Editor's Note: This guest column originally appeared in a LInkedIn post May 9, 2025. It is reprinted in full with Peter's permission; all rights reserved.
For decades, the Direct Repair Program (DRP) model has been a cornerstone of insurer-shop relationships. It promised streamlined processes, improved customer experience, and mutual benefit. But the reality on the ground tells a different story—one of growing imbalance, eroded trust, and unsustainable pressure on repairers.
The original intent of DRP agreements was to establish partnerships based on performance, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. Shops would commit to high standards and timely repairs, and in return, insurers would provide a steady flow of work with fair reimbursement.
I want to be clear: this isn’t an indictment of DRPs. Many of us have built strong businesses through these partnerships, and there’s still value in the model. But value doesn’t mean perfection. This article is not about walking away; it’s about raising concerns constructively so the DRP model can evolve and continue to benefit all parties: insurers, shops, and most importantly, vehicle owners.
Somewhere along the way, that equilibrium broke.
Where the Balance Broke
Today’s DRP landscape is dominated by cost-cutting mandates, underpaid labor hours, unrealistic KPIs, and a troubling shift in power. What was once a partnership has become a one-sided relationship, with insurers dictating terms that often ignore the economic realities of running a repair facility. The shops that comply do so under pressure, not because it's sustainable, but because they're afraid of losing volume.
Consider the following realities:
- Labor rates often fall below market standards, while technicians face shortages and wage inflation.
- Repair complexity has skyrocketed due to ADAS, EVs, and OEM certifications, yet compensation models haven’t kept pace.
- Insurers impose administrative burdens that drain shop resources, all in the name of “performance.”
Beyond the numbers, this dynamic also creates risk—not just financially, but in repair quality. When reimbursement structures don't reflect the time and care required, even well-meaning operators may find themselves forced to make difficult compromises. It's not about bad actors; it's about a broken system that puts every shop in a difficult position.
Meanwhile, the voice of the repairer has been systematically ignored. What was once a collaborative effort between insurers and shops has turned into top-down decision-making, where insurer leadership — particularly at the large national carriers — sets policy with little to no input from the professionals who actually perform the work. The result? Policies that look efficient on spreadsheets but fail in real-world execution, often at the expense of quality, safety, and profitability. Even when intentions at the top are sound, they are often diluted or distorted by local field management — sometimes in an effort to exceed expectations or advance careers — leading to inconsistent enforcement and confusion at the shop level.
We’re now in an era where insurance partners behave more like regulators — telling shops not just what to do, but how to do it, while demanding discounts along the way. This is no longer the balanced partnership it once was — it’s evolved into something far more rigid and prescriptive.
Albert Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” And yet, that’s exactly where our industry finds itself—circling the same DRP discussions, year after year, hoping for change without demanding it.
Others in the industry have echoed similar concerns. A January 2024 FenderBender article on OEM certification trends noted that 38% of surveyed shops reported having no DRPs over the past year, not out of defiance but because they’ve found success through alternate models like OEM alignment and customer-focused repair planning.
In another April 2024 article, FenderBender explored how independent MSOs are scaling up and creating more value without heavily relying on DRPs, signaling that our industry is evolving in more diverse and independent directions.
These examples don’t represent a rejection of DRPs — but they do highlight a growing desire for alternatives that offer more control, clarity, and sustainability. The message is clear: we need more balance, more consistency, and genuine collaboration if DRPs are going to remain a viable, long-term solution.
The DRP system in its current form is broken. And unless we have the courage to acknowledge that, we’ll keep participating in an endless loop of roundtables, councils, and "collaborations" that amount to little more than window dressing.
If real change is going to happen, it has to start with transparency and accountability:
- Repairers must speak up—not just in closed meetings, but publicly.
- OEMs must defend their procedures, not just sell certifications.
- Insurers must be willing to face the consequences of policies that squeeze the very people who make vehicle safety a reality.
Silence is not neutrality; it’s compliance. And staying silent may unintentionally endorse a system that desperately needs recalibration.
The future of our industry depends on leadership that values integrity over illusion. If the DRP model is to survive — and serve its original purpose — it must evolve. If not, we risk watching the foundation continue to erode—and we may be forced to reconsider how this model can be reimagined.
We all want the same thing: safe vehicles, satisfied customers, and sustainable businesses. Let’s work toward that...together.
