Does anyone no if the bigger companies like,Gerber Collision,JN Phillips,Boyd group,
Novus Autoglass ect. are playing with the same set of number's (DISCOUNTS) as everyone else
that is not billing direct? Do they also work through a 3rd party admin to get claims setup and eventually get paid?

I won't speculate on Novus, but you are really naive if you think Gerber or Phillips go through a stupid third party administrator or bill off the ridiculous Nags pricing.

Is that (naive) because Gerber (collision), JN Phillips, and Boyd, technically have their own (2) TPAs, I assume?

IMHO, documenting that there is a difference at all, should be the point, I would think.

But this has been discussed many times, so I will digress, and leave it at my one question to not sway the discussion.

JMHNLO

IF you look at what i have found below it should be enough to give anyone with any sense a idea
that the companies like Boyd Group JN Philipps ect do not get this size and buyout competitors
by accepting deep discounts from 3rd party corrupt admin's much like their own.These companies have legal teams that work out GUARANTEED AVERAGE PRICING with a kick back bonus at the end of the year with all insurance companies same as SGC.
Anyone of you can do the same with the right legal team and pockets of cash.
The problem is, everyone of you have that complains on this site about how corrupt the system is
allows it to be because you never challenge the system in court.
Until they get challenged they will keep you and your business financially where they want you.
It is proven the system unchallenged will remain the same and as the bigger competitors get bought out, you are then left with the backyard auto glass guys that work for anything that is offered. They will even work for food soon.


WE HAVE DEEP POCKETS
The record year for acquisitions for the Boyd Group―which operates Gerber Collision & Glass in the U.S. and Boyd Autobody & Glass in Canada―was 2014, with the addition of 61 locations to the group. In the third quarter of 2016, the company has seen an increase in sales of 14.7 percent, to $345.3 million from $301.1 million in 2015.

I believe you are correct on many fronts, but will focus quickly on one or two you may have missed.

There are definitions in most all states on what constitutes an insurer. Look yours up.

If, under a GAI, a TPA by default, "assumes risk", and can either benefit from that action, or not, fulfills the definition of insurer or re-insurer.

If under a GAI, the TPA either keeps monies paid to them that should have rightfully been paid on claims because they came in "below" a GAI, or paid monies back to an insurer because they went above a GAI, they are assuming risk. The risk vs benefit conflict of interest should be obvious, and certainly, this isn't contained in any insurance policy issued to any consumer that I, myself, have EVER seen.

There's some food for thought, because operating as an unlicensed insurer or re-insurer carries, or SHOULD carry, some very stiff penalties.

So should altering any documents of a transaction between an insurer and insured, in any insurance transaction, in the execution of that GAI or any other agreement of any kind, (re: auditing an invoice and changing it before it's submitted to an insurer) that would violate insurance fraud statutes, and it wouldn't matter even if it was contained in an insurance policy, if it violates state laws, let alone federal laws.

Chew on those for a while. HTH

JMHNLO