Brian Thompson: When Executive Protection Planning Goes Wrong

Brian Thompson’s shocking murder this week on the streets of New York pulled the curtain back on a hot button issue in U.S. society while also raising questions about executive protection of high-profile individuals.

Thompson was a figurehead of one of the largest health insurance companies in the U.S. with 440,000 employees, net profits of $23 billion last year, covering more than 50 million people.  He had received threats and was, obviously, a target.

That so many comments on social media have been brutal in suggesting that Thompson deserved to be killed (for example, his murder being ‘due to a pre-existing condition’) or comments that focused on the abysmal state of health care costs in the U.S. today, reflect an increasingly cynical state of mind in the U.S.

His murder has touched a nerve, and it calls to mind narratives of executives pitted against the public, such as the one depicted in the 1997 film, The Rainmaker. In that film, the CEO was brought to trial by the family of a young man, who died as a result of having been denied a medical procedure.

According to kff.org, medical debt in the U.S. is $220 billion. One in 12 adults owe medical debt. Over 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. UnitedHealth Care is cited as having a claim rejection rate of 30%. I myself was once denied health coverage due to an ingrown toenail (not kidding). Some note that the U.S. is the only member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that does not have universal healthcare.

Possible Motive

At this point, the assassin is still at large, and we can only speculate at his motive. Was it personal, an act of revenge for a loved one who he felt was mistreated? Was it a case of taking it upon himself to make a statement, for the “greater good”? Did he believe that only through a violent act would he be able to engender change or accountability in the healthcare system? It’s not hard to imagine that the denial of coverage to customers paying a premium – as a business model - would amount to millions of disgruntled folks and among them, some prone to extreme violence.

It is reported that the words "delay," "deny" and possibly "depose" appear on shell casings and bullets that were recovered from the scene of the shooting. Investigators believe that these three D’s refer to insurance company tactics to delay and deny policyholder claims.

Given the comments and response to the assassination, clearly a risk assessment that could have helped prevent this tragedy was either lacking or altogether missing. Companies engaging in controversial practices are exposed to risk. Not just to the executives but to other company assets.  CEOs of companies far smaller and less controversial than UnitedHealth have executive protection details in place.  None of the basics were covered: threat assessment, monitoring threats, doing an advance, counter surveillance, establishing perimeter, ensuring ingress/egress to a location, and more. A security detail that conducts these basic protective measures should certainly have been in place, particularly given that this was a scheduled public meeting.

Vigilante or Murderer

We can agree that as a society we are against an Active Shooter – a murderer - who kills innocent children. Yet in this case, the man who shot Thompson – a murderer – is considered less a villain for having brought down the head of a company whose policies are responsible, in the minds of some people, for countless deaths and suffering.

When the court of public opinion feels that the only recourse for solving problems is violence, we’re in trouble. It’s unlikely that the healthcare industry will change because of Thompson’s death, but other people may be provoked to act - copy cats with either a twisted desire for publicity or a deep grudge.

This attack (regardless of the shooter’s motive) may not change the landscape  of healthcare coverage in the U.S.  But this assassination will definitely impact the next person filling Thompson’s shoes at the company. And it may well have an impact on the level of executive protection for many other CEOs in the crosshairs of consumers with a grudge.

Threat and Executive Protection

From the limited video coverage currently publicly available, it appears that the gunman was proficient if not a professional. He used a silencer and at one point, when it looked like his gun jammed, he was able to swiftly rack it and continue shooting. His quick getaway by foot or e-bike (not yet confirmed) through nearby central park was effective.

Chameleon consults and trains on executive protection and foundationally, we espouse the importance of understanding how a given adversary operates. An attacker needs to follow certain steps. The assassin in this case obviously marked his target, gathered information, obtained equipment (gun and silencer), conducted surveillance, perhaps made some dry runs before executing and getaway.

Clearly, there was no EP team with Thompson. That may have been his decision; we have clients who strongly prefer a light touch when it comes to close protection. But the weaknesses in this case are compound: the company is a political target, there were yet undisclosed threats, Thompson was a figurehead, the UnitedHealth Group Annual Investor Day conference was well publicized as was his attendance at it. Even without preattack surveillance, it was sufficient for the attacker to lie in wait without being challenged.

To learn more about how our company helps others practice and plan for their executive protection needs, click here: https://chameleonassociates.com/services-chameleon-associates/executive-protection/