May
27

Today’s SAT question

Medicare is to Workers Comp as:
a) Mars is to deck stain
b) surgery is to literature
c) a jelly sandwich is to Colorado
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
If you chose (d), congratulations, you understand there few similarities between the two systems, other than both involve paying health care providers to deliver care.
Beyond that, Medicare and Work Comp are, as the Brits say, chalk and cheese. Yet many regulators and legislators still try to base reimbursement under workers comp to Medicare’s RBRVS system (resource based relative value scale). The latest effort is in California, where a recent study by the Lewin Group has come under fire from providers in the Golden State. Critics contend Lewin’s analysis does not accurately assess the inherent differences between the two systems or the way providers deliver care, and bill for that care, and therefore the study’s conclusion is inappropriate.
I think the critics are right. As I’ve noted before, the additional paperwork, different procedures, complex and dynamic treatment rules and approval process, additional communications requirement, and different demographics make work comp a very different animal from Medicare.
I’ll have more on this later, as the reports and analysis require more time than I’ve got right now.
But there are two more (very) current examples of the problems inherent in linking WC reimbursement to governmental programs. Both involve drugs, and in both cases WC drug costs are linked to Medicaid. The states are NY and CA. In both cases, the FS will also drop in July; to AWP-16.25% in NY for brand and an across-the-board cut of 10% (below the current very low rates) in California.
There are already myriad examples of claimants unable to fill comp scripts in New York today, and that is at the current, slightly more generous FS. There have been fewer reports of this issue in CA, but the new rate reduction has pharmacy chains screaming.
As well they should. Here’s how Workers comp and Medicaid are different
1. Unlike Medicaid, there are no copays, restrictive formularies, or other cost- and utilization containment measures in WC. Thus all cost containment efforts in WC for drugs involves Drug Utilization Review processes that can involve pharmacists and clinicians reviewing scripts for appropriateness, medical necessity, potential conflicts and adverse outcomes, and relatedness to the WC medical condition.
2. PBMs pay pharmacies more for WC drugs than for Medicaid drugs; a typical brand discount is AWP-12%, generic is MAC or -25-35%. The Medicaid FS is substantially lower, at AWP-15+% for brand and FUL (>-40%)for generics.
3. Unlike Medicaid, to the extent they exist at all, rebates are much lower in WC. In NY, Medicaid rebates are a minimum of 11% of the Average Manufacturer’s Price per unit. The rebate revenue significantly reduces states’ costs for drugs. As these rebates are much lower or nonexistent in WC, PBMs do not have rebate dollars to offset their drug costs.
Sure, it is easy for lazy insurers, regulators, legislators, and employers to think they are doing something positive by cutting the price they pay for drugs.
It is also a big mistake.


May
7

Ingenix can’t catch a break

Ingenix has had a tough few months. The latest injury comes in the form of a suit filed by a Connecticut man, seeking class action status based on allegations that the United HealthCare sub engaged in an “alleged conspiracy in which insurance companies calculate their usual, customary and reasonable rates from a flawed and manipulated Ingenix database. The low payments to providers, according to the lawsuit, left Weintraub and other consumers with higher out-of-pocket costs.” (Modern Healthcare)
For the legal folks out there, the full case can be accessed here. (PACER sub req)
The plaintiff, Jeffrey Weintraub, is suing Ingenix, their parent, UnitedHealth Group Inc; sister company Oxford Health Plans, as well as Aetna Inc, Cigna Corp, Empire BlueCross BlueShield, Humana Inc, Group Health Ins Inc, Health Ins Plan of NY and Health Net Inc.
OK, so what does this mean? My sense is this is piling on; since the Cuomo announcement Ingenix has been a highly visible target, and based on the company’s rather lackadaisical approach to defending its methodology in the Davekos case, it looks like the legal sharks smell blood in the water.
But just because it is piling on does not mean these cases are without merit.
I would expect to see more of these suits filed, perhaps in more class-action friendly jurisdictions (Mississippi, for example). I also expect the industry to rally around Ingenix – this is a very, very big deal, and one that has been mishandled so far. Ingenix, and the health payer industry, cannot afford any more mishaps.
Thanks to Fierce Healthcare for the heads’ up.


Apr
16

Medicare is to Workers Comp as Yin is to Yang

Why do regulators base WC reimbursement on Medicare? It’s easy, simple, and already familiar to legislators and regulators alike. It is also a big mistake.
Medicare is a program for America’s elderly – over-65, mostly sedentary, and mostly not employed. Workers comp covers ‘working age’ folks; primarily 18-65. ) Many of the surgeries being performed on Medicare vs. workers’ compensation patients are fundamentally different.
The types of outpatient surgeries that can be performed on workers’ compensation patients, who are generally young and in overall good health, are different than the outpatient surgeries Medicare covers (pays) for. Medicare sharply restricts outpatient surgery for good reason as Medicare patients are frail and surgery followed by an inpatient stay is safer given their complicated medical conditions and health risks of prolonged general anesthesia. WC claimants are younger, in better physical condition, and much better suited for outpatient surgeries – yet basing WC reimbursement policies on Medicare would forbid, or at the least financially dis-incent, outpatient surgery in favor of inpatient.
Medicare fee schedules (like the one Florida’s Three-Member Panel is considering adopting) result in more specialist care and more procedures being performed. (opens pdf) National studies show this frequently leads to poorer outcomes and more suffering for patients, in addition to higher costs for payers.
Medicare recipients’ medical conditions are very different from comp claimants’. The top ten Medicare DRGs (Medicare’s coding for inpatient care) are:

  • Heart Failure & Shock
  • Simple Pneumonia & Pleurisy
  • Specific Cerebrovascular Disorders
  • Psychoses
  • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Major Joint & Limb Reattachment Procedures, Lower Extremity
  • Angina Pectoris
  • Esophagitis, Gastroent & Misc Digest Disorders
  • G.I. Hemorrhage
  • Nutritional & Misc Metabolic Disorders

No spine conditions, multiple trauma, burns, TBIs, crushing injuries, joint surgeries…
Inflation in Medicare billing is rampant – if you think it is bad in WC generally (and you would be right) it is an order of magnitude worse in Medicare. In Florida, the current annual inflation rate is north of 14% for Medicare outpatient services.
Medicare reimbursement disproportionately favors hospital-based care. With facilities reimbursed at levels much higher than free-standing doctors’ offices and clinics, basing reimbursement on Medicare encourages providers to affiliate with, provide care in, and bill thru facilities. In Florida, the impact is dramatic; basing reimbursement on hospital outpatient service charges will increase costs by an estimated $1,675 to $2,320 per claim (calculations courtesy of FairPay Solutions, an HSA client).
What provider would want to treat in their own, lower cost clinic or office, if they could more than double their fees by working through a hospital?
Finally, CMS itself has warned against using their payment methodologies for non-Medicare patients. “The cost-based relative weights were developed solely using Medicare data. We do not have non-Medicare data…For this reason we are concerned that non-Medicare payers may be using our payment systems and rates without making refinements to address the needs of their own population.” (page 272)
I could go on, but you get the picture. The populations are starkly different, claimants’ health status is different, their motivations are different, provider types are different, and reimbursement should reflect these differences.
Unfortunately, Medicare is the easy choice. Easy, but dead wrong.


Apr
10

What’s going on in Pennsylvania?

It’s 2008. There are thousands of really smart people working to change the delivery of health care, reduce inappropriate use, and improve outcomes.
But in one state, things aren’t getting better – they are getting worse. (I’m not picking on Pennsylvania; they just have the misfortune of being in the news more than other states lately)
A study of admission rates in Pennsylvania found that patients with chronic conditions are being admitted to the hospital more often. The analysis focused on HMO members with diabetes, asthma, and/or hypertension and the result is particularly troubling as these conditions are responsible for a large percentage of US health care costs.
Notably, these HMOs have also been lauded for their effectiveness in delivering preventive care, care that should help reduce the number of admissions for these conditions.
Previous studies indicate that effective primary care can dramatically reduce the number of admissions for these conditions. And further reductions can be achieved by implementing quality improvement programs, programs that have well-documented results.
So we’re left with the conclusion that despite the fact that we know how to keep patients with chronic conditions out of the hospital, admission rates are going up. And Pennsylvania is not particularly bad – there are a dozen other states that spend a lot more money on inpatient chronic care than the national average.
Can you sense the frustration?


Mar
3

Wasted dollars

Alex Swedlow and the good folks at CWCI have published a study that clearly demonstrates the amount of waste in the US health care system, waste generated by nothing other than greed and lousy medicine. While the analysis focused on workers comp, the lessons cross all coverage.
The great thing about workers comp is that unlike health insurance, payers are actually concerned about and financially motivated to ensure claimants get the amount and type of care needed to help them recover and get back to work. And there is a wealth of data to evaluate the effects of medical treatment on RTW.
California changed its workers comp rules a few years ago to limit the number of physical or occupational therapy or chiropractic visits a claimant would get covered by workers comp. The limit was 24 (for each, not together), which all the data suggest is more than adequate to take care of 90%+ of WC medical conditions – surgical or non.
So, what happened?
The average number of PT, OT, or chiro visits per patient dropped by almost half, and the number of patients with more than 24 visits dropped from 30.4% to 9.7% (a decline of 68%). Costs declined dramatically as well.
But did this lead to poorer outcomes?
The results, while encouraging, are not as clear.
While there are data from California that appear to show reductions in the length of disability, the results are muddled by a cap on benefit payments that was also part of the WC reforms. The duration of disability (the length of time claimants were out of work) did decline post-reform. Comparing disability duration two years post-injury, the median length of disability declined by 21.4% (average was down 17.4%).
My sense is the reduction in physical medicine visits contributed to the drop in disability duration – without endless visits to PTs and Chiros to receive ‘care’ that was not helping them recover but merely extending the process, claimants were more likely to be released to return to work.
There’s a lesson here for the non-workers comp world, and policy wonks in particular. It is this – providers overtreat, to the detriment of the patient and the payer. Draconian measures such as flat limits on the amount of treatment do work.
With health reform on the horizon, here’s a great example of the waste in our health care ‘system’, waste that benefits the provider.


Feb
5

Why is workers comp paying for hospital errors?

Surgical devices left inside a patient. Dispensing the wrong medication or the wrong dosage. Giving a patient the wrong blood type in a transfusion. Serious pressure ulcers incurred while hospitalized. Infections from catheterization in the ICU.
These are among the ‘never-ever’ events – incidents that should never, ever happen during an inpatient stay. CMS recently decided to stop paying hospitals for care required due to certain“preventable complications” — “conditions that result from medical errors or improper care and that can reasonably be expected to be averted” (NEJM, 10/18/07). The list includes air embolisms, certain infections, patient falls, pressure ulcers and the like.
HealthPartners in Minnesota was one of the first payers to identify the problem and take action, way back in 2002. Now, other commercial health insurers, notably Wellpoint and Aetna, are planning to move beyond CMS’ list and eventually refuse payment for 28 events. These events, identified by the National Quality Forum are also under review by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association, United Healthcare, and CIGNA who may decide to stop paying for them.
And the Leapfrog Group’s membership, which includes many of the country’s largest employers, is also asking providers to not bill for these events.
It is not just the payers; hospitals themselves are starting to see the light. Hospital associations in Massachusetts and Minnesota have agreed to not charge payers or patients for these events, which include “wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery, patient death or disability due to wrong use of blood or blood products and medication errors, and follow-up care needed to bring the patient back from such errors.”
The largest payer in the nation, CMS, has decided that paying for certain medical errors is bad policy. So has two of the largest health plans, along with one of the best-run health plans in the country. Our biggest companies have joined the “no pay for mistakes” movement. Hospitals themselves have decided it is inappropriate to charge for their screw-ups.
So why are workers comp payers reimbursing hospitals for ‘never-evers’? I don’t have any empirical evidence that WC payers are not paying for these events. In fact, given the lax payment policies of most payers, I’d be very surprised if more than a very few (if any) payers have the ability to deny payment, much less a policy to do so.
What does this mean for you?
There is clear precedent for non-payment for medical errors. Moreover, workers comp payers may find themselves in the rather awkward position of trying to justify their payments for conditions that their clients have publicly stated are not reimbursable.


Jan
7

A physician-centric comp conference

Among thought leaders in occupational medicine, three of the most influential have to be Ed Bernacki, Gideon Letz and Jen Christian. All three are speaking at a workers comp conference in San Diego in early February, along with Barry Eisenberg, Exec. Dir of ACOEM and Larry Yuspeh of the Louisiana Workers Comp Corp. (LWCC developed one of the first physician-centric delivery systems in WC). Conference details are here.
The conference is sponsored by HCN, a firm working in the WC space. HCN will waive the registration fee for Managed Care Matters readers; email dparkerAThcn-usDOTcom for details.
Note – Neither my firm nor I have any relationship, business or otherwise, with HCN or any of their principals. This conference looks to be different in that it has a strong clinical focus, a concentration that is missing from other trade functions.


Jan
4

Why implants cost so much

The cost of surgical implants is increasing by over 7% annually; and even more in workers comp spinal cases. In audits my firm has performed we have seen costs ranging up to $27,000 for the hardware and related bits and pieces used (or allegedly used) in a neurosurgery case.
It looks like one of the contributors to those high costs is that old reliable – fraud. Blackstone Medical, a spinal implant manufacturer, is in deep legal trouble, facing allegations that it paid doctors kickbacks to use the company’s devices.
And as I’ve noted before, surgeons select the specific devices used in surgeries, with little or no apparent concern about the cost.

Continue reading Why implants cost so much


Dec
14

ASCs — good, bad, or just ugly?

A recent court ruling in New Jersey could shut down Ambulatory Surgical Centers across the state.
The judge determined that physician-owned ASCs (almost all ASCs are at least partly owned by physicians) violate a state law banning physician self-referral. Not surprisingly, the 200 ASCs in the Garden State (there are about 5000 nationwide) are pulling out the stops to overturn a ruling that, if it stands, would effectively shut down most ASCs in NJ.

Continue reading ASCs — good, bad, or just ugly?


Sep
5

Two can play that game

A group of docs in Texas has decided that two can play the ratings game. They are working on a project to rate insurers – on their “billing procedures and issues”.
It strikes me that these physicians may be engaging in the same type of behavior that infuriates them when exhibited by insurers – using an arbitrary, internally-developed methodology to evaluate payers solely on administrative indicators.

Continue reading Two can play that game