A rather interesting report from Vox Inc. reviews the websites of a dozen major insurers, revealing the good, the bad, and some pretty ugly as well. As more and more consumers are getting their quotes over the internet, the usability of web sites is getting more and more important. If you’ve been near a TV any time over the last few months, you’ve probably seen the ubiquitous Progressive guy talking about their site. Well, he and his fellow pitchpeople have been very effective in driving traffic; 68% of consumers are now getting quotes over the web; 55% over the phone.
That’s a remarkable statistic.
One really interesting takeaway (mine, not their’s) is that compared to user-specific needs such as finding an agent and accessing a policy, way too much space is devoted to institutional image.
There is some very useful information in the report, info that all marketing, sales, PR, and exec staff would be well-advised to spend some quality time reviewing.
And don’t complain you don’t have time – this is how people are buying your stuff, so it is the most important thing you could be doing.

I’m leaving for a slightly-less-than-three week vacation, and will be posting sporadically at best. This will be the longest break since grad school, and I’m very much looking forward to the time away. One of the really big problems with taking an extended vacation is the somewhat scary notion that the world will proceed along just fine in one’s absence.
Therefore, if anyone is planning any momentous changes in the worlds of managed care, health policy, workers comp, or insurance, please delay until my return.
If the changes absolutely can’t wait, we’ll just have to rely on Matt Holt, Hank Stern, Tom Lynch and Julie Ferguson, Roy Poses, and the rest of the erudite, informed, and incisive that populate the health wonk-o-sphere to announce, analyze, interpret, and pronounce judgment .
Somehow I think they’ll do just fine.

AIG’s stock price took a major hit yesterday due to a combination of missed earnings at a subsidiary company, payment of a $1.64 billon fine, and a drop in income from derivatives.
One of the factors driving the fine was AIG’s failure to pay workers compensation premium taxes in a number of jurisdictions in past years. This malfeasance, coupled with contingent commissions, fabricated insurance quotes and other anti-competitive behavior, is a growing stain on a once-proud company, a stain that doesn’t appear to be fading.

In one of the more creative approaches to managing employee disability expense, an insurance company in Holland is issuing policies to employers who may suffer from significant increases in employee disability during the upcoming Soccer (sorry, Football) World Cup.
Dutch companies are required by law to pay employees out of work due to illness, and when tens of thousands of workers called in sick during the European Championships in 2004, a business opportunity was created. Insurance policies only pick up the payments after two weeks of absence, but the new policy, underwritted by SEZ, will cover absences the day of and the day after Dutch soccer matches.
Now if they could only set up a policy to cover Wisconsin employers for the first day of deer season…

At last the insurance industry is starting to take notice of the potential financial impact of avian flu. And it’s not pretty.
“Pandemic influenza could potentially deal insurers a triple whammy, simultaneously causing unprecedented life and health claims losses, investment portfolio downturns at a time when insurers most need liquidity, and reduced staff and management productivity through the spreading of sickness among company personnel,” stated Dr. Andrew Coburn, RMS project lead on influenza pandemic risk modeling.”
In contrast to the intellectual financial modeling of RMS, Risk and Insurance magazine published a timeline of a human-to-human transmissable flu scenario that is scarier than Freddie Krueger.
(I posted on the potential impact of avian flu on health and life insurers some weeks ago.)
For those readers really interested in the whole bird flu thing, there are two blogs that are really really good. Roy Poses et al at Health Care Renewal do an excellent job of sorting through the chaff to find the wheat. And the anonymous public health officials at Effect Measure are way in front of politicians on all aspects of this.

I’m in the process of “upgrading” the software app that drives this site, and in the process seem to have downgraded some user experiences. A few readers have experienced problems doing searches, others (including me) have been fascinated by the wierd hieroglyphs appearing in some posts (no I have not begun a sanskrit version) and others can’t find anything.
I’m working on it, and apologize for the problems.
I wish I could blame it on Bill Gates…

Medical malpractice tort cost factoid – total expenses in 2004 were just under $29 billion; 2003 costs were $26.5 billion.
O perhaps I should characterize this as a “possibly fact-oid”, as the source’s definition of what constitutes “tort costs” appears a little shaky.
And is not verifiable.
And includes “administrative expenses”.
And this is from a company that prides itself on actuarial research?
In any event, a small fraction of total medical costs – about a half a percent.

Those awful insurance companies are at it again, screwing up payments to doctors, causing lawsuits, strife, accusations and counter-accusations. While it looks like the same old case of an insurer short-changing physicians, it isn’t.
Horizon Blue Cross of NJ paid 600 cardiologists too much. Over a two year period, Horizon paid these lucky docs $15 million more than they should have. The case is now settled, the docs paid some of the dollars back, and things look to be calming down.
As one who spent years working for managed care firms, insurance companies, workers comp managed care firms and workers comp insurers, I am not terribly surprised that Horizon overpaid docs. Im sure this happens every day, and that most payers are guilty of the same type of mistakes.
Point being, whenever an insurance company is accused of short-paying docs or policyholders, they are accused of fraud, denial of care, interfering in the physician – patient relationship, and just being awful people in general. While this level of opprobrium may occasionally be justified, my educated suspicion is in the majority of these cases the insurer either screwed up or there is an honest disagreement.
Most of the folks at insurance companies are people who are trying to do the right thing, working pretty hard, and concerned about how their customers perceive them. Sure, a few have horns and a tail, but that is true in all businesses.
Even in cardiology practices.