Quote Engine Underwriting Intelligence (Poll)

Which quote engine is the *smartest*?

  • Norvax

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Connecture

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Quotit

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Com Builder

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Total voters
    10
I know there are a few posts about quote engines and I've run through those. I want to talk about something specific.

I know there are pros and cons to all the quote engines. I've been demo-ing and trying to pick one. I've noticed that most quote engines companies have a lot of extra services (auto-responders, screen sharing, crm, etc) to automate the entire sales process. That's well and good, but most of that stuff can be had elsewhere if it's weak, it does not matter that much to me.

Let's say we set all that extra stuff aside and focus *just* on the quote engine itself. I want:

- Accurate quotes
- Underwriting intelligence (let me put in health conditions and details and based on that the quote engine tells me who will not underwrite the client and who will rate up and how much)
- Did I say underwriting intelligence? -- This is *very* important to me. I don't even know what else a quote engine can do, but I want it to be as ***-proof as possible.
- Array of carriers (I don't think any of the big 4 lack here)
- Solid, detailed comparison tools (the more detail the better, I want to be able to tell my client in as much detail as possible what the differences are among plans)

I think in this day-in-age I shouldn't have to flip through underwriting guides or brochures for this sort of detailed info.

So my question is who has the smartest quote engine of them all, ignoring everything else.
 
You really should know these off the top of your head without a quote engine to gain some credibility with your clients....it's easy for a client to see who knows what they're doing and who doesn't if you're taking too much time to figure out the underwriting differences between companies.
 
Never heard of Connecture or Com Builder so no input there.

Quote engines are, by design, dumb. Carriers also dumb down their products so they show up well on . . . quote engines.

With product names like "value" or "saver" they hope to capture potential buyers. Combining that with stripped down policies (no Rx, no doc visits) they can create a product that comes up as the cheapest on a site.

Many of the carriers ask tobacco questions but most have moved away from quoting tobacco rates out of the box which further distorts the picture to the tire kicking, I don't need no stinking advice from some rube agent, buyer.

Insurance buyers are basically uninformed while others are just plain stupid.

Can't tell you how many folks run rates on my site then put in bogus contact info. I also have at least one a week that runs rate and 5 minutes later makes application.

Of course most of those never complete the application or if they do, about 90% are rejected.

The more questions asked on the quote engine the less likely you are to have a good prospect. They will either grow weary of answering all the questions, or if they do plod through the process, they will reject your quote as invalid since they know they can get a better rate somewhere else.
 
Less is more. As Somarco said, don't run off your clients by asking too many questions before they get the core data they are looking for. Prospects are looking for rates and a very brief benefit summary, with links to more data if they desire it. It's a real mistake to ask too many questions before they get their data. They'll go elsewhere.

If you can find a way to add to your quote engine page, with a "call an expert" section, or even a section that prompts questions about underwriting & medical conditions, that can be a call to action for the prospect. Prospects are impressed with agents who have committed to memory most of the common underwriting problems, but I also keep a quick "cheat sheet" spreadsheet handy.

As for underwriting filters, I wouldn't trust any quote engine that had it anyway! (Currently, I know of no quote engine that has it). These things are fluid - carriers write underwriting manuals, then bend & break the rules anyway.

Here's what I do. I continually add to a spreadsheet of underwriting problems, where each carrier has a column and each condition has a line. I ignored unusual medical conditions and started with the most common underwriting problems, then add to the spreadsheet whenever a new condition arises. Common underwriting problems include height/weight, ear infections, colon polyps, kidney stones, recent c-section, skin cancer, high blood pressure, etc. It also includes common eligibility problems like non-US citizen, age 64 1/2, etc. Remember to put a date on every entry so you know how old the data is.

Currently, I know of no quote engine or other service that is digitizing this information. Even the carriers take "prescreens" on a one-by-one basis when the medical history is too complex for just a quick look in the underwriting manual.
 
You really should know these off the top of your head without a quote engine to gain some credibility with your clients

I respect what you're saying and I agree. But I don't think I should have to.

somarco said:
Never heard of Connecture or Com Builder so no input there.

I should have clarified who these options are. These are the four that I found that offer at least several states. There are a few that offer only one state but I kept those out. The first three are national, the fourth has 6 states.

1. Norvax Norvax - Insurance Sales Automation, Health Insurance Quoting, Insurance Leads & Marketing
2. Connecture BrokerAdvantage (formerly Insurint) - BrokerAdvantage
3. Quotit - Quotit Corporation
4. Commission Builder - CommissionBuilder.com

somarco said:
Quote engines are, by design, dumb. Carriers also dumb down their products so they show up well on . . . quote engines.

With product names like "value" or "saver" they hope to capture potential buyers. Combining that with stripped down policies (no Rx, no doc visits) they can create a product that comes up as the cheapest on a site.

. . .

Insurance buyers are basically uninformed while others are just plain stupid.

Can't tell you how many folks run rates on my site then put in bogus contact info. I also have at least one a week that runs rate and 5 minutes later makes application.

Of course most of those never complete the application or if they do, about 90% are rejected.

The more questions asked on the quote engine the less likely you are to have a good prospect. They will either grow weary of answering all the questions, or if they do plod through the process, they will reject your quote as invalid since they know they can get a better rate somewhere else.

I understand where you're coming from and the point you're making. Dumbing down products and quote engines will certainly lead to more sales as people are not experts. However, this is not my question. I'm not evaluating client-facing quote engines. I want a smart quote engine for myself. I'd like to think of myself as being a tad smarter than the average health insurance buyer and even though I don't think I should have to enter tons of extra info, if a client mentions something or some combination of conditions I should be able to quickly filter results. I'm asking about an intelligent quote engine for a broker.

Ann H said:
Here's what I do. I continually add to a spreadsheet of underwriting problems, where each carrier has a column and each condition has a line. I ignored unusual medical conditions and started with the most common underwriting problems, then add to the spreadsheet whenever a new condition arises. Common underwriting problems include height/weight, ear infections, colon polyps, kidney stones, recent c-section, skin cancer, high blood pressure, etc. It also includes common eligibility problems like non-US citizen, age 64 1/2, etc. Remember to put a date on every entry so you know how old the data is.

Currently, I know of no quote engine or other service that is digitizing this information. Even the carriers take "prescreens" on a one-by-one basis when the medical history is too complex for just a quick look in the underwriting manual.

I do something similar. I just don't think I should have to. These decisions are (or should be) a science rather than an art. I know that tons of variables have to be taken into account to communicate expectations with clients who are borderline insurable, but that does not mean these tools shouldn't exist -- or at least exist to some extent more than considering height/weight and smoking.
 
I want a smart quote engine for myself.

Sorry, those programs are reserved for HO types that have "underwriter" in their job description.

Haven't followed it, but Aetna was developing what I referred to as Robo-Underwriter. Software that would scan an app, pull MIB and Rx records and spit out a rate for 90% of apps including declines.

I know they tested it for almost a year, starting in 2009. Not sure if it was successful or not.

These decisions are (or should be) a science rather than an art.

The "art" of underwriting mostly went out of the window when computers became affordable. The problem with that is quite a few cases are gray, not black or white, and the result is more declines and higher rate ups.

When you know how to work the system, and I do, and how to provide a sound argument to the underwriter to support your case, you write a lot more business that other agents miss.

Back to your quote engines, Connecture (when it was Insurint) supposedly had a "smart" quote engine but I was never sufficiently impressed with their package to pursue it. A lot of what they were doing seemed a lot like Microsoft, making it more complicated and expensive than it had to be.

Perhaps they have their act together now.

Frankly, I spend a lot less time with prospective clients now than I used to before commissions were cut in half (or more). I rarely pre-screen anything, don't spend a lot of time looking up stuff. If it seems like they can pass underwriting I give them a ballpark and we submit an app.

If they don't like it they can go direct and take their chances.

The carriers don't pay me enough to do much hand holding an consulting any more. I have become an order taker.
 
Back
Top