Carrier use cases · Vendor performance

Judge providers on cost and outcome together.

Performance, price and claim result belong in the same view — otherwise the cheapest provider can quietly be the most expensive one.

The problem

What gets in the way today.

Provider decisions are made on rate cards and relationships, because the operational evidence needed to compare providers properly is scattered.

Why the problem exists

  • Cost data and service data sit in different places.
  • Outcome is attributed to the claim, not the provider.
  • Comparisons are manual, so they happen rarely.

What happens today

  • Provider reviews rely on partial evidence.
  • Rate is the main comparison point.
  • Poor performance persists between reviews.
How VIP changes the workflow

Same claim. Different path.

Before VIP

Providers are compared on price.

With VIP

Providers are compared on price, performance and claim outcome.

  1. Assignment and activity captured
  2. Cost and service measured together
  3. Providers compared on like-for-like work
  4. Findings feed selection and negotiation
Evidence

What the pilots actually showed.

8.98%of analyzed spend modelled as potential impact across accuracy, SLA enforcement and FTE effortEstimated — modelled

Modelled estimate of annual opportunity, not a realized saving.

Business impact

  • Better provider selection
  • Evidence-backed negotiation
  • Performance improvement between reviews

Where this sits in the claim

Pre-FNOLFNOLClaims OperationsExpensePerformancePaymentClosureIntelligence

Related VIP capabilities

Related use cases

Next to this one.

Bring us one claims workflow.

Show VIP where the friction exists. We will map the workflow, identify the operating gaps and show where VIP can create measurable value.