Eliminate the monthly scramble to compile capacity provider MI. Generate accurate, formatted reports automatically from your operational data — bordereaux, performance metrics, and regulatory MI.
MGAs and delegated authority operations face a relentless reporting obligation. Each capacity provider requires regular MI packs — monthly bordereaux, claims performance reports, complaint summaries, SLA adherence data, and financial reconciliations. When an operation works with multiple capacity providers, the reporting burden multiplies, with each insurer demanding different formats, different metrics, and different submission deadlines.
Compiling these reports manually is one of the most resource-intensive activities in an MGA. Data must be extracted from multiple systems, filtered by capacity provider, formatted to each provider's specification, validated for accuracy, and submitted before the deadline. A single error in a bordereaux can trigger a reconciliation exercise that consumes days of analyst time.
The manual approach also creates significant key-person risk. The team members who understand each capacity provider's reporting requirements and know how to extract and format the data become single points of failure. When they are unavailable, report quality drops and deadlines are at risk — threatening the delegated authority relationship itself.
When your operations run on a workflow platform, every data point needed for capacity provider reporting is already captured: policy details, claims events, settlement values, complaint records, SLA timestamps, and financial transactions. Automated MI pack generation draws from this operational data and compiles it into provider-specific report formats without manual extraction or manipulation.
Each capacity provider's reporting requirements are configured as a report template — specifying which data fields to include, how to filter and aggregate the data, what format to use, and when to generate. The system produces the complete MI pack on schedule, ready for review and submission. Bordereaux, performance dashboards, complaint summaries, and financial reconciliations are all generated from a single source of truth.
Automated validation checks run before report generation, flagging data quality issues — missing policy references, unreconciled transactions, incomplete case records — that would otherwise be discovered by the capacity provider and trigger time-consuming queries. This shifts quality assurance from reactive to proactive, protecting the delegated authority relationship.
A step-by-step guide to replacing manual MI compilation with automated, validated report generation for your capacity providers.
For each capacity provider, compile a detailed specification of their MI requirements: what reports they need, what data fields each report contains, the required format (Excel, PDF, CSV, or specific templates), the submission frequency, and the deadline. Include any specific calculation methodologies they require — for example, how incurred claims ratios should be calculated.
For each data field in each report, identify where that data is captured in your workflow system. Document any fields that are not currently captured and plan how to add them. This mapping exercise often reveals gaps in operational data capture that need to be addressed before reporting can be automated.
Create configurable report templates for each MI pack type — bordereaux, claims performance, complaint summary, financial reconciliation. Each template should support provider-specific variations: different column orders, different calculation methods, different filtering criteria. This avoids building entirely separate reports for each provider.
Define validation checks that run before report generation: completeness checks (no missing required fields), consistency checks (values reconcile across related reports), range checks (no negative premiums, no future dates), and referential integrity checks (every claim references a valid policy). Failed validations should halt report generation and alert the responsible team.
Configure each report to generate automatically according to the capacity provider's required frequency — typically monthly for bordereaux and performance MI, quarterly for strategic reviews, and annually for delegated authority renewal packs. Build in lead time for review: generate reports 3 to 5 days before the submission deadline.
Even automated reports should be reviewed before submission. Create a workflow that routes generated reports to the designated reviewer, captures their approval or amendment, and records the submission. This review step provides quality assurance and creates an audit trail of who approved each report.
Set up automated submission via the capacity provider's preferred channel — email, portal upload, SFTP transfer, or API. Archive every submitted report with the submission timestamp, approver, and capacity provider acknowledgement. This archive is essential for audit evidence and dispute resolution.
Track provider queries and reconciliation requests against each report submission. A decrease in queries over time indicates improving report accuracy. Persistent queries in specific areas highlight data quality issues that need attention at the operational level, not just in the reporting process.
Every report to every capacity provider should be generated from the same operational data. If different reports show different figures for the same metric, trust in your reporting collapses. A single data source eliminates reconciliation discrepancies.
When a capacity provider changes their reporting requirements — which happens regularly — create a new template version rather than modifying the existing one. This ensures you can reproduce any historical report exactly as it was submitted.
For each bordereaux or financial report, generate a reconciliation summary that ties back to your source data. This enables rapid response when a capacity provider queries a figure, rather than requiring a manual investigation.
Your internal management dashboards and your capacity provider reports should show consistent figures. If your internal SLA adherence is 95% but the capacity provider report shows 92%, it erodes confidence. Ensure the same calculation methodology is used for both.
Design your reporting framework so that adding a new capacity provider requires only configuration — defining their specific report templates and schedules — rather than development. This enables rapid scaling as your delegated authority portfolio grows.
Capacity providers value contextual commentary — explaining spikes in claims volumes, noting operational changes, or highlighting positive trends. Build a commentary step into the review workflow so insights are added before submission.
Including formats, fields, frequencies, and deadlines.
Covering completeness, consistency, and referential integrity.
With adequate lead time for review before submission deadlines.
Tracking provider queries and reconciliation requests.
Score your operational efficiency and estimate how many weekly hours your team spends on manual policy admin tasks.
Try these related tools — no sign-up required.
Replace weekly spreadsheet compilations with live MI dashboards that give you instant, accurate visibility into every aspect of your insurance operation.
policy administrationEliminate manual bordereaux compilation errors and never miss a submission deadline with automated reporting workflows.
insurance automationHandle thousands of policy renewals without proportionally scaling your team. Automate the renewal pipeline from invitation to binding with consistent quality and full traceability.
See how SwiftCase generates accurate, formatted MI packs for every capacity provider — automatically, on schedule, and from a single source of truth.
