How many times have you asked the question, “Have you talked with him (or her) about this problem?” 

 Too often, people today throw down the gauntlet and go to war before even talking with someone with an opposing view. When the battle is over, they reflect on the stark fact that their differences may have been resolved by just talking things over.

To give you an example of what I’m talking about, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner started a series of weekly brown-bag lunches where the people the OIC regulates can have an open and honest exchange about issues and differences pertaining to legislation.  

It is transparent and there are no back room deals. This accomplishes two things.

First, it provides a “heads up” to everyone involved. The meetings tell folks, here’s where we are going, which leads to the discussion over whether the suggestion will work or not.

Second, it gives those regulated by the commissioner an opportunity to talk about issues that may need his attention.

Collaborative Problem-Solving 
Are the brown bag lunches successful? Not always, but they eliminate the element of surprise and help us work collaboratively where we can. Here are two examples.

The first involves the waiting period for organ transplants.

In March 2008, The Spokesman-Review reported on an individual in need of a liver transplant. As the patient neared the time of the transplant operation, the employer changed insurance carriers. The new plan had a six-month exclusion period for organ transplants and had the patient waited another six months, doctors believed the patient would have died.

The new carrier did the right thing when it learned of the problem: it approved coverage for the liver transplant.

Yet, there were the lingering problems. Health plans, by law, may impose waiting periods for pre-existing conditions to keep people from getting policies only after a problem has been diagnosed. Carriers may also have separate waiting periods for organ transplants.

The resulting quandary is that while health plans typically credit a subscriber’s prior coverage toward their pre-existing condition waiting periods, they do not typically credit prior coverage toward the separate transplant waiting period. Because of the high cost of transplants, however, no single health plan could take on the risk of being the first to change this practice. To reach the common sense solution demonstrated in the example above, a legislative fix is necessary to ensure a level playing field.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, along with the insurance providers, wanted to make the transplant issue more equitable. Premera Blue Cross, in conjunction with other insurance carriers, worked on drafting legislation.

The result was House Bill 1308, to reduce the benefit waiting period for organ transplants by the time an insured individual had prior creditable coverage.

Win-Win Solutions
The second collaborative example culminated in House Bill 2160. This measure was created to allow health insurance carriers to offer wellness programs in their benefit plans without running afoul of state law prohibiting illegal rebates or unlawful inducements.

Premera, which had found that even small incentives can produce a huge jump in participation in such health initiatives as biometric screenings, brought the issue to the attention of Gov. Chris Gregoire. The measure was introduced at her request and, as of this writing, appears headed for passage by the Legislature to be signed into law.

The point of the two examples is that collaboration can develop “win-win” solutions. Working out differences and taking solutions to the Legislature results in better and more workable laws. All it took was an invitation to have lunch, and the opportunity to sit down frequently and openly talk things over.

It is amazing what a sandwich and a bottle of water can do to help people come together and work on solving problems.