Friday, 5 December 2014

Are Insurers Using Cost Control Tools Properly?

I noticed an interesting section at the end of a recent bulletin issued by FSCO regarding recent regulation changes that I reviewed in a recent post.  Thrown in with the announcement of regulatory changes is a discussion on mileage expenses by health care providers.

The bulletin goes on to state that FSCO is aware that some health care providers are submitting mileage expenses to insurers to travel to an injured accident victim to provide services. Insurers are reminded that "authorized transportation expenses", as defined in the SABS, are intended to apply to expenses incurred by the insured person and not health care providers.  Details of what can be claimed by insured persons are subject to the Superintendent’s Transportation Expense Guideline.

The bulletin also reminds insurers that hourly fees in the Superintendent's Professional Services Guideline include all administration costs, overhead, and related costs, fees, expenses, charges and surcharges. Insurers are not liable for any administration or other costs, overhead, fees, expenses, charges or surcharges that have the result of increasing the effective hourly rates, or the maximum fees payable for completing forms, beyond what is permitted under the Professional Services Guideline.

My guess is that these aren't just friendly reminders.  More likely FSCO has become aware that health care providers are submitting for mileage and other expenses related to treatment of insureds, and insurers are paying them.  While the industry is lobbying government to reduce costs in the system, insurers are paying for expenses that do not fall under the SABS.

Having worked for the government for many years I am fully aware of the amount of lobbying in which stakeholders partake.  Insurance companies are not shrinking violets when it comes to lobbying efforts.  There is a constant list of suggested changes presented to government officials to reduce the cost of auto insurance.

It was frustrating to work on endless changes to the system that will never be fully utilized. We now have a complex set of rules, many proposed by the insurance industry, that are not always being used. It is a system that is too complex for many to properly understand and use.

Yet the government keeps churning out more regulation and rule changes to drive down costs.  But growing red tape and complexity likely have the opposite affect.  Transactional costs keep going up for insurers, health care providers and legal representatives which ensures that the price of auto insurance in Ontario remains high.

As the service provider licensing system is rolled out and soon to be followed by a new minor injury protocol I wonder which direction costs will go - up or down.

Tuesday, 2 December 2014

New Auto Insurance Regulations

In October the government posted a notice on their Regulatory Register inviting stakeholders who comment on proposed auto insurance regulation changes.  The regulations have now been approved by the Ontario Cabinet. The regulations dealing with the licensing of service providers are effective December 1, 2014.  The regulation amendment dealing with the interest on overdue payments is effective January 1, 2015.

Section 51 of the SABS (O. Reg. 34/10) has been amended (by O.Reg. 236/14) so that interest payments of 1 percent per month compounded monthly for overdue SABS payments only applies up to the date on which a mediation proceeding begins.  Once the dispute reaches mediation the interest on overdue SABS payments is calculated at the prejudgment interest rate described in the Courts of Justice Act that is used for past pecuniary loss.  The lower interest rate and is then payable until the date a settlement is reached or a decision is issued that finally disposes of the dispute.

Section 49.1 has been added (by O. Reg. 227/14) to the SABS (O. Reg. 34/10)  to cover invoicing by unlicensed service providers.  These providers must bill claimants using the Standard Invoice (OCF-21) and the claimant is to submit the invoice to their insurer.  It is the responsibility of the insurer to provide HCAI with billing information from invoices submitted by claimants when they reimburse a claimant.

The Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices regulation (O. Reg. 7/00) has been amended (by O. Reg. 231/14). An unlicensed service provider may not advertise that they are a licensed provider. A licensed provider that has had their licence suspended or revoked may not continue to advertise that they are licensed.

The Administrative Penalties regulation (O. Reg. 408/12) has been amended (by O. Reg. 230/14) to deal with significant contraventions of the regulations that can involve or potentially lead to improper billing practices by service providers.

The Service Providers – Standards for Business Systems and Practices regulation (O. Reg. 90/14) is amended (by O. Reg. 228/14) to introduce a duty to report accurately to the Superintendent of Financial Services, in the periodic return established under section 288.4(5) of the Insurance Act, all information necessary to calculate any applicable fees established pursuant to section 121.1 of the Insurance Act.

The Service Providers – Listed Expenses regulation (O. Reg. 89/14) is amended (by O. Reg. 229/14) to allow licensed service providers to seek payment for outstanding accounts directly from claimants where a full and final settlement has been reached and signed between the insurer and the insured person that includes these amounts.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

It's Time That The Insurance Industry and Regulators Begin Accommodating Ride-Sharing Services

Uber, a San Francisco-based company estimated to be worth $17 billion (U.S.) is aiming to shake up the taxi business in Toronto.

Uber is reported to operate in more than 140 cities in 40 countries around the world, offering taxis, limos and car-sharing services, allowing customers to bypass traditional taxi companies and brokerages to request a ride using their smartphones.

When Uber first set up in Toronto in 2012, city of Toronto officials informed the company that it needed to get a brokerage licence. Uber disputed the request and has been insisting that it is not a taxi service, but rather a technology company, and therefore not subject to licensing requirements. The city has since hit Uber with 35 bylaw infractions and now the city is headed to court in an attempt to get an injunction to shut down the service. 

Toronto Mayor-elect John Tory is correct.  Uber and similar ride-sharing services aren't going anywhere.  Consumers like these new services and that's why there are using them.  Using a smartphone app, you will be told when the vehicle will arrive, who is the driver, the rating of the driver, the cost of the ride with tip and will allow you to pay for the ride without handling any cash.  No need to be standing in the cold or wet on a street corner waving your arm frantically trying to get a passing cab to stop.

The current regulated taxi model is archaic and costly.  The city limits the number of plate owners which has created wealth for plate owners who are often not the drivers. The dispatcher system is out of date when technology allows drivers and consumers to link up directly.  However, there is a lot of money tied up in the current system.  To make matters worse, the regulators appear to be very tied to the existing model.

The one thing that Uber is not short on is money.  They will fight this court battle as they have in other jurisdictions.  They typically come out on top.  Regulators should be designing new regulatory models to accommodate new technologies not fight them.  For example the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is working on a regulatory framework for driverless vehicles.  The insurance regulator and the insurance industry needs to develop insurance products that reflect these new technologies whether it is driverless cars or ride-sharing services.  

The insurance industry needs to recognize that ride-sharing is likely here to stay and properly underwrite these risks to protect drivers and their clients.

Monday, 20 October 2014

Ontario's Rate Reduction Strategy Likely To Fall Short

This week FSCO released rate filings approved for third quarter of 2014.  Nine insurers, representing 26.65% of the market based on premium volume, had rates approved in the third quarter of 2014. Approved rates decreased on average by 0.11% when applied across the total market.

In the backdrop is the Ontario government's commitment to reduce rates in the province by 15% before August 15, 2015.  The chart below breaks down the quarterly rate approval changes following the announcement of the rate reduction strategy last year. The third quarter of 2013 has been included although many of the rate approvals for that quarter may have been filed well before the strategy was announced. 

Quarter
Rate Change
2013 – 3Q
-0.68%
2013 – 4Q
-3.98%
2014 – 1Q
-1.01%
2014 – 2Q
+0.22%
2014 – 3Q
-0.11%

The accumulative rate reductions approved by FSCO during this period have been under 6%. With just 10 months remaining, the government is considerably short of its target with no real strategy to bring down rates another 9-10%.

Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 will likely be passed by the legislature within the next 10 months.  The Bill contains provisions to transform Ontario's auto insurance dispute resolution system into a more robust system. Other provisions would regulate the towing and vehicle storage industries through measures that tackle questionable practices. The bill would amend provisions in the Repair and Storage Liens Act and give the province authority to change the current 60-day period that a vehicle can be stored after an accident, accruing charges, without notice to the owner. The government has also served notice through the Regulatory Register that it will reduce the rate of interest on overdue SABS payments.

However, all of these initiatives as well as the proposed legislation to regulate the towing industry and the expected introduction of a new minor injury protocol could not possible bring down rates a further 9% in less that a year. 

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Update On Fraud

It has been nearly two years since Ontario's Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force delivered its final report to the Liberal government. The task force's final report was the result of a 16-month review and contained 38 recommendations dealing with fraud prevention, fraud detection, investigation and enforcement, as well as regulatory responsibilities.

 Following the release of task force report, it seems as if every auto insurance announcement released by the Ontario government has mentioned fraud. This is a strong indication that the government is very aware of the impact of fraud. To its credit, the government and the industry began implementing task force recommendations as soon as the report hit the streets. Despite all the work undertaken to implement the task force recommendations there still remain recommended action that are outstanding.

 MORE POWER TO FSCO

 The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and the insurance industry have created educational material in different media that instruct consumers at critical moments - such as when they learn to drive, select an insurer, collide with another vehicle or make an insurance claim - on how to avoid, detect and report improper activity. Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) and FSCO are active on social media, providing consumers with valuable tips and information.

It is now easier to report suspected fraud. Both IBC and FSCO operate fraud hotlines that consumers can use to provide anonymous tips of suspicious activity.

The government amended Ontario's Insurance Act in 2013 to enhance FSCO's powers. The Superintendent is now able to investigate anyone who was previously in the business of insurance; licensed service providers; or anyone else the superintendent considers may be engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. This would include examining records, books and other information held by a licensed service provider.

 A number of regulatory changes also became effective in 2013 specifically to combat fraud. The government has amended the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) so that claimants play a more active role in helping to detect and prevent fraud. As well, the list of unfair or deceptive acts or practices has been expanded.

Insurers now have the ability to examine a claimant under oath, where this is necessary to determine which insurer should be responsible for coverage, without prejudice to the right for an examination under oath with respect to questionable claims.

Finally, the government has broadened the terms of reference for the required review by the superintendent of Part VI of the Insurance Act to reflect the additional powers and responsibilities assigned to FSCO. In addition, the amended Insurance Act provision now requires the review to be conducted at least every three years.

A WORK IN PROGRESS

Although there has been considerable progress made in developing tools and mechanisms to combat fraud, there are still outstanding task force recommendations. The previous government's minority status and the recent election have contributed to delays in implementing a number of recommendations. Now that the Liberals have returned to power with a majority, it is expected that adoption of the remaining task force recommendations will accelerate.

A positive sign was the introduction of Bill 15, Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 shortly after the spring election.

Should Bill 15 be passed by the legislature - and there is no reason to believe it will not be - it will implement a number of outstanding task force recommendations.

Included are provisions to transform Ontario's auto insurance dispute resolution system into a more robust system. Responsibility would be transferred to the Licence Appeal Tribunal under the Minister of the Attorney General.

Other provisions would regulate the towing and vehicle storage industries through measures that tackle questionable practices. The bill would amend provisions in the Repair and Storage Liens Act and give the province authority to change the current 60-day period that a vehicle can be stored after an accident, accruing charges, without notice to the owner.

In 2013, the insurance industry established CANATICS, or Canadian National Insurance Crime Services, a not-for-profit organization focused on using state-of-the-art analytical tools to identify potentially suspicious claims in insurance industry pooled data, to facilitate further investigation by individual insurers. CANATICS recently added a 10th insurer as a member and now has access to data from 75% of the market based on direct written premiums in Ontario. CANATICS is expected to begin operations in 2015.

Health Claims for Auto Insurance (HCAI) has developed the Professional Credential Tracker to assist regulated health professionals in preventing their identities from being misused by health care facilities. HCAI continues to look at additional anti-fraud tools.

FSCO is well on its way to licensing health clinics that treat and assess auto insurance claimants and to sanction clinics that are not following FSCO's business-practice standards. FSCO has a wide range of sanctions at its disposal, including the ability to limit or curtail a facility's access to HCAI. The licensing system is expected to be operational in December 2014.

There are a number of other ongoing initiatives identified by the task force that the insurance industry is eager to see completed. FSCO continues to lead the work on developing treatment protocols for minor injuries that are based on scientific evidence. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Transportation is still working on its Electronic Collision System project.

MORE WORK TO BE DONE

Although it is anticipated that Bill 15 will pass, there are still a number of legislative and regulatory changes recommended by the task force that the government has not acted on. There still has been no legislation introduced to protect individuals who report suspected fraud from reprisals and retribution. The government has also not amended the regulation to permit insurers to collect a cancellation fee from claimants who fail to attend a medical examination without a good reason, and to suspend income replacement benefits when there is compelling evidence the claimant has submitted a fraudulent claim for medical or rehabilitation accident benefits.

There were also a number of recommendations that dealt with information sharing that have yet to be developed. There is a need for protocols for active information sharing about suspicious cases among the investigative divisions of FSCO, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. In addition, protocols are needed to permit FSCO investigators to exchange information with investigators from relevant federal entities (such as the Canada Revenue Agency). The insurance industry is still waiting for these regulatory bodies and agencies to begin work out these issues.

The task force report contained several recommendations directed at introducing greater transparency with respect to independent assessments that have not been implemented. This includes requiring insurers to disclose publicly how they choose and assess the performance of independent medical examiners they refer consumers to see. Health regulatory colleges are also expected to work together to develop professional standards, guidelines and best practices to improve the quality of independent assessments of auto insurance claimants conducted by their members.

The fight against fraud is far from over but progress has been made. Under prevention, consumer awareness has been enhanced and a new licensing system for service providers will soon be operational. The industry will be in a better position to detect fraud when CANATICS is fully operational next year. FSCO's powers have been expanded to allow for more effective fraud investigation and enforcement. All this would not have been possible without the co-operation of government, the insurance industry, police services and service providers.

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Ontario Ministry of Finance Has Provided Notice On Intent To Introduce New Rules For Service Providers

The Ministry of Finance is proposing to amend O. Reg. 7/00  to make it an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) for a person who provides or offers to provide goods or services for the benefit of a person who claims statutory accident benefits to communicate any false, misleading or deceptive information regarding their business or billing practices, services provided, or any other matter related to licensing.

 This UDAP is intended to apply to both licensed and unlicensed service providers. An unlicensed service provider may not advertise that they are a licensed provider. A licensed provider that has had their licence suspended or revoked may not continue to advertise that they are licensed. This amendment would ensure that consumers can identify licence holders and avoid confusion about what licence holder status means. This will also discourage inaccurate claims about what a licence signifies.

 In addition, the Ministry is proposing regulatory amendment to allow the Superintendent to apply variable administrative monetary penalties (AMP) to deal with significant contraventions of the regulations that can involve or potentially lead to improper billing practices. The service provider would have the opportunity for a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal on the proposed AMP.

The Ministry is also proposing to amend O. Reg. 90/14 (Service Providers – Standards for Business Systems and Practices) to introduce a duty to report accurately to the Superintendent of Financial Services, in the periodic return established under section 288.4(5) of the Insurance Act, all information necessary to calculate any applicable fees established pursuant to section 121.1 of the Insurance Act.

The Ministry is proposing to amend O. Reg. 89/14 (Service Providers – Listed Expenses) to prohibit licensed service providers from invoicing claimants directly - they will receive direct payment from insurers. The proposed amendment will allow licensed service providers to seek payment for outstanding accounts directly from claimants in prescribed situations (where a full and final settlement has been reached and signed between the insurer and the insured person that includes these amounts).

Finally the Ministry is also proposing to amend O, Reg. 34/10 (SABS) to require claimants who go to unlicensed service providers to obtain specified billing information from their service provider and submit this information to their insurer when seeking reimbursement.

The SABS would also be amended to require insurers to provide HCAI the billing information when they reimburse a claimant for a "listed expense". These amendments will ensure the continuity of robust and more complete data collection by HCAI. It will avoid possible loss of data that may otherwise occur when claimants are invoiced directly by service providers who are not licensed to be paid directly through the central processing agency.

The Ontario government's Regulatory Registry is inviting stakeholders and interested parties to provide comments on these proposed regulations (that have yet to be made public). The deadline for comments is November 6, 2014.

 Ontario's Regulatory Registry provides information on new proposed regulatory initiatives that could affect Ontario businesses and recently approved regulations that affect business. Regulations are approved by the provincial Cabinet.

 Once a regulation is approved, a plain language summary of the regulation is posted on the Registry website, with a link to the regulation posted on the Government of Ontario's e-Laws website.

Insurance News - Thursday, October 2, 2014

Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, October 2, 2014:

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Ontario Ministry of Finance Has Provided Notice On Intent To Change The Interest Rate On Disputed SABS Claims

The Ministry of Finance is proposing to amend the SABS (O. Reg. 34/10) so that when there is a dispute in respect of an insured person's entitlement to, or amount of statutory accident benefits, interest on overdue SABS payments is calculated at the prejudgment interest rate described in the Courts of Justice Act that is used for past pecuniary loss, and is payable from the date on which a mediation proceeding is commenced and ends on the date a settlement is reached or a decision is issued that finally disposes of the dispute.

 The Ontario government's Regulatory Registry is inviting stakeholders and interested parties to provide comments on these proposed regulations (that have yet to be made public). The deadline for comments is November 6, 2014.

 Ontario's Regulatory Registry provides information on new proposed regulatory initiatives that could affect Ontario businesses and recently approved regulations that affect business. Regulations are approved by the provincial Cabinet.

 Once a regulation is approved, a plain language summary of the regulation is posted on the Registry website, with a link to the regulation posted on the Government of Ontario's e-Laws website.

Friday, 19 September 2014

Uber Toronto Battles Regulators Over Its Ride-Sharing Service

Uber, a San Francisco-based company estimated to be worth $17 billion (U.S.) is aiming to shake up the taxi business in Toronto.

Uber is reported to operate in more than 140 cities in 40 countries around the world, offering taxis, limos and car-sharing services, allowing customers to bypass traditional taxi companies and brokerages to request a ride using their smartphones.

When Uber first set up in Toronto in 2012, city of Toronto officials informed the company that it needed to get a brokerage licence. Uber disputed the request and has been insisting that it is not a taxi service, but rather a technology company, and therefore not subject to licensing requirements. The city has since hit Uber with 35 bylaw infractions and the parties are headed to court. Although, there are some indications that parties are holding discussions.

Hailo, a British company, launched a similar service in 2012 but took a much different approach to Uber. It chose to obtain a brokerage licence. The Hailo app connects customers with taxi drivers, without the need to go through a central dispatch system. This allowed Hailo to be onside with regulators but not with traditional taxi companies who typically charge drivers an average fee of about $600 a month for dispatch services. Hailo is reported to have 2,000 drivers signed up which works out to about 20% of all licensed taxi drivers in the city. Some companies have disciplined drivers for using the Hailo or Uber app.

 In London, England, the transport regulator has ruled that Uber be allowed to operate legally until the courts consider a challenge filed by a local taxi drivers’ association. Other jurisdictions are trying to block Uber from operationg. Virginia issued a cease-and-desist order this year and in Pittsburgh, a judge order a halt to operations until the state’s public utility commission has completed a review.

Uber currently operates limo services under UberBLACK and Uber SUV and a taxi service is called UberTAXI. These are traditional services in a sense but use a smartphone app rather than a dispatcher. The drivers carry appropriate auto insurance for a taxi or livery service. The problem arises under UberX which allows ordinary drivers who have been pre-screened to pick up passengers in their own vehicles. Uber claims that drivers undergo criminal background checks and although the vehicles are not mechanically inspected, the do undergo a visual inspection.

The problem with UberX is that their drivers’ personal auto insurance policies are likely invalid while carrying a paying passenger. Uber says it has a $5 million insurance policy that will cover any liabilities that arises while transporting passengers.

In California, state regulators threatened to shut down Uber and other rider-sharing companies over the insurance issue. A deal was finally worked out regarding insurance coverage after a bill was introduced in the state legislature dealing with the issue. The problem gained prominence after an Uber driver struck and killed a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco while on his way to pick up a passenger on New Year's Eve. Because no passenger was in the car yet, Uber denied responsibility.

In each jurisdiction they operate in, Uber has confronted and won over regulators through a combination of negotiations, hardball tactics and making use of consumer demand for their service. It is only a matter of time before Toronto falls under the Uber spell.

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

HCAI Data: Assessments Continue to Be a Significant Proportion of Medical and Rehabilitation Expenses

The IBC has now published the standard HCAI reports for the first half of 2014. The document provides over 75 pages of aggregate data collected by HCAI going back to 2011. HCAI was made mandatory on February 1, 2011. 

 The standard reports are published on an “accident half year” basis. In accident half year statistics, the experience of all claims with accident dates in the same accident half year is grouped together. The accident half years are defined as calendar half years, with January to June being the first half and July to December being the second half for each of the stated years.

Assessment costs continue to be a significant portion of medical and rehabilitation expenses following the 2010 reforms.  Those reforms introduced a $2,000 per assessment cap on both insurer examinations and assessments conducted by healthcare providers.  As well, provider assessments now fall under the overall medical and rehabilitation cap.

Based on data from the General Insurance Statistical Agency (GISA), the total cost of all assessments in 2010 was approximately $ 1 billion.  In 2010, assessments represented approximately 40% of all medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The chart below sets out insurer exams and provider assessments per accident half year as a percentage of all medical and rehabilitation expenses using available HCAI data. Note that the cost of assessment is not really falling as suggested by the chart.  The data is not fully developed and since assessments continue to be a significant cost in older claims, the numbers will continue to grow over time.  What is significant is that assessments continue to be close to 40% of all medical and rehabilitation expenses once the data is fully developed.  

What has changed is the cost of medical and rehabilitation under the SABS with the reduction in the standard medical and rehabilitation cap and the introduction of the minor injury treatment cap.

Wednesday, 27 August 2014

HCAI Data: Most Early Treatment Is Provided By Chiropractors and Physiotherapists

The IBC has now published the standard HCAI reports for the first half of 2014. The document provides over 75 pages of aggregate data collected by HCAI going back to 2011. HCAI was made mandatory on February 1, 2011.

The standard reports are published on an “accident half year” basis. In accident half year statistics, the experience of all claims with accident dates in the same accident half year is grouped together. The accident half years are defined as calendar half years, with January to June being the first half and July to December being the second half for each of the stated years.

The chart below sets out the treatment reported on the HCAI system by healthcare profession.  It shows that the majority of claimants see a chiropractor or physiotherapist which is expected since the majority claims are strains and sprains.  But as the claims develop, claimants are seeing additional healthcare professionals.  In the most recent accident half year (first half of 2014) claimants saw an average of 1.5 professionals.  For the second half of 12013, claimants saw an average of 2.1 professionals and in the first half of that year 2.4 professionals.

The largest increases in interventions for older claims relate to physicians and psychologists. Because the data includes both treatment intervention and assessments, this is expected outcome. Older claims are more likely to undergo an independent medical assessment or a psychological assessment.  There appears to be minimal growth in chiropractic and physiotherapy interventions over time.

Monday, 25 August 2014

HCAI Data: Most MIG Claimants Continue to Receive Some Treatment After Completing MIG Treatment

The IBC has now published the standard HCAI reports for the first half of 2014. The document provides over 75 pages of aggregate data collected by HCAI going back to 2011. HCAI was made mandatory on February 1, 2011.

The standard reports are published on an “accident half year” basis. In accident half year statistics, the experience of all claims with accident dates in the same accident half year is grouped together. The accident half years are defined as calendar half years, with January to June being the first half and July to December being the second half for each of the stated years.

The chart below provides some insight into what might be happening to MIG claims over time. Although as many as 75% of claims are classified as strains and sprain and should fall under the minor injury definition, only a fraction of those claims receive MIG treatment only. A majority of those claims actually receive treatment within the MIG and additional treatment outside the MIG, likely when the MIG funding is used up.  However, that is not to day that they are actually "escaping" the minor injury definition and cap.  The average cost of treatment for strains and sprains is under $3,000.

One must be careful interpreting this data.  One might want to conclude that the number of claims receiving only MIG treatment has been increased over time based on the chart below since each accident half year, fewer claims are receiving both MIG and non-MIG treatment. However, the newer claims are likely still open and many of those in the MIG only category move over time into the MIG and non-MIG category.  When you compare data from previous reports you begin to understand how the data continues to develop.  I had previously reported that for the first half of 2013, 48.3% of strains and sprains received MIG treatment only and just 23.2% received both MIG and non-MIG treatment.  The most recent report indicates that only 26.7% of these injuries have only received MIG treatment and now 53.8% received both MIG and non-MIG treatment. These numbers will continue to develop further.


Friday, 22 August 2014

HCAI Data: Over 70% of MVA Injuries Continue to be Strains and Sprains

The IBC has now published the standard HCAI reports for the first half of 2014. The document provides over 75 pages of aggregate data collected by HCAI going back to 2011. HCAI was made mandatory on February 1, 2011.

The standard reports are published on an “accident half year” basis. In accident half year statistics, the experience of all claims with accident dates in the same accident half year is grouped together. The accident half years are defined as calendar half years, with January to June being the first half and July to December being the second half for each of the stated years.

The chart below breaks down the percentage of claimants receiving treatment per injury group. The data is further broken down by accident half year and the percentages are based on claims transactions between the accident date and June 30, 2014.

The injury group sizes have remained consistent since the HCAI began collecting data.  The data suggests that there doesn't appear to be any obvious erosion of the minor injury definition.  At least 70% of claimants receiving treatment are being diagnosed under strains and sprains which fall under the minor injury definition.  The diagnosis does change over time when you look at previous periods in a chart I posted earlier this year. There has been some drifting from strains and sprains to WAD III (PN) and third degree tears (FD).  For example, for the first half of 2013, the SS injury group dropped 2.2% between the two reports while the PN and FD groups increased by 1.0% and 0.8%.  This may reflect disputed claims and the time it takes to resolve disputes.

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Driverless Cars Will Create Cities with No Parking Lots, Congestion, Collisions...and No Car Insurance



Cars changed the world and our cities in the 20th Century by freeing people of the limitations of their geography.  People now have the freedom to live, work, shop and travel almost anywhere they want. The car industry has caused suburbs to grow, and made the development of road and highway systems necessary.  Cars also made possible the development of shopping malls, roadside businesses, supermarkets, motels and hotels, intercity travel, the taxi industry, and of course auto insurance.  Of course along with the positive contributions of cars, there have been negative implications - car accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in the world. Cars have also created traffic congestion and contributed to air and noise pollution.   



As people became more dependent on cars, those without access to cars have come less independent as they struggle to live, work and shop in cities where everything is spread out over large geographic areas.  Our cities and society are about to undergo another dramatic change as we move closer to the introduction of driverless cars.  Driverless will be here soon.  Google is testing a fleet of driverless cars in the United States and Britain recently announced it will begin a trial on public roads next year.  The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is consulting on a pilot project to test driverless cars so we may soo see driverless cars on Ontario roads.  Many of the negative aspects of cars will soon vanish as robot cars will take us wherever we want with less cost, stress and risk.  Car ownership will no longer be necessary and our cities and suburbs will be transformed again.



So what will this future world look like?  It may be hard to believe but no one will own a car.  Let’s take a look at John and his family.  John steps out of the shower and after drying off picks up his smartphone and orders transportation for his family for the day.  John needs to be picked up for work at 8:15 and brought home at the end of the day.  His wife, Gloria needs a ride to work at 8:40 and on the way will drop off her two sons, Brad and Glenn, at school.  She will need a ride home at 4:30 with a stop at the supermarket.  After school Brad will need a ride to hockey practice and Glenn will be dropped off at a friend’s house.  The cars are provided by RoboTrans which operates a fleet of driverless cars that are on the road 24 hours a day. 



At 8:15 John steps out of the house and a car is waiting in front.  John’s home has no garage or driveway and neither do his neighbours in this relatively new suburb which makes the neighbourhood esthetically more appealing and cheaper to build.  John reviews his presentation that he will be making this morning in the car which zips through traffic at brisk pace.  Rush hour as we know it will no longer exists.  A road full of driverless cars moves at constant speeds and distances between cars allowing the road to accommodate more volume at greater speeds.  The commute always takes 18 minutes and when the car pulls up in front of his office, John steps out and heads inside.  The trip is automatically charged to his credit card and the car pulls away and smoothly gets back into traffic to head off to pick up the next customer or to the city’s periphery where it awaits being wirelessly called back.  At the end of the month, John, Gloria and the kids have planned a driving holiday to the East Coast.  The family has already booked all the hotels and vehicles for the trip.  Not having to drive the long distance will mean that John will arrive fresh and ready to enjoy his holiday. 



Downtown will look quite different with no cars parked on the streets.  For one thing, traffic will be lighter without thousands of cars circling around looking for parking spots.  There won’t be any parking lots or gas stations.  All that ugly space will be gone, which will free up commercial real estate downtown and reduce property values.  As a result living and working downtown will become cheaper.  There will still be gas stations and RoboTrans will likely own its own located in industrial neighbourhoods for refueling its fleet.  There will be no taxis on the road because RoboTrans provides the same service but without a driver and at a much lower cost.  The UPS driver will likely also disappear.



So why won’t I be owning or leasing a car in the future?  Let’s say I drive my car on average 2 hours each day.  That’s about 8% of the day.  The remaining 92% of the time it sits on my driveway or a parking lot.  If I share a vehicle with others then my cost per trip will drop significantly.  My home and property taxes will drop because my home will need a small lot when I no longer require a garage.  I also will no longer need to have a driver’s licence or learn to drive.  When I become old and infirm, it won’t be necessary to give up driving or my independence.



There will no longer be road collisions and be no need to purchase car insurance.  That complex and costly system for insuring drivers and vehicles disappears.  Most collision repair shops, towing operators and private rehabilitation providers will disappear as well.  Personal injury lawyers will see case loads fall significantly.   Just imagine a world where there are virtually no injuries and deaths from car crashes, better mobility for people who can't drive now, more efficient use of resources, and healthier, more vibrant cities.  We will finally stop obsessing about cars and focus on people and making our cities more livable.



Just as Henry Ford revolutionized society when he introduced the Model T over a hundred years ago, Google will take us to the next frontier when driverless cars hit the road in the next few years.