Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Feb
16

Repackagers and the myth of AWP

From Jim Andrews of Cypress Care comes a heads-up of an article by a former California state representative who’s endorsing the doctor-dispensing trend, noting that it has “small costs and huge benefits.”
Perhaps to his consulting clients, who include the drug repackagers that supply the drugs to docs.
Here’s the deal. The CA fee schedule drastically reduced the amount paid for drugs under workers comp by requiring compliance with the Medi-Cal fee schedule. I have issues w the drastic reduction, but that’s for another post.
So, entrepreneurs sensed an opportunity. The new fee schedule applied to drugs speicfically listed under Medi-Cal; drugs that were not listed were to be paid at the old fee schedule, which was much much much more generous.
Surprise – these wily entreprenueurs figured out that if they repackaged drugs from lots of 100 into 90 or 50 or 101, they fell outside the fee schedule. And, there was no Average Wholesale Price per se, as these creative business folk were creating a whole new drug/dosage/count combination. Voila, they came up with their own “AWP”.
In the article on Workers Comp Exec, the ex-legislator (Thomas Calderon) notes that “The drug debate has centered on the so-called “loophole” created by SB 228 allowing doctors to bill at the pre-SB 228 fee schedule, which is 140 percent of the average wholesale price (AWP). But has this loophole raised rates to employers? Absolutely not (no proof statement provided by Calderon)…We could do as I suggested above by using 90 percent of AWP. Another way would be to increase the handling fee to reflect the costs of dispensing.”
Well, gee Tom, if your clients are setting the AWP, and then you are offering a 10% “discount” off that AWP, how exactly does that reduce payers’ costs? I should note that several of my payer clients are seeing costs for these repackaged scripts that are five to ten times higher than for scripts that are covered under the Medi-Cal fee schedule.
Calderon is disingenuous at best, and advocating cheating the system, patients, and employers at worst.
Repackagers could add value, patients could get their drugs faster, and docs could make a few bucks on the side, and everyone would be happier. But the only people making out on this deal are Calderon’s clients and a few docs who are taking advantage of the system.
What does this mean for you?
We need to fix this loophole.


Feb
16

Bird flu – the Katrina of the health insurance industry?

I’ve been avoiding posting on this because there are so many smart people who know a lot more than I about epidemiology, flu transmission, viral mutation, and public health. Thank goodness for that.
But, a post by Revere at EffectMeasure scared me silly.
If this disease mutates (and reports indicate it is only two mutations away from becoming transmissable from human to human) and travels to the US (which it is sure to do) we are going to face not only a public health crisis, but an insurance crisis as well.
Who’s paying for the tamiflu, intensive care, respirators, and hospital charges? Medicare, Medicaid (taxpayers), insurance companies and self-insured employers. The industry has done an excellent job of managing medical loss ratios by negotiating with providers and increasing prices. Many health plans pride themselves on this, and so they should.
What we haven’t done, nor do we have any experience in, is planning for a pandemic. Here’s a few numbers that may do to you what Revere did to me.
If the bird flu is similar to the relatively mild flu pandemic of 1968, the WHO prediction is for between 2-7 million deaths worldwide, and millions more infected. That may be optimistic.
If it is similar to the 1918 flu, projections are for 150 MILLION deaths, and hundreds of millions more infected. Not to mention a tremendous impact on the world economy, transportation, trade,
The US has about 5% of the world population. Extrapolating from the higher number, we could see 7.5 million deaths and tens of millions sickened. Let’s say that number is way too high, as we have an excellent health care infrastructure, lots of money, and lots of docs and pretty good public health. All those positives may reduce the impact by, say, 90%. So, we are left with 750,000 Americans dying and millions more sick.
What does this mean for you?
I don’t see how the US health insurance industry can pay for this.


Feb
16

Health care rationing in the US and Britain

Cost is preventing cancer patients in both the US and Britain from receiving certain cancer drugs. There are striking parallels between yesterday’s post on the price of cancer drug Avastin and its impact on patients and an article in today’s NYTimes on the decision by Britian’s National Health Service to deny Herceptin (free subscription required) to women with early stage breast cancer.
In both cases, the decision by payers to not cover the full cost of the drugs is based in part on a lack of clinical evidence. Only in part. The other basis for the decision is clearly cost related. Britian’s NHS is under very heavy pressure to keep costs under control. This pressure has come up against patient advocacy groups and physicians who want to be able to treat as they see fit. Eerily similar to the situation on this side of the Atlantic, where patients find themselves unable to afford drugs that their physicians think will help them battle cancer.
The tendency is to personalize the problem by focusing on one patient. While there are individually painful stories, they take away from a very important, albeit painful, discussion that both Britain and the US must have about cost, benefits, and opportunity cost.
The patient profiled in the Times lives in an area administered by the Swindon Primary Care Trust. The Trust is looking at the cost of paying for Herceptin for 20 potential recipients of the drug, balanced against the needs of all 200,000 residents they have to provide care for under a finite budget. There are 20 women with early stage breast cancer that theoretically might benefit from Herceptin; at a cost of $40,000 each, that’s $8 million annually.
For all those that decry the British health system’s inherent rationing of health care, I would ask if it is “better” to spend that $8 million on a drug without proven efficacy for that specific condition for 20 patients, or use it to provide pre-natal care to prevent low birth weight babies; fund an anti-smoking program to reduce future cancers; or perhaps buy vaccines and treatments for the bird flu that is just off Britain’s shores.
Anyone for playing God?


Feb
15

Comp claim frequency drops in CA

Excellent news out of the California Workers Compensation Institute (one of my favorite research outfits) that the frequency of comp claims has dropped significantly after enactment of reforms. The decrease, of 13% from 2004 to 2005, continues a decline that has seen comp injuries drop over 60% since 1990.
Self insured employers saw an even bigger decrease of 17%.
Even better news – according to Workers Comp Executive:
“n addition to frequency, claims costs have also started to decline thanks the recent reforms along with pure premium rates. CWCI points out that with claims frequency at a record low, additional rate decreases will depend on what changes state regulators, the courts or the legislature make to the current reforms.”
What does this mean for you?
A lower cost of doing business in California.


Feb
15

The cost of life

Should insurance companies or patients pay $6000 to $10,000 a month for a cancer drug that extends life five months on average? Should oncologists be marking the drug up to make money on it? Should the drug manufacturer keep the price so high it keeps it out of the reach of many potential patients ?
Avastin is a drug approved by the FDA for colorectal cancer and is used primarily in advanced stages of the disease. Manufactured by Genentech, it works in conjunction with other, tumor-fighting drugs to slow the spread of cancer by reducing the blood flow to tumors. And it does appear to do this pretty well. This success has led physicians to consider using it in early stages, but there are two problems with this.
First, it has not been approved by the FDA for that usage. As a result, many insurance companies may not pay for it. Therefore this leaves doctors and patients facing the all-too-common financial conundrum – is it worth it? An article in the New York Times (free subscription required) describes the decision making process of several cancer victims, some of whom cannot afford the drug and are not taking it due to cost.
Before we start hurling invective at the insurance companies, remember that they are spending your dollars. So ask yourself the question – do you want your personal funds paying for these drugs?
Another medication, Gleevec, has shown excellent results for leukemia patients, extending life significantly albeit at a very high price.
Genentech’s executives describe Avastin’s pricing methodology as value-based; according to William M. Burns, the chief executive of Roche’s pharmaceutical division and a member of Genentech’s board; “”The pressure on society to use strong and good products is there.” And this pressure allows/enables pharma companies to charge what they want, knowing payers will face incredible pressure to cover the cost.
In contrast, or perhaps contradiction of Burns’ position, Dr. Desmond-Hellmann, the Genentech product development chief, was quoted in the Times as saying “I don’t think any patient should go without a Genentech drug for an inability to pay,” she said. “If this is about money, that would disturb me.”
(I can see the PR types at Genentech cringing…)
Avastin, with annual treatment costs around $100,000, provides about $7 billion in revenues for the company annually.
It is about money – who gets it and who pays it. And therefore it is about choices. Remember a significant portion of medical expense is for treatment of people in their last six months of life. Are we as a society willing to pay $40,000 for five more months of life for people with this horrible disease?
What does this mean for you?
More tough thinking and very uncomfortable debate.


Feb
14

Noe’s woes in O-hi-o

Ohio’s workers comp scandal keeps getting better and better. One of the principal figures (Tom Noe, aka “the perp”) has just been busted after a 10 month investigation that uncovered a very close relationship between the perp and the Governor’s chief of staff and a theft of over a million dollars
The perp a former investment manager for the Ohio state workers comp fund, pled not guilty to 53 charges, including stealing more than $1 million from the state’s work comp reserves.
According to the AP, the charges:
“conclude a 10-month investigation by state and federal prosecutors into the $50 million rare-coin investment Mr. Noe managed for the state insurance fund for injured workers.
The investigation led to sweeping changes at the state workers’ compensation bureau, an agreement by Gov. Bob Taft and two former aides to plead no contest to ethics charges, and pending charges against two other former Taft aides.
Mr. Noe is accused of stealing from the investment by writing checks, sometimes for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, knowing that the money was not his to use.
His lawyer has acknowledged a shortfall of up to $13 million of the money Mr. Noe invested for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
One of the charges in Monday’s indictment accuses Mr. Noe of stealing at least $1 million. The state attorney general has accused him of stealing up to $6 million.
Mr. Noe, 51, already faced charges of using colleagues and associates to funnel $45,000 illegally to President Bush’s re-election campaign. The new counts include forgery, theft and money laundering.”
This has it all – lost treasure, political backroom deals, corruption in high places, theft from injured workers, and political scandal at the state and Federal level.
What does this mean for you?
Yet another reason to love the workers comp business; as if you needed one.


Feb
14

AIG’s workers comp fraud

My friends at Workers’ Comp Insider have posted a round-up of WC news, including a summary of the recent AIG settlement. Part of AIG’s $1.6 billion settlement is to go to pay back taxes owed for workers comp premiums that were not reported to the various states as such.
States tax insurance premiums to gather revenue and to build up funds to cover any costs associated with insurers that go belly-up. The reporting of premiums is also used to determine how much of the residual market is assigned to each insurer (in states that handle the residual market this way).
Turns out AIG systematically under-reported work comp premium and engaged in a variety of other financial shenanigans to avoid taxes and assessments. And now they are paying $343 million for their sins.
What does this mean for you?
The final note, we hope, in the denoument of AIG’s reputation as a respected and feared company.


Feb
14

Hilarity break – UPDATED LINK

The tone and debate here of late has been strident, loud and contentious. In the interest of maintaining sanity among the participants, here’s a public service by managed care matters.com.
A video about the horrid folk at insurance companies, well worth the watch, especially if you’re working in a health insurance company. Turn up the sound!
BTW – no, I don’t believe in, support wholeheartedly, or otherwise think this video is factual.


Feb
14

Ohio – work comp, illegal donations, and politicians

Yesssss!!!
The scandal continues! The latest news is that Thomas Noe, he of the “I know, let’s buy $50 million in rare coins with workers’ comp reserves!” fame has been caught funneling illegal campaign contributions to several Ohio judicial candidates through a third party. (thanks to Work Comp Executive newsletter for this choice bit)
Noe, who is up to his eyeballs in other legal trouble (not only was he involved in the coin scandal, he also is accused of illegally contributing $45,400 to the Bush campaign), is accused of conspiring to contribute more than the legal limit to three candidates in Ohio.
And here we thought workers comp was boring (well, ok, so it’s only peripherally related…)
Meanwhile, the scandal has blocked efforts to convert Ohio’s monopolistic WC system to something more free-market. Recent testimony before the state legislature pointed out that it probably makes sense to hold off on any drastic moves until the mess gets cleared up.


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