Distinguishing a partner from a vendor

What distinguishes a true partner from a vendor in today's workers' compensation landscape?

I think what distinguishes a true partner from a vendor is pretty simple. Vendors deliver a service, but partners are focused on a client's goals and their desired outcomes. In workers' compensation and auto, that difference really comes down to alignment.

Partners align around a client’s goals, take accountability for results and really lean in to help solve any complex challenges that a client has. A true partner is more invested in a client's overall success, and they're bringing ideas to the table instead of waiting to be asked.

Why is a partner mindset more important now than it has been in the past?

The industry has just gotten a lot more complex. Medical costs are rising, regulations are changing and there's a much bigger focus on injured party outcomes. All of these factors together make it harder to rely purely on transactional relationships.

Payers in this industry really need partners who can help connect the dots between data, clinical insights and policy — partners who can help them make better decisions. Just delivering the service isn’t going to be enough anymore.

Clients are looking for organizations that can help them see what's coming and respond to it before it becomes a problem.

How does a partner approach problem solving differently than a typical vendor relationship?

I think the difference is pretty simple to see. A vendor will typically wait for a defined request and then respond to it, taking care of their customer in that way. But a partner takes it a step further by helping change the trajectory, so the problem doesn’t happen again.

That means bringing forward data, asking tougher questions and sometimes challenging assumptions. It might even mean suggesting a different approach that wasn't originally an option. A partner is willing to have more strategic conversations rather than focusing on operational ones, and they really focus on getting to the root of an issue instead of just addressing what's on the surface.

How important is transparency in a partner relationship?

Transparency is everything. When organizations are open about how they're performing — not only their successes but also their limitations and where things can improve — that's how trust gets built. At least that's how I've always approached partnerships with clients.

It means being clear, not just on pricing, but giving visibility into how decisions are made and being willing to have honest conversations if something isn't working the way that it should. 

For example, when results fall short or a project fails, a true partner doesn't just hide behind the contract. They own it, make adjustments quickly and work side by side with the client until it's fixed.

At the end of the day, a true partner is focused on earning long-term trust, whereas a vendor is often more focused on managing short-term perception.

Beyond addressing issues and bringing forth solutions, what does proactive engagement look like in practice?

Being proactive is really about bringing ideas to the table before a client even has to ask. It might mean flagging a regulatory change, calling out an emerging cost trend or suggesting a different approach based on what we're seeing in the market. The best partners aren't waiting for direction — they're helping to shape it and getting ahead of issues before they become bigger problems.

A good example is in regard to regulatory changes. Partners should monitor them continuously, and when something's developing, like a state-specific mandate, they should bring that to clients early, outlining the potential impact and recommending options so clients can make decisions ahead of compliance deadlines rather than just reacting to them.

But it's not only about flagging things that could impact clients negatively. It's also about bringing ideas to the table that can impact them positively — opportunities they might not have considered yet.

How does collaboration factor into partnerships?

Strong partnerships have to be dependent on collaboration and also have to be intentional. I think a true partner creates space for real dialogue, shares their perspectives, and then works with their clients to align on what matters most. The goal can't be just to collaborate for the sake of it, but to do it in a way that leads to better decisions and more meaningful outcomes.

I'll give you an example. During our regular stewardship reviews with clients, we assess what's working and what isn't, and we adjust our approach accordingly in lockstep with our clients. We're also working to identify shifts in any utilization or cost drivers, and then we flag them early along with what it could mean for their program and how we want to address it.

Collaboration is critical because you can't have a successful relationship if it's static. It has to evolve based on what we're all learning together.

What are some common signs that a relationship is still at the vendor level as opposed to a partnership?

I think it shows up as a pretty narrow focus on just delivering what's in the contract with very limited strategic conversations and communication that's mostly reactive. There might be reporting, but there's not a lot of insight or strategy behind it. The solutions don't fully take into account the bigger picture of the client's goals or their business.

If you're in a relationship that feels mostly transactional like that, it's usually a sign there's an opportunity to evolve it into something more strategic.

What questions should a payer be asking to evaluate whether their current relationships are truly partnerships?

To figure out if you really have a true partner, a client should be asking if they're just doing what they're asked, or are they bringing you new ideas. Are they helping you solve problems and improving outcomes, or just checking the boxes? Are they transparent about what's working and what isn't?

And then when things do get tough, do they lean in with you, or do they step back? I think those are really important questions to be asking about partnerships.

How does a partner handle a situation where their recommendation might conflict with what the client wants to do?

This is a hard one. But when you consider any  type of relationship, it’s not always going to be easy, and a business relationship is no different. There's going to be tension, and I actually think that's a good thing.

The key is what we've talked about before: being honest and addressing it directly. If we see something differently than our client, I think it's so important to speak up, explain why and work through it together.

Going along just to avoid conflict, in my opinion, opens the door to creating a much bigger issue down the road.

How will the definition of partnership continue to evolve in the healthcare industry?

In our industry and in the work that we do, I think true partnership is only going to become more and more important. A big part of that is bringing data together with insights and policy expertise in a more integrated way. Clients are no longer just looking for help with what's in front of them today.

They really need partners who can explain and help them navigate what's coming next — whether that's regulatory changes, clinical aspects or cost pressures. The organizations that are going to stand out are the ones that can connect those dots and act as an extension of their client's business, strategy, and goals.

Is there anything else you'd like to add that wasn't covered in our discussion?

I’d just add that while a true partnership may take more effort to build, it makes everything easier over time. Instead of managing contracts, transactions and escalations, clients gain a partner who understands their business, anticipates challenges, solves problems proactively and is invested in their success.