If you have customized risk and claims databases, they’re perfect for you. Or at least they were when you specified them. Just as if you were ordering a custom-made suit, you were able to configure everything. But are they still a perfect fit?

When you first implemented your RMIS or claims system, you might have elected to go with screens and codes that matched your previous system to make training easier. Perhaps you requested extra data fields to capture every last bit of information only to find years later that a good number of those fields remain empty. Maybe at the time your organization was not factoring benchmarking and data analytics into your requirements.

Many Marsh ClearSight clients are reconsidering whether customized databases remain the right fit for their businesses. In some cases their workflows have changed. In others, the companies want to align with industry best practices so that they can compare their performance against KPIs to their peer group and industry benchmarks. Increasingly, companies recognize that continuing down the custom tailored route makes them less agile and is more costly in the long term.

Having said that, risk and claims databases are not one size fits all. Standardized databases need to be tailored to the line of coverage and geography. They should also accommodate some additional configuration for companies that need it, like a “made to measure” suit made from standard patterns and then adjusted for fit. As I mentioned in my last blog post, Marsh ClearSight consulting services are very beneficial to clients that want to align their processes with standard solutions and need expert advice on how to achieve that goal.

Marsh ClearSight has several decades of experience configuring databases for some of the world’s largest companies across multiple industries. We are experts in regulatory compliance and data conversion. We’ve designed Marsh ClearSight standard databases to reflect industry best practices, including workflow and reporting efficiencies. Our growing library of standard databases includes several configurations, each designed for a specific line of coverage. Each is based on business processes specific to the type of coverage and includes pre-configured screens, labels, codes, code dependencies, and events/validations.

For the U.S. market, we offer a standard database configured for several lines of coverage: general liability, auto liability, auto physical damage, workers’ compensation, and property. The configuration around the workers’ compensation coverage is based on NCCI, OSHA, IAIABC, and ISO regulations and standards. We also offer a healthcare standard database that adds healthcare professional liability (HPL) coverage to the standard. These configurations are based on the industry standard AHRQ common formats (v1.2). For the EMEA region, we offer standard database configurations for employer’s liability, professional/public liability, motor, and property coverages.

Marsh ClearSight standard databases really are made to measure—your performance to KPIs. Standardization opens the door to data analytics and, potentially, predictive analytics that can help you contain risk exposure. We’ll talk more about data, databases, and analytics in future blog posts.