In our group life disability and voluntary offerings. As with other players in the employee benefits space, the emergent and private exchanges offer some great opportunities, but also some ominous threats to the existing business model. To help us understand what this means to the industry, I'm very grateful to have two leaders of the group insurance industry with us today. Todd Katz, Head of Group, Voluntary and Worksite Benefits at MetLife, and Mike Concannon, Executive Vice President of Group Benefits at The Hartford. Before we get to the topic at hand, I wanted to give them the opportunity to provide a brief description of their respective businesses. Perhaps, Todd, if you want to start?
Sure. Good afternoon, everybody. Great to be here with you. I think everybody's familiar with MetLife, large, global diversified insurance, life insurer. I'm responsible for our group voluntary worksite benefit in the U.S. U.S., our largest country, and our group life voluntary and health businesses in the U.S. make up a significant portion of the business. Just to give you a sense of our products and markets, we are in most ancillary lines, the life products, dental, disability. We also play in some executive benefit products and life and disability, voluntary plays like auto and home and legal plans, and then a whole suite of worksite benefits. In terms of markets, we do play up and down markets, small employers up to the largest employers. Our biggest concentration is with large employers, let's say over 3,000-5,000 employees, we are the market leader.
Certainly have done well across all markets with all of our products.
Mike.
Good afternoon. A little bit on The Hartford. Again, I know many of you are very familiar with The Hartford, as we transform the company, we have really focused our go-forward businesses of the company are our commercial, and personal property and casualty business, our Group Benefits business, and our mutual funds. As Nigel mentioned, I run our Group Benefits business, just to give you a little bit of a glimpse into that's the business where we provide income protection products and services, through employers to employees, as well as to members of associations. The product set, the core products in there for us are group life products, AD&D, short-term, long-term disability, statutory disability, as well as kind of an emerging set of the ancillary products, things like critical illness.
From a services standpoint, with employers, we're a very large player in absence management services, as well as providing benefit administration platforms and services. We too play across the market. We have a focused business model that differentiates across our underwriting and our sales as to how we face off in the small end of the market. Think about that as under 50 lives. We then have a priority account, a regional account, and a national account as we kind of slice the market by an employer's size. Again, play across all of that.
Great. Let's start starting up with the opportunity that private exchanges offer to the life insurance industry. A number of people have talked about, as you've moved towards the defined benefit of defined contribution model, the amount of money flowing to ancillary benefits may potentially increase. Is that really the biggest opportunity, or is it more that it provides you the opportunity to expand into various markets where you may not have had a presence before?
I can start. I think the place I would start with is the end customer, and if we look at the U.S. consumer and the amount of insurance they need in the benefit-type programs that we're talking about here, the ancillary and the voluntary products, we have a significant under-insurance or uninsured gap. Our view is that the movement toward private exchanges is one that will certainly create more choice, potentially more flexibility and more opportunity for individuals to get out there and really understand their needs and make good decisions. You heard from the platform providers, you heard from the brokers today. From an employer perspective, what we're also hearing is that employers are looking for ways to help their employees.
Our perspective is if this is done right, more employees will have more access, and we think that will lead to the growth that we heard talked about today.
Yeah. I would add to that. We're talking about exchanges, as we've heard a lot this morning, exchanges are one piece to the puzzle of what's created a shifting landscape. When you think about the pressures in the economy around cost and cost management by employers, you think about that driving shift to more of a defined contribution mindset. I think when you put exchanges in there, it becomes an enabler for a lot of what the board of considerations are really driving around us. I would say, exchanges are really coming to light very much around us today. The shift towards more of a defined contribution mentality, which I think has really brought the ancillary product set much more to the surface in a much more integrated way, has really been going on for the last few years.
Exchanges and healthcare reform, I think, are providing an accelerant to that right now. I do think it's going to continue to create an increased awareness and an increased appreciation for the role that these ancillary products can play, which I think is a growth opportunity. I also believe, as been mentioned a little bit earlier today, too, is I do think the exchanges are going to create the opportunity for a more complete benefit offering down to smaller employers than we've traditionally seen in the past. I think if you think about large national account players, most of those employers, north of 90%, provide a pretty good suite of products that extend well into ancillary products. That number drops down well below 90, down into the 60%-70% range when you even just drop down into what you might define as more middle-market sized employers.
I think exchanges really are going to create an opportunity for those employers to think differently about the breadth of the products they offer.
I guess the next area would be just on how these private exchanges are likely to evolve. A number of the different players that I've spoken to at least, have said that they'd be willing to be on an exchange if there was one or one of two insurers, whereas other companies, many of the exchange operators are talking about having a very broad platform. How is that likely to actually evolve? Are we going to see more of these exchanges be a very broad multi-insurer platform? Or when it comes to group life and disability, is it likely to be narrowed down to just one or two providers?
Yeah. I'll throw this one. Todd, you can. It's interesting. I think as we've seen the exchanges really come to life here, the initial focus of them was on the healthcare side of the business, I think as you hear over the last couple of years. We're now really starting to see them come into the non-health Group Benefits space. The one thing that has been different thus far, and I say this is something we will certainly watch, and I think it bears watching to see how it will emerge. The initial conversations, I think, that we're seeing in the non-medical group space have really been in, and I forget, one of the gentlemen earlier was describing this, I think it might've been Lester. He was talking about the RFP process, as we've been engaged in some of these exchanges, has been multi-carrier.
The ultimate choice around them in our space appears at this point to be more of a single provider ultimate choice. There's still a very competitive process around what an employer chooses to put up on the exchange in this product set. Right now what we're seeing is a much greater leaning towards individual carrier selections in the non-medical space. I say that right now, and I almost feel like everything we're going to say here this morning, we should put at the end of it, for now. Right? This is an evolving space. It's changing rapidly, and it's going to be very different two and three years from now than it is today. We know that. This is where it is for now.
You could absolutely see the potential for it moving towards more of a multi-carrier, but the engagement that we've had right now has really been in more of the multi-carrier RFP down to single carrier selection.
I agree with Mike's point. The two things I would think about are, one, it is really hard to tell where this is going to go, and we do have to remind ourselves that we are a little bit of the tail on the dog here because medical is the driver. It is possible as things evolve, that medical programs could become more standardized and employers think about ancillary and voluntary benefits as the way that they're going to differentiate. As we saw today, several of the exchange players are thinking hard about how do they differentiate their value proposition to not only meet the needs that their customers want, but to do something unique so that they can really be in a position to grow in ways that maybe they couldn't grow before.
From our perspective, we've had probably over 100 different exchange discussions with different companies out there that are exchanges, right? They are from everything like we saw today, which are pretty sophisticated, high-value models to someone that maybe has a license and a computer, and they consider an exchange. I think in time there will be some consolidation. It is hard to say whether it'll be single carrier or multiple carriers because the truth is, there's such a wide variety of need out there that I think the different firms will find their niches and look to grow in those niches.
I guess you talked about the standardization of health plans. Could we see standardization of some of the ancillary benefits as well? If we see that, isn't that a potential competitive threat to the industry that some of these margins that you see on, especially the voluntary side, which have typically been amongst the widest amongst the different products sold by life insurers, could begin to compress down and potentially undermine some of the economics?
Yeah. Look, do we worry about standardization? I'd look at benefit design in most voluntary plans today and say they're pretty standardized and they're pretty consistent with the way they've been in the past. I think differentiation comes on how can you create value beyond just the design. Economics, candidly, is part of it. Your ability to come up with operating models that are more efficient and pass those on to customers with savings. The ability to differentiate on brand and get people to really understand the value that they're getting at different offerings. Then added value services so that when someone's buying a life insurance program, are they buying just a life insurance program, i.e. just a death benefit, or are they getting something more with it?
I think the carriers that can figure out ways with these exchange partners to create differentiation are going to be positioned to win in this market, even if things do become more standardized from a benefit design perspective.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more with Todd's point. The one thing I would add is I do think just the natural laws of competition, the ancillary space is getting more crowded. I think most carriers that are significant players in this space recognize that there's growth opportunity in the lines. It is bringing more competition, and I think that by definition will put some pressure on the margins. Like Todd pointed out, I believe, and we at The Hartford believe, there's still significant opportunity for carriers to differentiate on a lot more than price.
Okay, let's take some questions from the floor. Al?
Hi. Thanks. I would assume that the contribution from employers to employees on these exchanges
There's some risk that the rate of growth of those contributions could fall short of medical CPI, in which case, the area of pressure might be the ancillary products. Could you speak about that? Maybe you disagree with that premise, but I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
I can kick it off, Todd. Yeah, I think that that's a reasonable consideration. I do think employers are going to be faced with levels of contribution just in the spirit of cost management. CPI is an important element of the net impact of those contributions and the true cost to employees. I think that that's very true. Where I think we're headed in terms of this combined space is I do think the visibility of the role that healthcare choices play and the complement that ancillary products can play in that is going to increase. Again, it was mentioned a little earlier today about this notion, and there's a term thrown around about gap filler, and to think about these products and how they may fill gaps in the trade-off choices that you may have.
Does it make sense for me as an employee to buy down on the medical, take a higher deductible, and then fill some of those gaps relative to my own personal circumstances with some of these ancillary products? Is the net of that a better financial outcome for me, both in terms of cost out of pocket and in terms of coverage needs? I think that that's going to play a significant role. I think your point about contribution relative to CPI is a consideration, I think there are going to be many other things that ultimately shape the choices employees make.
I think that's exactly right. I think we've been seeing a shift in cost from employers to employees for as long as I've been in this business, and it's going to continue. There's no doubt about it. I think the challenge has been, as an industry, have we done a great job in making it really easy for employees to make choices and buy if they tell us they need it? We're thinking about the exchange model as really an enabler for that. You can really position that employee to use those contributions, even if there's less of them, in a way that enables them to be thoughtful and take the time to make good buying decisions. We think it's going to be a win in terms of growth in the industry.
Other questions? If I step in with one more, how do we think about the adverse selection risks on a group product? You've got a large pool of people, whereas you've got the underwriting, it's made relatively simple. When you move on to a private exchange, you're dealing with more individual. Does that make it more difficult? How do you essentially price that?
I'll start. It's certainly a risk we've been dealing with off exchanges for a long time. As an industry, I think we've got quite good at understanding risk, developing programs where you have appropriate level of underwriting for certain characteristics of programs, amounts, et cetera. I think a little bit of the twist here, which is going to be important, is when you get into situations where you have multiple carriers. That's something, for example, in dental plans, I'll talk about that, has been going on for years. We think it's important in that context just to be thoughtful to understand that risk and make sure you're priced appropriately for it. We're very comfortable in that space. Nigel, to your point, it's different, and you just have to recognize that.
Yeah. I agree. I think to a certain degree, it exists in the voluntary space today. About 40% of our premium in The Hartford's Group Benefits business today is voluntary. Inherent in that is the participation levels and the makeup of participation and what goes with that around risk. I think that's a space that is part and parcel to what we're talking about. I do think bringing it back to the earlier part of our conversation, if this moved the way of healthcare offerings and became a true multi-carrier offering, then I think the risk selection and how that plays out takes on a new dynamic from what has traditionally been there.
Both of your companies within your respective divisions offer a diverse array of products. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what % of those products you see as lending themselves to being sold on an exchange.
Excuse me, to be sold on the exchange?
On an exchange, yeah.
When I think of the place where we are, and again, we like to define it as income protection, is how we define our suite of group benefit products. Most of them, I think, are going to end up on the exchange. Generically speaking, of course, employer choice around what suits their employees. As a general answer, and we're already down this path with a number of our conversations on exchanges. When you think about core life, disability, and ancillary products, going down. It's similar to the path that Rick discussed earlier around when you get down into critical illness, accident, hospital and indemnity, auto and home like Met does. I think when you get into that core set, which is really where we live, we envision that in certain cases, virtually all of them are going to play in the exchange.
I have nothing to add. I agree.
Maybe following up, are there any products you see as not being conducive to being sold on an exchange?
I think maybe a way to think about it is if there's employee money involved, the products are probably conducive for exchanges. There may be some situations where there's a fully employer-paid benefit, which candidly becoming far and far less frequent. What's going to happen on the exchange relative to that? Although I will tell you that if it is employer paid, understanding what that benefit is probably pretty important to the employer. They may even communicate it there, but that may be a way to think about it.
Step in with one more. Clearly operating on a private exchange is a lot different to the way the business had traditionally been done. How do you generally see the competitive requirements to be successful in a private exchange type environment changing from existing business models?
I'll start. I think the thing to think about is the players are a little different. You need some different capabilities to win in a private exchange. You've got to be able to connect in effectively to the exchange platforms. That's important, and that was my point earlier about, you want to be thoughtful about which ones you do business with. Making sure your value proposition carries its way all the way through to the consumer, because in that environment, that consumer is going to be making a bigger decision. It's important that when that consumer's looking, especially if it is a multi-carrier choice, but even if it's a single carrier choice, that what you've got there is compelling. The exchange partners, you heard them today, they'll do a good job helping that out.
Carriers got to really think about, am I hitting it home with the consumer, too?
Yeah, I think all I would add and maybe build on Todd's point is, in that value prop space, I think something that's incredibly important in these exchange conversations, and you heard it a lot today, and it reminded today, we have the folks in here today that are the leaders in exchanges that are really out in front and are really investing in building out robust, true, comprehensive exchanges. Like Met, we have many conversations going on. They're not all the same. I kind of joke a lot about when you've had one conversation about an exchange, you've had one conversation, because there's quite a variety of concepts being discussed under the heading of an exchange. I do think the one area that, and it's in the spirit of value proposition, but that is incredibly important, is the whole education and decision support that goes along with exchanges.
I think when we think about what it's going to take to play, I think engaging in that and really making sure that's robust on the exchanges is incredibly important because you can envision employers are going to be put in a position like they haven't been before. It's not as simple as, oh, you have all these great choices. Isn't that wonderful? They need to understand the trade-offs they're making and how the product choices fit together and make sure that they're providing the adequate coverage for themselves and their families. That's a tall order. The whole education, the support behind it, the dynamic interactive abilities of support tools, I think is such an important part of the exchanges. It goes well beyond, is the technology good and do you have the right products?
How about retail brand? Luckily, both of you have very strong retail brands, but a lot of the other providers in group insurance really don't have a retail brand presence. Is that going to grow significantly important to be viable on a private exchange?
Yeah. Todd, I'll jump in on first on this one. I think about it in two tiers, if you will. I think if we're in the world of there's an RFP process that goes on, and your employer who you trust and is sponsoring on your behalf the selection of carriers. I don't know if brand is going to really be game changing there because basically you're going to be on a platform and you're going to say, "I need disability insurance, and what I can buy for work is disability from The Hartford." I think if you do go to this place of a multi-carrier platform eventually, then you have the employee in a situation saying, "I can buy disability insurance. It's from company X, company Y, or The Hartford." You say, "I know The Hartford. That's a good company.
I trust The Hartford. I think brand could definitely make an important distinction in that.
I agree. I think you got to make sure you win through the whole value chain. Consumer brand is certainly very important at the end when you get to the consumer, clearly. Further upstream as a broker and as the employer, you need the right value proposition for them. By the way, brand matters there, too. It's just a different brand. It's your brand in the market and how you deliver and what you do. We agree, though. When it gets down to that consumer and they're making a choice, and we've actually done some research on this, they do care about who they're doing business with. We think the companies with the bigger consumer brand will have a better opportunity there. Honestly, we hope they do.
Other questions? Perhaps one just on timing. How long do you envisage it taking for the life insurance component plus group disability, voluntary, becoming a meaningful proportion of your total revenues coming from private exchanges? Is it fair to say that these products are probably going to lag a little behind some of the other health products originally, it could take a little longer?
I'll give a first answer. It'll be a short one. As an industry, it's not a quick-moving industry. Even today, you heard some real innovative thinking, I think. Yet as a proportion of carriers, and especially employers, the adoption rates are slower, right? Given that healthcare is the prominent driver, we think people, certainly our customers, are very focused on that first. They're quickly, though, thinking about how does ancillary go with that. So we actually think the pace is going to move in tandem. As you heard today, the pace is probably not that
one that's going to be in a year or two. I think if you look out over three to five years, we'll see more and more companies adopting in this space.
I agree.
Go ahead.
Hi. They spoke before about sometimes people are going to buy down and buy up coverage, and also whether you use it or lose it, or how kind of showing all that still being figured out, but how often do you think there's an opportunity for employees to spend employer money buying a bronze plan and still have an opportunity to buy ancillary products? Is that going to be relying on employee funding almost all cases?
I think someone earlier kind of did this a number of times, but I think it depends quite a bit, right? It's going to depend on the depth of employer funding. I think it also depends a bit on the way the funding is organized by employers. They may determine $10,000, but inside that, they may also put a box around the fact that $8,000 of it needs to be spent on healthcare and $2,000 on other products. I think how some of the designs around how the employer funding is structured is going to have a lot to do with ultimately how that would play out.
I agree with that, too.
You touched on it a little bit earlier about how the sales process. Maybe you could just delve into a little bit more. Currently, I would imagine you're selling predominantly to brokers, and the brokers put you on a plan. I guess in an exchange world, do you still sell it to the brokers, and then you kind of get onto the exchanges, and then do you need to do additional selling, kind of like we heard earlier, at benefit fair type of functions? Could you tie that into as well, doesn't that come back to the brand discussion that Nigel was asking about earlier?
I'll start. I think you got it right. I think the order's a little different. This is the new piece. I think companies, carriers have got to get out there and build relationships and partnerships with the entities, with the exchange entities to be on the platform. I think the work there needs to happen. The brokers really fit into one of a couple buckets. The broker may be the platform, like the Aon, you heard about that. Or the broker may connect into a certain platform, like we heard from Willis and Gallagher today. That broker is still going to absolutely make a recommendation to their client based on what's best for their client and what platform they're doing business with. The key for the carrier is, are you on that platform?
If you are, then they're in a position to recommend you. Of course, your last point is right on. Now you've been on the platform, you've kind of made the first sale. The broker's recommended you to the employer. You've now made the second sale. Now the third sale is that employee has to make a decision to buy. You need a whole set of capabilities to make that happen, too. Sometimes the exchange is doing it, and sometimes the carrier's doing it, and sometimes it's a mix.
I think that's right. It kind of, again, gets back a little bit to foundationally what platforms are you on? As cases come through those platforms, your opportunity to respond to RFPs with those brokers and compete for your spot. To your last point, I agree on ultimately the sale to the individual employee. It comes down to some of your enrollment support capabilities and whether that's technology enabled or face-to-face. I just think there's absolutely another leg to the ultimate sale and what ultimately will drive the premium.
Just a follow-up, unrelated question, though. As group players, historically, your size and your scale has helped you win business. In an exchange model, how does that group, the scale that you have, help you win? Because it seems like now all of a sudden, the traditional healthcare carriers could be competing with you maybe more effectively than they were earlier in the old world.
I think scale sometimes can be a misunderstood notion, right? I don't think size equates to scale. I think scale is your ability to take your resources and create a competitive advantage out of your capabilities. Sometimes it is size. Sometimes size allows you to be able to invest in ways that others can't. Ultimately, how scale can differentiate is the degree to which you can create services, products, et cetera, in ways that allow you to distinguish yourself from competitors. I still think any carrier who's committed in the product space has the opportunity to create a scale advantage. I do think, though, to your point, I do expect that we're going to see sort of non-ancillary product traditional carriers kind of considering coming into the space, whether that's healthcare companies or even truly non-traditional companies because of the opportunity for growth here.
That's something I think we're going to have to kind of watch. I also think what we'll see in this space, again, because of the attractiveness of it, I think we're going to see probably some alliance partnerships, sort of different ways for maybe healthcare companies to try and expand their offering into the space. I do think kind of building off the latter part of your question, I do think that that's an area that we're going to see some activity in.
Yeah. I agree.
I guess in terms of the type of clients, we did expect to go into it, are you seeing sort of like a general trend that the larger national accounts are more reluctant to kind of move towards private exchanges, and it's more the middle market?
Is there opportunities across all different types of clients?
We're seeing it all over the place. You heard from different platform players today that work in the large end of the market and the small end of the market. We're seeing it with active employees. We're absolutely seeing it with retirees. It's really, what is that employer trying to do? You heard it today, but if you think about the ability to fix your costs, define your costs, doesn't mean you won't raise it in the future, and then bring forth an offering to your employees that's still highly valued, exchanges can do that. If you're trying to do that and you're looking to make change and may go in that direction, what you do is probably different depending on your size.
A large company is probably going to buy something very different than a very small company, both in terms of the exchange they may do business with, which might be catered around them, and also what they actually offer on the exchange in terms of products and solutions and support, et cetera.
Yeah. I agree. I think, we are experiencing, we're seeing it across sort of customer segment size. What I've observed is the reason for it may vary a little bit. Why would a national size, large National Account size employer consider an exchange? I think often it's different than why, say, a more Regional Account, 1,000 employee or 500 employee size employer. I think the value prop or what they get for it, I think perhaps can be a little bit different, because I think in a lot of cases, if you think about a large, fairly sophisticated employer, they may not have an exchange all in one place, but at the end of it all, they may have a lot of the functionality of what an exchange may bring. For them, it's a different choice. It's what would an exchange add to what I already have?
It may allow ease of administration. It may allow them, if they're considering outsourcing administration, if that's an economically favorable thing for them to do. Where I think as you get down into smaller employers, while those things may be true, the conversation then also shifts a little bit to, I haven't kind of found my way to be able to offer this broad suite of product that now it looks like it would be potentially much more easy to do through what an exchange can offer. I think the rationale behind them are different, but we're seeing reasons across the market for interest in them.
You referenced several times about the segmentation in the market, small, mid, large, and so forth. I'm wondering if you might give a guess or opine about what the different acceleration in growth might be amongst those segments as a function of the market opportunities presented by what we're discussing today.
Yeah. When you say growth, I'm not sure if you mean adoption rates of exchanges?
However you feel most comfortable answering. I'm thinking in terms of do you expect a far more significant success rate or ramp up in your small business as a function of this opportunity and higher penetration rates and so on and so forth? Or at the larger end, or are you playing more defense in one segment versus the other? Curious.
Yeah. It's a very good question. I'm not sure I'll be able to stick a pin in the answer, I do think the general vibe that I get from reading the same things probably that all of you read is a general view around somewhere in the 20%-30% is sort of, I think the prognosticator view on the potential take on exchanges. I would say, if I were to sort of come around that a little bit, I would think if we're going to see something on the north side of that, it would be in what I call kind of the regional account sized space. That feels firmer to me at this point.
I think the large national account, I think it's going to be something to watch because, as I said earlier, I think it's going to be interesting to see as those employers take apart what an exchange has to offer, really kicking the tires hard on what does it add? What does it give them that they don't have today? That's a little bit less clear to me how that's ultimately going to play out. I'm kind of separating out of that employers that have large populations of part-time employees. I'm really more thinking about kind of a typical full-time and large national employer and how that ultimately is going to play. I think I'm more comfortable leaning in towards the long-term estimates in the kind of mid-size, middle market space, and kind of open on where I think the national account's going to end up.
Yeah. I think we don't know, right? I think the real point is we as carriers have to be prepared for that migration. I'll give you one way to maybe think about it, and that is we're starting to see the blurring of the lines between what's a benefit administration firm and a TPA and an exchange and an enrollment firm. Essentially, a company that's out there to help an employer and their employees make good decisions and buy their benefits. As those lines blur, it's not unreasonable to believe that smaller employers will have a better opportunity to take advantage of some types of benefit programs that really only could be done in the large employer market before because of complexity and the way that they need to connect into different firms. You heard a little bit about that earlier today.
As small companies look at potentially the opportunity to offer broader benefit offerings and ancillary and voluntary, if exchanges will enable that and the value prop is there, you could see that move a little bit quicker. I think, like anything else, it's going to be if you see a couple companies go and a couple brokers be successful, then the pace probably can escalate a little bit after that.
A question just on the mechanics of it. I know it's early days, so you may not have a lot of data surrounding this, but when you see one of your customers move on to a private exchange, and then you clearly have voluntary and the likes on that exchange. Do they just cancel the existing group coverage and just provide that as one of the options on the exchange? Is that something that you've typically seen emerge
Yeah
in use?
It is early days. We've seen more of a trend of their shifting, in some cases, what they have offered off the exchange, on the exchange, especially if the exchange is going to give them the flexibility. I'll make this up. They offer employees life insurance in increments of salary, or they offer employees a myriad of dental options, and they like it, they like the flexibility to put the defined contribution in and have it administered on the exchange. They may do that and actually not change benefit designs. We haven't seen too many companies say, "You know what? We were paying for life insurance. Now we're going to move to an exchange," you don't get any pay for life insurance. I'm sure that somebody will give me an example where that did happen, generally speaking, we haven't seen that be the trend.
I would echo that. The cases that we've seen go to an exchange have been, on an existing case, taking what they have and moving to the exchange platform. Even on new cases that we have written that have gone to an exchange, it's largely been as Todd described.
I will say, just to be clear, because you heard a little, except where the exchange mandates them move to a specific exchange-based program. You're at Aon today. You want to be part of the Aon exchange, it's really the Aon design. It's really going to be, what is that company trying to do? They may select their exchange choice based on what their overall goals are.
Any other questions? Okay. Well, why don't we stop it there? Many thanks to Mike and Todd. Really appreciate the insight. We've got about a 10-minute break before we get going with the customer perspective. Thanks.