A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identifies structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.
CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
CLM's litigation management study results are summarized in the cover article (titled "The Fab Four") of the Fall 2011 issue of CLM's "Litigation Management Magazine" which highlights four "key findings" that "emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in the study:
"Litigation management effectiveness has CEO-level visibility like never before.
"Litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them.
"Organizations are taking a more active role in procuring and managing litigation management service provider relationships.
"Litigation management ROI quantification is both difficult and valuable."
Among the 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed, the "most penetrated" external exclusive or preferred service provider programs were:
Structured settlement - 63%
National reporting program - 48%
Surveillance - 48%
Outsourced processing - 21%
Records retrieval - 20%.
The CLM article quotes Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions, who describes the "shift in thinking" about national service provider programs:
"These programs are about much more than cost savings, although the savings can be substantial and can be in and of themselves a primary motivation to create these programs. To be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."
When asked "How effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", however, 74 (plus) percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse:
Very effective - 13%
Effective - 13%
Fair - 38%
Poor - 34%
Very poor - 3%.
Although the CLM article summarizing the litigation management study highlights structured settlements, it does not identify or suggest specific metrics or analytics for liability insurers, self-insured defendants or government entities to determine the effectiveness or success of their structured settlement programs.
As defendants and their insurers continue to re-think structured settlements in the context of legal and financial developments, here are some questions they might consider:
What performance metrics do you utilize to evaluate the effectiveness of your structured settlement program?
Which metric is most important?
Which metric is most difficult to obtain or confirm?
Do structured settlements increase or decrease your claims costs?
How do you measure the impact of structured structured settlements on your 1) current and 2) future claims costs?
What is your structured settlement success ratio?
How effective are your metrics in measuring the success of your structured settlement program?
What changes in your program would improve your structured settlement performance?
For additional S2KM analysis to help stakeholders re-think structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki as well as future S2KM blog posts about structured settlement metrics.
CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
CLM's litigation management study results are summarized in the cover article (titled "The Fab Four") of the Fall 2011 issue of CLM's "Litigation Management Magazine" which highlights four "key findings" that "emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in the study:
"Litigation management effectiveness has CEO-level visibility like never before.
"Litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them.
"Organizations are taking a more active role in procuring and managing litigation management service provider relationships.
"Litigation management ROI quantification is both difficult and valuable."
Among the 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed, the "most penetrated" external exclusive or preferred service provider programs were:
Structured settlement - 63%
National reporting program - 48%
Surveillance - 48%
Outsourced processing - 21%
Records retrieval - 20%.
The CLM article quotes Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions, who describes the "shift in thinking" about national service provider programs:
"These programs are about much more than cost savings, although the savings can be substantial and can be in and of themselves a primary motivation to create these programs. To be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."
When asked "How effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", however, 74 (plus) percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse:
Very effective - 13%
Effective - 13%
Fair - 38%
Poor - 34%
Very poor - 3%.
Although the CLM article summarizing the litigation management study highlights structured settlements, it does not identify or suggest specific metrics or analytics for liability insurers, self-insured defendants or government entities to determine the effectiveness or success of their structured settlement programs.
As defendants and their insurers continue to re-think structured settlements in the context of legal and financial developments, here are some questions they might consider:
What performance metrics do you utilize to evaluate the effectiveness of your structured settlement program?
Which metric is most important?
Which metric is most difficult to obtain or confirm?
Do structured settlements increase or decrease your claims costs?
How do you measure the impact of structured structured settlements on your 1) current and 2) future claims costs?
What is your structured settlement success ratio?
How effective are your metrics in measuring the success of your structured settlement program?
What changes in your program would improve your structured settlement performance?
For additional S2KM analysis to help stakeholders re-think structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki as well as future S2KM blog posts about structured settlement metrics.
0 comments:
Post a Comment