Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Aug
15

Where’s the pricing transparency?

Transparency. The basic requirements of consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) are price transparency and outcomes data. The foundational concept underlying CDHPs is that consumers will ask how much services cost, and providers will be able to tell them.
Oh were it only possible. It looks like the six million folks who have bought CDHPs from an insurance industry eager to tout them as the second coming of (pick a deity) are having a tough time getting the pricing info they need to make informed decisions.
Aetna is ahead of the rest of the industryin providing information about phyeicians and pricing; they have been providing actual reimburement amounts for specific procedures in selected markets for some months. Humana is also doing this on a limited basis in at least one market (southern Wisconsin).
Here’s a quote from the Chicago Tribune article:
” But basic data about what services cost generally aren’t available. Medical providers and insurers consider this to be highly sensitive competitive information, and their contracts require that it remain secret.
That leaves consumers with more financial responsibility for their care but without the tools to manage these expenses.
“The market just isn’t ready yet to deliver on the promise of these new insurance products,” said Larry Boress, president of the Midwest Business Group on Health…”
While recent legislation will require hospitals and some other facilities to disclose their prices, the “prices” will be the list prices, and not the discounted rates. Thus this requirement may not be terribly helpful for consumers looking for useful information.
What does this mean for you?
Another (very large) hiccup on the way to consumer-driven nirvana.
Thanks to FierceHealthcare for the tipoff to the Trib’s article.


Aug
15

Aetna’s Florida WC network

According to several providers in Florida, Aetna is recruiting physicians for its workers comp network while requesting discounts that are quite aggressive.
I’m attending the Florida Workers Compensation Institute annual conference in Orlando, and spent much of Sunday moderating a session for physicians. I caught up with several providers after the meeting, and the conversation turned to work comp networks (in my opening comments at the physician seminar, I posed the question “why are you, the acknowledged experts in treating WC patients, providing care at a discount?).
Several of the providers had been recruited by Aetna for participation in their AWCA workers comp network; all were already participating in Aetna’s group health and other arrangements. According to these providers, Aetna’s letter, which was sent regular mail and was thus no different from the dozens of letters they get each week from managed care firms, stated that unless the provider informed Aetna that they did NOT want to be part of their WC network, they were going to be listed as a participating provider.
That runs counter to what I have been hearing from Aetna, so perhaps there is some confusion on the part of these providers. Or perhaps Aetna is assuming that because the providers are already in their group network, this is all they have to do to enroll them in the WC version. If that is the assumption, Aetna may want to rethink their strategy.
(virtual Sidebar – I’m not an Aetna basher, and believe that on balance Aetna is one of the better mega-healthplans. My sense is their people really try to do the right thing, their leadership is smart and thoughtful, and their “brand” of health care is much preferred over that of their major competitors.
But no one is perfect.
(Back to the main post)
There was no confusion regarding the reimbursement offered by Aetna, which ranged from 30% off the work comp fee schedule to 20% off to 20% below Medicare. These were seasoned, intelligent veterans of the managed care world, well-versed in contract negotiations and reimbursement, and all agreed that the proffered rates were, to say the least, inadequate.
Perhaps that is why Aetna is having a bit of trouble launching a FL workers comp network.
I’d also note that the providers were quite clear in describing the contents of the letter, and the requirement that they inform Aetna if they declined to participate.
Discounting key providers is not the way to reduce workers comp costs. And if Aetna is requiring its group health docs to inform them if they do not want to participate in the group health network, it is setting itself up for major confusion on the part of the physicians, anger on the part of injured workers, and frustration on the part of WC claims adjusters.
For the reality is most practices will either not read the letters, understand the contents, and respond in a timely fashion.
What does this mean for you?
A likely delay in implementing in FL, and potential problems when you do.


Aug
14

UPS deal with Gallagher Bassett

Several industry sources indicate UPS has decided to move about a quarter of its workers compensation business from Liberty Mutual to TPA Gallagher Bassett. The transition date is 1/1/2007.
UPS has been with Liberty from the beginning, and this represents a significant loss, as both claims administration and managed care will be moved to GB.
This is a major win for GB, and may mean that the big TPA has revised its business practices and cleaned up its act. GB has had a few embarassments in the marketplace of late, notably the Broward County School Board fiasco. UPS’ adviser is Aon, a consulting/brokerage house I have been less than impressed with in the past; perhaps Aon, which developed a managed care contracting and evaluation strategy as a direct result of its consulting work at a very large payer, has also upgraded its talent and output.
It appears the rationale was UPS’ desire to reduce the number of eggs per basket. It remains to be seen if the folks in brown have used the right approach and picked a decent basket.


Aug
11

UHC facing tough scrutiny on options

United Healthcare’s stock plunged yesterday after it reported it could not file its second quarter financials on time due to difficulties dealing with stock options for Chairman Bill McGuire and others.
UHC’s stock has dropped 22% this year, largely due to regulatory scrutiny of UHC’s practice of backdating stock options for McGuire, who now holds options valued at about $1.6 billion. At least that was the options’ value before the stock’s slide.
This is not the only issue UHC is facing. It’s management of HMO Medica has come under scrutiny of late as well. There are allegations that the management contract was much too lucrative and UHC’s performance was substandard.
UHC grew in large part due to McGuire’s visionary leadership, business acumen, and focus on building value. The dark side of the McGuire era, one that may now be ending, is now showing itself, and it isn’t pretty. It looks like outright greed from here.


Aug
11

First Health’s work comp financials

Coventry’s First Health unit enjoyed an uptick in workers comp revenues in 2006 from Q1 to Q2, but revenues have been essentially flat over the last five quarters.
Here are the work comp division’s revenue numbers (in millions of dollars)
2005 Q2 $54
2005 Q3 $51
2005 Q4 $53
2006 Q1 $51
2006 Q2 $55
Overall, the entire FH division (work comp, commercial, and other lines) has seen declining revenues, from $224 million in Q2 2005 to $215 million in the most recent quarter. Note that the most recent 10-Q filing indicates revenues have gone up appreciably from the first half of 2005 to this year; this is partly because the acquisition did not close until January 28 2005, making revenue numbers from that quarter artificially low.
More on First Health is here.


Aug
10

Work comp Rx news

News reports indicate Amerisource Bergen (ABC), the hospital supply firm, is unloading its Pharmerica subsidiary. Actually, it is forming a joint venture with Kindred Healthcare to combine both companies’ long term care businesses in a new entity.
These companies provide drugs and supplies to nursing homes around the country, have annual combined sales of $1.9 billion and rather thin profits of $75 million.
Pharmerica also was the parent company of workers comp PBM Tmesys/PMSI, which evidently is staying within the ABC company fold.
Last week PMSI/Tmesys also made several changes in management, including promoting Mark Hollifield to president to replace Dave Weidner, who moved on to another senior position within the parent company. Hollifield, who was promoted to COO at the end of March 2006, is a well-regarded manager. Tamara Wagner, the long-time head of sales departed as well, and an interim sales leader was appointed from within.
Other sources indicate Coventry’s First Health unit is looking into entering the WC PBM business, likely by going the acquisition route.


Aug
10

Illegal money laundering? Just say “Noe”

In the “we could not make this stuff up” category, former Ohio coin dealer/money manager Tom Noe (!) is set to be sentenced on September 12 for funneling illegal campaign contributions to the Bush re-election campaign . Noe is likely to spend upwards of two years in prison, and perhaps a lot “upwards”. The funds totaled $42,000, and helped Noe attain the coveted “Pioneer” status in the Bush campaign.
The bad news won’t end there for Noe; several weeks after his sentencing he will begin defending himself against separate charges filed by the state of Ohio relating to his alleged theft from the reserves of Ohio’s Bureau of Workers Compensation. For those who have not been following Noe’s transgressions, be advised, the man was pretty busy.


Aug
9

Medicare cuts physician reimbursement – Not!

CMS is going to change the way it pays physicians. Really. Well, CMS Director McClellan says they will, and soon. Policy types will recall that every year, physician reimbursement for procedures under Medicare is slated to drop by between 3% – 5%, depending on total expenditures the prior year and a really complicated formula (that is never followed). So each year, physicians scream, and every year, politicians say “no, just kidding”, and tweak the reimbursement to send a few more dollars to the docs. And I do mean “few”.
This year expect the same to happen; it is an election year, there are lots of powerful (read “lots of money”) forces in play here, and few elected officials want to take the political hit for cutting Medicare. So far, 80 senators have signed a letter asking that reimbursement levels be increased, not reduced.
Despite the political realities, McClellan is of the opinion that our elected officials will come up with a pay-for-performance scheme for CMS. Whether it ever gets through Congress is another story altogether.
For further edification, I’ll pass on the perspective of Bob Laszewski, long-time national health care policy expert and good friend. Bob’s view is that the increase in utilization driven by physician practice patterns is leading to the huge cost increases we are seeing in Medicare, and the stats back him up. Medicare’s per-service reimbursement in 2006 is essentially unchanged from five years ago, while utilization has gone up dramatically. So, price controls have not worked to hold down medical inflation.
Thus the interest in pay for performance for physicians. While it sounds interesting, it’s really hard to do.
As tough as it’s going to be, I see no better alternative.


Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2024. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives