Protecting Yourself in the IME Process: Get a Copy
This post is the last in our series on tips for undergoing disability insurance Independent Medical Examinations (“IME”). Today’s topic is a step to take after the examination is over:
Get a copy. After the exam, contact your insurer to ask for a copy of the IME report. Most IME doctors have a copy of their report to the disability insurer within two weeks. Your insurer may send a copy of the IME report to your own treating physician and ask for his or her comments on the exam. In that case, the company will require you to request the IME report directly from your own physician.
When you get the report, review it and compare it against your notes and/or recollection. If anything needs to be clarified, discuss it with your disability insurer or attorney. If you received the copy of the IME report from your own physician, talk about it with him or her. An inaccurate or misleading IME report can be dangerous to your claim for disability benefits, so it’s important to address any inconsistencies as best you can.
For more information on dealing with an IME, see our prior posts:
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process
Completing Intake Forms in Advance
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process: Bring a Friend
We have talked about involving a disability insurance attorney in the IME process, understanding what the insurance policy requires, completing intake forms, making lists, and taking notes. Today in our series about tips for Independent Medical Examinations:
Bring a friend. Taking notes is great, but having a witness present is best. That way, you can focus on participating in the examination, and your witness can focus on observing and taking notes. Moral support is an added benefit.
A friend, spouse or partner can be a good witness, especially if he or she is a medical professional. If you have a disability insurance attorney, he or she may also attend with you or send a representative from the law office.
Take note, however, that some insurance companies specifically state that witness are not allowed at IMEs. Normally, this alleged requirement is stated in the letter the insurer sends you to confirm the examination. If you have a disability insurance attorney involved, the attorney can review the letter, the policy and the law and determine whether or not a witness is allowed to attend.
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process: Make Lists and Take Notes
In our series of suggestions for handling an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”), we have already discussed getting a disability insurance attorney involved, knowing the disability policy requirements, and completing the intake forms. Here are today’s tips:
Make lists and bring them to the IME doctor. Don’t be afraid to bring information with you to help answer questions from the IME doctor. Some examples are a timeline of your symptoms—i.e., when they started, when they got worse, etc.—or a list of all your medications so you don’t accidentally forget one. If you have photos or videos showing certain injuries or symptom flare-ups, consider bringing those along as well.
Take notes. This will make sure that your recollection of the IME is recorded along with the doctor’s recollection. Your notetaking should start when you arrive at the IME provider’s office, as your time in the waiting room is often part of the final IME report.
For instance, IME doctors will often report something like, “The patient sat for half an hour before my exam completing the paperwork without any apparent discomfort.” If you take notes before the IME to memorialize how long you sat in the waiting room, if anyone was watching you fill out the paperwork, if you had to stand to stretch, etc., you will be able to show the insurance company whether the doctor’s statement is accurate.
If possible, take notes during the IME as well, so that you can remember exactly what testing was performed and what types of questions were asked.
When you leave the IME, take a few minutes to immediately jot down your impressions and any issues you think you need to follow up on with your disability insurer or attorney.
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process: Intake Forms
Up next in our series of tips for disability insurance policyholders being asked to undergo an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”):
Complete intake forms in advance. When you go to the IME, the doctor will most likely ask you to complete intake forms, including questionnaires outlining all of your symptoms and medical history. If you are stressed or hurried, you may forget to include something that could support your claim for disability insurance benefits. But if you have the forms in advance, you can answer each question carefully and accurately without leaving anything out. Consider asking (or having your lawyer ask) if you can have the forms beforehand to save time once you arrive.
Also review our prior tips on getting a disability insurance attorney involved and reviewing the disability policy requirements.
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process: Reviewing the Policy
In this series, we are outlining some tips for claimants facing an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”). Yesterday, we wrote about getting a disability insurance attorney involved. Today, we’ll explain another important step:
Make sure the exam is required by the disability insurance policy. This is another step where it is beneficial to have an attorney involved to review your disability policy. Most disability insurance policies do have a provision that allows the company to have you submit to an Independent Medical Examination or Physical Examination. However, sometimes those provisions aren’t totally clear on exactly what types of examinations are allowed.
For instance, here is a typical disability insurance policy provision that your insurer might cite to tell you that you have to undergo an IME:
At our expense, we can have a physician of our choice examine you as often as reasonably required while your claim is continuous.
This provision states that the examination should be conducted by a “physician.” Do you have to submit to a Functional Capacity Evaluation with a physical therapist? The provision also states the examination should be “reasonably required.” Has that qualification been met?
Here is another typical provision:
We shall have the right to have you medically examined at our expense when and as often as we may reasonably require while you claim to be disabled under this policy.
This provision says that you have the right to be “medically examined.” Does that mean you can only be examined by a medical doctor? Do you have to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation with a Ph.D.? Again, has the qualification that the examination be “reasonably required” been met?
These are the kinds of questions you may want to get answered before you agree to the exam.
In the next post, we’ll talk about the IME intake forms.
Protecting Yourself in the IME Process
As we have discussed before, disability insurance claimants are often asked to submit to “independent” medical examinations (“IME”) with a doctor chosen by the insurance company.
IMEs are a source of anxiety for many insureds, especially because they are often a first step towards termination of a disability claim. Fortunately, there are some steps you can take to help ensure that you are treated fairly.
Over the next few days, we will outline some general tips on dealing with IMEs. Keep in mind that these tips are no substitute for the advice of a disability insurance lawyer who knows the specifics of your situation. Hence, today’s tip:
Get your attorney involved. If you don’t have a disability insurance lawyer to help you with your claim, now is a good time to seek some advice. Oftentimes, insurance companies use IMEs to try to show that you aren’t entitled to disability benefits anymore. A lawyer can help protect your rights during the IME process by, among other things, finding out what the disability policy requires (and doesn’t require) and discussing those requirements with your insurer. If you aren’t sure how to find the right lawyer, consider our Questions to Ask When Choosing a Disability Insurance Attorney.
Disability Insurance for College Athletes
In a recent article, written in the wake of NCAA basketball player Kevin Ware’s traumatic leg fracture, The Atlantic explores whether college athletes should purchase disability insurance.
Like doctors and dentists, whose physical health can be crucial to performing their job duties, many professional athletes purchase disability insurance. By doing so, they attempt to protect their income from sickness or injury that interferes with their work.
For college athletes, disability insurance is intended to protect potential, future income that they expect to earn once drafted to professional sports teams. Because the term of the policies is so short – ordinarily just one to two years – and the potential benefits so high – often millions – these disability policies can be extremely expensive. The article discusses athletes and their families that paid upwards of $40,000 in premiums over one or two years.
As the article explains, though, this type of disability insurance is rarely collected. Though these athletes’ disability insurance policies are unique, the difficulty of collecting may sound familiar to many other types of professionals facing disability insurance claims:
[T]hese policies, meant to hedge against risk, are risky in themselves: None of these student-athletes is likely to ever collect a dime, even if they are hurt. These guarantees cover “permanent total disability,” meaning only policyholders who are never able set foot on a field or court again—not simply those who suffer injuries that may reduce their earning potential—can file a claim.
Read the full article here: The $5 Million Question: Should College Athletes Buy Disability Insurance?
For Doctors, Risk of Relapse Can Cause Total Disability
Because of the high-stress nature of their occupations and their ready access to pharmaceuticals, both physicians and dentists are at high risk of developing substance abuse issues. In a recent disability insurance case, Colby v. Union Security Insurance Company & Management Company for Merrimack Anesthesia Associates Long Term Disability Plan, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized the challenges that doctors can face when they are disabled due to substance dependence.
The insured in this case, Dr. Colby, was a partner in an anesthesiology practice. Like many anesthesiologists, she kept a demanding schedule, working 60 to 90 hours per week. In 2004, her colleagues discovered that she had been struggling with chemical dependence after she was found sleeping or unconscious on a table in the hospital. She tested positive for Fentanyl, an opioid used in her practice.
This led to the revelation that Dr. Colby had been self-administering opioids, and had become addicted. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Colby entered inpatient substance abuse treatment. As of January of this year, Dr. Colby had not resumed using Fentanyl.
When her drug dependence first came to light, Dr. Colby filed a claim with her disability insurer. Even after completing her treatment, Dr. Colby feared that returning to the anesthesiology environment, where Fentanyl (along with many other drugs) was easily accessible, would lead to her relapsing. However, the insurance company denied her claim for disability benefits. The insurer argued that she had been discharged from substance abuse treatment, and that although she was still under a doctor’s care and feared a relapse, “a risk for relapse is not the same as a current disability.”
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Selya explained:
In our view, a risk of relapse into substance dependence—like a risk of relapse into cardiac distress or a risk of relapse into orthopedic complications—can swell to so significant a level as to constitute a current disability.
As this case demonstrates, doctors struggling with substance dependence should be cognizant of the fact that their occupation puts them at higher danger for relapse, and may contribute to their total disability from practicing. If you are facing this situation, it’s important to talk to your treating providers, disability insurance attorney, and disability insurer about how your work environment affects your risk of relapse.
Review the entire Colby opinion here.
Ranking Arizona Names Firm #1 for the Second Year in a Row
We are pleased to announce that we have been named the #1 Arizona Law Firm with 24 or fewer attorneys by Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business for the second year in a row.
Ranking Arizona is an annual publication of Arizona Business Magazine. Every year, Arizona Business Magazine compiles a list of the top companies in the state in various categories, including professional services such as accounting, real estate, and law. The final rankings in each category are selected by Arizona residents, who vote for the firms they most recommend.
In addition, attorneys Edward Comitz and Patrick Stanley, were both named Top Healthcare Attorneys in Ranking Arizona‘s individual rankings.
Pima County Medical Society Publishes Ed Comitz and Karla Thompson’s Article Re Surveillance in Disability Insurance Claims
The January 2013 edition of Sombrero, the publication of the Pima County Medical Society, features an article by disability insurance attorneys Edward O. Comitz and Karla Baker Thompson. The article, “Surveillance Misuse in Claims Investigations,” reviews some of the ways in which evolving technology has led to overly intrusive surveillance of claimants by insurance companies.
Among the surveillance techniques being utilized are stakeout operations, tailing (sometimes using a “decoy” investigator), pretexting (obtaining your personal information under false pretenses), and GPS and cell phone tracking. For example, some private investigators use a stingray, which is a cell phone tracking device that operates as a miniature cellular tower from inside of the PI’s vehicle. The device enables an investigator to connect to a claimant’s cell phone, even when it’s not in use, and, after taking measurements of the phone’s signal strength, triangulate its location. Since most people tend to carry their cell phones at all times, the device then allows the investigator to track the insured’s movements remotely.
The law surrounding some of these intrusive surveillance techniques, which have been made possible by modern technology, is not yet settled, and it is important that anyone on claim with their disability insurance carrier remain vigilant to the possibility of surveillance at all times, regardless of whether a human being is conducting the surveillance. Long gone are the days when surveillance was only conducted by someone with a camera sitting in a car outside an insured’s home.
When Are Internal Insurer Memos Discoverable?
The recent 9th Circuit case Stephan v. Unum Life Insurance provides new guidance on when an insurance company’s internal documents may be discoverable.
Mark Stephan, a resident of California, suffered a bicycle accident that injured his spinal cord, rendering him quadriplegic. He filed for total disability benefits under his employer-sponsored Unum disability insurance policy, which was part of a plan governed by ERISA.
Mr. Stephan’s policy required Unum to pay him a benefit equal to a percentage of his pre-disability earnings. When Unum calculated how much Mr. Stephan was earning, it included his monthly salary, but not his annual bonus. This allowed Unum to calculate a much lower earnings rate—and thus a much lower amount that Unum had to pay in disability benefits.
Mr. Stephan sued Unum, seeking to overturn its benefit determination. After the trial court found in Unum’s favor, Mr. Stephan appealed, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals examined his case. Continue reading “When Are Internal Insurer Memos Discoverable?”
Case Study: What Does “Material and Substantial” Mean?
In 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals had to address this question in Pomerance v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America. 654 S.E.2d. 638 (2007). Alan Pomerance was an obstetrician/gynecologist with four disability insurance policies from Berkshire. These policies provided own-occupation coverage, meaning that “total disability” was defined as “your inability to perform the material and substantial duties of your occupation.”
Dr. Pomerance’s occupational duties included delivering babies, surgeries, C-sections, office visits, making hospital rounds, and being on call. After being diagnosed with a degenerative knee condition, Dr. Pomerance filed a total disability claim with Berkshire, explaining that he could no longer stand for long period of time, so he couldn’t perform deliveries and hospital surgeries, be on call, or assist in the emergency room. Because of his disability, Dr. Pomerance was forced to restrict his practice solely to wellness office visits, which included patient exams, counseling, nonsurgical care, and minor biopsies, but none of his other former duties.
Berkshire declined to pay Dr. Pomerance total disability benefits, arguing that he was only partially disabled because he could still perform one of his “substantial” duties, i.e., office visits. Dr. Pomerance contacted Berkshire and objected to its determination, but Berkshire still refused him total disability benefits. Dr. Pomerance filed suit against Berkshire, claiming breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay the amounts owed. Continue reading “Case Study: What Does “Material and Substantial” Mean?”
Case Study: Berkshire Attempts to Use the “Dual Occupation Defense”
When a professional that owns her own business files a disability insurance claim, the insurer will often try to exploit the claimant’s ownership status to deny total disability benefits. The insurance company will argue that the professional has not one, but two occupations: 1) professional and 2) business owner. The disability insurer will argue that the claimant isn’t actually disabled because she can still perform administrative or managerial functions, even if she can’t do the duties of her actual profession. This is sometimes called the “dual occupation defense.”
For example, in Shapiro v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company, Berkshire attempted to use the dual occupation defense to deny total disability benefits to a dentist. The dentist, Paul Shapiro, had an own-occupation policy, with “total disability” defined as “the inability to perform the material and substantial duties of your occupation.”
Dr. Shapiro owned his own practices, but spent the overwhelming majority of his time and effort doing clinical work. He spent 90 percent of his time in chairside dentistry, working on patients, and just 10 percent of his time doing the administrative work that any practice owner needs to accomplish. In fact, in the year before he became disabled, Dr. Shapiro saw nine to eleven patients each day, and performed an average of 275 dental procedures per month, working 40 to 45 hours each week. He only spent one and a half to four hours each week attending to various administrative and managerial duties like personnel decisions, staff meetings, and computer troubleshooting.
After progressive osteoarthritis and spondylosis of the elbow, neck and other joints left Dr. Shapiro unable to perform chairside dentistry, he filed for total disability benefits with Berkshire. Rather than paying him total disability benefits, however, Berkshire determined that Dr. Shapiro was only entitled to partial disability benefits:
Berkshire’s coverage position was that Shapiro’s occupation immediately preceding the onset of his disability was as an administrator and manager of his various dental practices as well as a practitioner of chair dentistry; because the disability did not prevent Shapiro from doing his administrative or managerial work, Berkshire reasoned, Shapiro did not satisfy the policies’ definition of total disability: “the inability to perform the material and substantial duties of your occupation.”
Dr. Shapiro brought a suit against Berkshire in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract, among other things. That court found in his favor on the breach of contract claim, but Berkshire appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision in Dr. Shapiro’s favor. The Court of Appeals determined that Dr. Shapiro “spent the vast majority of his time performing chair dentistry,” and that his administrative work was merely incidental to his material and substantial duties as a full-time dentist.
Though Berkshire’s attempt at the dual occupation defense was unsuccessful in this case, the Court of Appeals indicated that there could be some situations in which it might work:
At some point, a medical entrepreneur’s administrative and managerial responsibilities may well become the material and substantial duties of the insured’s occupation.
The message for disability insurance policyholders that own a business is to be careful how much time you spend in administrative tasks, and how you explain your occupation to your insurer. Otherwise, you could be inadvertently setting your claim up for denial.
Edward Comitz Named Top Valley Lawyer for Insurance
Edward O. Comitz, Esq. has been named a Top Valley Insurance Lawyer by North Valley Magazine, a publication serving the Greater Phoenix metropolitan community.
Each year, North Valley Magazine partners with Avvo, Inc., to publish a list of the area’s leading legal professionals. Check out the full article here.
Berkshire Criticized by Maryland Insurance Commissioner for “Artful Neglect”
Disability insurers have a duty to fully investigate claims for benefits, as the insurance companies are well aware. Unfortunately, some claims departments may focus their efforts on looking like they are investigating and considering information rather than actually doing so.
Berkshire, a disability insurance company that sells own-occupation policies to dentists and doctors, has garnered criticism from at least one state’s insurance commissioner for this very practice.
In Berkshire Life Insurance Company v. Maryland Insurance Administration, 142 Md. App. 628, 791 A.2d 942 (App. 2002), Berkshire attempted to claim that its insured was only partially disabled, and therefore it was only obligated to pay a fraction of the total benefits that were payable under the policy. In finding that Berkshire’s conduct was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of Maryland’s insurance statutes and ordering it to pay restitution to the policyholder, the Maryland Insurance Commissioner also found:
Overall, Berkshire’s actions here represent what may be termed as “artful neglect.” Berkshire gives the appearance of investigating a claim in order to render a good faith claims determination. As part of this appearance, Berkshire timely requests financial information from its insured and then timely requests more information from its insured. In direct contrast to this “appearance,” however, Berkshire does not analyze the information at all, much less use an analysis in a cogent and rational way to support a proper claims determination.
In a more recent Arizona case, Nunley v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, 2009 WL 529901 (D. Ariz. 2009), Berkshire tried to have the United States District Court rule that it could not be subject to punitive damages in a case involving a disabled dentist’s total disability claim. The Court, however, denied Berkshire’s motion, finding that Berkshire might have to pay punitive damages because it did not investigate the dentist’s claim adequately or in a timely fashion.
This “artful neglect” is unlawful, and may subject a disability insurance carrier to bad faith liability. A disability insurance claimant who thinks her insurer is not adequately investigating the claim should contact an attorney to help protect her rights.
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Have a Disability
Almost one in five people in the United States have a disability, according to the new U.S. Census Report Bureau that was just released today. The disability report was released to coincide with the 22nd Anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act, which is tomorrow. Here is some of the highlights from the disability report cited from the U.S. Census Bureau’s disability news release:
- 56.7 million people, 19 percent of the U.S. population, had a disability in 2010. And more than half of these disabilities were reported as severe.
- People in the oldest age group — 80 and older — were about eight times more likely to have a disability as those in the youngest group — younger than 15 (71 percent compared with 8 percent). The probability of having a severe disability is only one in 20 for those 15 to 24 while it is one in four for those 65 to 69
- About 8.1 million people had difficulty seeing, including 2.0 million who were blind or unable to see.
- About 7.6 million people experienced difficulty hearing, including 1.1 million whose difficulty was severe. About 5.6 million used a hearing aid.
- Roughly 30.6 million had difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or used a wheelchair, cane, crutches or walker.
- About 19.9 million people had difficulty lifting and grasping. This includes, for instance, trouble lifting an object like a bag of groceries, or grasping a glass or a pencil.
- Difficulty with at least one activity of daily living was cited by 9.4 million noninstitutionalized adults. These activities included getting around inside the home, bathing, dressing and eating. Of these people, 5 million needed the assistance of others to perform such an activity.
- About 15.5 million adults had difficulties with one or more instrumental activities of daily living. These activities included doing housework, using the phone and preparing meals. Of these, nearly 12 million required assistance.
- Approximately 2.4 million had Alzheimer’s disease, senility or dementia.
- Being frequently depressed or anxious such that it interfered with ordinary activities was reported by 7.0 million adults.
- Adults age 21 to 64 with disabilities had median monthly earnings of $1,961 compared with $2,724 for those with no disability.
- Overall, the uninsured rates for adults 15 to 64 were not statistically different by disability status: 21.0 percent for people with severe disabilities, 21.3 percent for those with nonsevere disabilities and 21.9 percent for those with no disability.
To read the disability news release, click here.
Applying California’s Total Disability Standard
Under California law, “the term ‘total disability’ does not signify an absolute state of helplessness but means such a disability as renders the insured unable to perform the substantial and material acts necessary to the prosecution of a business or occupation in the usual or customary way. Recovery is not precluded under a total disability provision because the insured is able to perform sporadic tasks, or give attention to simple or inconsequential details incident to the conduct of business.” Erreca v. Western States Life Ins. Co., 19 Cal.2d 388, 396 (1942). Thus, a disability claimant may be “totally disabled” in California despite being physically capable of performing some occupational duties. However, California courts are generally chary to find total disability if a disabled claimant continues working after filing for disability benefits, notwithstanding his physical limitations, and when the income generated from that work is substantially the same as it was before becoming disabled.
Hecht v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. offers a good illustration of this. In Hecht v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., an executive owner of a successful retail clothing business in Southern California filed for disability benefits with his disability insurance company, Paul Revere, after a car accident resulted in his suffering from neck pain and upper and lower back pain. Although the disability claimant was President and Owner, he involved himself with significant portions of laborious tasks such as lifting, loading and unloading merchandise and climbing ladders. After the accident, he could no longer perform the physical labor.
The disability claimant argued he was “totally disabled” under his disability insurance policy because he could no longer perform the physical labor aspect of his work in “the usual or customary way” as he did pre-disability. The California court agreed that he could no longer perform the physical labor; however, it concluded that such was not a “substantial and material” aspect necessary to the prosecution of his business. In reaching this conclusion, the California court found persuasive the fact that the disabled claimant continued to work every day, notwithstanding his physical limitations, and that the income generated from his contributions to the business was substantially the same as the income pre-disability. Applying Erreca’s “total disability” standard, the California court said:
He has proven by his own actions that he is able to perform “substantial and material acts necessary to the prosecution of a business,” that he is doing more than “sporadic tasks,” and that he is performing more than “simple or inconsequential details incident to the conduct of business.
Therefore, for the purposes of the disability insurance policy, he could not be considered “totally disabled.”
In California, what constitutes “substantial and material acts necessary to the prosecution of a business” is a fact-intensive inquiry. In this case, the facts favored the disability insurance company because the disabled business executive was still capable of performing some occupational duties post-injury, and his participation in these occupational duties generated significant income. When total disability cases involve disabled doctors and disabled dentists, however, they may not be so black-and-white (for an example, check out this blog post). In part, this is because the success of doctor and dental practices depends almost exclusively on a doctor’s or dentist’s ability to perform certain physical acts, such as drilling a hole in a patient’s tooth or performing surgery; this is quite different than the physical demands required of the disability claimant in the California case above. Additionally, injuries deemed less crippling in other fields could have a more substantial impact on medical and dental professionals whose highly specialized skills require greater precision to ensure patient safety.
Thus, even though the California standard for “total disability” is the same across the board, it applies differently to different professions. For this reason, when you file for disability benefits, you should seek a disability insurance attorney who has experience representing clients within your own occupation.
Disability Insurers Revamping Consumer Image
Many healthcare providers, some of whom also offer disability insurance such as Aetna and Cigna, have introduced elaborate marketing campaigns this past year in an effort to change their image, according to Tanzina Vega of the NY Times. These insurers want to be perceived as consumer-friendly healthcare companies, rather than merely insurance providers. The timing of the major shift in marketing makes sense as speculation increases over the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. If the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, which would require millions of uninsured Americans to purchase insurance, then the market will expand considerably. Therefore, a favorable ruling would enable insurers like Aetna and Cigna to target the uninsured Americans directly, instead of marketing health care packages to employers.
But even if the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is struck down, Vega says that many insurers will likely continue their direct-consumer marketing campaigns. Why? Many healthcare providers believe their future economic success largely depends on their ability to market directly to the consumer. Therefore, they will continue designing, marketing and selling insurance packages tailored to individuals, the end consumer.
Although the NY Times article focuses primarily on marketing campaigns of healthcare providers, we may see a similar, albeit less dramatic shift in the way disability insurance companies market their products as well. Disability insurance companies are already focusing on the end consumer because, like healthcare providers, they believe that future economic success depends on their ability to reach people directly. Furthermore, it makes sense that disability insurers would implement similar marketing strategies as healthcare providers because often times the health insurance companies are also disability insurers, like Aetna and Cigna.
But actions often speak louder than words. Although disability insurers may try to alter their marketing strategies to reposition themselves as consumer-friendly companies, there likely will not be a corresponding shift in the way they treat disabled professionals when handling disability claims. Unfortunately, their own financial interests too often trump those of disabled persons.
