> Sedgwick Connection - >
>
  • Stay connected to a world of resources - view our videos | listen to our podcasts
  • 5 factors for fifteen - A solid grasp of past and present industry trends can help you prepare for challenges ahead. Sedgwick’s thought leaders are helping clients by forecasting five primary factors that will impact our industry this year. Learn more.
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

blog-slider_5for15

Sedgwick forecasts top risk and productivity management trends

As the leading global provider of technology-enabled claims and productivity management solutions, Sedgwick helps clients prepare for difficult changes, look for new ways to control costs, and ultimately improve outcomes. I am pleased to introduce our 5 factors for fifteen, forecasting major industry trends that we believe you should watch in 2015.

We are committed to helping our clients prepare for this year and beyond by highlighting emerging trends and risks likely impacting their businesses and their people. Technology and healthcare advancements, changing workforce demographics and legislative, political and climate changes, among other factors, contribute to the challenges we expect this year. It’s important for us to stay at the forefront of these shifts so we can continue achieving the best outcomes for our clients and their employees and stakeholders.

The key trends that Sedgwick’s thought leaders believe will most significantly affect employers in 2015 include:

1) Redefining healthcare

  • An evolving U.S. healthcare market
  • Patient engagement
  • Mental health

2) Technological advances

  • User-centric solutions
  • Hyper-connectivity
  • Cyber risk

3) Market and economic forces

  • Economic improvements
  • Focusing on the customer experience
  • Political landscape

4) Workforce challenges

  • Integration
  • The growing need to groom new adjusters
  • Diversity and inclusion

5) Weathering disasters

  • Addressing resiliency
  • Understanding exposures
  • Preparing for the ripple effect of climate change

We predict that the aforementioned issues will be significant in 2015 and join other industry experts in closely monitoring the legislative impact of the recent shift in power in the U.S. Senate—and the potential political impact of the 2016 presidential election—on the Affordable Care Act.

For more on the 5 factors for fifteen and Sedgwick’s perspective, visit sedgwick.com/5forfifteen and follow our blog for ongoing thought leadership.

David-North-Sedgwick-CEO-Sedgwick-Connection-Blog - 180

 

 

 

Dave North, President and CEO

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

What if I told you that you could save $185,000 at no cost to you? No, I am not advertising for some late night TV infomercial where the offer is too good to be true. I am talking about the world of Medicare set-asides (MSA). It is well known that prescription drugs are the leading cause of high MSAs. Why is that? The reason is simple: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) require drugs to be priced for the lifetime of the claimant (if we are seeking CMS approval of the MSA). In addition to a lifetime allocation of the drugs, CMS also uses what is called Average Wholesale Pricing, or AWP, to determine the price per pill of each drug. Very often the AWP is much higher than the workers’ compensation price, the drug store price or the discount price we receive from a pharmacy vendor.

Many clients and examiners have asked the Sedgwick Medicare compliance team about the highest-costing drugs. So we have put together a chart showing the top 10 most expensive, commonly prescribed drugs. In the chart below we have listed the drugs along with their common costs over various life expectancy timeframes. We have also listed generic alternatives where available to illustrate possible cost savings by getting the treating doctor to prescribe generic alternatives.

Let’s go back to my introductory statement about what if you could save $185,000 dollars. Looking at an example for a claimant with a life expectancy of 15 years, Percocet will add almost $200,000 to the cost of the MSA. But if the doctor prescribes the generic alternative, this amount is reduced to $15,400; a savings of approximately $185,000 to the employer or carrier on the MSA allocation. That is the kind of savings I believe everyone can agree is significant and still provides the same level of treatment for the patient.

We are providing this list as a reference only. Drug prices do change frequently, so don’t rely on this chart to price a drug. However, if a claimant is taking one or more of these drugs, it may be beneficial to have the case reviewed by a pharmacy utilization review team before making an MSA referral. By doing so, the utilization reviewer would have the opportunity to analyze the prescribed drugs and perhaps get the claimant off of these expensive drugs or move the claimant to a generic alternative. In either case, the MSA would be significantly reduced.

If you have questions or concerns about any Medicare compliance topic or issue, please contact our Medicare concierge desk at medicarehelp@sedgwick.com.

Michael Merlino, VP, Medicare Compliance

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

TRIA-renewedAs shown by news reports from France last week, terrorism continues to be a real threat.

Perhaps this reminder prompted the U.S. House of Representatives to vote 416-5 on Jan. 7, 2015 followed by a vote of 93-4 by the U.S. Senate on Jan. 8, 2015 for renewal of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) through Dec. 31, 2020. President Barack Obama signed the bill, H.R. 26, into law on Jan. 12, 2015.

The renewal of TRIA is welcome news to the insurance industry, including the workers’ compensation line.

In 2002, Congress enacted TRIA following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in response to terrorism insurance becoming unavailable or, when offered, extremely costly. Extended first in 2005 and again in 2007, the last session of the Senate in 2014 allowed the program to expire on Dec. 31, 2014.

On May 7, 2014, the Rand Corporation announced the release of a new study, “The Impact of Eliminating the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act on Workers’ Compensation Insurance Markets.”

The study noted that losses in workers’ compensation could be “more than $10 billion from a large conventional attack (10-ton truck bomb) and more than $300 billion from a nuclear attack.” The study noted that the workers’ compensation losses caused by the 9/11 attacks were “approximately $2.6 billion (in 2013 dollars).”

This study pointed out that because workers’ compensation coverage is mandatory for most employers and defined by each state’s statute, strategies available for other lines of insurance such as changing the insurance contract; imposing policy limits; excluding coverage of terrorism; or excluding losses from nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological (NBCR) attacks are generally not an option.

According to this report, some of the possible effects of TRIA expiration on workers’ compensation absent a dramatic increase in the provision of affordable reinsurance included:

  • A reduction in the amount of workers’ compensation capacity provided by the insurance industry, thus making it harder for businesses to obtain coverage, likely to be most pronounced for large employers, landmark buildings and businesses in dense urban areas
  • Redistribution of risk such that the burden of catastrophic losses would be confined within the state that is attacked to a greater extent, whereas TRIA spread those losses across the country
  • High-risk businesses paying more for their workers’ compensation coverage and the likelihood that those costs would be passed onto to workers in the form of reduced wages and/or benefits, thereby reducing labor income and economic growth

The bill makes the following changes to TRIA:

  • Increases the total loss program trigger total loss amounts, with respect to insured losses, from the current $100 million to $200 million, over five years beginning in calendar year 2016
  • Decreases the federal share of the compensation for the insured losses of an insurer during each program year by 1% until it equals 80% of the portion of the amount exceeding the annual insurer deductible
  • Over five years, starting Jan. 1, 2016, the mandatory insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount of $27.5 billion is increased by $2 billion each year to $37.5 billion
  • For all events, the bill raises the private industry recoupment total from the current 133% of covered losses to 140% of covered losses
  • Requires consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security for certification of an act of terrorism and no longer requires concurrence of the Secretary of State

This legislation also includes the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB II) provision intended to streamline insurance producer licensing on a multi-state basis, which the insurance industry wanted.

It is true that the backstop created by TRIA in 2002 has not been used to date. The dollar amount of damage caused by the Boston Marathon bombing attack in 2013, the most serious terrorism incident in the U.S. since 2001, was not large enough to meet the U.S. Treasury’s threshold of at least $5 million in property and casualty claims in conjunction with certification. However, TRIA has been credited for providing important stability for the commercial insurance and real estate markets against another terrorist attack.

TRIA is one more of those things that it is “Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.”

Desiree Tolbert, Director, National Technical Compliance

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

OSHA-010615New OSHA reporting requirements in effect Jan. 1, 2015

The U.S. Department of Labor announced revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s recordkeeping rule, including an expansion of the list of severe work-related injuries that employers must report to OSHA beginning Jan. 1, 2015.

OSHA has long required employers to, at minimum, report the death of any employee and the hospitalization of three or more employees within eight hours of the work-related occurrence. (Some jurisdictions have stricter, state-specific reporting requirements.) Under the existing rule, a multiple hospitalization event is defined as occurring within 30 days of the work-related incident.

The requirement to report work-related fatalities within eight hours remains unchanged. However, the new regulations reflect some significant changes to the longstanding requirements. Beginning Jan. 1, 2015:

  • Employers will need to report to OSHA the work-related hospitalization of an individual employee (as opposed to three or more employees) if the hospitalization occurs within 24 hours (as opposed to 30 days) of the incident.
  • In addition to hospitalizations, employers will also need to report all work-related amputations and enucleations (losses of an eye) if they occur within 24 hours of work-related incidents.
  • These cases must be reported to OSHA within 24 hours of employer knowledge.

Incident reports can be made by phone to OSHA’s 24-hour hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or to the nearest OSHA area office during regular business hours. Additionally, OSHA is developing an online reporting form, which has not yet been released.

These reporting requirements will apply to all employers under OSHA jurisdiction, including those who are exempt from routinely keeping OSHA records due to company size or industry. Additional information about the new regulations is available on the OSHA website.

Sedgwick is aiding our clients in ensuring compliance in the following ways:

  • We are adding to all of our first report notifications a reminder about OSHA’s expanded reporting criteria.
  • We are offering an OSHA-specific application through our viaOne® suite of technology solutions to help employers ensure full compliance with all OSHA recordkeeping requirements; click here to learn more.

I invite you to contact us, should you have any questions about these changes. Let me be one of the first to wish you a happy and prosperous 2015.

Malcolm Dodge, VP, Risk Services

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print
Mandel-121514-graph

Figure 1: The actuarial loss curve

There are many definitions of risk, with most coming pretty close to each other with minor nuances as distinctions. Interestingly, most all of these definitions put “risk” well beyond the point of “expected losses” on the actuarial loss curve (think high point on the curve that trails off into infinity as loss becomes less and less likely to occur but more and more severe; see figure 1). For the purposes of this discussion I’ll focus exclusively on the downside of risk or the potential for loss versus the upside where risk can be exploited for gain and value creation (another subject worthy of separate treatment). So are expected losses, and those that that fall to the right of this point on the loss curve below, really “risks?” If risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives (one common and simple view of risk) then, by that definition, “expected losses” would not be materially “uncertain;” they would be “expected” (though not certain).

This dichotomy has perplexed many risk professionals, especially those who lean into the traditional insurable risk realm, as these sources of loss are the primary focus of most of the responsibilities of traditional insurance-based risk management. All good then, as that is what they were hired to do; a very necessary function for the successful operation of organizations. And yet this may be the one thing that limits the influence – and in some cases the upward mobility – of many traditional risk managers. After all, senior managers are typically interested in the unexpected and uncertain potential for disruption to the organization, its strategy and its plans that defined success. As one CEO I worked for would say: “tell me what I don’t know and can’t foresee.” An understandable interest since the CEO is the ultimate accountable person for the successful achievement of the plans, both short- and long-term, of the organization he or she leads.

Can expected losses prevent successful execution of operational or strategic plans? The answer is generally “no” assuming these losses have been accounted for in budgets, whether they’re funded as retained losses or transferred to others through insurance or contract. Now, budget shortfalls do occur and some claims may not be paid under certain insurance or contract conditions, but these are typically one-off variances that are typically well within risk appetite (whether defined formally or not) and thus usually wouldn’t prevent accomplishment of most objectives.

So the obvious questions are two: 1) how does your organization define risk and is it the right definition that all stakeholders understand, agree upon and can manage to? and 2) where on the loss curve do you want to manage risk to? Other questions will emerge in trying to get to the second question in particular. For example, do you assign more importance to likelihood or impact? I would suggest they are not of equivalent import and get their relative importance from a well-defined risk strategy and the risk culture that undergirds it. Another question that quickly becomes critical is: how far out on the likelihood axis to you may be relevant to your risk strategy? This is the penultimate question that will define where you focus along the x-axis (likelihood or frequency), what your resource needs are, the level of sophistication of tools and techniques necessary to manage risk effectively, etc. I urge you to get your key risk stakeholders together and vet these issues to ensure you have the right priorities and focus for managing risk within your organization. Absent this, you’ll be flying blind along a curve that presents an infinite number of combinations of likelihood and impact. Can you afford to fly blind in the face of the potential of catastrophic uncertainty?

Chris Mandel, SVP, Strategic Solutions

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

Embrace-Inner-Child_header_SedgwickFor many of us, a new year represents a fresh start, hope, health and happiness. But for children facing life-threatening illnesses, the future may not look as bright. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital provides a beacon of light and hope for a healthy tomorrow. This year the Sedgwick 2014 holiday card is devoted to brightening the lives of the brave children at St. Jude.

We invite any of our Sedgwick friends to “embrace their inner child” this holiday season by sharing photos that reflect the joys of childhood: celebrating family traditions, enjoying holiday treats, playing in the snow or just having fun. Sedgwick will donate $5 to St. Jude for every photo uploaded through January 12, 2015, up to $50,000.

To participate, upload your photos here and/or share them via social Sedgwick-Smilesfor-StJude-20media using the hashtag #SedgwickSmiles4StJude and tagging @sedgwick and @stjude in your posts. Please help us brighten the lives of St. Jude families by embracing your inner child!

On behalf of all Sedgwick colleagues I wish you and your family a happy and healthy 2015!

Dave North, President and CEO

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

A hole is melted in the thin wall of CSST after a lightning-caused fire

Since the 1990s, a product called corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) has been used in some home and light commercial construction. CSST is used to deliver fuel gases to gas appliances such as furnaces, water heaters and stoves – a function previously done using rigid black iron pipe. Since CSST is sold on a continuous roll and does not require the labor-intensive cutting and splicing that black iron pipe does, it is more practical, easy and cost-effective to install. According to general contractors, the savings per home can often be as much as $2,000 to use CSST, which led many contractors to choose it over the traditional black iron pipe.

Over a decade ago and not too many years after CSST entered the marketplace, forensic fire investigators started to see fires that resulted when lightning struck a building and a failure of the CSST occurred. The electrical energy from the lightning charged the CSST, and if the CSST was in close proximity to another metal object with a different grounding potential, such as a water pipe or HVAC ductwork, an electrical arc occurred that often melted holes in the thin wall of the CSST. Fuel gas then escaped and was ignited by the electrical arc, resulting in an unintended fire. Since CSST is often installed in walls, below floors and in attic spaces, the fires generally would burn unnoticed until other building components ignited and a much larger fire resulted.

Despite lightning’s categorization as “Act of God,” many successful liability claims have been made against CSST manufacturers and construction contractors who would not always install CSST in a manner compliant with a manufacturer’s installation instructions. The influx of liability claims and the concern for safety caused some CSST manufactures to re-engineer their products and one to discontinue the sale of CSST in its original design completely. Other manufacturers have stopped short of doing the same but have greatly expanded their installation instructions beyond what was initially provided. Nonetheless, CSST is still being used and has been installed in millions of homes in the United States. Many of these homes will never experience a CSST-related fire, but some may, and that could happen soon after construction or many years in the future.

When lightning strikes, incorrectly installed CSST can create a devastating fire hazard

When lightning strikes, incorrectly installed CSST can create a devastating fire hazard

CSST is sold in different sizes depending on the consumption need. CSST in most homes is about the same diameter as an ordinary garden hose and is either wrapped in a yellow plastic material, or in newer designs, a black plastic. CSST is not the same as a similar-looking, shorter (3-5 foot) connection tube, commonly called a “pigtail,” that connects an appliance to a wall connection port or to black iron pipe. CSST may or may not be visible to the homeowner; however, as one step in risk reduction, concerned homeowners can look for it in their homes and simply make sure it is not in contact with any other metals.

For additional information about CSST and lightning-caused fires, contact any of Unified Investigations & Sciences’ offices nationwide. We have experts with specialized knowledge in these areas who are ready and willing to assist you.

Michael Reynolds, IAAI-CFI, FCLS, National Corporate Audit Services Manager
Unified Investigations & Sciences | a Sedgwick company

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

Carter-logoRecently I was honored with an invitation from Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter to attend her 30th Annual Symposium on Mental Health Policy at the Carter Center. The two-day event was a celebration of past accomplishments and brought together health industry thought leaders and experts within the national mental health community.

During the time President and Mrs. Carter were in the White House, she served as the Honorary Chairperson of the President’s Commission on Mental Health. She also helped bring about passage of the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980. At the Carter Center, Mrs. Carter is chair of the Carter Center Mental Health Task Force which is recognized for worldwide program initiatives to sustain momentum of the annual symposia and for bringing together mental health leaders and organizations nationwide to focus and coordinate efforts on key mental health issues and policy.

The symposium’s agenda was richly filled with celebrations of the past three decades and went quite deep into current challenges and opportunities, along with speculations about the next 30 years facing patients, providers, communities, policymakers and employers. Highlights included presentations on stigma against mental illness, access to mental health care and resources, coordinated care and recovery, technology-enabled mental health solutions and social justice.

From an employer perspective, one of the sessions which resonated with me was the presentation by Ray Fabius, MD, on cultures of health. Dr. Fabius is currently with HealthNEXT and a well-known author, global physician executive, entrepreneur and expert in the development of cultures of health. The cultures of health model is one that I am hopeful more organizations will embrace. When we think about stigma, access to mental health care, delays in treatment and compliance impacting health costs, disability days and overall productivity, would we not be better served by encouraging health? The model is designed for total health and well-being of the employee and organization, which in turn improves financial returns for the company and job satisfaction for the employees resulting in decreased absences and lower turnover.

Another fascinating mental health trend is the emergence of social media and peer advocacy in the mix of treatment. April Foreman is a psychologist who provided an inspiring and thoughtful presentation on how social media can – and is – being used ethically and effectively in mental health leadership. Through Twitter and chat sessions, mental health and substance abuse providers, patients and peer advocates come together addressing issues from suicide prevention to avoiding needless disability. I was moved by the level of success seen in a patient’s health and well-being with appropriate peer advocacy and support; the advocates are brave and smart about their care and crisis intervention.

More often than not, mental health care is provided at a time of crisis. Would we wait to treat cancer at stage IV? As I reflect on the symposium, the standout areas of cultures of health, mental health social media and peer advocacy have stuck with me as opportunities for us to further collaborate and transform mental health care and our support tools and ultimately work towards creation and deployment of a pre-disability model for mental health.

Mrs. Carter has been a strong advocate for mental health initiatives for over 40 years and her vision and leadership are cemented in footprints of the past and the future. I thank Mrs. Carter, the Carter Center and all participants of the symposium for a most enlightening and productive meeting. Please join me in continuing this discussion in my LinkedIn group, Transforming Healthcare for Tomorrow.

Kimberly George, SVP, Corporate Development, M&A, and Healthcare

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

fraud-hacker-grinchThe holiday season is a great time for family, friends and fun – but it is also a time for fraud. If we let down our guard, fraudsters can turn happy times to sad. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, fraud increases by as much as 20% during November and December.

Here’s why; as we purchase gifts for loved ones and give our hard-earned money to charities, we should understand that the Grinch has developed thousands of ways to steal from us. The alert consumer will practice these five tips to protect themselves this holiday season from “the mean one!”

1) If it is too good to be true… We have heard this saying time and again, so be cautious. Through numerous news accounts, we know that 2014 has been the year of the computer breach. Many, many retailers have been hacked and our email addresses have been stolen by fraudsters. Be cautious about big brand stores offering dirt-cheap deals. They may well not be the sender. Do not click on hyperlinks in emails; they often take consumers to phantom websites, where fraudsters capture your personal information. Instead, go directly to the merchant’s website for shopping.

Mobile devices make shopping easier than ever, but smartphones and tablets really open the door to online theft. As you browse, tap and buy online, be cautious. Only obtain official apps from the App Store or Google Play, as malicious apps may steal your information and then use the details to commit larger frauds.

2) Credit & debit card fraud  While we should be cautious with our credit cards and debit cards year-round, during the holidays we should heighten our awareness even more. Do not let your credit cards out of your sight. Be cautions of merchants who run your credit card twice (claiming the first time it did not process). Shoppers who make online purchases should be careful to use trustworthy merchants. Never conduct e-commerce using an unsecure WiFi connection. Always check your credit card statement for unauthorized purchases before making the payment. When performing PIN transactions, ensure others are not capturing the number; cover the keypad with your hand. Credit cards are a safer means to make purchases as fraud loss exposure is usually $50 or less. Consider using pre-paid cards for purchases; this method really limits your exposure in stores or online.

3) Fake charities  If you are considering giving to a charity, conduct some research before you give. Sites like Charity Navigator or Forbes.com collect and share independent, objective evaluations of many major charities and are good sources for information. By learning as much as you can about the charity, you can avoid those who try to take advantage of your generosity.

4) Purses, wallets or cards  Malls and department stores have a heavy volume of customers. Never leave these items unattended. Ladies, consider leaving your big purse with shoulder strap at home; instead consider using a cross-body bag that can’t be easily slipped off your shoulder or place important items in your pockets to free up your hands for holding purchases. Gentlemen, consider moving your wallet to your front pocket to protect yourself from pickpockets.

5) Review your credit report  Now is a great time of the year to review your credit report to check accuracy. Look for unfamiliar addresses and unknown accounts; this can help determine if someone has hijacked your account. Credit reports are free and should be obtained from annualcreditreport.com. Be mindful that the Grinch has also set up fake credit report sites to capture your personal information.

R. A. (Andy) Wilson, CFE, CPP, Vice President, Fraud & Compliance

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Email
  • Print

change-management-blogChange is part of everything we do and the way we go about implementing change can have a tremendous impact on how change is received and accepted by those directly and indirectly affected. At Sedgwick, one of our core values is to embrace change. This does not mean change or managing change is easy, but we have a great Implementation Project Management team who works with new clients and stakeholders to make the process run smoothly.

No matter where you are in your change process, these three things, when done well, will ensure change is developed and implemented successfully:

  1. Stakeholder identification
  2. Impact assessment
  3. Communication

Not surprisingly, these three things all feed into each other and are facilitated by project management.

It is important to understand that these three components are not one size fits all. The Sedgwick teams know each client is unique. Sedgwick’s Implementation Project Management team is empowered to leverage best-in-practice processes and documents in a manner that addresses the uniqueness of each of our clients ensuring a positive perception and outcome of the transition. Recently I worked with a new client where it would have been easy to pull out the project management text book and get the job done.

However, the answer was not 1, 2, 3 and move on to the next project. As outlined below all three areas are important but, depending on the need, one may be more important than the other two. In the case of this client, Sedgwick’s experience helped us identify that we really needed to focus the client on communication. We created an effective communication plan with attention to the other two areas for an excellent outcome.

So let’s dive in and look at each of these in more depth.

Stakeholder identification
Projects are defined as temporary and having a beginning and an end. Throughout the project, the project team should ensure they are identifying the complete scope of work. At Sedgwick, that means including what the client and/or sponsor defines as quality. First priority in the project management process is to identify a list of typical stakeholders. Although stakeholder identification occurs throughout the project’s lifecycle, identifying stakeholders during the beginning of the project will increase the likelihood of the project being successful. By taking the appropriate time to identify all stakeholders, the team can refine scope, define quality and determine appropriate communications needed early on in a project.

A stakeholders list can be documented by using team directories and sub-team directories that define responsibilities and approximate time needed so the client understands how to procure their project team resources. Our clients, across all industries, also typically consider who should be included in a project from not just internal departments, but also vendors, brokers and/or insurers.

Impact assessment
Impact assessment is necessary to understand and confirm a project’s impact within an organization’s risk and project portfolios and identify changes that could have a positive or negative impact. For example, we implemented a client that had recently purchased several large organizations on multiple technology platforms. The goal of the project was to integrate the various absence management programs into one total absence management program, while maintaining the multiple technology platforms for the recently purchased companies. The team engaged in this project spent time conducting a thorough review of the overall strategy for the client in regards to their newly acquired organizations and what that meant to the current structure of their absence program. It helped us determine what would need to be done and communicated in order to ensure the future state was in line with the client’s vision and strategy. To do this, we used the following Sedgwick tools and processes with the client to complete our assessment:

  • Stakeholder list
  • Communication plan
  • Identification and documentation of standard functions typically implemented as part of change
  • Creation of templates to ensure a consistent approach for analyzing the change
  • Development of processes to maintain the integrity and appropriate application of the tools used to define/refine scope and define quality

Communication
Finally, one of the most critical and more difficult challenges we see for our clients is communicating change to their employee population. By taking the time to identify all groups that have some sort of stake in the project/product, combined with the completed impact assessment and the organization’s risk/project portfolio, the project team can determine the types and frequency of communication to ensure there are no midnight hour surprises or poor perception of the change that is being implemented. Here are some of the most common methods we find useful for clients:

  • Sample communication schedules
  • PowerPoint training presentations for HR managers
  • System guides
  • Sample FAQs
  • Communication vehicles
    • Posting communications on internal portal sites
    • Panel card notifications
    • Tri-fold brochures with perforated wallet cards
    • Process templates

With effective communications, you can ensure change is received more positively and that employees, HR personnel, risk managers, supervisors and management staff know how to interact and use the new products/services. Management support is gained for overall objectives.

Change is difficult so if you can identify who should be involved, how it impacts the overall organization and what and when to communicate, you can ensure the success and positive perception of the change you are implementing. How do you manage change? Share your successful strategies in the comments below.

Daniel Gerke, Project Manager, Implementations | PMP