Absence Management

Integration, Evolved

As employer needs and challenges have grown more complex, integrated absence and disability management may provide an answer.
By: | July 27, 2017 • 8 min read

Despite the significant buzz surrounding the concept of integrated disability management when it emerged, it never became quite the industry standard that many expected. Two decades later, however, employers are finding new reasons to take an interest.


“Back in the mid ’90s, IDM emerged as a hot topic, but the focus at that point was on creating a single organizational unit to manage both occupational and non-occupational disabilities,” explained Tom Parry, president emeritus and co-founder of the Integrated Benefits Institute (IBI).

“And as you might imagine, the people in those separate units didn’t like the idea of someone winning and someone losing.”

People worried, perhaps justifiably, that bringing together occupational and non-occupational programs would mean consolidation, and that jobs would be eliminated, said Parry. So there was tremendous pushback against establishing one organizational unit.

And while those separate organizational units are still in place, a great many other things have changed. Employers, particularly large ones, have achieved a high level of claims sophistication. Newer claims technologies and analytics are allowing them insight into their data at a level never before imagined, prompting employers to leverage that data to find opportunities to improve absence and disability management across programs “rather than trying to break down walls between them,” said Parry.

Tom Parry, president emeritus and co-founder, Integrated Benefits Institute

“I think that we’ve realized that sharing information, creating integrated databases, and really looking at and using data as a way to identify real issues is really what’s driving this process,” he said.

As opposed to only viewing data within silos, integrating information allows employers to see commonalities across programs that might not otherwise be obvious, and also can help identify opportunities to share practices and resources for the benefit of all programs.

“If you can benchmark the [individual programs] by diagnosis,” said Parry, “then you can start to look across programs and see — does the workers’ comp side do a better job with back injuries, for example? What kinds of diagnoses are prominent in both systems? and how can I bring a strategy in medical management and return to work that really focuses on those as the first step?”

Protecting Productivity

The economic and labor landscapes have changed as well. Companies are operating leaner, and upheavals in numerous industries have created talent shortages. Now, more than ever, employers are grasping how each absence takes a toll on the company, even beyond the obvious.

Matt Sears, executive vice president of employee benefits at EPIC, related a story about a meeting with a CFO of a large national retailer. Sears was in the process of translating the company’s lost days into dollars and cents when the CFO asked him to focus on the number of lost days again.

“I think that we’ve realized that sharing information, creating integrated databases, and really looking at and using data as a way to identify real issues is really what’s driving this process.” — Tom Parry, president emeritus and co-founder, Integrated Benefits Institute

“That’s more important to me,” the CFO said to Sears. “We deliver to our customers, so if I have people who are missing days that means we’re missing delivery deadlines. That’s going to reduce sales for us and ruin our reputation — I’m more interested in how many of those days you can solve.”

“A lot of employers are starting to recognize that the Holy Grail isn’t claims costs,” said Sears. “The Holy Grail is productivity gains.”

That’s also why employers are shaking off the old thinking that non-occupational injuries should be treated with a hands-off approach, said Parry. He said there’s a growing focus on utilizing return-to-work programs for short-term disability, and looking for opportunities to improve medical care and shorten disability durations.


Global return-to-work programs often make sense as a way to introduce the elements of an integrated absence management platform, said Tom Ryan, market research leader with Marsh’s Workers’ Compensation Center of Excellence. Global programs are “agnostic with respect to whether it’s workers’ comp or non-occupational or disability related. It really looks at just the individual, their work capabilities, and the time frame for when they can return to modified duty.”

It’s a win-win for employers and employees, said Ryan, and it’s also one of the easier ways to get buy in from stakeholders, he said. “Nobody wants to say that they don’t want to bring people back to work — that doesn’t make good business sense.”

Regulatory Jungle

Experts said one of the most significant drivers of renewed interest in an integrated platform is the unruly tangle of absence and disability laws that employers are required to keep track of and comply with. There are hundreds of federal, state and municipal law related to job absence, including FMLA and a plethora of new paid leave laws to sort through.

Employers operating nationwide have their work cut out for them trying to stay in compliance.

And it’s all too easy to make a misstep, said Kelly Dieppa, vice president, Disability & Absence and Affinity Services Operations Head for Broadspire.

“How these new state leave laws intersect with comp claims and with short term disability … [employers] just don’t understand it,” she said.

Matt Sears, executive vice president of employee benefits, EPIC

“Those days are gone, of feeling like they have control over everything and they really understand everything; it’s scary to employers. We’re in such a litigious culture and it gets worse and worse. They want to make sure they’re covered.

“I think from a compliance standpoint it’s only going to get worse for employers — it’s not going to get better, that’s for sure.”

Dieppa said that when employers are using a more integrated leave administration platform and using a consistent approach across occupational and non-occupational programs, it puts them in a much better place from a compliance standpoint.

“You’re treating everyone through the same lens, applying the same method of screening and eligibility across the board. So even if it’s work related, you know right up front if they’re [also] eligible for a state leave law of some kind. Whereas in a traditional work-related situation, you’re just dealing with that workers’ comp claim itself — you’re not layering anything else in at the initial injury.”

Crunching the Numbers

The data piece of the puzzle is light years ahead of where it was at the inception of IDM, but it’s still labor intensive, said EPIC’s Sears.

“Depending upon the client’s level of sophistication and organization and access to all of that data it’s difficult for them to pull that together,” he said. In some situations, an employer might have every leave program administered by a different entity.

“There’s no magic box; there’s no single data tool,” he said.

“We pull data from IBI to use it for benchmarking comparisons,” he explained, but to do a proper analysis across programs, “somebody has to just roll up their sleeves, spread everything out on a conference table and start going through looking for the patterns,” he said.

The key for brokers and other vendors is to focus that data, said IBI’s Parry.

“The danger in that is the employer starts being inundated with reports. It really puts the onus on the supplier partner, whether it’s a broker or the company selling IDM, to really focus attention in reporting on things that matter, not just give the employer every possible exhibit that can come out of that integrated database.

“We have to really focus on what really matters, what’s actionable. What are the three things the employer should do, rather than giving them a 200-page report of every single exhibit that system can generate.”

Making the Case

Parry cautioned that integrating data takes time and money, which means making the business case for it. Nobody’s integrating data just for the sake of doing it, he said.

“You want to integrate data to have better results.” And that’s what the C-suite needs to hear.


“If I’m going to the CFO and saying hey give me $100,000 to integrate our data, the CFO’s going to say. ‘OK, what are we going to get for that?’ You’ve got the have an answer for that.”

The pragmatic strategy, said Parry, is to “benchmark your individual programs, look for opportunities, and take some steps. Then go to the CFO and say, ‘Here’s what we’ve done with siloed data. If we integrate data, we can focus on individuals and really drive a much higher penetration of strategy and outcomes than we ever have before.

“I think that’s a strategy that can really work for employers.”

So while the old concept of building a single organizational unit for absence and disability management may be off the table, IDM is still a significant platform for helping employers improve productivity, increase efficiencies, and decrease risk exposures.

“We can build a stronger program together than we can apart,” said Pam Bogner, DMEC education programs manager. “We can increase the efficiencies for both the employer and the employee. We can have what the employer needs to minimize their risk exposure — whether that’s financially, legally, or otherwise — together versus separately.

“If we all respect each other, if we all listen to each other and work together, we can accomplish more. And it’s going to bring better quality to the employer, to the employees and decrease risk exposure from all perspectives.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Focus: Cyber

Expanding Cyber BI

Cyber business interruption insurance is a thriving market, but growth carries the threat of a mega-loss. 
By: | March 5, 2018 • 7 min read

Lingering hopes that large-scale cyber attack might be a once-in-a-lifetime event were dashed last year. The four-day WannaCry ransomware strike in May across 150 countries targeted more than 300,000 computers running Microsoft Windows. A month later, NotPetya hit multinationals ranging from Danish shipping firm Maersk to pharmaceutical giant Merck.


Maersk’s chairman, Jim Hagemann Snabe, revealed at this year’s Davos summit that NotPetya shut down most of the group’s network. While it was replacing 45,000 PCs and 4,000 servers, freight transactions had to be completed manually. The combined cost of business interruption and rebuilding the system was up to $300 million.

Merck’s CFO Robert Davis told investors that its NotPetya bill included $135 million in lost sales plus $175 million in additional costs. Fellow victims FedEx and French construction group Saint Gobain reported similar financial hits from lost business and clean-up costs.

The fast-expanding world of cryptocurrencies is also increasingly targeted. Echoes of the 2014 hack that triggered the collapse of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox emerged this January when Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck pledged to repay customers $500 million stolen by hackers in a cyber heist.

The size and scope of last summer’s attacks accelerated discussions on both sides of the Atlantic, between risk managers and brokers seeking more comprehensive cyber business interruption insurance products.

It also recently persuaded Pool Re, the UK’s terrorism reinsurance pool set up 25 years ago after bomb attacks in London’s financial quarter, to announce that from April its cover will extend to include material damage and direct BI resulting from acts of terrorism using a cyber trigger.

“The threat from a cyber attack is evident, and businesses have become increasingly concerned about the extensive repercussions these types of attacks could have on them,” said Pool Re’s chief, Julian Enoizi. “This was a clear gap in our coverage which left businesses potentially exposed.”

Shifting Focus

Development of cyber BI insurance to date reveals something of a transatlantic divide, said Hans Allnutt, head of cyber and data risk at international law firm DAC Beachcroft. The first U.S. mainstream cyber insurance products were a response to California’s data security and breach notification legislation in 2003.

Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Of more recent vintage, Europe’s first cyber policies’ wordings initially reflected U.S. wordings, with the focus on data breaches. “So underwriters had to innovate and push hard on other areas of cyber cover, particularly BI and cyber crimes such as ransomware demands and distributed denial of service attacks,” said Allnut.

“Europe now has regulation coming up this May in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation across the EU, so the focus has essentially come full circle.”

Cyber insurance policies also provide a degree of cover for BI resulting from one of three main triggers, said Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter for specialist insurer Beazley. “First is the malicious-type trigger, where the system goes down or an outage results directly from a hack.

“Second is any incident involving negligence — the so-called ‘fat finger’ — where human or operational error causes a loss or there has been failure to upgrade or maintain the system. Third is any broader unplanned outage that hits either the company or anyone on which it relies, such as a service provider.”

The importance of cyber BI covering negligent acts in addition to phishing and social engineering attacks was underlined by last May’s IT meltdown suffered by airline BA.

This was triggered by a technician who switched off and then reconnected the power supply to BA’s data center, physically damaging servers and distribution panels.

Compensating delayed passengers cost the company around $80 million, although the bill fell short of the $461 million operational error loss suffered by Knight Capital in 2012, which pushed it close to bankruptcy and decimated its share price.

Mistaken Assumption

Awareness of potentially huge BI losses resulting from cyber attack was heightened by well-publicized hacks suffered by retailers such as Target and Home Depot in late 2013 and 2014, said Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability at Victor O. Schinnerer & Company.


However, the incidents didn’t initially alarm smaller, less high-profile businesses, which assumed they wouldn’t be similarly targeted.

“But perpetrators employing bots and ransomware set out to expose any firms with weaknesses in their system,” he added.

“Suddenly, smaller firms found that even when they weren’t themselves targeted, many of those around them had fallen victim to attacks. Awareness started to lift, as the focus moved from large, headline-grabbing attacks to more everyday incidents.”

Publications such as the Director’s Handbook of Cyber-Risk Oversight, issued by the National Association of Corporate Directors and the Internet Security Alliance fixed the issue firmly on boardroom agendas.

“What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.” — Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Reformed ex-hackers were recruited to offer board members their insights into the most vulnerable points across the company’s systems — in much the same way as forger-turned-security-expert Frank Abagnale Jr., subject of the Spielberg biopic “Catch Me If You Can.”

There also has been an increasing focus on systemic risk related to cyber attacks. Allnutt cites “Business Blackout,” a July 2015 study by Lloyd’s of London and the Cambridge University’s Centre for Risk Studies.

This detailed analysis of what could result from a major cyber attack on America’s power grid predicted a cost to the U.S. economy of hundreds of billions and claims to the insurance industry totalling upwards of $21.4 billion.

Lloyd’s described the scenario as both “technologically possible” and “improbable.” Three years on, however, it appears less fanciful.

In January, the head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, said the UK had been fortunate in so far averting a ‘category one’ attack. A C1 would shut down the financial services sector on which the country relies heavily and other vital infrastructure. It was a case of “when, not if” such an assault would be launched, he warned.

AI: Friend or Foe?

Despite daunting potential financial losses, pioneers of cyber BI insurance such as Beazley, Zurich, AIG and Chubb now see new competitors in the market. Capacity is growing steadily, said Allnutt.

“Not only is cyber insurance a new product, it also offers a new source of premium revenue so there is considerable appetite for taking it on,” he added. “However, whilst most insurers are comfortable with the liability aspects of cyber risk; not all insurers are covering loss of income.”

Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability, Victor O. Schinnerer & Company

Kletzli added that available products include several well-written, broad cyber coverages that take into account all types of potential cyber attack and don’t attempt to limit cover by applying a narrow definition of BI loss.

“It’s a rapidly-evolving coverage — and needs to be — in order to keep up with changing circumstances,” he said.

The good news, according to a Fitch report, is that the cyber loss ratio has been reduced to 45 percent as more companies buy cover and the market continues to expand, bringing down the size of the average loss.

“The bad news is that at cyber events, talk is regularly turning to ‘what will be the Hurricane Katrina-type event’ for the cyber market?” said Kletzli.

“What’s worse is that with hurricane losses, underwriters know which regions are most at risk, whereas cyber is a global risk and insurers potentially face huge aggregation.”


Nor is the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) necessarily cause for optimism. As Allnutt noted, while AI can potentially be used to decode malware, by the same token sophisticated criminals can employ it to develop new malware and escalate the ‘computer versus computer’ battle.

“The trend towards greater automation of business means that we can expect more incidents involving loss of income,” said Sané. “What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.

“We’re likely to see a growing number of attacks where the aim is to cause disruption, rather than demand a ransom.

“The paradox of cyber BI is that the more sophisticated your organization and the more it embraces automation, the bigger the potential impact when an outage does occur. Those old-fashioned businesses still reliant on traditional processes generally aren’t affected as much and incur smaller losses.” &

Graham Buck is editor of gtnews.com. He can be reached at riskletters.com.