Latest / The Operator's Manual with Fexingo: Daily Decisions, Tactical Wins, and Business Execution / How One Insurer Cut Claims Processing 50 Percent With One Plain-Language Form
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this moment in every claims department when a new claim lands in the system. And for most insurers, that's the start of a long, winding road of back and forth phone calls, follow-up emails, and rekeyed data. But one mid-sized property insurer figured out how to cut that whole process in half — just by rewriting one form. Luna: A form. That's the secret weapon? Lucas: Yeah, the first notice of loss, which is the form a customer fills out after an accident or damage. This insurer realized their form was a nightmare. It was dense, full of legal jargon, and asked for information in an order that made sense to the company, not the claimant. So they rewrote it in plain language, and the results were stunning. Luna: So they cut processing time by 50 percent? That's the headline. But I'm curious — how did they even know the form was the problem? And how did they prove it was the fix? Because that's what we do here at Fexingo — we find the one tweak and show you the evidence behind it. Lucas: Exactly. And look, before we dive deeper, I want to mention something. We keep this show ad-free on purpose. If you've gotten value from these episodes, and you want to support that choice, the link is buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a low-key way to keep us going, and we appreciate it. But back to the story. Luna: Yeah, and it's a good one. So how did they diagnose it? Lucas: They did something pretty smart. They sat in on intake calls — recorded a bunch of them — and listened to what customers were actually saying when they called in. And they found that a huge percentage of calls were people asking questions about the form itself. What does 'proof of loss' mean? Do I really need a police report for a fender bender? And they realized those calls were the lag time. Every call was a delay, a chance for errors, and a cost. Luna: So they were basically paying people to decipher their own form. Lucas: Right. And the fix was a classic plain-language rewrite. They brought in a writer who specialized in clear communication, worked with a claims adjuster, and rebuilt the form from the customer's perspective. Questions were reordered to match the natural sequence of an accident — what happened, where, when, who was involved — instead of the company's internal coding structure. They replaced terms like 'insured' with 'you' and 'claimant' with 'the person filing the claim.' They added a simple example of how to describe damage. And they cut the number of fields from about 40 down to 22. Luna: Forty to twenty-two. That's a big cut. But how do you keep from losing critical data? Because those extra fields probably existed for a reason, right? Lucas: That's the thing — most of those fields were rarely filled out correctly anyway. So they were getting garbage data, or empty fields, which forced a follow-up call. By cutting the form down, they focused on the data that actually mattered for routing, triage, and initial contact. They also added a field that asked for the customer's preferred contact method — which sounds small, but it meant they stopped playing phone tag. Luna: And that alone probably cut a lot of wasted time. Lucas: It did. But the real win was the measurement. They didn't just roll out the new form and hope. They ran a controlled test — for two weeks, they sent half the incoming claims through the old form and half through the new one. They tracked time to first contact, time to first payment, and the number of touchpoints needed. And the numbers were dramatic. The new form cut average processing time from eight days to four. Call center volume dropped by a third. And the error rate on data entry fell from 12 percent to under 5. Luna: That's a clean before and after. And it makes you wonder — how many processes out there are being held hostage by a form nobody dares to change? Lucas: So many. And that's the lesson here. It's not about technology. It's about respecting the user — whether that's a customer, an employee, or a contractor. The form is a handshake. If it's confusing, the relationship starts with a stumble. Luna: And that's why the plain-language fix worked. They made the handshake better. Lucas: Exactly. Now, one thing that surprised me in the write-up was the secondary effects. Because the form was clearer, the customer's initial claim was more complete. So the adjuster didn't have to make that first call just to fill gaps. Instead, they could go straight to assessing damage or setting up an inspection. And that's where the real time savings came from. Luna: So the form didn't just speed up data entry — it changed the entire workflow. Lucas: Right. And it also reduced the need for adjuster training on how to handle ambiguous claims. They actually repurposed that training time into more advanced skills, like fraud detection. Luna: That's a nice bonus. But I have to ask — what about customers who aren't great readers, or who have trouble with any form? Did that get worse? Lucas: Good question. They actually tested the new form with a group of customers who had low literacy skills. And the results were positive — they made fewer mistakes, and they were more likely to complete the form. The plain language helped everyone. But they also added a phone number at the top for people who preferred to dictate their claim. So they didn't force everyone through the form. Luna: That's thoughtful. It's not just about the form — it's about offering the right channel for each person. Lucas: Exactly. Now, what's interesting is this wasn't a huge consulting project. The whole rewrite took about three weeks. The writer wasn't an insurance expert, which actually helped — she kept asking 'what does this mean?' and that forced the adjuster to explain things simply. Luna: So bring in a naive reader. That's a practical tip any team could steal. Lucas: Totally. And the cost was trivial compared to the savings. They estimated the new form saved them about two hundred thousand dollars a year in call center time and rework. And that doesn't even count the softer benefits — like customer satisfaction scores going up. Luna: Any pushback from within the company? Usually there's someone who says 'but we've always done it this way.' Lucas: Oh, sure. The legal team was nervous about simplifying the language — they worried it might create ambiguity in coverage. But they worked through it with a few test cases and found that the plain language actually reduced disputes, because customers understood what was covered and what wasn't. Luna: So it was a win for legal too. Lucas: Yeah. And the IT side was a non-event — the form was still a web form, just with fewer fields. They didn't need to build any new systems. Luna: That's the beauty of this kind of fix. It's not a tech project. It's a human project. Lucas: Right. And that's why we wanted to highlight it — because it's replicable. Any business with a customer-facing form — a loan application, a patient intake, a job application, even a vendor onboarding sheet — can apply this. The question is: what does your form look like through the eyes of the person who has to fill it out? Luna: So, if a listener wants to try this at their own company, what's the first step? Lucas: Record a few calls. Find out where people get confused. Then rewrite the form in plain language, and test it against the old one. Measure the time, the errors, and the follow-up contacts. That's the recipe. Luna: And that's the operator's manual — one tweak, measured, and scaled. Lucas: Exactly. And if you do that, you might find your own 50 percent improvement hiding in a two-page form.