BEST PRACTICES IN DISABILITY INCOME CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 assessing small disability income claims to improve policyholder services and financial results RESEARCH SERIES Written by CSC s Disability Income Claims specialists, this series of research reports provides insight into the expert management and processing of disability insurance claims. Topics include small disability income claims, safety and risk management for claims professionals, and rehabilitation assistance strategies for aging claimants.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Balancing Act...3 Defining Small Claims... 3 Small Claim/Big Impact...3 The Minimum Assessment Extreme...3 The Maximum Assessment Extreme...4 Small Claims A Balanced Approach... 5 Small-Claim Block Analysis...5 Triaging of Small Claims...6 Defining Triage... 6 Triage Methods...6 Why Triage?... 7 Diligent Small-Claims Adjudication...7 Infographic: What Does Diligent Mean?... 8 Minimal Claim Frequency...9 Multiple and Frequent Claims...11 Small but Significant About the Author

3 ASSESSING SMALL CLAIMS TO IMPROVE POLICYHOLDER SERVICES AND FINANCIAL RESULTS THE BALANCING ACT Most insurance companies with diverse disability income claims portfolios face daily challenges associated with effectively utilizing employees based on the needs of each individual claim. Balancing the needs of complex, high-indemnity claims with those of smaller indemnity and shorter duration, and apportioning resources among them in a reasonable manner, can be especially challenging. If the needs assessment is too narrowly focused on benefit amount or duration, managers may assign resources disproportionately to the largest claims. As a result, the staff may spend too little time on smaller indemnity and/or shorter duration claims. Overlooking the needs of small claims can adversely affect the experience of the entire block. Therefore, the impact of small claims must be carefully considered when allocating and managing resources to effectively support policyholder service and achieve desired financial results. DEFINING SMALL CLAIMS Before exploring approaches for assessing small claims, understanding the definition of small claims is crucial. While every disability insurer should establish its own definition, some claim characteristics to consider include: 1. Benefit Amounts Small claims amounts can range from $1,000 per month or less up to $5,000 per month, depending on the organization. 2. Historical Claim Durations Analysis may suggest that some products generate sizeable numbers of claims that are paid for minimal durations. They may be caused by specific product design features (such as zero-day elimination periods), which are important to consider. 3. Benefit Periods Brief maximum benefit periods may be another product feature that leads to a classification of a certain segment of the block as small. Products that provide 24 months of benefits or less, for example, might fall into this category. One universal element of the definition of small claims is the tendency of that type of claim to be perceived of as less complex than others. SMALL CLAIM/BIG IMPACT An ineffective approach to managing small claims, or no approach at all, may result in adverse financial experience for the entire portfolio. If an insurer doesn t diligently monitor its smaller claims, two claims management extremes may result the minimum and maximum assessment. The Minimum Assessment Extreme At one end of the claims management continuum is the minimum assessment extreme. This is where claims professionals tend to pay small claims after only minimal, if any, analysis. It s understandable how such an approach might develop. Each day, decisions must be made on assigning resources to ensure achieving accurate claim outcomes in a costeffective manner. This is not an easy task, especially when time is limited. When time is of the essence, overly simplistic cost-benefit analysis may occur and, too often, conclude that the costliest resources be directed to the largest claims. The problem with the minimum assessment is that it fails to consider that some small claims may be more than they seem. For example, we might imagine that a claims professional (let s call him Joe ) decides to pay 3

4 and close a claim for benefits amounting to $500 per month for a claimant ( Mary ) who has returned to work. Let s assume the decision is made without a thorough phone call with the claimant or independent validation of occupational or medical data. After all, Joe has several other pending claims with monthly benefits of thousands a month or more where the recovery prognoses are uncertain. Provided Mary has submitted a physician s statement, what would further analysis have contributed to Joe s assessment of her claim? Now, suppose what Joe failed to notice is that this is Mary s seventh claim of 6 or more months duration in the last 5 years during which time the company has paid Mary benefits approaching $30,000. Furthermore, suppose a closer look at Mary s claim forms shows that her physician s statement is unsigned or that the handwriting on this form seems very similar to that found on Mary s form. Joe might reply that $30,000 may amount to only 2 months of benefits for one of his larger claims and that, even if this amount was overpaid, his time was still better spent on his larger cases. The response to Joe is that when you combine the number of claims like Mary s, which are paid without sufficient analysis, the potential for overpayment can climb to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. There may also be other operational costs to such decisions, especially when the impact is considered across the entire block. By failing to recognize that Mary submitted multiple claims with incomplete or questionable form completion, Joe and his colleagues have sent her a message. They ve told Mary, and perhaps other claimants like her, that their claims will receive minimal, if any, scrutiny. As such, this company s claims staff has sent an invitation to some of their small-claim population to submit multiple claims of perhaps questionable validity. It is also possible that such insureds may come to believe that the terms and conditions of their policies are more liberal than they really are. A consequence may be that in aggregate the volume of small claims climbs higher than what it might normally have been if diligent oversight had been conducted. It is possible that over time such decisions may contribute to the need for increased staffing to respond to growing claim volumes. Now, in addition to potential losses due to benefit overpayments, we must add increased operational costs due to higher staffing. Decisions such as Joe s also fail to realize the claims professional s important role in taking basic needed steps to protect the insurance company and, by extension, the broader insured community against fraudulent claims. The Maximum Assessment Extreme At the opposite end of the continuum is the maximum assessment extreme, in which claims professionals take too little account of the overall liability, customer-related costs, customer inconvenience, or claim exposure when deciding how to allocate resources to specific 4

5 cases. Such a situation might result when small and large claims are combined into one workload. Having become accustomed to applying significant diligence, attention and resources to larger claims, individuals assessing such workloads might become less adept at recognizing when their approach to a small claim exceeds what that claim may require. Small claims handled at this end of the extreme may reflect overuse of internal medical resources, collection of medical or financial records beyond their point of usefulness, or a tendency to monitor claims on a month-to-month basis rather than placing them on reasonable repetitive payment cycles. Like minimum assessment, this extreme may also result in workloads that grow beyond what would be expected. As a result, operational costs due to staffing and responses to customer inquiries may be disproportionate to the specific needs of these claims. Additionally, the costs of unnecessary record collection and excessive internal and external resource usage (medical examinations, activity verification, field visits) may add significantly, and unnecessarily, to expenses that are ultimately passed on to the consumers. SMALL CLAIMS A BALANCED APPROACH An effective small-claims approach is one that will help your claims organization respond to small claims in a balanced manner and hopefully avoid the extremes. It should facilitate the monitoring of finite resources in the assessment of small claims and promote the delivery of accurate and timely decisions for all of your claimants. The particulars of such an approach should be tailored to each unique operation. However, effective ways for handling small claims might include the following: 1. Small-claim block analysis 2. Triaging of small claims 3. Diligent small-claims adjudication SMALL-CLAIM BLOCK ANALYSIS To ensure the best results, organizations must analyze the experience of their small claims. Including small claims in the regular block analysis helps to monitor this claim segment and quickly detect emerging patterns or trends. These factors should be included in the analysis of the block: What percentage of the entire block is comprised of small claims? What proportion of claim liabilities and expenses are dedicated to these claims? What is a common reason for small-claim closures? What proportion of the small claims are comprised of multiple successive claims where the current claim is the third claim or higher? Are there any diagnostic or occupational trends that emerge from the review of the small-claim block? Are there any apparent durational trends? Are small claims handled by specific claims professionals, or are such claims handled by all the staff? To what extent are resources (e.g., medical, occupational, field services) being directed to this block of small claims, and how does this compare to usage for larger claims? You may find that the answers to the above questions necessitate further analysis of the block. Yet whatever subsequent actions such analysis leads to, one essential step to consider would be the implementation of an approach for triaging small claims. In addition, samples of small claims should be selected and reviewed during regular, internal quality assurance reviews of files. These reviews should help provide more detailed feedback concerning the effectiveness of small-claims assessment and the overall appropriateness of the extent of resources allocated to these claims. 5

6 Lastly, consider monitoring resource usage on a regular basis and specifically resources used for small-claim blocks. As will be explained below, claim triage may facilitate such tracking. TRIAGING OF SMALL CLAIMS Defining Triage In disability claims, triage generally refers to ways of distributing incoming claims to ensure that they receive the full benefit of available resources needed to assess them in the most timely, efficient and accurate manner for both the insured and the company. Triage Methods Some methods for triaging small claims might include: Establishing parameters for identifying small claims based upon the organization s definition of small. For example, claims of $1,000 per month or less or claims expected to be of short duration (e.g., 3 months or less) might be directed to a small-claims unit for handling. At time of claim notice, gathering enough information to determine if the claim will fall into the small classification. This information may be helpful if and when the claim is received. Directing all new claims to one unit tasked with triaging them. This unit might be staffed with individuals who are specially trained to handle smaller claims. If a claim meets your small parameters, the triage unit might be able to improve client service by handling it from inception to resolution. Having special procedures for responding to multiple claims from one insured. Small-claim blocks can generate large numbers of recurring or repeated claims. As already noted, there may be product features such as short elimination periods that explain this pattern. However, repeated claims may also be an indication of potential adverse selection or misperceptions of policy terms and conditions. When an insured submits his or her third claim (or more), consideration could be given to that claim being handled by claims professionals assigned to more complex claims. In this way, the company would be recognizing that more resources may be needed to fully assess potentially interrelated medical causes or non-medical causes of these claims. To be effective, however, these triage methods require supporting systems and procedures for tracking the number of claims an insured has submitted. 6

7 Why Triage? One element of a balanced small-claims approach may be to triage smaller claims and assign them to staff whose workloads will be primarily comprised of these claims. There are a number of benefits to this approach. 1. Triaging small cases and directing them to staff whose workloads are primarily composed of these claims makes them more visible. Such visibility will enhance the ability to monitor the size of caseloads relative to these types of claims. By directing small claims to specific claims professionals, managers can more easily test the relation of claim complexity to workload size and more accurately determine the number of smaller cases the staff can handle. As a result, they can have more confidence that they have the right number of resources handling these claims, which may not be as apparent if they aren t triaged. 2. Triaging small claims will facilitate tracking of resources used to administer them. We ve already mentioned how this may work to calibrate caseload numbers per claims professional. But it may also shed light on how other internal resources are being utilized for such cases and to compare this usage with workloads comprised of much larger claims. In a given period, for example, the use of physician resources for small claims might be nearly as high as large claims. Upon examination, there might be a reasonable explanation for this development. In this example, the benefit of the small-claims unit would be that it made this trend more apparent than it might have been otherwise, and as a result management s response would be faster. 3. Firsthand impressions from those resources handling the claims also provide valuable information for monitoring claim portfolios and potentially detecting trends. Trends involving smaller claims can have real impacts in terms of resource usage and emerging implications for larger claim blocks. Having such claims distributed to specific claims professionals may help gain greater clarity of impressions from those with the daily task of handling them. For example, small-claims staff may more readily notice a tendency among some of their claimants to submit multiple successive or recurrent claims. This may not be as easily detected if such smaller claims are assigned to many different staff members who handle caseloads containing large claims. 4. Assigning smaller claims to specific staff members will raise overall claimant satisfaction with service and reduce the volume of complaints. It s not uncommon for claimants to cite the relatively modest amount of their benefits as a cause for dissatisfaction with the way their cases were handled. In their reckoning, claim decisions should have been faster in view of the small benefit amounts. One risk of blending smaller claims with workloads containing larger claims is that the larger cases may consume more time. This may delay attention to necessary small-claim investigations and possibly generate complaints. DILIGENT SMALL-CLAIMS ADJUDICATION The oversight of small claims must be diligent in order to demonstrate to claimants that their cases are being carefully assessed and to ensure that accurate claim decisions are being made. But what does diligent mean? We ve suggested that handling small claims like large claims may not be diligent, but excessive. Conversely, making small-claim decisions after inadequate review of available materials and limited or no engagement with the medical or occupational aspects is also not a financially responsible or servicefocused approach. 7

8 Diligent small-claims handling should reflect a claims professional s active engagement with all policy terms and conditions. Smallclaim files should show that assigned staff have carefully reviewed all available claim materials and have considered the medical and occupational dimensions of the claim. When practical, and depending upon specific claim characteristics, efforts should be made to independently validate medical conditions and job duties. 8

9 However, a diligently handled small claim may be one where it is reasonable to pay the claim without such independent validation. Further, a diligent small-claim assessment helps to educate insureds about why certain documents are needed in order to assess their claims and what this documentation is or will be. In short, diligent smallclaims assessment ensures that all claims-handling activities support a consistent message to insureds that their claims are being or will be fully examined in a timely manner. Minimal Claim Frequency There are many effective and relatively inexpensive ways that available resources might be used to diligently assess small claims, particularly for claimants with a relatively small number of claims. Separate resource usage considerations are provided later for claimants who have submitted a large number of claims. Careful Assessment of Claim Forms and Other Materials Claims professionals should carefully and fully review available materials and claim forms for all claims, whatever their size and complexity. This is especially true of small claims, though, because the investigative options and resources used for them may be more limited than for larger claims. Claims staff members should carefully review claim forms for completeness. They should also examine handwriting on the forms to ensure that if claimants completed all or a portion of the employer or physician statements then employers or physicians have signed the documents, attesting to their support for its contents. If questions arise concerning authorship of form content, calls should be made to employers and physicians to validate that they support the substance of the information provided with their signatures. Phone Interviews Periodic, detailed telephone contacts with claimants are one of the most efficient and useful resources for assessing claims. It may not be cost-effective or necessary to use field investigators to meet claimants whose benefits are small or of short durations. Therefore, in such cases insurers should encourage their claims staff members to contact these claimants directly by phone whenever possible. During such calls, the claimants medical conditions, job duties and current activities should be thoroughly discussed. It is also important to use these calls to instruct claimants about the adjudication process and about the relevant terms and conditions of their policies. Such calls send a clear message that claims are being carefully assessed. When needed, consideration should also be given to phoning claimants employers and physicians to validate data and resolve outstanding occupational and medical questions. Medical Assessment If a comprehensive medical resource review is unnecessary, but there is still a need to validate the prognosis of a medical condition, claims professionals might use medical reference manuals. Also, in some instances, informal discussions with consulting medical resources might be considered instead of formal file referrals. This may be a more efficient method of securing medical input when conditions are less ambiguous. It is important to fully document such discussions to ensure that the consulting medical resource has validated his or her content. Occupational Assessment Like medical assessments, formal vocational resource reviews of a file may not be needed, especially if a claimant has returned to work or a recovery is imminent. However, it is important even in these instances that reasonable efforts be made to understand the claimant s job duties and, if possible, to validate them. As already suggested, phone interviews with employers or coworkers may be the quickest way of independently validating job duties when other data is unavailable. Claims professionals should also be encouraged to discuss cases as needed with available vocational resources. Online occupational resources such as O*Net, might serve as helpful references as well. 9

10 Pursuit of independent occupational verification should be encouraged even with small claims. However, the nature of the claimant s medical condition and the content of other claim materials received may support that a claim payment be made without such independent validation. In such instances, it is ideal to advise the insured that occupational validation was incomplete. In cases where the claim is paid and closed, communication with the insured (both verbal and written) should indicate that future claims submitted will require independent occupational verification. In cases where the claim remains open, the insured should be informed that occupational assessment will continue. Activity Assessment via Database Research A relatively cost-effective way of independently validating the insured s activity is a database check using credible Internet resources. Such resources can quickly and inexpensively develop information relative to the insured s vocational and nonvocational activities. Communication Between Small- and Large-Claims Units Individuals handling small claims should be encouraged to consult with their colleagues who handle larger, more complex claims when questions of some magnitude arise on smaller cases. A variety of perspectives about such claims might help clarify assessment alternatives or reinforce the presence of suspected red flags. It may be advisable for a small claim to be transferred to a largeclaims unit for further handling when it is believed that the claim will require the use of a wider array of resources. Limited Assessments In some cases, the particular characteristics of a small claim may suggest that only a limited assessment is needed. This usually happens when an insurer decides either to pay and close a claim or make an advance payment to a projected future recovery date and then close the claim. In these cases, insurers may decide to forgo collection of independent verification of occupational duties or medical records prior to paying and closing the claim. These can be sensible decisions that result in prompt claim decisions, meeting claimants and insurers needs. However, it is important in these instances that benefit determination letters clearly convey that a full claim investigation has not occurred. These letters should go on to explain that if further claims are filed, full investigations including independent validation of occupations and medical conditions will likely be needed. Such letters help set clear expectations with insureds regarding the importance of assessment processes and how they may be used in the future. Judicious Use of Reduced Claims Handling (i.e., repetitive payment) The handling of small claims should be diligent; however, it should not be excessive. Claims professionals should be alert to the earliest instance 10

11 when reduced claim handling would be appropriate. This is true regardless of whether the claim is small or large. As soon as it is determined that a medical recovery is unlikely and work potential is limited or non-existent, claims professionals should consider the option of reduced claim handling. This often involves placing claims on extended repetitive payment cycles with requests for claim forms made at intervals of 12 or 24 months. Because long-term reduced handling involves repetitive payment cycles of 1 to 2 years, such reduced handling is typically considered for claims with maximum benefit periods of significantly more than 2 years. However, extended reduced handling may also be an effective option for claims with benefit periods of as little as 2 years. For example, it may be apparent at the outset of a small claim with a 2-year benefit period that an insured s condition will not improve and work potential is nonexistent. In this instance, repetitive payment cycles of 12 or more months duration may be appropriate. In another case, there may be 12 months or less remaining before the claim reaches its 2-year maximum duration. In this instance, it may be that there are unresolved questions concerning the insured s claim. However, claims professionals should consider whether it is likely that their assessment efforts will result in a resolution of these outstanding issues before the maximum duration is reached. If assessment resolution appears unlikely before the maximum duration, reduced handling might be a consideration. In this situation, it may make sense to place the claim on repetitive payment for 9 to 10 months, with a consideration of an advance payment to the maximum duration at the conclusion of the payment cycle. When reducing handling in this type of circumstance, it is prudent to make clear to the insured that unresolved issues remain, that future claims will be fully assessed and that reduced handling in this instance is an administrative decision that shouldn t be construed as a waiver of rights and defenses. Such a decision should be approached cautiously, however. If the ongoing assessment concerns potential fraud, then reduced handling would not be appropriate. Also, if the particulars of the claim suggest that reduced handling would likely be misinterpreted by the insured as inattention to the specifics of their case, then again, reduced handling would not be advisable. Resource Cost Management The costs of resources used for the administration of small claims should be regularly monitored. This should include review of ongoing vendor expenses to ensure that assessment costs are not exceeding the overall claim exposure. Multiple and Frequent Claims As stated earlier, insureds who own lower indemnity policies may submit multiple (successive or recurrent) claims at a greater rate than insureds who own larger policies. It is important that when multiple claim patterns emerge, insurers attempt to identify the causes. For some blocks, the numbers of multiple claims may not be due to adverse selection, but rather stem from the nature of the product and market in which it was sold. Small accident indemnity policies with zero-day elimination periods that were sold to insureds in hazardous professions might be expected to yield larger numbers of claims. But even with this product profile, the number of claims submitted by each insured may exceed projections. When considering resource allocation for small claims, the number of multiple claims should be considered. It has been suggested that when an insured submits large numbers of claims, they should be handled by claims professionals who typically handle more complex cases. However, the interval between multiple claim submissions should also be considered when determining case assignments. For example, an insured s third claim might be received, but the claimant s second claim was submitted and resolved 10 years earlier. In view of this insured s particular claim history, it may make sense for the claim to be handled by a small-claims professional. In contrast 11

12 the third claim from another insured may have been submitted a year or less since the last claim. In fact, this insured may appear to return to work just long enough to satisfy policy requirements for successive claims and then submit new claims. It may make more sense to send this case to staff who handle larger, more complex claims. Assigning a small claim to a unit that typically handles larger and more complex claims may make sense when the small claim is one of many submitted by one insured within short intervals. For one thing, there can be a somewhat complicated interplay between earlier and current claims submitted by one insured that are best handled by assessors with experience handling complex cases. Additionally, when the costs of one insured s multiple prior and current claims are added together, in effect they may amount to one large claim as typically understood. For example, consider how much has been expended cumulatively for one insured s multiple claims. Has the maximum benefit period been paid for each of the multiple claims? What has been expended in terms of basic administrative response, claims staff time and other resources for each of the claims? Aggregating the cost history of multiple claims submitted by one insured in this way may justify larger resource expenditures for the current, solitary small claim submitted by this same insured. When costs are assessed in this manner, and depending upon the specific needs of the claim, it may be justifiable to make the full range of administrative tools and resources available to assess a solitary small claim. Some additional resources that may be used for assessing such small claims might include independent medical examinations, functional capacity evaluations, and/or financial documentation reviews by CPAs. Whatever investigative course is pursued, though, it is important that claims professionals set clear expectations with claimants (when practical) concerning claim-assessment activities and why the information gleaned from such activities is needed. Two more tools that are worth considering in the assessment of a small claim in a series of claims are discussed below: Field Visits When one insured has submitted multiple claims within a short period of time, consideration should be given to meeting the claimant in person for an interview. In-person discussions may be helpful for several reasons. First, they convey the message that careful attention is being paid to the claim and that the assessment of benefits is proceeding in accordance with specific policy provisions. Second, they provide helpful visual details in the event that the insured is claiming benefits for an observable physical impairment. Third, they may expedite retrieval of needed financial, medical or occupational documentation. Fourth, they present the optimal environment 12

13 for serving the claimant, specifically by addressing and resolving potential misperceptions about policy terms and conditions. It could be that multiple claim submissions may be due to insured misunderstandings about how their policies work. Face-to-face discussions of the policies go a long way toward solidly resolving such misunderstandings. Consideration could be given to conducting such field visits early in the identification of a multiple claim trend, perhaps at the third or fourth claim submission. In this way, organizations can resolve claim misunderstandings, if necessary, and manage the insured s present and future expectations. Such early intervention may also provide the information necessary to assessing the likelihood of future claims from the insured and to consider what range of resources may be needed to effectively respond to the current as well as future claims. Settlements If it emerges that one insured has a history of filing multiple claims within short intervals of each other, it might be advantageous for both this policyholder and the insurer to explore alternate means of meeting the insured s claim and policy needs. Any settlement should be an advantageous solution for both the insured and the insurer. One advantage to the insured might be that he or she no longer has to complete multiple claim forms and provide documentation on numerous occasions for claims involving potentially very brief benefit periods. One advantage to the insurer might be that it no longer needs to absorb the administrative costs of reviewing multiple consecutive proofs of loss from one insured. It is understood that the particular characteristics of each claim must be considered when contemplating settlements. SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT In summary, it is important that small claims are diligently assessed, but the extent of such assessments must also be consistent with the nature and needs of the claim. This may mean that fewer resources are used on smaller claims without overlooking the essential dimensions of the claim (e.g., occupational, medical and activity verification). Especially important is the message, explicit or implicit, that diligent handling of the claim sends to the insured. Ideally, insureds need to see that their claims, even if small, are and will be carefully, fully and fairly examined. ABOUT THE AUTHOR These papers reflect the collective experience and expertise of CSC s senior claims managers and resource specialists. They are written and refined as a collaborative effort guided by Cheryl Provost. Cheryl Provost, Director, Disability Claims, Business Process Services, CSC Cheryl Provost has 33 years of insurance expertise and 16 years of experience in disability income claims management. Her current responsibilities include management of a $750-million disability income portfolio of everything from small, short-term disability claims to complex, lifetime own-occupation coverage. Prior to joining CSC, she worked for Swiss Re Life and Health and Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Company. She can be reached at cprovost2@csc.com. CSC s Disability Income Claims program includes consulting physicians, medical and psychiatric experts, database specialists and skilled claims managers. With 25 years of experience, this dedicated team provides claim adjudication, portfolio management, claim evaluation and analysis, and benefit payment qualification and suitability analysis. For more information on CSC s Individual Disability Income Claims Management services, call , inforequests@csc.com or visit csc.com/di_claims. 13

14 Worldwide CSC Headquarters North America 3170 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, Virginia United States Asia 20 Anson Road #11-01 Twenty Anson Singapore Republic of Singapore Australia Level 6/Tower B 26 Talavera Road Macquarie Park, NSW 2113 Sydney, Australia +61(0) Europe, Middle East, Africa Royal Pavilion Wellesley Road Aldershot, Hampshire GU11 1PZ United Kingdom +44(0) Latin America Rua Alexandre Dumas, º andar CEP São Paulo/SP - Brasil About CSC The mission of CSC is to be a global leader in providing technology-enabled business solutions and services. With the broadest range of capabilities, CSC offers clients the solutions they need to manage complexity, focus on core businesses, collaborate with partners and clients and improve operations. CSC makes a special point of understanding its clients and provides experts with real-world experience to work with them. CSC leads with an informed point of view while still offering client choice. For more than 50 years, clients in industries and governments worldwide have trusted CSC with their business process and information systems outsourcing, systems integration and consulting needs. The company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CSC. About CSC in Financial Services CSC provides mission-critical business solutions, consulting and outsourcing services to leading financial services firms around the world. We bring more choices to the industry. We help clients plan for business and technology change. We create software, tools and processes to address specific business needs, and we continually enhance those solutions by collaborating with an extensive network of client communities and technology partners. Our global outsourcing operations give us real-world insight into business and IT processes that deliver the best results for our clients. More than 1,200 major banks, insurers, and investment management and securities firms rely on the experience, ingenuity and leadership of more than 10,000 CSC employees focused on financial services Computer Sciences Corporation. All rights reserved. Printed in USA 1218LIFE.