Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Best Practices’ Category

As a disability claims consultant I can certainly understand how it could happen that insureds become so angry and frustrated with the claims process that they can’t see anything else except to “make them pay” and “admit everything they’ve done to me.” Although “seeing red” when it comes to managing a disability claim is a common reaction to abuse, anger, rant and non-cooperation doesn’t move claims forward at all.

The fact is, the disability claims process IS frustrating, harassing, and comes at a time when insureds aren’t feeling well and find it difficult to put up with claims handlers who just won’t pay claims. Unfortunately, once insureds really get angry, everything insureds do or say becomes suspect and claims fall into what seems like a bottomless pit of going nowhere.

Some insureds actually act counter to provisions that specify their obligations to meet criteria of Plans or policies. Not too long ago DCS was forced to fire a client because he refused to arrange to go to an IME despite my recommendation that he should go. This particular insured also did not provide the insurance company with the “whole truth” and therefore I could not continue to assist him. The reason? According to this insured, the insurer (Northwestern Mutual) was dishonest and was trying to “trip him up.”

In addition, we’ve come across some claimants who suspect everything, demand repeated proof, and accuse insurers of “lying”, and engage in “letter wars” that also gets them no closer to claim decisions. Most of my readers know I would be the first one to tell you that disability insurers are dishonest and delay or deny payment of claims. At the same time, constantly arguing small “who done it” points is trivial and in general puts insureds on a merry-go-round they can’t easily get off of.

Although insurers should base their investigations and opinions only on the unique facts of claims, there is credibility and “appearance of honesty” suspicions that arise referred to as “red flags”. Constantly contacting claims handlers (remember we do not recommend communicating by phone), and arguing, or engaging in “letter wars” isn’t productive to the claims process and will most likely produce denial decisions.

Therefore, while I validate anger reactions of insureds and claimants to the disability claims process, I certainly do not recommend engaging in constant rants with insurers. Recently, a new client came on board with major issues concerning Guardian. By the time he made a call to DCS he mistrusted everything the company did to date, had not been paid, and was in tears during most of the call.

During our conversation he reiterated that he wanted “proof” of this, and “admission of wrongdoing”, and “statements in writing” etc. It also became apparent during the call that his impairment was due to Bipolar and cardiac issues. One thing was certain – he was so mistrustful of Guardian and had been harassed to the point of desperation by the time he contacted DCS, that his only motivation was to “make them pay for what they did to me.”

“I want every damn thing they owe me”,  he said, “and I want to put them out of business.”

The unfortunate missing part, however, is that this poor insured still had not been paid benefits due to him. Within several days, DCS was able to work with the insured to the point that together we were able to support his claim medically, and he received a $40,000 check in the mail. I could not get him to stop crying.

In this case I think Guardian brought most of the anger and suspicion upon itself by demanding a field interview with both the claims handler and a field investigator (Guardian calls them “Technical Consultants?’) showing up to ask questions of someone diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. Of course, this interview wasn’t going to go well and it didn’t. This is an example of what I mean when I say, “disability insurers know very little about disability.”

Also, well-intentioned, but inaccurate information provided by friends and neighbors can also incite one to wrath and isn’t always helpful either. Insureds who file disability claims need accurate information about the claims process, not opinions from those who really aren’t “in the know.”

Instead of acting upon anger, overreaction and suspicion, insureds and claimants should be more focused on “solving the problem” which in most cases is “paying the claim.” Insureds who find it difficult to calm down and act accordingly could benefit from having a consultant sort through what’s needed and getting the job done.

In any event, ranting and arguing with insurers doesn’t result in timely payable claims. Again, although I validate the feelings of anger and frustration with an impossible claims review process, I do not recommend constant suspicion on the part of insureds that makes them appear uncooperative, out of control and vindictive.

Ranting and arguing with an insurance company causes those who are reviewing claims to conclude, “the insured is crazy”, and creates “red flags” that lead to the lion’s share of investigation. While Unum might just laugh and go on investigating, Guardian is more apt to investigate more intensely and be suspicious of everything that happens moving forward.

Perhaps you may not have thought of this situation in these terms, but there are only two decisions insurers can make as a result of filing a claim – pay the claim, or deny it.

A successful outcome is when an insurance company pays benefits under the terms of the policy. Arguing and ranting and trying to get the reps fired isn’t going to give you the claim result you are looking for.

 

Read Full Post »

Last week I received several phone calls from insureds who said they are using Lindanee’s Blog to manage their claims. Lindanee’s Blog was originally created in order to provide accurate information concerning private disability since much of what is found on the Internet is basically misinformation.

While I’ve tried to provide readers with basic “good claims practices”, Lindanee’s Blog is not intended to be a workbook for everyone on how to manage disability claims. Each claim is a unique situation, and the truth is, my Blog represents approximately 10% of the information required in order to manage any disability claim.

I’m also concerned that it appears many insureds are actually “researching” information on the Internet and are accepting the case stories they find as gospel applications to their own claims. Most of what is found on the Internet is told from the worst possible scenarios. So, please allow me put this into perspective.

If disability insurers denied as many claims as the Internet suggests, they wouldn’t be in business. Based on my 25 years of experience and my own consulting practice it appears to me that insurers pay between 40-50% of claims. Of course, Agents won’t tell you that when they sell you your policy, but overall I believe the number is correct.

Most insureds probably aren’t aware that private insurers underwrite their policies and charge premium on a liability acceptance rate of 60%. Therefore, coming out the gate, insurers only plan to pay 60% of claims at the time they sell their policies. In my opinion, ERISA business only pays up to 50% of claims due to the targeting of vulnerable claims, and also due to the 24-month change in occupation and 24 month limitations for mental and nervous claims.

Given all factors considered one could say, that any insured or claimant has a 50/50 chance of having a disability claim paid to maximum duration. Of course, it should go without saying that transference of any information found on the Net to your own claim is not a good thing, and I include Lindanee’s Blog in that analysis.

The articles posted on Lindanee’s Blog are written to a generalized audience for the purpose of providing information about private disability insurance at least equal to that of the  insurance company having discretion to pay or not pay claims. It is not intended to be an instruction book on how to manage claims because the information is not “all there is to know” about disability claims.

In a way, there is no way I could post enough articles to give readers the benefit of my 25 years experience — it’s just not possible. In addition, I wouldn’t remain in business very long if I gave out all of my proprietary information to the public via a Blog.

It’s pretty scary to me to realize that we’ve gone from sarcastically saying, “Oh, it’s in the newspaper so it must be true” to “it’s on the Internet and it IS true.” Just go the YouTube to see that most of what’s there isn’t true at all.

Although all of the information here is accurate and is very helpful, it isn’t the whole story and insureds should make note of that. I hear a great deal of feedback from claimants who tell me, “Linda you nailed it! This is exactly what my insurer is doing to me”, and although that may be true for many people, it clearly isn’t true for everyone.

I’m proud to be of help to insureds and claimants and I’m glad the information published on Lindanee’s Blog is useful to those with private disability claims. However, every claim is different, and not every piece of information is applicable to every claim.

I also hear a great deal from insureds, “I have a friend of a friend of a friend who told me”, or “I have a close relative who is a lawyer who told me…but he doesn’t specialize in insurance law”, or “Someone I worked with who had a disability claim told me…” Albeit good intentions aside, insureds must realize that such information is coming from those who are not qualified to render opinions.

Thank you to all those who continue to support Lindanee’s Blog, I hope the information here is helpful to you, but it is not intended to be an instruction book on how to manage disability claims.

Every claim is unique, with differing sets of circumstances and requires responses and actions that relate to the claims directly. What seems appropriate for one claim, may not be for all others.

Please let me know if you have any questions in addition to what’s here on the Blog.

Read Full Post »

dont-poke-the-bearOne of the things insureds and claimants often get themselves involved in is “ranting, raving and arguing” with insurance companies and their representatives.

Due to the fact that the disability claims process is complex and frustrating, some insureds become so angry they feel the need to debate every insurer issue/request to a fault. Letters go back and forth from claims rep to insurer, but no issue is ultimately resolved. Insureds suddenly find themselves on an eternal merry-go-round using repetitive arguments in an attempt to resolve infinite circular issues. It doesn’t work, and is a major waste of time!

Attorneys also find themselves riding the merry-go-round balancing “getting information into the record” without creating new red flags insurers had not thought of yet. Not every claims issue is a “legal matter”.

In fact, most claims issues are administrative in nature until an unwise attorney pushes his weight around and turns a very simple request into the potential for the “Scopes trial of the century.”  [State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes] In my opinion, attorneys also have a conflict of interest between acting in the best interests of the client versus how to get the most money out of the case.” From a claims management perspective attorneys often create more red flags than they resolve, pushing cases into litigation for no reason.

What worries me is that the “rant, rant, rant” methodology of defending disability claims often opens doors to insurance red flag issues insurers never would have thought of if insureds had not mentioned it first. Insureds and claimants ALWAYS over speak their claims when trying to convince insurers claims are legitimate. Clearly, choosing to argue over every normal and customary request “pokes the hibernating bear” and puts YOUR claim at the top of the denial list.

Every written communication to disability insurers should be wrapped around issues involving contract provisions. Insureds would do well to remember that the only relationship that exists between insured/insurers is written in the policy contract or Plan. Citing policy and Plan provisions in defense of a disability claim is impossible to do when insureds and claimants haven’t obtained or read a copy of the document.

If an argument isn’t specifically identified in the Plan or policy document it is most often an insurance internal administrative pattern of practice that insurers attempt to enforce as if it were a contractual matter. Most ERISA Plan documents contain language that requires claimants to submit “other information” such as responses to questionnaires, Claimant and Physician Statements – not worth arguing about. I regard these requests as “normal and customary” and claimants should cooperate by “responding in like kind”, meaning answering only what is asked, or providing only what is requested.

Ranting, and arguing without citing contractual support or provisional language is punting in the wind. Normal contractual requests for information should be “reasonable” and “contractually supported” whether the insurance company raises the issue, or the insured.

Advanced degrees, professional stature, medical or legal training does not suddenly make anyone an expert in disability claims management. I generally tell callers, “Disability claim denials are an equal opportunity occurrence” and higher education does NOT an expert make.

In my opinion, insureds who presume higher knowledge about claims due to higher educational status often open the door to a “lion’s share of investigation” because they present themselves to insurers as “educated”, but manage their claims in opposition to their own best interests. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve received calls from highly educated insureds who have misinterpreted policy provisions and have already attempted to defend invalid arguments with insurers.

The point is, do you really want to poke that bear? Insureds and claimants always have the right to defend their policy/Plan/claim and submit information to the record or Administrative file. But, there is a right way to defend policy issues without ranting, raving, and causing red flags in the review process that never seem to go away.

Attorneys who also manage claims should not presume to invoke “legal arguments” for normal and customary update requests. There is really no need to do that.

Insureds and claimants often have much more successful claim outcomes by leaving the hibernating bear alone and only responding to specific questions asked or raised. And then, responses should always include citations of policy provisions that support your point of view or defense of your claim.

Read Full Post »

It is way too lateLast week, DCS received several inquiries concerning my services to assist with appeals. As many of your know, last year (prompted by Unum’s special interests), the Maine Attorney General ruled that consultants should not be assisting with appeals because to do so is practicing law.

Although in the past, I assisted insureds and claimants with many successful appeals, I was not all that disappointed in the ruling and agreed with it. Unfortunately, we live in a very different insurance environment where companies such as Unum not only refuse to overturn unfair denial decisions but often agree to “settle” on the courthouse steps. Many insurers now “push” insureds into litigation in hopes they will be driven to bankruptcy by attorney fees.

However, a common sense argument can be made that the real value of a consultant is in the proactive, pre-emptive and preventative nature of services offered to the public. After all, the primary goal of any insured or claimant should be to continue to receive benefits as long as they continue to meet the definition of disability as written in their policies or Plans. No claimant should be forced to give up 45% of future benefits to age 65 in order to receive less than 30% of pre-disability earnings just to receive a benefit a all.

Insureds and claimants who are the most successful recognize the value of staying in front of the claims process, not scraping the bottom of the pit chasing what’s left behind after a claim is denied. It is in this area that attorneys fall short of expertise since they are, as a group, not great disability case managers. While attorneys do have a role in the litigation of disability claims, they are also part of the problem when they expect to walk off with most of the benefit after-the-fact.

Disability Claims Solutions, Inc. assists insureds and claimants with the all-important busy work of successfully managing disability claims. I advise insureds regarding their policy or Plan provisions and provide insureds with realistic perspectives regarding the claims process. It is important for disability consultants to have proven actual claims experience since that can make all the difference in simplifying procedures and resolving problems.

Although there are never any guarantees when it comes to disability claims, the best chance of success is in the proper management, documentation, and pre-emptive actions taken by insureds and claimants to abide by their contractual duties and responsibilities while at the same time holding insurers accountable for the proper adjudication of policy and Plan provisions.

Therefore in my opinion, claim denials should rarely happen to legitimate, well-documented disability claims. Contacting DCS AFTER a claim denial is too late for report, claim documentation, or any other pre-emptive measure that could have been taken to provide insurers with the best possible proof of disability.

Attempting to engage in lengthy, costly and sometimes ineffective management of a claim denial and subsequent appeal is not the best objective for insureds and claimants to look forward to.

Unfortunately this week, I’ve had to inform several claimants that it’s too late for me to help. Please take some time to reconsider your overall objectives for your claim, and make decisions as to the most valuable resources available to meet those objectives.

Most insureds and claimants just want their benefits to be paid. The services I provide are pre-emptive, not reactive to a bad outcome.

Read Full Post »

Best Practices For 2016

Best Practices2As we move closer to the new year it’s important to re-examine insurance claim “Best Practices” and begin anew with better knowledge about private insurance and how the system works.

So much of the information on the Internet (including this blog sometimes) is negative. If anything else, this post should serve as a reminder that there ARE disability claims that are paid, and the process can work if managed well.

INSURANCE CLAIM BEST PRACTICES

  • Obtain copies of all disability insurance policies at the time of coverage or enrollment. Keep them in your possession for easy reference in the future.
  • Read and understand very clearly what duties you have as the insured/claimant, and what obligations the insurer has to review your claims in good faith and fair dealing.
  • Understand the limitations of your policy or Plan and develop other family strategies to fill in financial gaps should claims be unexpectedly denied. This should be done prior to filing for disability.
  • Be prepared to defend your rights under the terms of your policy or Plan in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Read your policy. You can’t defend what you don’t know.
  • Study the policy or Plan in detail to determine how much benefit you are entitled to, minus any reductions for other monthly income such as primary and family SSDI. If there is not enough benefit to support you and your family, have a Plan B to financially supplement your policy or Plan. Do not wait until you become disabled to do this.
  • Understand what your rights are concerning FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) and understand at what point your particular employer will terminate your employment, health and other benefits.
  • Insist on communicating with insurers only in writing so that you can accumulate a written record of all of your dealings with the insurance company. Neither policies nor Plans require you to engage in verbal communication with insurers, and insureds should be given the opportunity to generate their own complete written record, the same way the insurance company will. Insurers can’t hold against you what you do not say.
  • Be honest and forthright in all of your dealings with any insurance company and communicate what’s true and accurate. This is particularly important in reporting earnings.
  • Keep in mind that “less is more” when completing insurance questionnaires, update forms, and other insurance inquiries. You do not need to “fill up the form”. Again, “Yes” and “No” remain very good answers to most questions.
  • Answer all questions raised by your insurer honestly and truthfully, but only answer specifically what you are asked. Do not elaborate, volunteer additional information, or over speak your claim about your family.
  • Do not attempt to defend your claim by writing lengthy letters to claims representatives explaining your disability. These letters can be viewed as “work capacity” by the insurance company.
  • Have frequent conversations with all treating physicians so that it is decided in advance how phone calls from insurance doctors will be handled. Tell your doctor you are respectful of his/her time and will pay reasonably for any additional paperwork required.
  • Inform your physician that he should invoice for his time and that of his staff when insurer requests are sent directly to his office. Physicians can invoice insurers for staff time, his/her hourly fee, photocopying, overhead, use of administrative resources etc. Encourage physicians to invoice insurers when requests are sent directly to their offices.
  • Contact your claims rep (in writing, of course) and let him/her know anytime you are unable to meet update deadlines. Insurers are pretty reasonable in allowing more time when they are communicated with.
  • Ask your doctor to let you know when requests for patient notes and completed forms are received from the insurance company and insist that you review all completed forms before they are faxed to insurers.
  • Avoid any circular conflicts or arguments with claims reps even in writing. Always remain the professional who cites policy provisions as back-up in your letters.
  • Do not rant or argue with any insurance company. It generally makes you look bad.
  • All disability insurance companies are permitted to fully investigate claims. This includes IMEs, surveillance, private investigation, obtaining medical records etc. Do not argue and rant about things you cannot change, or are not under your control. It is perfectly normal for any insurance company to fully “investigate” your claim and continue to engage in any “risk management activity” they determine is appropriate. Learn to deal with it.
  • Do not take your insurer’s actions personally. Insurance companies look to reduce financial reserves to increase profitability and rarely make decisions considered to be in “your best interests.”
  • Seek help from experts when dealing with Independent Medical Evaluation requests or field visits.
  • Do not sign more than one valid Authorization at a time. You won’t be able to keep track of how many are out there.
  • If you do not want to repay an SSDI overpayment to your insurer, opt to allow an estimate to be taken from your benefit on the Payment Option Form. If you choose unreduced benefits while waiting for SSDI approval, then plan to pay back any retroactive lump-sum received from SSDI. A deal is a deal.
  • Do not exceed medical restrictions and limitations reported to any insurance company, not because you have a disability claim, but because it is the best thing to do for your own health and safety.
  • Report all earnings to insurers when received.
  • Do not engage in Internet social media such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or LinkedIn. Insurance companies have Net “snoop dogs” who wander the Internet looking for information about you. Do not use insurance company website portals that may contain tracking cookies.
  • If you cannot physically or mentally cope with the complex paperwork or continuous issues raised by insurers – get expert help from someone who is in the know. It is far better to avoid denials then taking on attorney fees and lengthy lawsuits.
  • Do not attempt to appeal a denial decision on your own. Try to retain the services of an experienced ERISA, or bad faith attorney, and not those who advertise on YouTube, or who have national, but indifferent representation.
  • Do not accept a settlement offer out of fear, financial need, or desires to “get out from under” an egregious insurer. Settlements are life decisions and should be treated accordingly.

I’m sure there are other “Best Practices” out there, but these should point you in the right direction for 2016. In the end, according to figures from my practice, insurers wind up paying 40%-50% of LTD claims long-term (after any occupation investigations).

Although this post isn’t about selling DCS’ services to you, we ARE an option if you find it difficult to manage your disability claim well.

 

Read Full Post »

Best Practices2Insurance verbal communications such as those that occur on the phone between insureds and claims reps are potential targets for “he said-she said” situations that can lead to eventual claim denials

Insurers like DMS, Inc., for example, have a stake in the ground to make their own positions appear credible while at the same time throwing doubt and suspicion upon insureds and claimants who unknowingly omit one of the most important business best practices – getting everything in writing.

To my knowledge there are no disability claims policies with provisions requiring insureds and claimants to speak directly with claims reps on the phone although most insurance companies will tell you, “We have the right to speak with insureds on the phone.” “What right is that?”, I may ask since again insurer policies do not contain provisions giving insurers any rights to verbal communication.

A DMS manager told me today, “We have the right to speak with our insureds on the phone.” Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to respond before he hung up; otherwise, I would have said, “Please explain to me what document or authority gave your company that right?”

No policies managed by DMS as third-party reinsurers or administrators actually give that right to DMS. Technically, “a right” must be granted to an insurance company by a contract or other authority; if it isn’t written in the policy, “no right exists.”

The next time your insurance rep insists they have a right to speak with you on the phone, ask them to send you the page from your contract or Plan that specifically requires verbal communications as evidence of disability. Neither DMS nor any other insurer will be able to provide it, because it doesn’t exist.

Business best practices actually discourage verbal communications particularly if a contract is involved. Make no mistake, insurance companies are quite aware, however, that since their customers are ill and taking medications that may alter perception and response, they can take advantage of the situation, and engage verbal communications to their own advantage.

Frankly, phone conversations between insureds and claims reps are probably among the most profitable means of denying and terminating claims there is. Otherwise, why would insurers continue to insist on a “right to verbal exchange” that doesn’t exist.

Claimants who are ill, or medication impaired risk putting both feet in their mouths when dealing with trained claims reps with an agenda to obtain adverse information that could be used in the future to deny claims.

Most insureds and claimants risk their claims with verbal exchanges on the phone because they think they have to. The only “have tos” are contractual duties outlined in policy contracts. In fact, the only relationship that exists between any insureds and insurance companies is that which is contained within the policy contract itself.

Although insureds do not have contractual duties to speak with insurance reps on the phone, they continue to have duties to cooperate with their insurers in providing information needed and requested for the investigation of claims. Disability policies do contain provisions requiring the submission of “proof of claim.”

“Best Practices” are referred to as “best” for a reason. All claimants and insureds should consider exercising the same due diligence with disability claims that they would exercise with any other business transaction, namely – getting it in writing.

All communications to and from insurers should be conducted in writing so that insureds can accumulate a written diary of all dealings with any insurance company. In addition, insurance companies generate internal documentation of their own written by claims handlers who may not always be documenting what is actually said during phone conversations, as I experienced today with DMS.

Insureds and claimants who engage in verbal phone exchanges with claims reps are risking being make to look untruthful when conversations aren’t documented accurately. It’s not worth the risk; use best practices when dealing with insurers and protect the integrity of the record.

This is not an entity you want to come up against without a representative or attorney.

Please visit this website and read the post in its entirety. Jason Newfield and his partner are trusted by DCS to provide accurate information to insureds and claimants.

http://www.frankelnewfield.com/4-ws/companies/disability-management-services/

Read Full Post »

YellingAs a disability claims consultant I can certainly understand how it could happen that insureds become so angry and frustrated with the claims process that they can’t see anything else except to “make them pay” and “admit everything they’ve done to me.” Although “seeing red” when it comes to managing a disability claim is a common reaction to abuse, anger, rant and non-cooperation doesn’t move claims forward at all.

The fact is, the disability claims process IS frustrating, harassing, and comes at a time when insureds aren’t feeling well and find it difficult to put up with claims handlers who just won’t pay claims. Unfortunately, once insureds really get angry, everything insurers do or say becomes suspect and the claim falls into what seems like a bottomless pit of going nowhere.

Some insureds actually act counter to provisions that specify their obligations to meet criteria of Plans or policies. Not too long ago DCS was forced to fire a client because he refused to arrange to go to an IME despite our recommendations that he should go. This particular insured also did not provide the insurance company with the “whole truth” and therefore I could not continue to assist him. The reason? According to this insured, the insurer (Northwestern Mutual) was dishonest and was trying to “trip him up.”

In addition, we’ve come across some claimants who suspect everything, demand repeated proof, and accuse insurers of “lying”, and engage in “letter wars” that also gets them no closer to claim decisions. Most of my readers know I would be the first one to tell you that disability insurers are dishonest and delay or deny payment of claims. At the same time, constantly arguing small “who done it” points is trivial and in general puts insureds on a merry-go-round they can’t easily get off of.

Although insurers should base their investigations and opinions only on the unique facts of claims, there is credibility and “appearance of honesty” suspicions that arise referred to as “red flags”. Constantly contacting claims handlers (remember we do not recommend communicating by phone), and arguing, or engaging in “letter wars” isn’t productive to the claims process and will most likely produce denial decisions.

Therefore, while I validate anger reactions of insureds and claimants to the disability claims process, I certainly do not recommend engaging in constant rants with insurers. Recently, a new client came on board with major issues concerning Guardian. By the time he made a call to DCS he mistrusted everything the company did to date, had not been paid, and was in tears during most of the call.

During our conversation he reiterated that he wanted “proof” of this, and “admission of wrongdoing”, and “statements in writing” etc. It also became apparent during the call that his impairment was due to Bipolar and cardiac issues. One thing was certain – he was so mistrustful of Guardian and had been harassed to the point of desperation by the time he contacted DCS that his only motivation was to “make them pay for what they did to me.”

The unfortunate missing part, however, is that this poor insured still had not been paid benefits due to him. Within several days, DCS was able to work with the insured to the point that together we were able to support his claim medically, and he received a $40,000 check in the mail. I could not get him to stop crying.

In this case I think Guardian brought most of the anger and suspicion upon itself by demanding a field interview with both the claims handler and a field investigator (Guardian calls them “Technical Consultants?’) showing up to ask questions of someone diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. Of course, this interview wasn’t going to go well and it didn’t. This is an example of what I mean when I say, “disability insurers know very little about disability.”

Also, well-intentioned, but inaccurate information provided by friends and neighbors can also incite one to wrath and isn’t always helpful either. Insureds who file disability claims need accurate information about the claims process, not opinions from those who really aren’t “in the know.”

Instead of acting upon anger, overreaction and suspicion, insureds and claimants should be more focused on “solving the problem” which in most cases is “paying the claim.” Insureds who find it difficult to calm down and act accordingly could benefit from having a consultant sort through what’s needed and getting the job done.

In any event, ranting and arguing with insurers doesn’t result in timely payable claims. Again, although I validate the feelings of anger and frustration with an impossible claims review process, I do not recommend constant suspicion on the part of insureds that makes them appear uncooperative, and out of control.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »