Why did the thread on F&R disappear?

Pricing...........
Ooops ...

Ok, let me try this again and see if it gets deleted. SGC and other TPAs take some invoices and re-bill them at a much higher rate than they reimburse shops. The same insurance companies they do this with are companies that pay my full retail price when I direct bill them. And they never complain that my prices are too high. Wake up guys. 10 years + after the "rebalance" some of you are buying in to what TPAs are saying is Fair & Reasonable. Do the math. Bill what you need to to make a decent living. Don't let your biggest competitor dictate what you charge.

I started a thread, a year or so ago, on how do you bill the insurance company directly, without going through the TPA's. It got quite a bit of traffic and many detailed posts, with really good info, then all of a sudden, POOOOFFFFFF, it was gone. It seems like when something gets discussed on this forum, that people will NOT respond to in a sarcastic, juvenile, name calling tone, it gets pulled. Maybe that is why the traffic on here is noticeably down. JMHO, let me know if you disagree.

Direct billing couldn't be easier. Send your invoices to the insurance company, not the tpa. In most cases you can fax or email the invoice so you have proof they received your bill. If you mail the invoice choose an inexpensive option that verifies the insurance company received your invoice. Make sure you have a legal assignment of proceeds(check your state laws). Know ahead of time how you will collect your short pays(arbitraton, small claims court, again check your state laws). Go after EVERY short pay.

You can do this. Anyone can do this.

Time after Time we try to post information to help Independent shops, only to have the thread pulled. What conclusion can anyone with half a brain conclude?

Is this site being pressured from certain entities?

Some of us try very Hard to not violate any post that could in any shape of form be stepping on any toes from anyone. AND LOW AND BEHOLD ZAPP IT IS GONE. What does this say about AGRR forum? I have talked with various head administrators from AGRR and ALWAYS give them the best info I can possibly give. I have been quoted many times in the AGRR magazine.

I have also been banned many times. I keep coming back for 1 reason, to help more Indy Shops to survive.

There is no reasonable reason to delete this last thread, but once again the power to be decided to delete. Agrr you know who I am, you have tried to stop me, block me, and The only reason I still come back is because I care about the industry I put me blood, sweat, and tears into THis. I HAVE MORE IN THIS GAME THAN YOU CAN Concieve .

SO AGRR Delete all you want you can not stop a movement to help independent shops.
Crazy part OF THIS is without indies your entire site is a MOOT point and WORTHLESS, You will ALL lose your jobs! Go Ahead delete me again I will come back again! '

That is the truth.................................................

If you talk about pricing, or market allocation, or any other possible anti-trust issue, your post will be deleted. And it was.

If no specific price, part number or insurance company is mentioned, is that a possible anti-trust issue? If yes, what classifies that as a possible anti-trust issue? If someone says that a certain TPA's cash prices are a lot higher (in general) than their insurance prices paid to their affiliates and they are wondering if that higher cash price is what that TPA is charging the insurance companies, is that an anti-trust issue? Just wondering.

I guess we can't talk about Nags because that means we're talking about pricing. But hasn't AGRR talked about Nags in dozens of articles? That's an anti-trust issue? Really? Give me a break (no pun intended)
It appears that talking about SGC's tactics is what gets posts yanked. I wonder why?

Touchdown, I guess that is an......
Ooops....

Is it against the rules to talk about other websites too?

Is it against the rules to talk about glass shops uniting? The IGA talks about it all the time. Why was that post removed??????????????????????????!!!!!!

Just what we need. UNITED INDEPENDENT GLASS SHOPS.

NO IT WAS NOT. No price fixing or anti-trust issue was posted.

AGRR is this really your post? Most of the time, the actual person will post, but not under agrr? hmmmmm Please let me know who actually posted this and I will gladly call you in person. Deb or any other rep, please call me and let me know we can talk one on one. You know who I am. If not tell me who to call I will be prompt.

My post did not contain any of your aforementioned issues but yes in fact the thread was deleted. maybe not from my post. ok. I do not believe any of us are trying to make an issue here on this forum. I believe the majority of posters really want to help and make a difference for the indy shops who are fighting EXTREMELY hard to maintain a PROPER business, and keep our doors open, it is SURVIVAL. When some of us talk about pricing it is NOT our intention to establish or SET anything but to report the FACTS that we are dealing with.

Actually The article "price points" does more to price fixing than ANYTHING we can talk about.

Market Allocation. I am trying real hard to wrap my head around that statement. Talking about "market allocation" goes on everyday, everywhere, and the networks and ins co.s use this to further beat up shops, so this one makes me go ,,, WHAT???? And agrr being in the advertising business uses market share every day also in your everyday method of doing business. So how does talking about a market have anything to do with any "anti-trust" issue?

Fact. Many things about pricing can and is talked about that does NOT violate any issues of any type. If that were the case advertising pricing of any type would be price fixing. The issue is clear. Any two or more entities that discuss pricing to "FIX" or establish a "rate" is price fixing. So when agrr magazine publishes pricing points they are in fact discussing pricing between themselves and ALL READERS who most likely are in the 10's of thousands. Hmmmmm.....

When networks and insures get together to establish pricing THIS IS PRICE FIXING. AND AGRR should be ALL OVER IT because it is the BIG STORY. IT IS THE BIG KAHUNA!
Ok before I waste any more of my time on this I will wait for your response.

No Violations In this post are intended or desired, only proper communications and information to help all who are oppressed. AGRR CALL ME

Haven't picked up an issue of AGRR magazine in a while, but don't they have articles every months called "price points" where they survey several shops (usually Safelite network shops) and publish artificially low prices so insurers can use it against us. How is that different?

AGRR, please explain why your price point articles are o.k but content on this site is not? Really makes me wonder who influences AGRR, especially with the cherry picked, low ball prices in the price point articles.

LOL ! Don't worry, this thread won't be pulled.

What is the difference of saying that indies need to unite vs all the other threads about indies getting involved with state legislation to better the industry? Same principles, different platform. Don't understand why that post was pulled over saying that glass shops should get together over the internet. Isn't that precisely what we are doing on this site? Well, when posts don't get pulled and people don't get gonged.......

I hate price points and I always have. The shops are told there is no insurance involved. There isn't even a customer involved! That's exactly what insurance companies do! They imply that they have a broken windshield and they don't. So guys, don't talk pricing even though AGRR does and insurance companies shove those "price points" down our throats to justify their "fair and reasonable" pricing.

When the last time you saw Price Points? I haven't seen it in there in ages. Hmmm.

Define ages. Hmmmmmmm..

Maybe last year like 6 months or so? I have had multiple conversations with AGRR about "price points". Asked them WHY? AHHHH just to report what we find on a broad basis. But I did ask them if they had a complete break down to compare real apples to apples and oranges to oranges, was the quoted price including mouldings, tax, 1 person set 2 person set, full cut out, short cut, stuff job or how did they base any type of quality, and safety...... ah they had no clue. said they just called random shops and took that as truth.

price points served who? or what? now that makes one go HMMMMMMMMM??????

Smiley, what evidence do you have that this taking place? I can see how a TPA could submit invoices for their "financially affiliated" shops at higher rates and still know that they will be coming in under the GAI agreed upon with the particular carrier but if you have actual evidence of a TPA changing the amount of an invoice prior to forwarding it to the insurance carrier, I would think your state attorney general would be very interested.

The fax from Alliance/SGC States, "This is a sale to Alliance Claims Solutions for resale to the customer." We bill the insurance company directly and get paid in full.

On the bottom of the fax in bold type it says, "Please direct all non-scheduling questions to Safelite SShop care instead of the policyholder." You can't make this stuff up. I would include the ridiculous discount Safelite is asking for but the thread would probably disappear. Chances are it will anyway. HSG and Lynx have similar agreements in place with some insurers.

That fax assumes the faxee is a member of the network. If you are not a member and direct bill the insurance company, the fax is meaningless. If you try to bill through the network, the invoices are usually rejected until the network agreed price is on the invoice.

Insurers that get direct billed invoices i.e. ones that didn't go through the TPA will usually refer them to the TPA and only pay what they would have been billed by a network member all the while hoping that the shop will accept the "short pay".

Once the insurance company learns that your shop will not settle for short paid invoices, they will begin to pay in full. (As long as the invoice is reasonable.)

As I stated several times, I bill directly and get paid in full. My point is, they plainly state on their fax that they will re-bill given the opportunity. And for shops silly enough to give them the discount they're asking for that is clearly what they will do whether the shop is network or non-network.

Rebill as in mark the bill up? Isn't that insurance fraud? Or is it fraud only when the insurer isn't the one who set it up that way so the network didn't go broke? Lol

They're not breaking any laws, but the point is direct billing is a better route to go, and the fact that some TPAs mark up a shops invoice is proof that fair and reasonable pricing is higher than what they would have you believe.

Just a thought......but wouldn't it be cheaper for the insurance co to pay the bill directly through fair and reasonable pricing than to pay the tpa $$$ just to process the claim? Hhhhhmmmmm......

Depends. Originally the idea was to pay a tpa once a month instead of paying thousands of individual claims. Makes sense except that the TPAs are competing for the business and have been the insurance companies tool for short paying.

There was an issue with this some time back, about mobile installers charging and paying local sales taxes when mobiling in from out of town. While this isn't the point, resaling across state lines MUST be an issue as well. Sales tax must be collected, and paid, by the RETAILER AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY TO THE CONSUMER in all state laws I have read. If you resale across state lines, regardless if you are given a "(alleged) valid resale tax number", to an entity not party to the repair contract also, you've double whammey'd yourself in that those same state laws put the burden on the retailer installing, NOT on someone who told you to resale it to them, or that is was "OK". You installed, you collect sales tax and pay it. You resaled, and you shouln't have. Two strikes.

No state to date when approached with this has denied it as incorrect legal interpretation of the sales tax laws to my knowledge. Many have asked for more information at length, when they realize that sales tax dollars are slipping out of state's grasps.

JMHNLO

There is no question that states are losing tax revenue when TPAs pay shops half of their invoice. Too bad states don't take a closer look at this.

Real good topic here. I have more than once called my stated Dept of Revenue and ask about this. FLAT OUT the shops IS responsible for tax on the materials. Mn does Not tax labor for repairs to vehicles. It used to be all labor was not taxable but some of the state laws have changed a bit. BUT NOT TAX ON MATERIALS for auto glass.

Harmon a few years ago was hand slapped and told to cease and desist. They did. Alliance Solutions AKA SGC, still sends worthless work orders out that state "WE MUST NOT INCLUDE SALES TAX AND THIS IS A SALE FOR RE-SALE". WRONG. the shops are and will liable for all sales tax on the materials on the itemized invoice.

Fortunately for me I ignore alliance work orders because my state dept of rev has told me it is not valid. Plus as I am not a network slave I already know what it is worth.

I haven't chatted with my State Dept of rev for awhile, so I must be overdue in making a few more contacts.

As far as short pays go, the state says we are responsible for what we bill. So when any network or INS CO short pays, they have to itemize just as we do, exactly what they are doing. When they alter the materials and tax, the state has told me directly "that is fraud, they can not do that".

I know some shops here pay sales tax based on what they get paid, then when they re- coup losses in Arbitration they amend and send in the difference for the sales tax. I would think so long as you keep your records perfect all ok, so long as you pay the tax as you collect it, but I know the state prefers the shop to pay tax on what is billed out. YUP HOW CONVENIENT FOR THEM. As long as they get there's it is your problem. hmmm I just don't want the booking nightmare in bookkeeping so I pay my sale tax based on what I charge. It has worked very well and simple. But only because I have not failed to collect on short pays. MANY,short pays, and lately even I am getting supplement payments before arbitration filing which makes good sense, because it saves the INS CO allot of money. Just got 1 today,, thank you.

Smiley, the amount of lost sales tax since the last re-balance is astronomical. I have not seen my short pays in half of what I charge, because I charge a very fair and reasonable amount. The average short is in a certain range, and in being very careful and respectful to this forum I will not post that number. But it is very interesting just how consistent the short pays from certain tpa's and certain Ins co's really are.

Lastly the closer states look at this a very interesting thing happens. They are very interested at first, but as a little time goes on and we dig a bit deeper, it suddenly, and sometimes quickly, gets swept under the rug.Hmmm From there 1 needs to form their own conclusion. A couple scenarios come to mind, But they make me scratch my head and go WHAT?

Don't be intimidated to chat with your state dept of rev to what they think about this stuff, it might surprise you, and just maybe inspire you.........JMHNLO as a good friend of mine has told me many times "connect the dots"...FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

In Florida many shops resolve their billing disputes through appraisal. I represent many shops during this process. A TPA billing a carrier more than they pay the shop doing the actual work would be compelling evidence to move an umpires award on a claim higher. Is there any evidence I can point to for this happening or does it come under urban glass legend?

Read some of my earlier comments. I receive faxes from Alliance/Safelite for several insurance companies. They ask for big discounts. The fax states that The job is for re-sale. I ignore the fax and bill directly at my full retail price and get paid in full. They're doing it. How to prove it is the next step.

Ok, let’s do some deductive reasoning here, but first, let me state that, yes, there is proof, and yes, I have seen it, but no, I’m not going to supply it to you or post it on this board to prove that it exists.

So, to some deductive reasoning via some questions:

1. What reason would a TPA have to clearly state that sales are for resale to the TPA and not to charge sales tax?

2. Why would a TPA want the burden of becoming liable to collect the sales tax and ensure that it’s being paid in fifty different states?

3. Do state sales tax authorities communicate between states, across state lines, to ensure that when something is “re-saled” that the end seller pays the proper sales tax?

4. If the answer to #3 is “no”, then is it possible to tell the State of California, for example only, that a resale occurred to Florida, for example, then tell the Florida tax entities that the sales tax was paid in California, knowing that those CA and FL folks at the State Dept of Revenues don’t communicate over these things?

5. Who would be responsible for the tax collection, and payment to the proper State entity, if they DID find those taxes were not being paid? In any state law I’ve read, it’s the RETAILER at the POINT OF DELIVERY to the consumer.

6. Did the insurer contract for repairs to the property, therefore enabling the TPA to subcontract the repairs to the repairer in the first place?

7. Is there a GAI contract in place between the TPA and the Insurer? If so, how can that effect pricing between the TPA and the repairer, whether the repairer is a “Network Member” or not, since the answer to #6 is always, and yet to be proven otherwise, “NO”?

I’ll stop there, because in your function as an appraiser, this should provide you with sufficient logic to, as someone else posted recently, “connect the dots”, and to, effectively, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

As always, this is all JMHNLO

Good points Mark1. No, we're not talking "urban glass legends". As I said before, you can't make this stuff up.

Mark1 - Complete and utter gibberish!

or could it be you just don't comprehend what Mark is saying? Or don't want to. Or you want to discredit him so others ignore his comments. Now that's gibberish!!!!

Smiley, the inability to answer a question and go off on a tangent I term gibberish. Like your comment for example. If you can't keep up, sign off.

Fine, Amazed, what part don't you understand?

Bear in mind, I will explain in terms the webbie won't deem as inappropriate, such as asking questions, rather than making statements.

If YOU can't keep up, I'll try to slow down and explain it better.

Otherwise, feel free not to read it. I do that with several posters on here all the time, I expect no better for myself.

In the meantime, have a nice day.

Oh, and BTW, I was handed another example of the proof the other gentleman was asking about today. I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing myself, even after I listened twice.

JMHNLO

It becomes very difficult to be respectful to some that do not deserve that courtesy, but on all occasions we still try.

Whoever would post under AMAZED and then, They were TOTALLY amazed that they could not grasp the concepts and views of the previous poster is beyond AMAZING. WOW. NOW THAT IS A CATCH 22. OR ONE HECK OF A SPIN TWIST.

Actually, Mark1 was responding to the exact post we was quoting from so he was staying exactly on topic. And in fact Amazed just tried to pull the thread off topic, wow

It is amazing how Amazed is so clueless. WOW! Mark1 post have most always been SPOT on and very excellent info. Thanks Mark1 as always. Thank GOD we have a few that "get it".

From what I read, talking about pricing market allocation or any possible anti trust issue isn't remotely illegal. What's illegal is conspiring to commit any possible anti trust, or agreeing to fix pricing or allocate markets.

Talking about the issues is commercial free speech isn't it, let one free speech in general?

Only when folks conspire to or make agreements to break the law is there a problem, according to what I read on wiki but I suppose there's some that would have us believe otherwise and the people that run this site are probably scared to risk it when some one powerful calls and demands an investigation.

I wonder what an in vestigation like that would really expose if the feds actually did? Lol

Welcome to the AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™ message forum. We are happy you are joining us to voice your opinion. Please remember before posting questions about products or specific windshield replacements, etc., to use the forum search feature first. Many topics have already been covered extensively and the information you are looking for is probably already available.

Please note that discussions of pricing (i.e., "What do you charge for this?"), boycotts (i.e., "Let's all not buy from the Smith Company"), market allocation, or discussions of a personal nature or directed toward specific people will be removed as will anything the moderator believes to be in poor taste (i.e., allusions to Pedro and his donkey") as will any comments that, in the glassBYTEs staff's view, constitute advertising (help wanted, products or services, etc).Thanks for honoring these guidelines

So Walmart advertises a product for $9.99 and someone from Kmart talks about it....all of a sudden it's price fixing? What a joke. I used to like this site. Now it seems like it's just part of the problem.

There is no way that talking about pricing violates laws.

TAKE OUT PEDRO ADD ANTI-TRUST

some things go without "sayin'" and some things go without "sayin'"... just ???

Whaaaaaaaaaat??????

I would assume that your comment is intended to be saracastic in the sense that ridiculous prices can be claimed to be fair and reasonable, and to make a point at that regard.

I will counterpoint with another equally saracastic example, but I will use cubits instead of dollars so the webbie has no qualms of pricing.

WE ALLOW 40% OFF NAGS BENCHMARK CUBIT PRICING AND 25 CUBITS FLAT FOR KITS AND 40 CUBITS PER HOUR IN LABOR. WE BELIEVE OUR PRICING IS FAIR AND REASONABLE FOR THE MARKET AND THESE ARE NOT THE LOWEST CUBIT PRICES AVAILABLE TO US.

I believe the above to be more illustrative example than you provided to make the point that shops are charging ridiculous prices, but the fact is, it would seem that under scrutiny of late, courts, arbitors, appraisers, and such have found that "fair and reasonable is a range of pricing" not just what the insurer proclaims, with no justifiable means to back it up, or so the courts have seemed to agree with.

Further, as I have pointed out in the past, a shop's invoice is either fraudulent in its charges, or it must, then, by default, be within a range of fair and reasonable. As another poster pointed out, if these bills with allegedly high charges were fraudulent or illegal, why wouldn't the state anti insurance fruad units, or insurers be suing for that overcharging, or essentially insurance fraud?

Still further, if I don't like that a convenience store charges 10 cubits for a gallon of milk, and proclaim at the checkout counter that the much larger chain grocery down the street only charges 7 cubits, and that's all I'm going to pay....I really don't expect to leave with the milk without paying the 10 cubits.

Distilled down, the insurers aren't the ones buying milk, though they COULD be, they aren't, so it really does not matter what "they are willing to pay" when they alter an invoice that constitutes legal proof of loss for a consumer. If Mastercard or Visa would alter the payment for the milk back down to 7 cubits after I left with the milk, well, we wouldn't really be having this discussion, now would we?

Insurers have no right to "police" or "negotiate" pricing until or unless they contract for the repairs to the property, under options for the payment of loss contained in the policy. So far, no one since the 60s has shown that an insurer has invoked that option, and they paid substantially when poor repairs cost the insurer liability for making decisions over the repairs that were done, albeit poorly, at the insurer's demand. Today, we hide behind "fair and reasonable" and muddy the payment options to fool folks, and fool them they have for some time, it seems.

I hope you enjoyed the milkshake, and as always, JMHNLO.

The " MILKSHAKE analogy, is spot again, and thank you Mark for bring a bit of clarity to a misguided post of delirium. Man you just can not make this stuff up. I have to remember your idea of cubits, it will serve us further in the future. thanks again