Nov

Comorbidities double workers’ comp claims costs

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, November 19th, 2012 | Comments

Claimants with comorbidities [health issues identified by the treating doc] cost a lot more than patients without.

That’s the conclusion of NCCI’s latest report, and a finding all workers’ comp stakeholders would do well to consider carefully – for several reasons.

1. The percentage of working-age Americans with chronic conditions [e.g. asthma, hypertension, depression, diabetes, etc] is large and increasing. According to the CDC, 27 percent of Americans are obese, 29 percent have hypertension, and 7 percent have diabetes. All are substantially higher than a decade ago.

2. NCCI’s analysis only included claimants where the WC treating physician coded and billed for a comorbidity. Compared to the CDC figures, this occurred in about 10% of the patients who likely had comorbidities.

3. The “growth rate of workers compensation claims with a comorbidity diagnosis is outpacing growth rates of the given conditions in the US population.” NCCI had a couple potential explanations for this trend; I’d suggest it is likely because many WC claimants:

a) don’t have health insurance;

b) their comorbidities are hampering their recovery from the occupational injury;

c) treating docs must address those comorbidities if there’s any chance of getting the claimant back to functionality; and

d) payers are paying for that treatment because it makes financial sense to do so.

One rather stunning finding – 81% of claims with diagnoses of obesity incurred lost time.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that the rollout of Obamacare will cover millions more claimants, thereby allowing work comp payers to send bills for non-occ conditions to the employee’s health insurer. While some states continue to resist reform, there are others (e.g. Florida) that have decided to participate after all.

What does this mean for you?

Healthier workers = lower workers comp costs.

Nov

Physicians with more experience = lower costs

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, November 16th, 2012 | Comments

Health Affairs reported this week something most of us sort of “knew”; the more experience a physician has, the lower their patients’ health care costs are.

Here’s the money quote:

“…physicians with fewer than ten years of experience had 13.2 percent higher overall costs than physicians with forty or more years of experience. [emphasis added] We found no association between costs and other physician characteristics, such as having had malpractice claims or disciplinary actions, board certification status, and the size of the group in which the physician practices.”

CWCI performed an analysis ten years ago [Does Practice Make Perfect?] that looked at the volume of workers comp cases handled by physicians over an eight year period. Alex Swedlow and Laura Gardner MD’s research clearly showed a strong correlation between experience and outcomes. The more workers’ comp patients a doc had, the lower the litigation rate, disability duration, indemnity and medical expense; pretty much every indicator was better. While the two studies aren’t directly comparable, the overarching lesson is the same:

The more experience a provider has, the better the outcomes are.

Of course, this is a generalization; there are older docs who are quite costly, and younger docs with terrific outcomes. That said, if you’re looking to identify providers associated with better outcomes, those of us with grey hair (or little hair) may be a good place to start.

And yes, the older I get, the more accurate I find this correlation!

Nov

The cost of Obamacare – 14 cents per pizza…

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, November 15th, 2012 | Comments

Papa John’s Pizza founder and CEO John Schnatter said he’s going to have to raise the price of his pizzas by 10 to 14 cents to cover the added cost of complying with Obamacare’s provisions. (turns out it’s only 3.4 to 4.6 cents per pie…)

Let’s think about that. Fourteen cents a pizza gets all of his employees excellent health coverage (only about a third are covered now, even though Schnatter says he’d “like” to cover all of them….) This isn’t to slam Schnatter, who by all accounts is a decent guy who raises money for worthy causes and tries to stay out of public politics. He does get a bit too aggressive in his marketing efforts, but hey, that’s not the worst thing in the world.

Rather my concern is Schnatter’s perspective – which is consistent with what we’ve heard from other chain food outfits – is myopic – in several ways.

If his company doesn’t provide insurance for his low-paid workers, we taxpayers have to. That’s the way Obamacare works; folks with incomes below 400% of the FPL (federal poverty level) can get subsidized coverage). So, if Schnatter cuts his workers’ hours so he doesn’t have to insure them, all of us taxpayers get to pay for their health insurance. Schnatter is avoiding his responsibility and increasing our tax burden.

Sure, you can protest that you don’t believe in/like Obamacare for whatever reason, but you don’t get to pick and choose where your tax dollars go. I don’t like paying for subsidies for corn ethanol or grazing rights in Wyoming or all-but-useless medications for seniors or pointless and stupid wars, but “elections have consequences” (yes, that’s two Karl Rove quotes in less than a week…).

There’s a widely held belief that workers without health insurance file claims with workers comp if they get hurt off the job. Overall, this doesn’t seem to be the case, but there’s no doubt individual workers do try this, and some are successful. Thus Schnatter’s position may lead to increased workers comp costs, however slight.

Finally, as long as he’s stuck with Obamacare’s coverage requirements, there’s this marketing angle – “you should buy Papa John’s because out pizzas are better than anyone else’s, because our people are happy and healthy. And we take care of our workers, not like those schmoes at (pick a rival pizza company).”

Nov

Texas’ work comp reforms – quick takes

Posted by Joe Paduda on Wednesday, November 14th, 2012 | Comments

WCRI just released an assessment of the results of work comp reform in Texas, and – generally speaking – they are pretty positive.

Here are a few highlights; the complete report can be purchased here.

Costs per claim dropped 4 percent in 2010, driven by a 6 percent decrease in temporary disability duration and 2 percent decline in medical payments.
While WCRI’s research indicated most states’ costs declined or were stable, Texas’ dropped “more than most.”
Prices for non-hospital services increased after January 1, 2011 – likely driven by the elimination of so-called “voluntary networks”.
The growth in employment in the Lone Star State likely helped keep costs down.
Medical cost containment expense trend declined in 2010, however costs are still high at $3600 per claims. Looks like the increased volume of UR post-2006 was a significant contributor to those costs.

It’s too early to tell how much of an impact will result from the changes in opioid prescribing (driven by the closed formulary), but I’d bet we’ll see lower medical costs and a significant decrease in temporary disability as well. However, the real impact will not be felt for some time – and that will be a reduction in permanent disability.

What does this mean for you?

Macro factors – e.g. the improving economy – significantly affect workers comp.

Reforms can drive better results. They can also increase some costs – as we’ve seen in Texas with UR.

Nov

Work comp medical, OneCall, and the future of workers’ comp

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, November 12th, 2012 | Comments

Something struck me during the bloggers speak session on Thursday – at a time when medical costs are heading up, driven by over-utilization, opioids, crappy networks, and percentage-of-savings-based networks, there are few medical experts in positions of real authority in claims organizations – much less leading those claim organizations.

Even more revealing, the medical directors at most (but not all) payers have little real authority. Work comp payers are mostly run by men (mostly) with backgrounds in claims, underwriting/actuarial or finance. Sure, many are highly experienced and very well seasoned, but they’re fighting the last war – the one where indemnity was the enemy.

That’s no longer the case, hasn’t been for some time, and most certainly will not be in the future when medical accounts for 70% of claims costs. What we have is an industry where claims doesn’t adequately consider medical – which is understandable because the top guy is a former claims guy.

They see the world as it was back in the day, not as it is today. A piece on military leadership by Thomas Ricks is worth quoting:

“in Iraq: our military commanders focused on planning the 2003 invasion but virtually ignored the task of planning for what might happen during the long occupation that followed. Though it was clear, almost from the start, that our round-’em-up approach to the insurgency wasn’t working and that using heavy firepower in the effort was counterproductive…

Why weren’t our troops better prepared for the challenges of protecting civilians from resistance fighters, interrogating suspected insurgents and detaining enemy fighters?…The stakes of not finding out are great — for while we know we have a strong military, we truly don’t know if we have the right one for the conflicts we may face during the next two decades.

That was the discovery the British made — the hard way — in the Second World War. On the eve of the war, the Royal Navy was the biggest in the world, but Britain’s military leaders did not understand that the aircraft carrier and the submarine had drastically changed the nature of maritime conflict.” [emphasis added]

Most payers and claims organizations are built for and managed to “fight the last war”, one where indemnity was the enemy. Yes, ~~some~~ ~~few~~ the rare “claims guy” does “get” medical – but most don’t.

Outsiders get this, and that’s why there were a plethora of private equity folks and related people circulating around the exhibit floor and attending sessions. There are a ~~couple~~ three (and that’s only the ones I know about) deals currently in process and lots of rumors flying around about others. Smart people see the opportunity created by this situation, and are moving quickly to position themselves to profit from others’ myopia.

As proof, some may not realize that Coventry is no longer the largest (measured by revenue) WC managed care company. OneCall/MSC is. Yes, OneCall does seem to be buying up everything, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out they’ve figured out where the future opportunity is – managing medical for payers who can’t do it on their own.

Oh, and contrary to oft-repeated rumors, MedRisk is NOT being acquired – not by OneCall nor anyone else. Lest you, dear reader, think I know not of what I speak, I promise to listen to Rush Limbaugh for an entire week if MedRisk does get bought.

PMSI isn’t on the block either.

Nov

Elections have consequences – Health Wonk Review’s post-election edition

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, November 9th, 2012 | Comments

Elections have consequences. I don’t often quote Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove, but it certainly seems apropos now, three days after an historic election. There are a plethora of interesting story lines surrounding the election and the hows, whys, and whos thereof. We’ll keep our focus on those related to health policy, the impact on reform, and let the experts opine.

First out of the blocks is Bob Laszewski with his post listing some of the major health policy issues facing the President and Congress. Included among the challenges is addressing the fiscal cliff – I’m not as optimistic about our “leaders'” ability to get that fixed anytime soon.

Health Affairs’ contribution comes from Tim Jost, “Election 2012: A Win For Health Reform, But Much Work Remains” gets a bit more specific; “November 6 was a good night for health care reform, and for the millions of Americans who will benefit from it, but a great deal of work needs to be done before reform becomes a reality. It is time for the administration to roll up its sleeves and get to work,” Tim says. He describes the areas where important guidance and rules are promptly necessary to implement the Affordable Care Act, and he also points out continuing threats to the ACA such as challenges to the preventive services contraception mandate and premium tax credits on the federal exchanges, as well as the looming deficit reduction negotiations. We’ve less than 14 months till this thing fully kicks in, and time’s awasting.

The estimable Maggie Mahar explores the demographics of the vote in “The Nation is Divided, Not between Whites and Minorities, but between the Past and the Future. “ She sees this as a victory by the future population over the past. Maggie’s take is that “Women, minorities, and young people re-elected President Obama…This is not to say that, going forward white men will not also be in positions of power.”

Anthony Wright at Health Access blog is pretty darned excited about the result, and its implications for the nation’s largest (in population) state. “A Great Night for California and for Health.” Anthony isn’t too giddy to remind us “this isn’t the end of the campaign, but the beginning of ACA implementation and the fiscal fight over Medicaid and Medicare.?

Louise is one of our “battleground state” contributors and sends us via Colorado Health Insider a post responding to another’s recommendation that one can be “self-insured” if you’re careful enough. Louise thinks not, saying “To be fair, I agree wholeheartedly with the tips he gives for “making health insurance a bad bet“. Things like eating well, exercising, avoiding excess alcohol, not smoking, driving safely, managing stress, safe sex, not sharing needles, etc. are all great ideas. They’re all things that our family does every day. I’ve been told I’m a health nut, and I don’t shy away from the accusation. I make green smoothies (kale and veggies and fruit all blended up – drink up!), exercise nearly every day and refuse to drive if I’ve had even a single glass of wine. I fully plan on living to be a hundred. But I would never ever go without health insurance for myself or my family.”

Fortunately, Obamacare (remember when that was a pejorative term?) includes wellness and prevention benefits; new contributor Chuck Smith at informthepatient.com has several posts lauding the benefits of pre-illness care.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis contributes “Socialism Kills”, on the impact of “economic freedom” on population mortality. Actually, the research isn’t about socialism per se; rather John cites the libertarian Fraser and Cato Institutes as the source for underlying research on how “economic freedom” contributes to longevity. I haven’t read the two studies, but I’m curious if those two august organizations factored in the impact of potentially confounding factors, such as the many wars in Africa, rapid rise in starvation in several countries, an deaths from disease. Also wondering how the headline could possibly be true in the face of data indicating longevity in most European countries exceeds that in the good ol’ US. In fact, as the only industrialized nation without universal health insurance, we rank behind every EU country in life expectancy – including Greece, Malta, Cyprus (my birthplace) – and even lower than Chile…

I take a different approach, looking at the implications of Obamacare for workers comp – and surprise some by opining that overall, it’s good news indeed.

There are a few folks out there looking at things other than reform and the election – thank goodness!

InsureBlog’s Bob Vineyard reports that more docs are beginning to shun insurance in favor of cash, and explains why.

Dr Roy Poses continues his tireless pursuit of profiteers, this time going after the cozy relationships existing in the medical-publishing industry.

In Marketers’ Systemic Influence over Ostensibly Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed Publications: the Medtronic Infuse BMP-2 Example, Roy informs us:

A US Senate committee report detailed yet another example of how marketers working for industry (in this case, for Medtronic, a biotech/ medical device company) sought to systematically but covertly influence the ostensibly scholarly medical literature and the public discussion to sell more of their product…Those who advocate the evidence-based medicine approach, as I do, must not be naive about the extent that the evidence-base has been deliberately corrupted. We need stronger measures to protect the integrity of clinical science.

Hospital Quality Reporting in Italy is the subject of Jason Shafrin’s post, wherein he discusses P.Re.Val.E Italy’s hospital quality initiative. Pretty comprehensive approach…

A change in Medicare policy will have a significant impact on post acute care (and home services). Brad Flansbaum digs into the details of a recent settlement between CMS and the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

The American Academy of Family Physicians is pushing back on nurse practitioners’ role in primary care. David Williams explains why they aren’t doing the same to specialists. Evidently the family practice docs are OK if specialists act as generalists, but oh no, not those nurses (disclosure, my daughter is a nurse..)

We wrap up this edition with a state-based discussion of workers comp reform; Tom Lynch of Workers’ Comp Insider offers “A Modest Proposal for New York” for fixing what’s wrong with the state’s workers’ comp system.

Finally, apologies as this, the post-election edition of Health Wonk Review is out a bit later than usual this week as I was in Las Vegas for the National Workers Comp Conference. Fortunately, my fellow bloggers were able to keep up their writing to keep you, dear reader, fully abreast of the issues and implications thereof.

Nov

No one cares about your “value prop”…

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, November 9th, 2012 | Comments

I had two very different conversations yesterday. One was with an entrepreneur and the other with a senior executive at a large WC services firm. The entrepreneur heads up a relatively new entrant to a niche market, while the exec is looking to grow his company’s already substantial revenue.

The entrepreneur, who we shall call E, listens intensely, believes strongly in maintaining focus and avoiding distractions, and asks lots of questions. The executive, who we shall call X, is enamored with his company’s approach to the market, loves to describe the wonders of their offerings, and can prattle on for quite a while, certainly longer than anyone could care to listen. It’s obvious X believes in what he does and is proud of it.

But no one cares about his company, their history, his product, or his “value prop.”

What E knows, perhaps intuitively, is that she doesn’t have a product or service or “value prop”, she has a potential solution to a potential customer’s problem. But until and unless she understands that customer’s problem, she’s got nothing to offer.

In contrast, X has SOOOOOO much to offer, and the only reason people don’t buy is they don’t understand how great his offering is. So, he’s got to tell them, in increasingly strident terms, about the wonders of his unique product offering. If they don’t get it, he’s going to spend lots of dollars “educating the market.”

To be crass, his approach is the legendary and all-too-common “show up and throw up”.

E’s is research, listen, ask, and understand deeply.

This being Vegas, I’m betting on E.

Nov

Vegas – day two

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, November 8th, 2012 | Comments

With the national work comp conference well underway, here’s what we saw/heard/learned yesterday.

The session on improving medical networks led by Mark Walls included a rather blunt and direct Indictment of the work comp network business. I wasn’t there, but heard from several who were that the panel criticized PPO network developers for failing to consider quality in network recruiting or management – despite their protestations to the contrary. The reason, as we’ve been discussing here for oh-these-many-years is simple – good providers treating efficiently and effectively make for fewer bills at lower charges. And that makes for lower revenues for networks charging on a percentage-of-savings basis. And some undoubtedly uncomfortable moments for network folks in the audience…

Kudos to Mark, Pat Venditti of BJC Health, Monica Lichtenstein of Aramark, and Anita Weir or Safeway for speaking the truth.

Deals are getting done. Vendors are payers are using the conference to finalize agreements and nail down details on negotiations in progress. I”m aware of at least three business relationships that were consummated yesterday, and I’ve no doubt there were dozens more. This is somewhat unusual, the conference is typically more for starting and continuing relationships than doing deals.

That said, there’s an ongoing demand for really good sales talent and sales leadership. There just isn’t near enough supply. The lack of professional, smart, polished sales talent has never been more evident. Everyone is looking for A players, and finding they’re lucky to find Bs. I’ve been asked by three companies to send talent their way, but there’s not a lot of talent to be found.

Dr Gary Franklin, Medical Director of the Washington state fund, and Dr Sanford Silverman, pain management physician in south Florida, gave a great overview of the problems inherent in using opioids to treat musculoskeletal injuries/chronic pain. Gary – who is as passionate and blunt as he is knowledgeable and Sandy – who is terrific at describing the causes of and challenges with addiction treatment – didn’t always agree on specifics, but the 200+ attendees saw two experts talking about solutions. It was a refreshing, and much-needed change from the usual report on “here’s-how-bad-it-is”.

There seem to be more and bigger booths here than before. In what’s got to go down as one of the stranger sightings, there are no fewer than three separate booths for EXAMWorks. There’s the big one at the front, the MES booth, and at least one more for another EXAM subsidiary. For a “growth” company that has seen revenue from it’s US business increase by a whopping two percent this year one would think they’d be a bit more careful about spending marketing dollars. Then again, if they are able to convince payers that MES is in fact a different company, EXAM will be able to meet some payers’ requirement/policy to always have at least two different IME vendors.

Which, of course, they’re not.

Finally, I must’ve had a dozen conversations that began with “this isn’t going to be in the blog, is it?”. No, it isn’t. If something is told to me in confidence, it doesn’t show up in MCM. That said, if I subsequently hear the same rumor/report/tidbit from another non-confidential source, I may choose to write about it, but only while ensuing the original source can’t be identified.

So, the sun is coming up, and it’s time to get a workout in before wading once more into the fray. See you at the Bloggers Speak roundtable this afternoon.

Nov

Work comp conference – day one

Posted by Joe Paduda on Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 | Comments

The annual gathering of the tribes has begun, with vendors and prospects flooding into Vegas. This year Nancy Grover reports attendance is up with only two cancelations due to Sandy. Having lived thru that storm I understand why folks want to move on to some semblance of normal.

Here are a few random thoughts from yesterday.

Odyssey continues to build what has become the largest – and most interesting – collection of “assets” in the comp services business. The acquisition of Harbor Health gives them a very valuable view into provider performance, one that will certainly support their other service lines.

if there’s one predominant theme I’ve seen so far it is OPIOIDS. There’s a track devoted to the topic (I’m on a lead off session this am); Modern Medical announced a comprehensive, integrated approach last night; there are several booths with the word prominently featured, and Emil Bravo’s WorkCompWire piece this week addresses the issue as well.

There are a plethora of private equity industry folks here; investors, research firms, and attorneys and investment banks. With several companies currently “going thru the process”, one would be well-advised to be circumspect in comments and conversations about certain firms, as some folks are almost certainly here just to learn what they can about the companies in play.

There’s an upbeat feeling here. Whether its the improving work comp premium and loss picture, the sense that the economy is finally recovering for good, or something less obvious, people are more upbeat and positive Than last year and way happier than they were a couple years back.

There’s a LOT of this evident among the TPAs. I met with the CEO of one of the largest yesterday; there’s good activity and a good bit more likely coming as insurance rates continue to creep up.

Id be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the continued strength of Sedgwick. As the first among equals, the giant TPA took a bold step at the Conference last year in committing to full transparency, offering to show their clients their contracts with vendors and details of financial flows. CEO Dave North is to be commended for that commitment.

Posts will be several and hurried over the next few days; lots to do and little time to proof so apologies for typos in advance.

Nov

Providers’ unmitigated gall

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, November 5th, 2012 | Comments

This morning’s workcompcentral arrived with the news that hospitals and device manufacturers somehow are arguing the huge overpayment for surgical devices in California is justified because of the “additional costs” of putting these devices in comp claimants.

Seems the California Hospital Association hired a consulting outfit to see just how much more costly it is to do surgery involving screws and cages and other hardware for people with occupational injuries than non-occupational ones. And, stunningly, it’s waaaaaaay more expensive!

Yep, wrenching that back lifting a stack of drywall at work requires surgery that is, well, different/more complex/more involved/more time-consuming/~~more lucrative~~ than lifting drywall at home when you’re re-doing the family room. The doctors, facilities, devices, tools, patients, support staff, all are identical – the only difference is who’s paying for the device – workers comp or Medicare.

The “disagreement” arises over a regulation proposed by DWC California that would set device reimbursement at 120% of Medicare. That’s ALREADY higher than Medicare, but not enough for the profiteers.

Writing in this morning’s WCC, Greg Jones reported that hospitals and their allies said “additional allowances for devices used in certain spinal surgeries are not enough to make up for lost revenue from eliminating the spinal pass-through”.

No $%&*(. It’s not supposed to.

The “pass through” provision allowed these providers to “pass through” grossly inflated charges to workers comp payers. There’s more to it than this – of course – but the net is this.

Once again workers comp is the trough. As friend and colleague John Swan often reminds me, pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered.

Author: Joe Paduda