direction. The IGA is a kinder and gentler association whose primary focus is to build bridges on the path to success. Our mission remains clear. And we would like everyone who has a stake in the industry to join us.
In my discussions with industry suppliers, I have told them that I would like them to partner with us and do more to support the independents. I am of the opinion that if the independent shops continue to close at the rate that they are, suppliers will continue to lose market share. I believe that it is in the best interests of the suppliers to support the IGA.
On another subject, during my calls, the association has been accused of having a fixation on attacking Safelite. To that, my reply has been that the association would be derelict in its duty to its membership to allow any blatant move by Safelite, LYNX or anyone to take business intended for our members and to direct it to some other shop to go unchallenged. Believe me, I have heard some tape recordings and seen some reports that will open anyone’s eyes. To the insurance companies that allow customer service representatives (CSRs) from any third-party administrator to make the claims reporting process much longer than it should be and confrontational, I say, shame on you. The association will challenge any party that applies any practice that will take business away from our members, regardless of who the perpetrator might be.
When I was working in the business, I had the opportunity to talk to the managers of the national glass program of three or four of the top insurers and every one of them conceded that the rates billed by my employer were not “out of line.” So I ask insurers, why place the relationship with your policyholders in jeopardy for a few dollars? It does not make the least bit of sense to me. As an example, a member of the New York State Legislature was in the shop of my former employer calling in the claim for his windshield replacement. He must have been on the phone 15 to 20 minutes on the three-way call with the TPA. After he hung up the phone, he asked, “Is this what every customer must go through when trying to get their car serviced?” To this I replied, “You do not know the half of it.”
Insurers sourcing out the claims reporting process to third-party administrators does not have to cease. However, it would be in the best interests of your companies and your policyholders to cleanse the process of third-party administrators who are trying to serve two masters. And, based on my experience with the process, you are not the primary beneficiary of this relationship. If you were, I would find it hard to believe that you would allow your policyholders to be subjected to such abuse when the cost of retaining that customer must far outweigh any additional cost of repairing or replacing a windshield. So just what value do you get from a relationship that may be placing your relationship with your customers in jeopardy? Is it not your goal to retain your policyholders?
To the members, past and present and prospective, and to our trading partners, the IGA wants to hear from you. What is it specifically that you would like to get out of your membership in the IGA? Your membership should not be passive. Rather it should be interactive. I can assure you, I will listen and I will react. If there is something specific that the IGA can do for you or you feel should not be doing, I want to hear from you. It is together that we can accomplish much. United, we can make a difference—and we will make a difference!
No comments:
Post a Comment