Skip to main content
Green Shield Canada

Episode 14: The evolution of the insurance industry

In episode 14, hosts Sarah and David welcome two guests to the studio – Ben Harrison, Partner at Portag3 Ventures, and GSC’s Director of Strategic Innovation, Erin Crump. They discuss the world of Fintech/Insurtech start-ups/new ventures, the emerging focus on the customer experience, and whether the word “disruption” is a meaningful one.
And now for something completely indifferent

And now for something completely indifferent

Subcribe via iTunesSubcribe Via Google Podcasts

Episode 14 Transcript


[0:00:14.9] SM: Hello and welcome to another episode of GSC’s Podcast; And Now For Something Completely Indifferent, where we will be discussing the hottest topics and trends in Canadian health benefits. I am one of your hosts, Sarah Murphy.

Before we get stated with today’s episode, we would like to remind our listeners that the views expressed in this podcast are those of the individuals speaking and not necessarily the views of GSC. We may talk about possibly controversial subjects and therefore reserve the right to potentially offend some listeners, but are apologizing for it upfront.

You can download this podcast from our website at\podcast, or subscribe to it from wherever you get your podcasts. We also encourage you to read our publications, the inside story and follow the script, which you can also download from our website. Please be sure to follow the conversation on Twitter and LinkedIn.


[0:01:08.9] SM: Now let’s get started. Today’s episode is hosted by David Willows, GSC’s Chief Innovation and Marketing Officer.

Hello, David.

[0:01:16.8] DW: Hi Sarah. We have to talk faster, because it’s 3:35 on a Friday afternoon. We just taped the podcast with Stephen Frank, friend of the podcast back for the second time to do an annual review of what's been going on. We're not going to do a full attempting to be funny, or charming, or any other word you want to ascribe to us intro, because this is an emergency podcast.

Just so happened that we had booked Stephen Frank in, have happened to be the week that they've announced or CLHIA, Stephen’s organization has announced their latest proposals around G19 –

[0:01:46.9] SM: On topic.

[0:01:47.6] DW: - which is a very hot topic. We recorded this afternoon. You and I recording this now. We're going to rush it out through post-production and try to get this out next week and while there may be an argument there's never an emergency in podcasting, we are going to call this the –

[0:02:01.7] SM: This is.

[0:02:02.2] DW: This is the emergency podcast.

[0:02:03.5] SM: We’re creating a thing.

[0:02:04.1] DW: Yes.

[0:02:04.6] SM: It's a thing.

[0:02:05.2] DW: Yes. Okay.

[0:02:06.3] SM: It’s Friday afternoon, let's get out of here.

[0:02:07.9] DW: Yeah. Enjoy Stephen Frank.


[0:02:13.7] DW: Returning to the podcast studio almost a year after he was last here is the president and CEO of the CLHIA, which is Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Mr. Stephen Frank, thank you for coming back.

[0:02:25.7] SF: Oh, it’s my pleasure David. Thank you for having me.

[0:02:27.4] DW: We talked about you coming back and you made a couple of predictions about what you might be working on this year in 2018. I'm going to get to those in a little while. For those that really want to know Stephen’s background, long story short, he was an economist before he worked for the CLHIA. Please go back and listen to the podcast that happened at the very beginning of this year.

This is really your first full calendar year as the president and CEO. How is it going? How's the job turning out?

[0:02:52.1] SF: Yeah. Well, thank you. It is my just a little bit over a year now and it's been going really well. What's been interesting for me is the breadth of issues I'm getting involved in and I know we’ll touch on a whole range of them today, but there's a ton going on in the industry. I certainly don't get up in the morning thinking or worrying about what we're going to do. There's lots going on and it's all – I think it's all going in a good direction, a very positive direction. I'm feeling good pretty much across the board on what we're working on.

[0:03:19.5] DW: Okay, good. No, you're certainly in the news a lot. I mean, speaking of being in the news, I am going to start off with a topic that will be very familiar to some of our listeners in the advisory world, perhaps less so for those in the plan sponsor world. When you were here at the beginning of last year, the one piece of criticism I got personally after that, because I got a lot of great reviews, that podcast was a suggestion that I had shied away from asking you about something called G19. I'm not going to make that mistake today and this has been a very active week for the CLHIA in terms of talking about this thing called G19. I'm going to ask you to define what it is and why the CLHIA is involved in this topic.

[0:04:01.2] SF: Well, the life and health in industry is a bit unique in the extent that we have what we call guidelines. The G stands for Guideline 19. It gives you an idea, we've got 19 of them now. Over the last many decades, we've had the privilege as an industry to self-regulate and to self-guide and set principles for ourselves.

We try to identify areas where industry can be responsive and get ahead of regulatory pressure. We also try to identify areas where we think we could do better for our customers, if we collaborate. We want to ensure we've got a very robust competitive market in Canada, but there's always areas where it's not in our clients’ interest for us to be competing. Certainly, the regulatory expectations would expect that we would be doing some aligning as an industry around best practices, or how we behave. That's what the guidelines are generally used for.

The context for G19 is an interesting one, because we are very clearly moving into a much more robust regulatory environment than we've ever had in the past. You could almost say as an industry, we've been able to stay a little bit in the weeds and much of the regulatory attention, both internationally and in Canada has focused on the securities, business, mutual fund industry around things like how you pay pre-mutual funds, what types of embedded fees are included, how you disclose that, what are reasonable amounts to pay, how you're explaining what you're selling to a client.

All those discussions have happened in the security side and those are by and large starting to wrap up. What I would observe is that that attention is now starting to shift into the insurance space. It's being driven. Really, there's a global effort to do that. There's something called the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. They're an increasingly influential group, because out of the 2008 crisis, what governments around the world realized is we're going to have to have some alignment internationally in how we approach these things.

The IAIS have been creating core principles, they're called. Those core principles then get brought into the national context in the various countries and get implemented. One of the really big changes that the international regulators have established is that we need to be treating customers fairly, and it's a very undefined concept at the moment, which can cause a bit of anxiety, because it is – are you treating someone fairly as a bit in the eye of the beholder? That's the new standard and very clearly, going to be the new standard in Canada.

Underneath treating customers fairly is making sure that you're dealing with conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest can arise in how you pay people and can arise in what you're disclosing. G19 which is about how we disclose what we're paying advisers to plan sponsors is an effort to try and get at conflicts of interest. It rolls up in this new idea that we need to be treating customers fairly. There's a context to all of this. I think that's one of the things we've struggled to to communicate well, is that this wasn't – the life insurance industry coming out of the blue with this idea that we need to be changing our practice.

This is a inevitable result of what's happening in the regulatory world and the changing expectations for insurance companies. In my mind, I'm a 100% certain disclosure was going to come whether we did it to ourselves, or whether we waited for the regulators. It was an effort to try and get ahead of it.

[0:07:33.2] DW: Certainly from my history, I let a health benefits practice probably over 10 years ago now, where the name Spitzer was ever present. Not for the reason it is nowadays, but he did some other work before his downfall certainly in this place. It was just par for the course that in my practice and the other complimentary larger consulting firms that this was being addressed. That was not addressed in other parts of our industry over that next decade.

[0:08:00.0] SF: That's right. Again, that became the market practice and the more consulting type houses, but it wasn't pushed down into the TPA, MGA advisor world that we've been dealing in. It's a good analogy. It's an extension of that discussion that came out of the crisis.

[0:08:20.8] DW: Because one of the struggles here that there is instead of a unifying body in that world that could have driven this forward, or are there either formal or informal bodies that were at least looking at this?

[0:08:32.8] SF: Well, this is where it gets pretty tricky. It gets interesting and tricky at the same time, because the regulators clearly look to the insurance company to be “on the hook” for this. We're the regulated entity in this and the advisor is not generally, right? They're going to say, “We want to ensure that you're treating customers fairly. It's on you guys to figure out how you're going to do that.”

The fact that over the last 30 years, you've pushed your distribution out, you didn't keep it in-house. It's now being done through third parties’ advice, that's a commercial choice you've made. That doesn't change the fact that you, the insurance company are on the hook for how your advisers behave. You're going to be on the hook for what disclosures are happening.

G19 was an effort to say we know this train is coming and we believe strongly we'll be better off having addressed it ourselves and waiting for the regulators to do it. I think we went into this with very good intentions and wanting to do the right thing. I think we certainly learned that we didn't execute on it probably as well as we could have, and some of the consultation processes we followed and some of the engagement with the advisors. Certainly, if we were doing it again, we would look for ways to get them much more involved earlier. There are some learnings there for us, but at the end of the day, that’s the path we took.

You mentioned that this was a big week, because and for those who may or may not be aware, the reason for that is that we announced changes to the guideline that were a direct result of the feedback we got from the advisors. Much of that feedback was very productive and very direct, I'll say, around some of the challenges and some of the difficult positions we may put advisors in with what we had originally proposed.

Some of the things like allowing the adviser to be the one who presents the disclosure to their customer, so they have the ability to put it in a context of the business and the value they're bringing and they can talk about everything they do, versus it being a letter they get from the insurance company that may just land on someone's desk.

[0:10:34.8] DW: With a dollar figure.

[0:10:35.2] SF: With a dollar figure, with no context. That was a very, very constructive and helpful piece of feedback. We changed the approach to allow advisers to do that. The other big change was around how we will disclose bonusing, or indirect type compensation. Because as many, many listeners will know some forms of indirect compensation are paid on a pool that you made – you hit a certain threshold, let's say you might get some compensation. It's hard to attribute that amount to a particular plan and again, could be quite misleading if we said, “Well, your advisor got $40,000 last year. Well, how much of that did I pay as the plan sponsor?”

Again, we we tried to be really thoughtful and say that's a good point. We're not here to disrupt and to undermine the advisor channel. We need it. It's absolutely critical that we have a strong and robust system out there, so we've made some changes there too. We hope that the changes we made this week are a good response to what we've heard, but we really do believe it's the right thing to do to be disclosing what we're paying. Advisers, or plan sponsors rather can make their own decisions. If they're getting value for what we're paying, then that's fine. If they're not, that's a discussion between them and the advisor and the market will help settle where the appropriate levels are.

[0:11:54.8] DW: A week after the announcement of the latest platform, where do you feel you've got that consensus growing and where do you still hear noise in the system?

[0:12:04.5] SF: Yeah. I mean, we do have some details we need to settle. I think some of the concerns we're still hearing are really around like, “Tell me exactly how this is going to work. Exactly how am I going to get this disclosure from you and when, and when can I deliver it?” We have some work we know we need to do around the details.

The one area in the system where there are some – I think some more I guess, deeper thinking required was probably within the TPA space. We've reached out to TPAC and some of the large TPAs in Canada to say like, “Come to the table. Let's work together in the coming months and let's work through some of those difficult issues.” There's some particular things in the TPA space that we don't find in others, so those are known issues and we have to work those through as well.

That feedback, I've used very constructive and very welcoming and we want to work with those folks. There are some who continue to question the need for disclosure, they continue to question whether the story I told at the beginning around the regulators’ changing expectations is in fact real questioning why we need to do this. I think we want to continue to to reach out and have that dialogue with them.

[0:13:15.1] DW: At some point.

[0:13:15.7] SF: At some point, it is what it is. The environment has changed and it will change and I don't think there's any going back. We can't live in the shadows and pay and provide incentives in the market and then try to not disclose what those are. I think those days are gone.

[0:13:32.9] DW: Okay. The timeline we're looking at now?

[0:13:35.4] SF: For the group benefits business, which is predominantly I would imagine the folks listening today, that will start in 2020. There's a ways yet before we would start to provide that disclosure. The reason we've given ourselves that 18 months is to work through some of those details, particularly in the TPA space and some of the other distribution channels that are more prevalent in the group benefits world. For those who have a group retirement type service they're offering, there's employees that would search July 1st, 2019. We've staggared the the role out there.

[0:14:09.1] DW: Okay, so let me move on to a much easier topic, national farmer care. That was meant to be a joke. Last year, we spent probably the most time in our podcast together talking about what was emerging and I think at that point, Dr. Hoskins had been named, but the work that he and his group were going to do had not started in earnest. We're sitting here towards the end of 2019. Why don’t you tell us a bit about your interactions with the federal government and specifically that entity and where do you think this is going?

[0:14:38.8] SF: Yeah. Well, it's a bit like reading the tea leaves, so I'm sure you'll play it back to me next year if I'm invited to that.

[0:14:44.0] DW: We have to. We will.

[0:14:45.4] SF: I'll give you my fearless prediction. With respect to Dr. Hoskins advisory council, we've been very engaged with them. I think they've done a really good job of reaching out to Canadians and our industry and really listen to the various perspectives. That process has continued. The first round of consultations is wrapped up and we understand that they'll be publishing what we heard document “middle of January.”

That'll be our first real feedback from them to us, being the greater ecosystem around what they've heard. We may get a bit of a sense of the direction they're going. At this stage, we really don't know where they may or may not be thinking. What I would observe though is that generally, the discussion has become a much more thoughtful and evidence-based discussion than we were having a year ago.

[0:15:38.1] DW: It was almost purely ideological at that point.

[0:15:40.0] SF: It was very ideological last year. We need a government-run program and that's just a no-brainer, so let's get on with it, right? Well of course, it's not that simple. I think people – I'm not hearing a lot of that very simplistic stuff anymore. I'm hearing a much more thoughtful discussion around okay, people are getting an awful lot of value from the system that they have today and there are some gaps. How do we ensure we don't disenfranchise those who are being well-served in any reform? How do we ensure that what we do is a judicious use of government scarce capacity right now?

We do have a challenging fiscal environment in Canada. We got some tax competitiveness issues with the states and the government tried to address some of that and it's fall update yesterday. We're not in a world where there's 25 billion dollars just sitting around to be used.

My sense is the discussions changes become much more serious one and more thoughtful and I think that's very, very positive, because we continue to believe there's a very important role for private players in the system; we provide choice, we provide greater access, we provide more flexibility to employers, we take pressure off the fiscal environment and we know that through polling and anecdotally, we know that Canadians really, really appreciate their private coverage and they do not want to see it impacted.

We've been able to share all of that. I mean, I'm hoping that we're going to have a much more thoughtful outcome of the advisory council, than maybe we were at going in. Time will tell. If we're in a 100-meter race, we're probably about 30 meters into it at this point. There's an awful lot of water and run under the bridge.

Some of the themes that we're hearing about – so I would I would say some of the elements of any reform are going to want – are going to address the gap in the system, so we do know that there are Canadians who are struggling to get the medication they've been prescribed. It's complicated as to why. I do think at the core, that's the real issue and that's when everyone, every stakeholder in the system wants to make sure we get it right.

Nobody should be cutting pills, or skipping doses, or not filling their prescription because they can't afford it. I think everybody would agree, we can all play a part in some solution there. There's going to be something to address that. I'm hearing a lot more and this may be interesting to some of the listeners. I'm hearing a lot more discussion around well, what do we need to do around the higher costs stuff? More and more of it coming, everybody's struggling with how to pay for expensive drugs for diseases, governments, plan sponsors. How do we evaluate whether they're worth paying for?  How do we sustain the costs?

It feels to me like there's a growing understanding that the pressure on the system, the fiscal pressure, certainly the financial pressure and the cracks are starting to be driven from that rare disease area, the higher cost stuff and that one approach to doing better there is to do something collective. People are poking around it.

[0:18:41.8] DW: Is this just what we called orphan drugs? Because there's certainly some high cost molecules, which are more broadly used, which are straining us as well.

[0:18:49.3] SF: Yeah. I don't think people are thinking of just orphan. I think they're thinkng it was the high-cost stuff is the challenge. I seem to be hearing some interesting questions from government you know are on. Okay, so what could the federal government do that could be helpful there? Is there a way we could participate in some pool, or is there way we could take some accountability for some of those costs? Then on the flip side they'll say, “Well, how do we make sure we don't become a dumping ground and how do we limit our liabilities?” They're asking some interesting questions, but it's –

[0:19:20.2] DW: That the part wouldn't have known to ask before there’s consultation.

[0:19:22.2] SF: They wouldn’t have known. Yeah, I agree. They're starting to get into the weeds a little bit, which suggests they've identified that that's a problem area. I think if we do something smart in that space, could be really helpful for everybody. I continue to be hopeful that reform will be good for everyone, that everyone will see something positive out at the end of this and that we can all get behind it. We continue to want to be very, very constructive in our engagement in all of these.

[0:19:50.8] DW: Last year's podcast, we did talk about our relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and you talked at that time about the need for some structural change happening. I think this is hinting at some of that. Do you have more confidence sitting here today that some of those things are in motion, than perhaps last year?

[0:20:11.0] SF: Yeah. I mean, I think we're getting closer to it. The structural stuff I was talking about last year is around just greater coordination and alignment between public and private payers and within the private market itself. We continue to run our C-pool and against the naysayers, it's still running five, six years in. We're learning a lot about that. It’s shown that the industry can work together and collaborate on these things.

What do we need structurally? Well, we need to be not working against each other, government, private, spare. We shouldn't be competing for drug pricing. We shouldn't be competing on who's got the smartest scientists’ review, clinical evidence. We should be looking for ways to come together and to work together in a smart way, while still protecting the choice and innovation we talked about earlier.

It feels like we're moving in that direction, regardless of the pharma care debate. The pharma care debate should accelerate that a little bit. We're further ahead on that than we were a year ago, and direction of travel is in a good place, I think.

[0:21:14.7] DW: Yeah, fair enough. One other thing that you predicted for this year 2018, was that you thought fraud and fraud management was going to be a hot topic and that we would see some movement and maybe collaboration in the industry on that. Why don't you tell us what you think has been accomplished over the last 12 months.

[0:21:34.7] SF: Sure. Well, that's been a – as I mentioned last year, an interesting area for us at the CLHIA because it's coming up more and more from our members. We are starting as an industry to work together on some intelligent ways to collaborate, to combat claims fraud. The industry I think broadly have decided that this is not one of those areas where we should compete. We should collaborate to the extent we can. It's in everyone's interest to get fraud out of the system.

We're seeing some interesting things. Really, I guess to be specific, we've launched a new awareness campaign around fraud. It's called Fraud = Fraud. Some of the listeners may have seen it. We're streaming videos and content on social media and we're pushing out ads to individuals. It’s really around trying to help Canadians understand that claims fraud is not something to be done lightly. When we polled individuals, the vast majority thought that the penalty they would be subject to if they committed claims fraud was they'd have to repay the amount. The fact that it's a crime, that they could lose their job, that their reputation’s at risk, and the extreme, could go to jail. Almost no one was aware of that.

We need to just change the channel to say this isn't a game. This is serious and you need to view it like you're shoplifting or anything else. This advocacy campaign is started, where we will be sustaining that over the medium term, so over the next several years. We're seeing great pick up. The traffic we're driving, the click-throughs on social media, you can track the active engagement, it's significantly higher than we expected, and so it's positive. We're engaging people and that's good. I think the listeners should expect to hear more of that from the industry.

We're also looking at ways to start sharing of and pooling together of claims data, and so we'll be almost certainly running a pilot this year, where we'll be pooling together claims data and that's going to allow us to use a pretty sophisticated AI type technique to identify suspicious activity in the market. If Green Shield is looking just at your block of business and you've got a massage – the simplest example is the impossible day, right? You have a massage therapist, or a chiral, or I'm not picking on any provider, but a provider billing 26 hours in a day, but splits that up for three hours of billing for each carrier. None of you will catch that on your own.

By bringing that information all into one bigger database, you start to find those things. That's the absolute simplest. Then obviously, you can identify some suspicious behavior and it's meant to guide companies into using their scarce investigative resources in the most likely patterns. The P&C industry have been doing that for a while. We're going to see if that will work in our context. That's another example of there's investment happening, there's time and money going into this and the industry is taking it really seriously.

[0:24:27.4] DW: That's us coming together and using data, deep analytics and technology. Do we have any traction with the paramedical community in having a conversation about practices that are out there?

[0:24:37.4] SF: I would observe that the associations we talked to absolutely do want to weed out the bad actors. I think they know instantly that it's not in their long-term interest to have that thing going on.

[0:24:48.5] DW: They have a leverage inside those communities.

[0:24:50.3] SF: The question is it really depends on the provider group as to what leverage they can bring to the table, how consolidated their association may be. In some other areas, there's multiple providers. Whether they have a college and they're regulated or not. It's almost a discussion by provider, but it's a really good point. I think there is a important role for them to be helpful here over the medium term as well.

[0:25:15.9] DW: Okay. Just looking ahead to 2019, are there any issues we haven't talked about today that you see emerging on your team's docket that maybe we'll hear more about next year than we've heard about before?

[0:25:27.5] SF: Well yeah. I guess, I'll just point two things. I think that we will continue to have this discussion around how we – what a fair treatment of customers means. I think, next year we'll be talking about that and we'll probably have more clarity on what that looks like. It's a principle that we now need to be managing our business to. We don't really know what that looks like yet, but we're going to have to be moving in that direction.

That is going to be a huge work load for us and it's going to involve – the advisors can involve plan sponsors, like everyone listening in, we all have to be rowing in the same direction. I think again, going back to G19, one of our learnings is we need to be reaching out and engaging better and earlier with you all on these issues. I think you'll hear from us more on that for sure.

The other interesting one is just an interesting issue for the insurance industry is that we are –we should be through our constitutional appeal on the use of genetic tests and we fully expect that we will get the federal law that was introduced a year ago banning any use of genetic information set aside. The discussion will start again on okay, on what is the appropriate use of genetic test information by an insurer? When should we use it? When shouldn't we?

[0:26:41.2] DW: Because it was a rather broad brush.

[0:26:42.6] SF: It was a very blunt. It was the law, it was a one-page piece of legislation that said you won't use it under any circumstances. That's not the right answer on this. It needs to be a more balanced approach. We'll be talking about that in the course of next year. It feeds into a longer-term discussion around how we use information and big data. It's also very important discussions. We're going to need to, over the medium term as an industry and as Canadians, come to some comfort level with what's the right use of that and what isn't. This is a piece of that broader discussion, but this will be an issue for us in 2019.

[0:27:21.5] DW: In the last couple of weeks, we've had discussions inside this company on this very topic, and because we are trying to dream of ways that it could be used very positively for patient care and driving better health outcomes, but we feel a little bit hamstrung right now and are a little bit worried that any attempt for us to use this in a positive way will be looked on negatively, given current legislation.

[0:27:40.6] SF: Yeah. It's the fine line, like when do you cross the icky line? It's you sorta don't know it until you hit it. As a society, we haven't really figured out where that line is. If you can look to your data and identify someone who's on a bad trajectory for becoming a diabetic, or a disease and you know and you can be helpful to that person –

[0:27:58.3] DW: Provide services to them.

[0:27:59.7] SF: Provide services and be proactive. Boy, that sounds really nice.

[0:28:03.6] DW: Yeah, and pay for them.

[0:28:05.0] SF: Pay for it. I think we're going to want to allow for some of that to happen without crossing the line to where we're using it in a negative way to deny, or to restrict access. That's at the rub of the discussion over genetic testing right now. Like I said, we hopefully get a bit of a do-over on that. We certainly didn't land in the right place the first time. Hopefully, we can do better in the second. Again pharmacare, I'll just throw in. We'll be talking about that again next year, I think almost certainly.

[0:28:35.9] DW: I mean, do you expect that where this government comes to through their consultation will be acted upon in this current administration, or it will be an election discussion?

[0:28:47.3] SF: Yeah, they don't have the time to do anything on this mandate. How this probably plays out is there'll be a report from the advisory committee next spring, let's say June. There's a federal election in October of 2019, so they'll use – there will certainly be something around pharmacare in their election platform. Then you have to get through the election and see who wins. Then at that point, we'll talk about whether and what changes they make.

That's why I said, we're at the beginning of a – it's a bit of a sprint, but there's a still a lot of mileage to be run here. For real change to be impacting a plan sponsor and advisor, you're looking into probably 2020.

[0:29:27.4] DW: Yeah, okay. I have one final point that I want to cover with you, and as you know, words live forever. I quote from the last podcast, after explaining that you're actually originally from Ottawa, but have lived in Toronto, really made your life in Toronto. Your family lives in Toronto. Your quote was, “I will stand by my senators forever.”

Since that time, you have traded your best player for 5 cents on the dollar. You have had an incidence in an Uber, where your players are clearly dissatisfied with the administration of a team. Today, you have a lawsuit around attempts to build a new arena to badly need in that city. In Toronto, you have the best team in hockey.

[0:30:09.8] SF: People wonder why the leaves aren't loved outside the 4016.

[0:30:13.6] DW: Those are factual statements. You talk about factual statements coming into the pharmacare debate. Those are factual statements for you to deal with here, so how would you respond?

[0:30:21.7] SF: Well, my only response would be defense wins cups. I'm not sure the leaves have that yet. We’ll see. We’ll see.

[0:30:28.5] DW: Their sponsors to had have Toronto.

[0:30:30.0] SF: Let’s see if they get through the spring.

[0:30:30.8] DW: Another great Canadian tradition.

[0:30:32.6] SF: Let's see they get through the spring and then we’ll talk.

[0:30:34.6] SM: Okay. Okay, fair.

[0:30:35.5] SF: I stand by my sense really, for the time being.

[0:30:37.4] DW: Now this is annual traditionally. Now it's officially, this is our second around the year-end time, so I'm hoping we'll do it the third time and one of us will be [inaudible 0:30:44.5]. Oh, yes. At the next one.

[0:30:47.8] SF: Well, I do have a sense I'll bring in for you to wear next time.

[0:30:49.6] DW: Okay, okay. I've got an old Ron Ellis jersey that you'll be wearing. Okay, so the bet is made. That's corny, but we've done. Thank you again for coming in and great luck in the next year ahead.

[0:31:00.1] SF: Thank you, David.


[0:31:05.2] SM: Thank you to our listeners for tuning into another episode of And Now For Something Completely Indifferent, a Canadian health benefits industry podcast. To be sure to get future episodes, please subscribe to this podcast wherever you get your podcast or visit our website at to download. As a reminder, we talk about these issues consistently in our publications, which are available on our website as well as on social media. So be sure to follow the conversation. For this specific episode, you can check out our September issue of the Inside Story.

Thanks for listening and we’ll talk again soon.