Author: Joe Paduda

Aug
28

Friday fact day – COVID19 update, job losses, more uninsured, and executive move

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, August 28th, 2020 | Comments

Another whirlwind week is just about over, and with it the summer of 2020.

Here’s important/interesting news that came across my virtual desktop this week.

COVID and Comp

More data on workers’ comp COVID19 claims is coming in; Virginia’s Workers’ Comp Commission has published data; key takeaway is to date, only 8.3% of COVID19 claims reported have resulted in benefit payments. That will certainly increase as claims develop.

More info on state COVID reporting is here – you can watch a recorded webinar on the subject here – Mark Priven and I dive into data from California and Florida and discuss the implications thereof.

Meanwhile, employment took another hit as last week more than a million Americans filed for unemployment. This continues a five-month run of claims at or above the million mark. 14 million of us are still without jobs.

COVID19’s impact on health insurance coverage

Several million people have lost their health insurance due to COVID19-related job losses.  We don’t know the specific number – and it is certainly increasing – but it is likely between 3 and 12 million. (download the report for details).

Another perspective is here.

Most of those folks are lower-income workers and many are minorities; some may be eligible for Medicaid however states that did NOT expand Medicaid such as Texas and Florida will see an increase in uninsured care costs.

Congratulations to myMatrixx and new Chief Sales Officer David Dubrof; David is one of the very few “A” players in work comp services sales; myMatrixx will benefit greatly from his sales leadership. David and his colleagues are equally fortunate; payers have consistently rated myMatrixx the top workers’ comp PBM. (myMatrixx is a client)

NCCI published a report on the impact of fee schedule changes on outpatient facility costs.  Good to see this rapidly-rising cost driver getting attention.

Implications

  1. Fewer jobs = lower payroll = lower work comp premiums
  2. Things are tough and getting tougher for lower-wage workers, which are disproportionally people of color.
  3. More uninsured = more need for facilities to get $$ from those who are insured.
Aug
26

BWC’s dividends and drug costs

Posted by Joe Paduda on Wednesday, August 26th, 2020 | Comments

Last week Ohio’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation announced it will consider $1.5 billion in dividends to policyholders.

This comes on the heels of a similar payout in April;

$1.35 billion went to private employers and $184 million went to local government taxing districts, such as counties, cities, townships, and school districts.

Together, the two dividend payments amount to a refund of all premiums paid by employers in 2018 and 2019.

The Bureau’s very strong financial results were attributed to excellent investment performance, a continued decline in claim counts, and “prudent fiscal management.”

A significant piece of this “prudent fiscal management” was the audit of BWC’s pharmacy program, an audit that led to the State Attorney General suing BWC’s PBM OptumRx. Subsequently AG Dave Yost accused OptumRx of overcharging “the state on 57% of 2.3 million claims between January 2014 and September 2018.” [it is important to note that BWC’s prior PBM was acquired by Optum and operated under a separate business unit]

The suit was later amended to reflect Yost’s allegation that overcharges exceeded $16 million.

BWC switched PBMs two years ago.

BWC’s drug costs have dropped significantly over the last couple of years; while a decline in claim frequency undoubtedly contributed to that drop, it is safe to say that prices paid for drugs helped slash pharmacy expenses.

And that has helped fund the huge dividend checks BWC’s customers are getting.

What does this mean for you?

Do you know you are paying only what you should? 

How can you prove that to your policyholders and customers?

Aug
25

Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics – the Blood Plasma debacle

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, August 25th, 2020 | Comments

Sunday President Trump, HHS Secretary Alex Azar and FDA Commissioner Dr Stephen Hahn said the use of blood plasma had reduced COVID19 deaths by 35%.

Trump said it was a “tremendous” number.

Azar said:

“We saw about a 35 percent better survival in the patients who benefited most from the treatment, which were patients under 80 who were not on artificial respiration…I don’t want you to gloss over this number…We dream in drug development of something like a 35% mortality reduction. This is a major advance in the treatment of patients.”

Hahn said

“a 35 percent improvement in survival is a pretty substantial clinical benefit. What that means is — and if the data continue to pan out — 100 people who are sick with covid-19, 35 would have been saved because of the administration of plasma.”

This is not “stretching the truth”, or over-generalizing, or taking something out of context.  It is total bullshit.

A REAL FDA scientist – whose name was redacted from an FDA memo, was a LOT less enthusiastic, writing the study data:

 “support the conclusion that [convalescent plasma] to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 meets the ‘may be effective’ criteria for issuance of an EUA. [emphasis added; EUA = emergency use authorization, which allows use of a treatment before it goes thru the entire approval process]

There is no basis or source for the 35% figure; it appears to have been derived from a very small group of patients treated at the Mayo Clinic.

Note the emphasis on “appears”; that statistic was NOT in the Mayo Clinic’s 31 page report;

  • nor was it in a memo authored by FDA scientists,
  • nor was it in the FDA’s letter authorizing use of blood plasma on an emergency basis to treat COVID19,
  • Nor could it have been credibly derived from the actual study report.
  • Nor did one of the principal study authors have any idea where the 35% figure came from.

If anything, it looks like Azar, Hahn, and President Trump cherry-picked data by only looking at results from a very select and very small subset of a subset of patients; those:

  • less than 80 years old;
  • not on a ventilator; that
  • received plasma within 3 days of diagnosis, and
  • received plasma with high levels of antibodies.

But wait, you say, that’s still good news!

Okay,

Here’s what the study actually found as reported by the NYTimes:

among the larger group of more than 35,000 patients, when plasma was given within three day of diagnosis, the death rate was about 22 percent, compared with 27 percent when it was given four or more days after diagnosis.

Hahn later corrected his statement – but only after an official FDA spokesperson perpetuated the fraud…

I get we all want to find a cure, and a vaccine, and we want this long global nightmare to end. We want the dying to stop, the suffering to end, the pain to go away, life to return. But our only hope is rigorous, robust, careful and thorough science.

Not political grandstanding, not abuse of a vitally important Federal Agency, not outright lying. We’ve been down this path before, and it didn’t turn out well.  Remember hydroxychloroquine?

Does it appear blood plasma from patients that have recovered from COVID19 may be beneficial? Yes. Is it likely it will help some patients? Well, there’s some evidence it may help some patients.

Is it a universal cure?

Highly unlikely.

What does this mean for you?

Science matters. Dig deep, ask hard questions, and don’t believe the headlines until you do your homework.

 

Aug
21

YAY! More COVID claims data!

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, August 21st, 2020 | Comments

During yesterday’s webinar on COVID19’s impact on workers’ compensation, Mark Priven and I asked the 260+ attendees to share any data they have on COVID and comp.

[As soon as we have a link to a recording of the webinar, I’ll post it.]

William Rabb of WorkCompCentral provided a summary of the presentation [subscription required] this morning, and added helpful commentary from NCCI’s Jeff Eddinger. (NCCI just updated their guide to COVID presumption laws and regulations – get it here.)

Jeff Kadison of Practical Actuarial Solutions forwarded a detailed study put out by New York’s Insurance Rating Board. Lots of detail on costs, counts, and a discussion of potential impact.  A few key takeaways:

Using the CDC’s models, NYCIRB came up with the following estimates:

  • note 97.8% of infected workers will not require hospitalization (this is an estimate)
  • for those that do need hospital care:
    • estimated COVID19 non-ICU hospitalization cost range of $20,129 to $29,948
    • depending on clinical severity, estimated COVID19 ICU costs with ventilator support range from $47,458 to $192,250
    • for claims that may have long-term health issues, the NYCIRB estimated the average incurred medical to be approximately $200,000. (note this is just an estimate)

Brandon Miller, CEO of MWCIA was kind enough to send an excellent report prepared by Minnesota’s Department of Labor and Industry’s Brian Zaidman.

Unlike California and Florida, Minnesota’s claim counts didn’t drop much over the first half of 2020, although a third of MN claims are COVID19-related. The implication is fewer non-COVID19 claims have been filed in Minnesota than one would have expected.

Similar to the Golden State, Minnesota is a “presumption state” which may well be leading to more COVID claims filed. (California’s is by regulation, Minnesota by law.)

 

COVID-specific claims

Peter Strauss, Executive Director of the Montana Self Insurers’ Association also helped out, sending a presentation delivered 10 days ago by the state’s Department of Labor & Industry.

Unlike Minnesota, Montana’s data is remarkably consistent with what we’ve seen from Florida and California. Overall claim counts’ are down sharply, while COVID claims are relatively rare. Of course, Montana is built for social distancing; the state has a very low population density.

 

What does this mean for you?

Based on the very limited research we have, it certainly appears COVID19 cases aren’t going to be that expensive.

And please forward any credible research on the claim counts, claim costs, and COVID claims in the comment field below.

Aug
20

COVID treatment costs

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, August 20th, 2020 | Comments

We are getting more data on what insurers pay for COVID treatment, data that will help business folks better plan for the future.

AHIP’s June analysis provides a range of estimates based on different infection rates; the chart below reflects an assumed infection rate of 20%. (the methodology and database are robust and pretty complete, see appendices for details)

Note the “cost per utilizer” data which indicate average commercial insurance costs of:

  • $25,000 per non-ICU hospital admission
  • $81,000 per ICU hospital admission
  • $1,500 per outpatient hospital admission
  • $750 for all other medical treatment costs

Patient cost-sharing could add another 8% or so to total costs, however as most insurers have waived cost-sharing requirements,  in most cases that 8% would be added to insurers’ costs.

There are other sources for cost estimations including FAIR Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation. An extensive discussion of their methodologies is here, KFF uses pneumonia with significant complications as a proxy for COVID19, while FAIR Health’s numbers are based on actual COVID19 treatment costs. (I discussed FAIR Health’s findings in depth back in July.)

Other research is here.

For those interested in the percentage of those infected who are hospitalized, a chart from the above link is below.

Costs for treatment of workers’ comp patients may well be higher, however this will vary greatly depending on the state, fee schedule limits (if there is a fee schedule) and network arrangements.

What does this mean for you?

All available data indicates medical treatment for COVID is not that costly. Yes there are some cases that require long-term, extensive ICU care with ventilator assistance, but they are relatively few.

Aug
18

California agriculture, COVID19, and workers comp claims

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, August 18th, 2020 | Comments

Here’s what’s puzzling me about agricultural workers, COVID infections, and workers’ comp.

  • Few agricultural workers have filed WC claims for COVID.
  • COVID infections are much more prevalent among Latinx than any other ethnic group.
  • News reports indicate workers infected with COVID have spread the virus to family and co-workers
  • Infection rates in the ag heartland in the Central Valley are much higher than in population-dense urban centers.

Here’s the data.

Latinx people are much more likely to contract COVID19 than any other ethnic group – more than twice as likely as White people.

Agriculture employs a lot of Latinx folks; average monthly employment was 422,000 in 2019 (downloadable files).

About 45% of ag workers nationally are Latinx. [if you have data specific to California please share]

So far this year, only 0.2% of California’s agricultural workers have filed a work comp claim for COVID19.

While news reports allege some employers are failing to implement adequate COVID19 safety protections, there’s another side to this, one that requires serious consideration.

This from a colleague (edited to preserve confidentiality):

I can attest to the Latino population being hit extra hard.  The reasons are fairly simple.

Number 1 reason:   The work ethic demonstrated by our workforce is hurting them and their co-workers.  The Mexican culture has long had excellent work ethic.  Their mantra is always, “I have to work.  I have to work.  I HAVE to work.”  They often do not safeguard their own health as a result.  Many when told they are positive respond with, “Well yeah.  I knew.  I haven’t felt good for a week.”  Which means that they’ve been spreading the virus daily.

Another factor for Ag workers is the common practice of transporting workers by vans or small buses.  Probably the worst thing they can do.

We found out most of them refused to comply with wearing a mask.  They’d have them on in front of the supervisor, but as soon as the vehicle left the yard, most all of them would take the masks off.

The third problem is the comorbidity factor of diabetes.  Their diets frequently lead to diabetes.  Every one of our fatalities had instant blood sugar levels of 700+.  Each of the deaths were investigated, and without exception, we found that there had been a diabetes dx years before but they had failed to comply.  Most of the diabetes dx’s were for men who refused to ignore or rethink the macho feelings of being able to drink beer and eat as many carbs as they want along with refusing to take meds.

Of course this does not apply to the entire Latinx population.  But it is sadly true of more than half and probably true of at least 75%.

What does this mean for you?

  1. Don’t be surprised if we see a significant increase in workers’ comp claims from agricultural workers.
  2. Cultural norms and biases MUST be considered, factored into, and made part of any and all prevention solutions.
  3. There are NO simple answers, and all of us are part of the problem – and can be part of the solution.

REMINDER – sign up for Pandemic, Premiums, and Profit: Is it the Sky That’s Falling…or the Floor? a free webinar on COVID19’s impact on workers’ compensation here. Mark Priven of Bickmore Actuarial and I will be weighing in this Thursday at 1 pm Eastern, 10 am Pacific.

Aug
17

COVID’s costs; 3 P&C insurers report

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, August 17th, 2020 | Comments

We are starting to see the impact of COVID on P&C insurers’ financials; so far its not all gloom and doom.

AIG’s COVID costs totaled $458 million for the first half of 2020; Chubb announced $1.16 billion in COVID related costs for Q2, while Travelers‘ “pre-tax insurance losses directly related to the pandemic amounted to $114 million.” for Q2. (note AIG’s numbers are for six months, Chubb and Travelers for 3 months)

Travelers’s results are especially notable as it is the largest writer of workers’ comp insurance. Several quotes from the Q2 conference call merit attention:

  • beyond the healthcare sector, data from some of the state workers’ comp systems suggest that the COVID related claim rate is low relative to the infection rate.
  • That’s likely partly attributable to the fact that the population most seriously affected by COVID-19 skews older and is not the workforce.
  • [there were] fewer traditional workers’ comp claims as more people work from home.

It doesn’t look like workers’ comp is the biggest contributor, as COVID’s costs arose from travel insurance, personal auto refunds, reduced premiums, and lower renewals.

One example – AIG’s travel insurance business got crushed in the second quarter as “you had not only no new sales. You had cancellations…”

According to CEO Evan Greenberg, the $1.16 billion loss “is an estimate of our ultimate loss from the pandemic.”  Chubb’s net premiums written fell by $191 million, mainly from workers’ compensation and commercial casualty payments, including refunds on auto policies.’

Reading between the lines, it doesn’t look like Chubb’s investment income was significantly affected by COVID-related interest rate cuts; the huge insurer’s $112 billion in cash and investments increased by $3.4 billion in Q2 2020. (see CFO Phil Bancroft’s discussion in the transcript)

Takeaways

  1. COVID’s costs aren’t devastating P&C insurers.
  2. While interest rates have dropped, so far this hasn’t had much of an impact on insurers’ investment income.
  3. Insurers with less exposure in the US are doing better; other countries have handled COVID far better than we have.
Aug
14

Are health insurers profiting while providers suffer?

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, August 14th, 2020 | Comments

Well, yes – but it’s not intentional.

Most medical practices have seen a sharp drop in patient visits – and revenues – due to patient concern over COVID19 exposure. Hospitals have also suffered, as have ancillary providers, and many are on the brink of financial collapse.

Rural and safety-net providers are especially vulnerable, as many were on very shaky ground before COVID19.

Primary care providers are in the worst shape, as their patients often don’t have serious health needs that need to be addressed immediately. And primary care providers have the lowest pay as well. Research indicates that PCPs will lose about $15 billion this year.

Meanwhile, health insurers’ finances have never been better.

The connection is clear – insured people are not getting care, so insurers don’t have to pay their bills.

For months, healthcare providers have called on insurers to help them out by prepaying for care, paying billed charges, authorizing all treatment requests, providing loans, or otherwise funding providers. Much of this is nonsensical; authorizing all treatment requests would certainly lead to widespread abuse, over-treatment, and poor outcomes. Paying billed charges is nuts; NO ONE pays billed charges, which can be 10-30 times higher than average reimbursement.

What’s clear is COVID has likely created a significant one-time profit bump for healthplans, as a lot of foregone care will not be “made up” as practices gradually return to normal. While insurers should carefully assess their reserves, it is highly likely their “excess profits” won’t all be needed to pay for future COVID19 costs.

So, what to do?

Prepaying care may be a viable option. Healthplans would mine their data to determine what they paid a practice in the recent past, figure out how many members are using that practice, and sign a contract with the practice to ensure the plan’s interests are protected.

That’s just a short-term solution to a problem with roots that far predate the pandemic.

Reality is primary care is still under-valued, fee for service creates huge administrative friction and incentivizes over-treatment, and health care prices are unsustainably high.

What does this mean for you?

COVID will accelerate systemic changes that are desperately needed. There will be lots of pain for some stakeholders – primarily specialists and facilities.

Aug
12

Claim counts, COVID, and (premature) conclusions

Posted by Joe Paduda on Wednesday, August 12th, 2020 | Comments

We know a LOT about how COVID and the COVID economy are affecting workers’ comp – and that’s what Mark Priven and I will dive into next week as we discuss “Pandemic, Premiums and Profits: Is It the Sky That’s Falling … or the Floor?” .

The free webinar (register here) is happening August 20 at 10 am Pacific, 1 pm Eastern. (attendance is limited, so sign up now to make sure you get a spot).

Mark is Vice President and Principal of Bickmore Actuarial, a highly regarded Actuary, and a very insightful analyst of all things workers’ comp. I’m honored to be on the virtual dais with Mark.

What triggered our decision to work together was a shared concern that there’s been way too much discussion about the potential, theoretical, possible, hypothetical costs of COVID itself – and (with one major exception) no discussion, analysis, projections, or discussion of the huge drop in workers’ comp claims – and the effects of that drop..

Frankly, prognostications about the damage COVID could do to profits just don’t stand up to scrutiny.  How an industry with a combined ratio of 85 and investment income of 11% will go from a 26% profit margin to a loss when COVID claims are not that common and all evidence indicates they aren’t that expensive is…puzzling.

One can – and some do – argue that we don’t have data on claim counts yet – and therefore it’s premature to discuss the impact.

But you can’t have it both ways – we know little about COVID, so making assumptions or statements about how the disease will affect workers’ comp is equally presumptuous.

Fact is we are fast approaching budget season for employers, insurers, TPAs, and service companies – and it is incumbent on those with data and expertise to share that information.

So, sign up, send us your questions, and Mark and I will do our best.

What does this mean for you?

Sign up here.

Aug
10

COVID’s fallout for workers comp – the picture gets clearer

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, August 10th, 2020 | Comments

70,000+ small businesses have permanently closed their doors.

The demise of big retailers has accelerated, with JCPenney, Men’s Wearhouse, and Brooks Brothers all entering bankruptcy.

Prom wear companies were also hit hard, with Occasion Brands also a victim.

The airline industry is mired in a deep slump, with passenger volumes down to a quarter of pre-COVID levels.

That’s driven by both far fewer flights, and far fewer passengers on each plane.

Air travel reductions affect other businesses…

  • taxi ridership and rideshare services
  • on-airport concessions, food, retail, and services (these account for 2/5ths of airport revenue)
  • hotel and restaurant activity is lower with far fewer business travelers and vacationers
  • airplane maintenance requirements are greatly reduced – along with the need for mechanics, spare parts, and consumables (fuel, lubricants, etc)
  • airplane orders are way down and many have been cancelled, impacting the airplane industry  – and the thousands of suppliers dependent on it.
    • In June, Boeing had a single order for one jet, while losing 183 orders due to cancellations or likely cancellations.

And energy – in a slump to begin the year, got crushed with fallout continuing.

Its not all bad news; in general larger companies are doing better – if they aren’t in retail, energy, air travel or tourism. Of course exceptions abound; WalMart is doing just fine, thank you as are big box home improvement stores.

For workers comp, the implications are significant;

  • lower premiums due to lower payroll
  • tougher to return injured employees to work due to cutbacks
  • fewer claims require fewer services
  • insurers focused on energy, Main Street businesses and retail will be hit hardest