Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Jan
27

Docs as drug dealers

One of the emerging issues in workers comp is the dispensing of drugs by physicians on a grand scale. Clients (big WC payers) are seeing over half of their drug costs in California coming from doc-dispensed drugs. While that sounds great; injured workers get their meds quickly and without having to drive to a store and argue with a clerk over who pays, there are a few problems – and a couple really really big problems.
Drugs are reimbursed according to a fee schedule in work comp in many states. But, the fee schedule only applies to drugs that are “standard”; i.e. have an NDC number. So, when the fee schedule was slashed in CA two years ago creative capitalists simply repackaged the drugs, which now did not have an NDC number and therefore no state-set fee (showing the futility of price controls).
Actually, there is no state set fee, but there is a reimbursement methodology that results in drug costs much higher than the “regular” drug packages. CA law required payers to pay for these repackaged drugs according to the old OMFS fee schedule. And this is one generous fee schedule – 140% of AWP plus a $7.50 dispensing fee for generics and 110% plus $4 for brand. The margins on this for docs must be amazing.
BY way of reference, the new WC drug fee schedule in CA is about 90% of AWP…
Lesson here is price fixing creates opportunities for creative entrepreneurs; my bet is while this gaming has been going on, drug utilization in California WC has been increasing.
What does this mean for you?
If you are a WC payer in California, headaches (that may get treated with doc-dispensed drugs!).


Jan
26

CDHPs as cost shifting

Half of the 2 million people who have signed up for consumer directed plans with health savings accounts have yet to put anything into the accounts. Interesting, as one of, if not the major attraction of the plans was the tax-favored status of the dollars going into the savings accounts.
(Matthew Holt at The Healthcare Blog has a transcript of Pres. Bush’s interview with the Wall Street Journal in which Bush describes HSAs as one of the ways to make health care more affordable…)
What appears to be happening is what I (and others) have been predicting all along. Employers, staggering under the burden of rising health care costs, have all but given up and thrown in the towel. Those who have given up are dropping their health plans in favor of the new high-deductible plans, thereby shifting more of the burden onto employees. In those instances where the CDHP option is offered alongside regular heath plans, CDHP participation is in the low single digits.
The idea (at least the politicians’ idea) behind CDHPs is that they will make the consumers more directive, more involved, more aware of their health and thus better consumers. I’m not sure the employers care much about the theory; what they do care about is health care inflation is now less of a problem for them.
I write that with no malice towards employers; many have decided health care is simply unmanageable. It is digging into their profits, their ability to fund new businesses or products, increase wages, enhance training, pay bonuses and executive stock options, and hire new workers. Employers in the US are tasked with addressing the health care needs of their workers, a challenge their competitors in other OECD countries don’t worry about.
Here’s more detail from Milt Freudenheim’s article in today’s New York Times:
” people have evidently signed up not because they are eager to direct their own medical spending but because the plan looked cheap or they had no other insurance option. And at least half of those enrolled have not put money in their health savings accounts. So there will be no money building up for next year’s out-of-pocket expenses


Jan
26

Property and casualty results for 2005

Dr. Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute recently gave an interview to Insurance Journal on the US property and casualty industry’s 2005 results, and made a few predictions about this year. According to Hartwig, 2005 will deliver a combined ratio of 99%, a surprisingly strong result given the impact of the four hurricanes. The weather had a huge effect on results; after stripping out extra-ordinary events, the industry actually would have had a combined ratio of in the 80’s. (However, there are always extra-ordinary results, so I’m not sure what stripping them out does


Jan
25

Immigrant workers issues

Friend and colleague Peter Rousmaniere has started a new blog dealing with immigrant worker issues. Peter is a well-known author on all things workers comp, occupational health and safety, and an insightful critic at large.
One of Peter’s more troubling findings is the tendency of alien workers to not report occupational injuries or illnesses. With the large number of immigrants working in the US today, and the well-publicized decline in the occupational injury rate, I’m wondering if there is a relationship between the two.
Are migrant workers replacing citizens, then getting injured and not reporting it, thereby artificially reducing the reported injury rate?
Anyone?


Jan
25

Why should Medicare negotiate drug prices?

A reader asked why I’m in favor of allowing the Feds to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The reader’s colleagues had the idea that since the PBMs and health plans in Part D are already negotiating, why have the Feds involved?
Here’s my response.
First, the whole Part D mess is a great example of how overcomplicated programs generate huge problems. Medicaid claimants were getting their drugs just fine before Part D went into effect, and are now having all kinds of problems. While those problems will likely go away in the near future, the problems did occur when the claimants were switched from a governmental to a private program. A little ammunition for the single payer advocates, if nothing else…
1. “price” is an elusive concept in pharma. The AWP and most other pricing mechanisms are based on the price but do not factor in rebates or any other funds transfer mechanisms that effectively reduce the actual, real “price”. So, while PBMs are in fact negotiating for “price”, we do not know in most cases what the actual real price is.
2. PBMs by definition have much less purchasing power than governments. As an example, the Veterans Administration is the only federal entity that is allowed under the law to negotiate drug prices. The VA is entitled under the law to receive either the minimum 24% discount off the non-federal average manufacturer price or the “best price” the manufacturer gives anyone, whichever is lower. These rates are much more favorable than any PBM gets.
3. The PBMs make money on the delta between what they buy the drugs for and what they charge CMS. So, while the PBM is incented to get the lowest possible price, they are more concerned w maximizing the price to CMS.


Jan
24

Medtronic’s questionable practices – “bribing” docs?

A (free subscription required) lawsuit filed against medical device manufacturer Medtronic claims the company paid over $50 million over four years to doctors for highly questionable “consulting services“. Some physicians were paid several hundred thousand dollars a year for a few days’ work. The suit, filed by a whistleblower, sheds light on what some view as the highly questionable practice of combining marketing and research efforts, with the apparent goal of “encouraging” consulting physicians to use Medtronic devices.
With technology adoption one of the major drivers of health care cost inflation this is a particularly troubling accusation.
According to an article in the New York Times describing the suit, physicians’ use of Medtronics devices was closely tracked, with dollar values attached to each doc;
“A spreadsheet compiled by Medtronic for a June 2003 meeting in Dana Point, Calif., indicated what Medtronic hoped to accomplish with each doctor attending an event, Ms. Poteet said. This list of 230 or so doctors included an estimate of the dollar value of the devices each doctor used in surgery, including the value of the devices made by Medtronic. One doctor is described as “a 100 percent compliant M.S.D. customer,” while others were cited for “special attention.” M.S.D. referred to Medtronic Sofamor Danek, the largest competitor in the spinal device market.
A surgeon in Phoenix, who used an estimated $400,000 in devices, favored a rival maker, Spinal Concepts, the spreadsheet said. Company representatives were urged to make overtures to him. “M.S.D. corporate involvement at this program,” it said, “would help us earn a bigger share of his business on a grand scale


Jan
24

Why seniors are saying NO to Part D

More on the adverse selection problems with Part D from a research study by DSS Research. The study indicates more than half of eligible seniors have no plans to enroll in a Part D program. And, their characteristics should set alarm bells ringing at every Part D sponsor:
“Disinterested, non-buyers are lowest users of medical services. Those who said they had not chosen a plan and had no plans to do so take fewer prescriptions; spend less on prescriptions; go to the doctor less often; and make fewer ER, inpatient hospital and outpatient clinic / surgery center visits.”
In other words, they are healthy, aren’t likely to need the coverage any time soon, and aren’t interested in subsidizing the costs of their less-healthy fellow seniors. This is exactly why Part D is a really bad idea, poorly executed too.


Jan
23

HSAs. CDHPS, and FOOLs

This blog world is getting incestuous…
Ezra Klein posted an excellent summation of the issues inherent in HSAs on his blog about the time I was posting here on CDHPs, and the two crossed paths in the ether.
Here is an excerpt from Ezra’s commentary (for a non-insurance guy he certainly understands adverse selection) –
“Because what HSA’s really do is separate the young from the old, the well from the sick. Currently, insurance operates off of the concept of risk pooling. Since health costs tend to be unpredictable and illness isn’t thought a moral failing, we all pay a bit more than we expect to use in order to subsidize those who end up needing much more than they ever thought possible. The well subsidize the sick, the young subsidize the old, and we all accept the arrangement because one day we will be old, and one day we will be sick, and no one wants to shoulder that alone.
But HSA’s slice right through this intergenerational, redistributionist arrangement: they’re a great deal for young, healthy folks because they don’t force subsidization. Just don’t get sick. And if you’re already sick, don’t think you can hide by remaining in traditional insurance plans: when the healthy rush towards HSA’s, older plans will hold only the ill, and insurance companies will send premiums skyrocketing to recoup the difference.”
While this was happening, Matthew Holt’s The Health Care Blog was commenting on both matters; and…
all three have been picked up by the DailyKOS, with much intelligent and insightful commentary. If you think no one is paying attention, the 90 comments elicited by the dailykos post will change your mind.
Here’s an excerpt:
“HSAs are (1) a terrible idea that look like another give away to corporations and (2) a sellable idea that can easily be spun into sounding like the greatest health plan ever” (say this last word with teenage girl enthusiasm, stretching it out and heavily accenting the “ver” part of e-VER).
I try (really) to avoid histrionics on this blog, but the CDHP/HSA cure-all for the world’s sins thing makes me nuts. It reveals a superficial at best understanding of health care, the economics thereof, and the real drivers of health care cost inflation.
Can we please drive a stake in its non-existent heart and start thinking about real issues, like aging, technology, drug utilization, uninsurance…..


Jan
23

Bush on health care reform

President Bush’s health care reform efforts appear to focus on expansion of Health Savings Accounts. I’m not sure how that reforms health care; it does have some impact on health care financing by switching some of the reimbursement from insurers to individuals, but other than that I’m hard pressed to see how HSAs will help lower health care costs.
In his January 21 radio address, Bush said “he would push to limit health care costs by expanding tax-free “Health Savings Accounts,” which let people set aside money for routine medical expenses.” (Houston Chronicle).
Most folks who know anything about health care costs attribute inflation to the aging population; the growth in technology; rising labor costs for hospitals; the burden of costs shifting from the uninsured to the insured; rising drug utilization and pricing; and perhaps a soupcon of defensive medicine.
In his address, Bush also said “For the sake of America’s small businesses, we must … make health care more affordable and accessible,” Bush said He also called for better price disclosure for medical services and expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured. (Reuters/Houston Chronicle, 1/21), as quoted in California HealthLine.
“I decided this is a national issue that requires a national response,” Bush said, adding that the government must ensure “that health care is available and affordable”…
Where health savings accounts fit on this list as a cure for a cause I can’t see. Are there limits on technology? Authority for CMS to negotiate with big pharma? A major new effort to train nurses? Stringent application of technology review by CMS? An effort to cover the uninsured through the expansion of Medicaid?
No.
What does this mean for you?
I guess it is up to the rest of us to fix health care. The Bush program is not exactly “reaching for the stars”.


Jan
23

Enthoven on CDHPs

I recently had the opportunity to meet Dr. Alain Enthoven of Stanford University at his offices in California. One of the topics about which we have corresponded is the relatively new “consumer directed health plans” or CDHPs. Faithful readers will know that I am no fan of CDHPs; my take is they are simply the old indemnity insurance programs with higher deductibles coupled with broad based PPOs.
My problem with CDHPs is rooted in a belief that they will have no real impact on health care costs, except for the very real potential to increase acute episodes and associated costs due to lower compliance with preventive treatment plans. This opinion is backed up with facts, and has been the subject of an energetic debate on this blog.
Dr. Enthoven recently debated Regina Herzlinger on this very subject. Here are a few excerpts from his comments.
1. CDHP will be ineffective at moderating growth of health expenditures in the long run and in improving value for money. Health expenditures are very concentrated on relatively few people. In any given year, some 85% of health expenditure dollars will be spent on people who have exceeded their deductibles or can reasonably expect to do so, for any level of deductibles that is reasonable for most people. For them, the marginal cost of more care will be small, probably near zero, certainly not enough to affect their decisions once they are hospitalized.
2. The main appeal of CDHP is to employers who are eager to find a way to shift costs back onto employees, to “rebalance their compensation portfolios,” as benefit consultants say. The costs will be shifted to people with chronic conditions who will usually reach and exceed their deductibles. CDHP, including HSAs, will be great for the healthy and wealthy who can benefit from the tax shelter aspect more than ordinary workers. So CDHP can be expected to grow rapidly.
3. About three quarters of health care spending is now on people with chronic conditions. The emphasis in our health care delivery system needs to be on teaching and motivating these patients to change their life styles and adopt much more healthy patterns of behavior. CDHP is based on the idea that a key to economy is keeping people away from the doctor


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