Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. has a new website.

True to brand, the new site makes one thing abundantly clear: marketing provider abuse is easier than marketing outcomes for injured workers.

Following public shaming from daisyNews, Sedgwick quietly scrubbed its previous website’s brazen boast that its Utilization Review (UR) services blocked 54% of providers’ treatment requests, derailing care to produce a supposed 5:1 “return on investment.

The retooled site touts “63% gross savings” and a “23:1 net return on investment”—figures that, while even more outrageous, are just as unverifiable and tasteless as before.

Sedgwick dedicates not a single word to injured workers’ recovery or return to work. There are no statistics on time to claim closure or successful treatment outcomes—no metrics that reflect injured workers’ care.

Instead, the site shamelessly flaunts suspect data to promise implausible financial results—at the expense of providers, injured workers, and employers who ultimately foot a larger bill when injured workers struggle to receive treatment.

Do employers truly benefit when their workers can’t access timely treatment or have to hire attorneys just to wring care out of Sedgwick’s ROI machine?

While we’re throwing numbers around, daisyBill increases provider reimbursement by eleventy-zillion percent, resulting in an infinity:1 return on investment. Prove us wrong!

Sedgwick Goes “Beyond Fee Schedule” — and Beyond Plausibility

Sedgwick’s new website makes bold claims about how it saves clients money through a mysterious alchemy of bill review, UR, and general case management (emphases ours):

“Integration between our bill review, claims and case management platforms allows utilization review decisions to be applied automatically, which increases savings and ensures compliance…

…The advantages of our unique bill review program go beyond fee schedules and network reductions — it is the way the information is processed that offers the key benefits.”

How does Sedgwick accomplish this journey into the land “beyond” fee schedules and contractual discounts to bring clients extra savings? According to Sedgwick, “it is the way the information is processed that offers the key benefits.”

Is it vague? Yes.

Verifiable? Not with any publicly available data.

But according to Sedgwick, it results in “63% gross savings.”

Yet there’s not a single mention of the impact this cost-slashing has on the care of injured workers. No data on return-to-work outcomes or claim resolution timelines. No indication that medical appropriateness, patient recovery, or health outcomes factor into Sedgwick’s definition of success.

How much of that alleged 63% comes from reimbursement discounting (valid or otherwise)? How much is the result of treatment denials? And what portion does Sedgwick squeeze from providers through improper payment denials and adjustments?

Sedgwick leaves those answers to the imagination. But clearly, Sedgwick wrote the injured worker out of this narrative—and the supposed  “savings” are undeniably gross.

Eyebrow-Raising ROI—But at What Cost?

In addition to the eyebrow-raising “63% gross savings,” Sedgwick now claims that its proprietary mélange of bill review and UR yields a “23:1 net return on investment.”

Much like the 63% figure, the 23:1 ROI claim can realistically be only one of two things:

• Grossly exaggerated (at best), or
• Valid—but only if achieved through aggressive and systemic provider abuse.

If Sedgwick has any rational or verifiable basis for this number, it comes at a cost that employers should not ignore—because those “savings” likely backfire in the form of delayed care, worse outcomes, and escalating litigation.

Sedgwick claims that every dollar an employer pays for claims management “saves” $23. But where does that money actually come from? The answer, according to our experience with Sedgwick, is straightforward: deny care and underpay doctors.

We’ll see how long Sedgwick keeps its dubious data online this time. But until Sedgwick treats injured workers’ care as something more than financial losses on a spreadsheet, Sedgwick’s “returns” will remain as ethically bankrupt as they are statistically suspect.

See exactly what you’re earning for treating injured workers—and who’s taking bites out of your revenue. Click below for a closer look at daisyBill:

BETTER ANALYTICS = BETTER RESULTS