I'm not sure of the reasons for the continuing posts complaining about "networks" and one network in particular on this and other forums because the answer is quite simple and if solved the discussion would consequently become irrelevant and at the least moot.

I don't think that ANY of us would object to networks per se if those networks were completely divorced from the glass business to begin with.

It seems to me that the very idea of being forced to run invoicing through a fixed-price competitor in order to be paid while meanwhile divulging private information to that same competitor smacks of restraint of trade and non covert corporate espionage as a start and I'm sure some clever mouthpiece could arrive at additional indictable charges given sufficient time from chasing ambulances.

We need to put the horse (us) back before the cart and concentrate on removing the dead weight from the cart (networks).

I'd suggest that we concentrate on that problem and forget about becoming bogged down with the unending details of why this or why that concerning networks.

Belron and Safelite are the latest point of discussion but what is the the actual result?

One snake shedding its skin to make room for another more enormous snake with even larger fangs?

Frankly, what is quite interesting to me is WHY some smart investor out there hasn't ALREADY recognized the profitable potential of creating a middle-man, objective, totally glass unrelated billing network with NO connection whatsoever to our trade.

When you say "some smart investor", you have answered your own question.

The only way to break into the TPA business is to offer the insurance companies something better than they are currently receiving.

What do you suppose that could be???

They are already getting good service

They are already getting "good" (questionable) quality.

They are already getting good (too good) prices.

Which of the above 3 factors can be "improved" in a manner that the insurance companies might respond to ?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm



Ira

Jim - I believe there is a small network that is trying this approach. It is called NEON.

But I think your point is well taken. The single largest point of contention seems to be that many of us, network or non-network, are forced to bill through a NETWORK that is our DIRECT COMPETITOR, agree to their pricing, network or non-network, and as you stated inform that COMPETITOR all the contact information for our customer (just hoping our COMPETITOR doesn't contact them in the future to provide services).

I cannot believe to this day that no one has acted on the HUGE conflict of interest SGC has when filing claims. Even HAL cares more about saving a $ then he does about the steering and other tactics his TPA uses.

Some state glass associations, I believe South Carolina has been the most successful, are moving to get laws inacted that would not allow an SGC system to happen. The laws would not allow a company involved in an industry in a retail manner to also process insurance claims in that industry. The idea being that NETWORKS have their role, ins co. have their role, and retail service providers have their role. To have a single company that is involved in more than one of any of those roles creates a huge conflict of interest that potentially puts the consumer at risk.

I think this kind of legislation is one area we should all focus on in this industry. I am sure it will not be the end all, but it is one step of many, and one area (law changes), that can aid in turning this industry around.

South Carolina has some really ODD laws. I am not even allowed to offer my customers a $10 referal to be a repeat customer. how gay is that?

Ira's post makes perfect sense....until one considers that insurers are not contracting for repairs with glass shops or networks, either one.

So why is this industry catering to someone other than the customer that IS contracting our services? (please don't anyone say 'because that's just the way it is!)

I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but once one gets this pill swallowed that insurers are not our customers, and neither are networks, the rest just falls into place.

(Harp, harp, harp....)

Mark1, I for 1 will not ever get tired of hearing this because it is SO TRUE!!! And when we ALL truely "get it" CHANGE WILL COME! Keep harpin! it's a great instrument! Actually it is mucic to MY ears!

Hmmmm. At the expense of an accusation of "harping" (something need I AGAIN remind you wouldn't be necessary in the first place if competitor owned networks didn't exist), my question still remains.

Would any of us object to networks that WEREN'T owned by competitors?

I think not.

Would we then be able to concentrate on GENUINE competition among ourselves for business from an OBJECTIVE network without fear that network isn't skimming the cream off the top?

I think so.

I suspect that the reason for competitor owned networks that eventually determined insurance company pricing other than NAGS (another topic entirely) is wholly due to the fact that:

A)They recoup some of their money through the control and the administration of the thousands of daily w/s repair and replacement leads as well as what they bill the insurance companies for that administration. (Do you think that billing and processing isn't profitable in itself along with the charges to thousands of small independents not set up with EDI?)

B) They buy better; consequently the profit margin for their dealers or franchises is better.

C) Safelite has managed to virtually erase advertising and promotion costs as well as dumping off unprofitable replacements and repair while meanwhile skimming the cream from the top. When was the last time YOU had a call from Safelite offering you a lead that was within ten miles or so from one of their shops? How much business have YOU lost because you allowed your own generated lead to call Safelite to dispatch the job and they were steered?

Aww, I could run the remaining gamut from D to Z but why bother? Some will never see the forest for the trees.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the insurance companies wouldn't consider contracting with some billing agency entirely divorced from the windshield business. In fact, they would spend a lot LESS money if they did so.

We consistently repair rather than replace around 98% of the business sent to us by Lynx and Harmon (we will have nothing to do with Safelite's network and told them to take a long walk off a short pier five years ago). I wonder what that percentage is viz a viz Safelite shops?

Can someone from Safelite enlighten me?

Better yet.

Is there at least ONE non-fatcat insurance company serviced by Safelite out there interested enough in cutting their windshield replacement costs instead of simply jacking up the premiums to their insured?