Mod Hunters; You Need a Plan.
The name is more exciting than the job, I'm sure, but what is a Mod Hunter? I'm not really sure anyone calls them this outside of our circle, but here goes.
A Mod Hunter is someone who reviews experience ratings for errors, omissions or potential changes. In exchange for a percentage (usually %10) of the savings they generate for an Insured, they'll find the mistakes and work with the Carrier to get them corrected.
On first glance, it sounds like a great idea. With the shear volume of units we submit, there's a margin of error that will always exist. Even outside of errors, natural changes in a claim can sometimes require an update that results in a savings for the Insured.
So we make the changes they find and move on, right? No. I wish it were that simple, but we have an unfortunate twist to this sub-industry that few people discuss or know about.
There is a small sub-set of Mod Hunters who take an unethical approach. They find the reporting personnel and bombard them with very authoritarian-sounding requests and portions of manuals that don't apply. I've seen them use anything they can to try to get a staff member to reduce a claim: from vague requests that appear to come from government entities to photo-shopping a loss run to outright lying about who they are.
They do this in hopes that a staff member will make the change and move on. That's a quick buck for them and an damaging hit to the Carrier in a direct violation of the experience rating plan.
So, how do we plan for these? When receiving an odd request or one from someone outside of your normal circle, decide early on which of the following groups the requestor falls in.
Good - These are the people who are performing a valid service. Use them as a tool to help improve your system. Did they bring up valid systemic issues that you can fix? An incorrectly valued claim? An updated audit that never got reported? Learn from these people.
Bad - These are the unscrupulous people who are trying to confuse you into reporting invalid or incorrect data for a quick buck. Put them on a list available for all personnel to caution them. Your most experienced, knowledgeable expert should review each of these requests for validity. We use an email template to return that states firmly that we will not report outside of the NCCI/Bureau manual's rules.
In between - Consider helping these people. They may bring up good points that are incorrect because of a little-known rule or very complicated concept. I find that Agents fall into this category as well. They mean no harm, but they thought they found their Insured a savings. I go out of my way to educate them and I usually learn something in return. I've helped just as many agents find savings as I have refused their requests after they brought up a scenario.
Build your plan and things get a little easier as the months go by. We report on beh
alf of 15 carriers and find that we only receive these requests a few times per month. Translated, that means the average carrier possibly receives these once a quarter.
LGC, of course, can help a carrier avoid the matter altogether while improving grades and reducing frustration. We provide world-class outsourcing service as well as wcSYNC: a fully-featured SaaS platform designed to help a Carrier take NCCI & Bureau reporting inhouse while still reducing costs and risks.
Learn more about wcSYNC here.