Vendor & Claims Personnel Relationships & Accountability
In the - 'pay the vendor to go to his convention' - thread, John looked at a large issue from another angle, in his 2/14 @ 12.23 post to that thread.
In an alternative to Tom's assertion for, ".... a need of an association of parts for adjuster rating ...."; John suggested, ".... we all concentrate on forcing the issue on requiring the vendors to be responsible and liable for their bad hiring / assignment decisions.
I think that is a credible issue, but John's statement covers so many underlying issues; some of which I see as:
(a) how do we as a group concentrate on this issue?
(b) does this group feel that there is a credible issue here?
(c) is the group willing to voice their opinions on the issue and seek concensus on any solutions?
(d) if so, how can we propose a/o impose our wishes with vendors?
(e) "we", the workforce, are regulated through vendor a/o carrier certifications; should we, can we regulate the vendors who utilize and depend on our services?
(f) what are we prepared to do to regulate those who utilize our services?
(g) what is a vendor's liability to our community, when through their actions or inactions, they damage the image of our workforce?
(h) what should / could the consequences be when a vendor is unprofessional through their actions or inactions, affecting the livelihood and image of our workforce?
(i) how do we liaise with vendors to create a professional bond to our workforce?
(j) how do we liaise with carriers to create a professional image of our workforce?
(k) how do we, ourselves, police our own, and create a professional workforce?
Could go on, but it starts to wander from what I think John's intent was; or what your interpretation of John's comment may be.
The single answer to any of these issues is, ignore the phone call from whatever is considered or defined as an "unacceptable vendor". But, I hope we all recognize that that won't cut it, because someone or some group will fill the void; and the bad cycle perpetuates itself; with the adverse results and negative image affecting us all.
I'll stop there, and see if there is any interest in "a,b,c" first.
But, within all this, I do concede that the industry has various levels of claims assignments, and that each level has its own niche of personnel best suited to handle it. I mention this, again because I don't want the impression drawn of an "us versus them" distinction anywhere between "claims handlers" and "adjusters". This topic will derive its best benefit with participation from vendors (why don't they, or why aren't they policing their own?), seasoned old dog dino adjusters that are so very set in their ways, trained and experienced adjusters, newer adjusters, claims handlers, people comfortable with typical appraisal type claim assignments, and those aspiring to jump into this big bowl and see where they may surface in a year or so.
The basic assignment levels coming from carrier / vendor arrangements, trying to give a generic name from the varieties that are noted on fee schedules, are:
(1) full adjustment assignment (cat & day to day claims)- deals with all aspects of a claim - cause, coverage and cost
(2) defined task assignment (day to day claims)- deals only with part of a claim - mostly defined tasks to determine cause, and sometimes coverage
(3) appraisal assignment (cat & day to day claims)- deals only with part of a claim - cost |
Vendor & Claims Personnel Relationships
Forum Locked
Posted - 02/14/2004 : 14:36:07
