3 ms·
It seems they should just feed the reviewers some small percentage of redundant claims, and use statistics to direct oversight and scrutiny. The high-volume rev
by richard_todd 8y ago
It seems they should just feed the reviewers some small percentage of redundant claims, and use statistics to direct oversight and scrutiny. The high-volume reviewers who statistically disagree with their peers would be easy to spot.
- jackvalentine 8y agoAre the reviews entirely based on paperwork? It seems like the human element of the claimant would be a confounding variable. If they know they've been rejected, they'll behave differently for the 'redundant' review. If they don't know they've been rejected, they'll be annoyed at being asked to attend identical meetings that are in their view unnecessary.
- richard_todd 8y agoI think the article says some reviewers assess at a rate greater than 4 per hour, so I assume they are largely if not entirely paperwork.
- jackvalentine 8y agoWell then it's an obvious first step to take, I think. Good idea.