Aren’t all TPA’s really the same party as the insurance company since the insurance company dictates the contract with their TPA’s?
Actually, the first party is the policyholder/consumer. The second party is the consumer’s chosen repair facility. That makes the insurance company (and their TPA) third parties. (not FPA’s)
Just because the second party agrees to be paid by the insurance company, doesn’t automatically elevate the insurance company to the first party.
If the insurance company didn’t pay the repair facility, they would still have to reimburse the first party (consumer).
Don’t get me wrong. Paul had some good points but it is interesting, now that he is a TPA, how much the first part of the article kisses up to the insurance industry.
I want to first thank Paul for the most intelligent analysis of this incestuous, dysfunctional, and bizarre business model. Unfortunately, many in this industry won’t get it. Those that do will just resign themselves to the ongoing futility of the arguement.
Belron runs the show. Don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
I personally want to express my intense disagreement with summarily casting “harvesters” like myself in a negative, condescending light.
Kerry Wanstrath started it in a NWRA newsletter shortly after he was elected president. Now you, Paul, continue to do so.
There are certainly too many unscrupulous players in this business, but count me as proud to have the confidence and ability to go after business with certified and polished skills, delivering quality repairs and service.
The folks who hate us harvesters the most are the ones who don’t have the skills, intelligence, work ethic, and guts to do it.
“Currently, however, the glass industry is dominated by purported TPAs that have a first party interest in the claim, creating strife and conflict. The first party interest could pertain to manufacturing, distributing, or even the retailing of the glass part itself or in some extreme cases all three conflicts apply.”
Your choice of the phrase “extreme cases” confuses me – it implies a lack of regularity does it not? With SGC handling such a large portion of NA glass claims, these “extreme cases” with multiple “conflicts” as you describe them, seem to be the rule now, rather than the exception.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
FPA…I love it, Paul. Nice job.
Aren’t all TPA’s really the same party as the insurance company since the insurance company dictates the contract with their TPA’s?
Actually, the first party is the policyholder/consumer. The second party is the consumer’s chosen repair facility. That makes the insurance company (and their TPA) third parties. (not FPA’s)
Just because the second party agrees to be paid by the insurance company, doesn’t automatically elevate the insurance company to the first party.
If the insurance company didn’t pay the repair facility, they would still have to reimburse the first party (consumer).
Don’t get me wrong. Paul had some good points but it is interesting, now that he is a TPA, how much the first part of the article kisses up to the insurance industry.
I want to first thank Paul for the most intelligent analysis of this incestuous, dysfunctional, and bizarre business model. Unfortunately, many in this industry won’t get it. Those that do will just resign themselves to the ongoing futility of the arguement.
Belron runs the show. Don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
I personally want to express my intense disagreement with summarily casting “harvesters” like myself in a negative, condescending light.
Kerry Wanstrath started it in a NWRA newsletter shortly after he was elected president. Now you, Paul, continue to do so.
There are certainly too many unscrupulous players in this business, but count me as proud to have the confidence and ability to go after business with certified and polished skills, delivering quality repairs and service.
The folks who hate us harvesters the most are the ones who don’t have the skills, intelligence, work ethic, and guts to do it.
“Currently, however, the glass industry is dominated by purported TPAs that have a first party interest in the claim, creating strife and conflict. The first party interest could pertain to manufacturing, distributing, or even the retailing of the glass part itself or in some extreme cases all three conflicts apply.”
Your choice of the phrase “extreme cases” confuses me – it implies a lack of regularity does it not? With SGC handling such a large portion of NA glass claims, these “extreme cases” with multiple “conflicts” as you describe them, seem to be the rule now, rather than the exception.