1 / 26

EVIDENCE GATHERING: WHAT’S NEW?

EVIDENCE GATHERING: WHAT’S NEW?. Session 24: February 27, 2006 Session Producer: Irene Juthnas Director of Underwriting MetLife. PANELISTS. Laurene Polignone, Assistant Vice President – Risk Management John Hancock Amy Chambers, LTC Underwriting Manager, Genworth Financial

belden
Download Presentation

EVIDENCE GATHERING: WHAT’S NEW?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EVIDENCE GATHERING:WHAT’S NEW? Session 24: February 27, 2006 Session Producer: Irene Juthnas Director of Underwriting MetLife

  2. PANELISTS • Laurene Polignone, Assistant Vice President – Risk Management John Hancock • Amy Chambers, LTC Underwriting Manager, Genworth Financial • Cheryl Bush, Vice President – Operations, MedAmerica

  3. Evidence Gathering“What’s New on the Horizon” Laurene A. Polignone John Hancock Assistant Vice President Underwriting & Claims

  4. Agenda • 5 Key Selection Factors • Developing Criteria’s • Current Protocols • Distribution of Protocols • John Hancock’s latest tools • MCAS • MIB • Prescription Profiles

  5. 5 Key Factors in Selecting a Tool? • Ability to assess risk exposure • Reduces or eliminates need to request multiple requirements • Quality of results • Accuracy of administration • Qualifications of individual retrieving data • Ease of applicant administration • Cycle Time • Cost

  6. Developing Criteria’s? • Age • Past & Current Medical History • Benefit Structure • Date Last Consulted with PCP

  7. Current Protocols

  8. Distribution of Protocols2005 Percentage

  9. MCAS Study • 1999 - 2005 • MCAS utilized throughout time period • Compared cognitive claims on applications received 1999 – 2005 against 300,000 applications against all claims incurred between during the time period with a cognitive • Ages 65 - 72 • Cognitive testing was not given to all applicants • Requirements guidelines and scoring criteria changed slightly during the 5 year period

  10. MCAS Study • Early Results • Estimated prevalence of Alzheimer’s in the general population for ages 65 to 69 is 1.1% • Our Prevalence for 300,000 cases was 1 in 13,000 cases or .008% • Results are well below our actuarial estimates • 5 individuals passed the cognitive screen and went onto claim during the period studied. • Allowed us to moderate our cognitive scoring criteria. • Validated our approach and use of cognitive screening in these age groups.

  11. MIB Service • Clearinghouse of underwriting reports for >500 life insurance carriers • Provides for the exchange of confidential, coded medical and non-medical information among its members • Uncovers misrepresentations and omissions • LTC specific codes since 6/1999 • ADL’s, IADL’s, Assistive Devices, Cognitive Test Results

  12. MIB Study • 1,504 pilot size • Case Profile • 40% Preferred • 54% Select • 6% Substandard

  13. MIB Study Pilot Results 184 matches 177 analyzed 143 did not reveal additional medical information • 34 provided information that lead to further investigation • 3 appeared uninsurable • 2 appeared to be risk class changes(preferred to select) • 29 appeared to be risk class changes (select – substandard)

  14. Prescription Profile Service • Detailed Information • Brand & generic names, dosage, quantity • Physician name and contact info • Provides check on application / interview • Often reveals missing or forgotten conditions, physicians • Profile may indicate less severe condition(s) than physician reports • Upon signed authorization, provider queries multiple external Rx databases • Rx history ordered and delivered electronically • Turnaround time less than one minute • Displayed in easy-to read format • Shows underwriting relevance, drug indications

  15. Prescription Profile Study • Sample size 4,080 • Sample ages 40 – 84 2,536 (62%) were eligibility & prescription hits 1,976 (78%) of the hits contained prescriptions • 1,769 (90%) of the prescription hits were analyzed • Focused on uninsurable applicants • Ordered medical records on 84 applicants and declined 20 • Actuaries cost benefit analysis revealed savings of $6 for every $1 spent

  16. Evidence Gathering“What’s New on the Horizon” Amy Chambers Genworth Financial LTC Underwriting Manager

  17. What tools is Genworth Utilizing • Application • Phone History Interview • Medical Records • Face to Face Interview • Paramed Exam • MD Exam

  18. Paramedical Exams • When used • MD not seen recently • Current blood pressure readings required • Validate BMI • Younger age clients

  19. Paramedical Exams • Assists in obtaining current health information • Accurate height • Current weight • Current BP • High Level of Accuracy • TAT – dependent on the client • Low Cost

  20. MD Exam • When used • Indication of significant Health History • Diabetes • CAD • No recent follow up

  21. MD Exam • Provides accurate, updated medical information • Lab tests • EKG • Special tests • High Level of Accuracy • TAT-client dependent • No Cost to the Company

  22. Medical Summarization of Medical Records • When used • Any time we require medical records

  23. Medical Summarization • Provides concise review of Medical Records • Accuracy • Sigma 4.5, consistently • Improves overall TAT • Health Professional

  24. Evidence Gathering“What’s New on the Horizon” Cheryl Bush, RN VP, LTC Operations MedAmerica Insurance Company

  25. Evidence Gathering • Challenges of Younger Age Applicants • Value UW Tools Used • Application: Value of Actively At Work • Phone History Interview • Medical Records • FTF: personal interview • Rate Classes

  26. Evidence Gathering • Challenges of Younger Age Applicants • FTF Requirements • When is Tool Used • Value of Functional versus Cognitive • Cognitive Screening Tool • Study of EMST versus DWR: • Accept vs. Deny Ratios by Submitted Ages • Findings Of Medical Record Reviews/Audits on Denies

More Related