DAN Responds

[boulderjohn]

And why change governance if problems are being taken care of? That leads to executives covering up problems rather than admitting them and changing things.

Quality programs evaluate quality and modify procedures or personnel (e.g., fire the slackers) if quality is lacking.

I worked for the first large school district that became part of what was then called the ISO 9000 process for quality management. I was put in charge of training departments in its use and internal audits. I want to make a couple points from that experience.

1. Processes (SOPs) need to be clear and well constructed. If problems occur, you need to examine those processes and correct any deficiencies.
2. Human error is the most common reason for for problems, with or without well-constructed SOPs.
3. The most common reason for human error (by far) is inadequate training. The solution to human error is to correct the training system.
4. "Fire the slackers" is not usually a good approach to human error because the poor training problem is perpetuated, and the person who replaces the slacker will likely make the same mistakes.

It honestly seems to me that what DAN did is consistent with that approach.

 

[boulderjohn]

They were likely insufficient before considering the number of people who have said they've had similar experiences with DAN.

Can you provide the actual number for this and the source of that information?

 

[crofrog]

Can you provide the actual number for this and the source of that information?

I mean one person posted in this thread, one or 2 posted in other threads, a quick Google search shows more, and then people on FB saying the same thing...

Considering it's one of the primary services they provide, there should have been detective controls

 

[L13]

Content providers are paid by the view.

And this:

Today I looked on FB and saw this. I don't wanna "hate", I don't hate them at all, I guess monetize where you can... but the whole thing reeks of shadiness to me now.

View attachment 819235

 

[cerich]

Can you provide the actual number for this and the source of that information?

Can you provide the actual number of cases DAN has helped that there weren't any delays or mistakes made?

Not even DAN could provide either with 100% accuracy even if so inclined.

Further, while everyone is using DAN like it is a single organization it isn't. Plus different business units using DAN in their name offering generally same services in different places use different suppliers to deliver the services.

 

[boulderjohn]

I mean one person posted in this thread, one or 2 posted in other threads, a quick Google search shows more, and then people on FB saying the same thing...

Considering it's one of the primary services they provide, there should have been detective controls

I was hoping for more definitive information.

I have read plenty of threads here and elsewhere in which people here and there (as you describe) complain about something, and it turns out to be not all that accurate.

 

[cerich]

I was hoping for more definitive information.

I have read plenty of threads here and elsewhere in which people here and there (as you describe) complain about something, and it turns out to be not all that accurate.

Sure, some folks lie, embellish, etc. to forward their agenda. See it all the time, others tell the truth and people don't believe it because it challenges their beliefs. Some tell the truth and others jump quicky to discredit the truth teller because it may impact their own vested interest.

Heck, I've had someone tell me straight up that they defend a certain agency from any negative criticism and will try to discredit the person that is doing so because they were an instructor for said organization and the organization's brand reputation was important for them to get business.


I have first hand experience with DAN messing up, and first hand experience with them doing amazing. I have endless second and third hand stories of both, and the good outweighs the bad and I would recommend (and do) DAN insurance.

Let's be frank, dive pro's may be quick to jump to defend DAN because they make money with DAN. By being an instructor for their programs to pushing trip insurance. Other may because they had good experiences with. I have never been a DAN instructor nor taken a commission for selling their trip insurance. I HAVE pushed students to have, and require it for tech classes (or diveassure).

Commission for selling DAN Trip insurance

 

[cerich]

Sure, some folks lie, embellish, etc. to forward their agenda. See it all the time, others tell the truth and people don't believe it because it challenges their beliefs. Some tell the truth and others jump quicky to discredit the truth teller because it may impact their own vested interest.

Heck, I've had someone tell me straight up that they defend a certain agency from any negative criticism and will try to discredit the person that is doing so because they were an instructor for said organization and the organization's brand reputation was important for them to get business.


I have first hand experience with DAN messing up, and first hand experience with them doing amazing. I have endless second and third hand stories of both, and the good outweighs the bad and I would recommend (and do) DAN insurance.

Let's be frank, dive pro's may be quick to jump to defend DAN because they make money with DAN. By being an instructor for their programs to pushing trip insurance. Other may because they had good experiences with. I have never been a DAN instructor nor taken a commission for selling their trip insurance. I HAVE pushed students to have, and require it for tech classes (or diveassure).

Commission for selling DAN Trip insurance

actually @The Chairman , SB should sign up as DAN business partner and do banner ads and get that 20%

 

[cerich]

More ways to make money pushing DAN memberships

 

[crofrog]

I was hoping for more definitive information.

I have read plenty of threads here and elsewhere in which people here and there (as you describe) complain about something, and it turns out to be not all that accurate.

When you hear hoofs, think horses, not zebras.

If we assume that DAN accurately represented what they didn't do for Woody and the violations they had in their procedures, then when other people say, "I too experienced this same issue," it seems to add some veracity to the claim. Either that, or there is some great internet conspiracy to destroy DAN and replace it with some other yet-to-be-formed organization.

As for actual data, it would be great to for them to provide that information in their "mostly" annual report. The coudl probvide data on what percentage of claims they denied, what percentage they reimbursed for after the member paid out of pocket, and what percentage they covered for the member without any out-of-pocket.