- States’ regulations and MCO guidelines may restrict, or at a minimum, discourage carriers and employers from considering treatment in another state where they may lose control of the injury claim.
- State fee schedules may be misaligned with applying a value based, bundled price for treatment in a state outside of where the injury occurred, and the claimant resides.
- Direction of care statutes may prevent employees from being channeled to a provider outside of their choosing, much less in another state.
- There isn’t always “goodwill” between an employee and their employer after an injury. The concept of sending the employee out of state for care may not be a comfortable proposition for either party.
- Since there is no financial participation on behalf of the employee, compliance with set appointments may be an issue.
- Workers’ compensation adjusters prefer to have specified workflows and may be hesitant to inject intra-state travel coordination tasks and “unknowns” to their heavy caseload.
- The indemnity costs, time off work, and disability assessment could be negatively impacted by any incidental injury /episode which may occur during the claimants’ travels to a center of excellence.
- Where would the funding for a caregiver’s travel with the claimant come from and how would it be accounted for in the claim? Who would be responsible if the caregiver suffers an injury during travel with the claimant?
- Who would be responsible for clinically managing the workers’ compensation care (primary treating physician) and coordinating / submitting the necessary state forms?
More stories
Canadian Collision Summary: Q2 2018
At the request of our clients and friends in Canada, we are pleased to provide the following Canada-specific statistics, observations, and trends. All dollar-figures appearing in this section are in CDN$. This data is the product of upload activity from body shops, independent appraisers, and insurance personnel, more accurately depicting insurance-paid loss activity, rather than consumer direct or retail market pricing.
Average Length of Rental for Repairable Vehicles: Q2 2018
Average Length of Rental (LOR) for Q2 2018 landed at 11.6 days in the United States, an increase of 0.1 days compared to Q2 2017. This stagnation in the 2nd Quarter is now an official trend after similar results in 2017 and 2016. Once again, there was very little consistency between regions and states, suggesting that the quarterly result for the U.S. is not reflective of a genuine national course.
Field Inspection vs Virtual Estimating Trends
Insurance companies continue to seek ways to improve customer satisfaction while driving production efficiencies. Historically, most insurance companies offered three, maybe four standard methods of inspection (MOI’s) to assess damages to a vehicle in the claims process. These standard methods often include: a direct repair program (DRP), staff inspection at the vehicle’s location if within a staff member’s territory; or inspection by an independent appraiser.
Mitchell Total Loss Data: Q2 2018
View the total loss data for both vehicle age and actual cash value of total loss vehicles processed through Mitchell servers.
Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data: Q2 2018
The initial average appraisal value, calculated by combining data from all first and third-party repairable vehicle appraisals uploaded through Mitchell systems in Q2 2018, was $3,109, $31 more than this same period last year. The continued development suggests a final Q2 2018 average appraisal value of $3,140.
The Power of Perspective: Seeing the Full Picture of a Claim
Every decision matters when handling an auto casualty or workers’ compensation claim. A poor decision could cause a delay in helping an injured worker get back to work, while a well-informed choice could help an auto insurance claimant receive compensation for their injuries sooner rather than later.