Category: Health Care Issues

Jan
19

The Ingenix settlement and physician income

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, January 19th, 2009 | Comments

FierceHealthcare reported last week that Aetna paid $20 million to settle charges related to its use of the Ingenix UCR database (their term is MDR). There will likely be announcements from other health plans of their settlement amounts; expect them to be in the Aetna range or less.
This is related but not really to the $350 million settlement for damages related to out of network claims dating from 1994. The settlement, announced last week, will result in UHC paying AMA $300 million to distribute to physicians. However, physicians will have to file claims to receive compensation; one MCM reader noted that in a related case her six-physician practice will receive a whopping $225.
In a related note, I’d remind readers that physician income has been flat to declining over the last several years. Why? Medicare increased fees by 13% from 1997 to 2003, while the underlying inflation was 21%. And, private payers’ reimbursement declined from 143% of Medicare’s rate in 1997 to 123% in 2003.
I’m thinking we now know at least part of the reason physician income was declining; unfairly low reimbursement from payers using the Ingenix databases.
We already know about health play overpayments – they’re called Medicare Advantage.

Jan
15

The Ingenix settlement – you wanted details…

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 | Comments

The phone and email has been buzzing today. So has the blog-o-sphere, at least among those bloggers who follow this. Both of us.
Today’s follow up announcement by Ingenix’ parent UHC revealed the giant health plan will pay $350 million to settle a class action lawsuit directly related to the use of the Ingenix UCR database. This brings the total (to date) cost for legal settlements to $400 million after yesterday’s NY settlement. Here’s the key language from UHC’s statement today.
“UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) announced today that it has reached an agreement to settle class action litigation related to reimbursement for out-of-network medical services. The agreement resolves class action litigation filed on behalf of the American Medical Association (AMA), health plan members, health care providers and state medical societies.
Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, UnitedHealth Group and its affiliated entities will be released from claims relating to its out-of-network reimbursement policies from March 15, 1994, through the date of final court approval of the settlement. UnitedHealth Group will pay a total of $350 million to fund the settlement for health plan members and out-of-network providers in connection with out-of-network procedures performed since 1994. The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing.”
The real problems with the Ingenix UCR database weren’t the subject of much discussion in the settlement documents or the various analyses of the settlement. But underlying the case are some significant problems with the database, how it is put together, and its uses. These issues were highlighted in the Davekos case in Massachusetts, and are discussed in the court record. Among the problems are:
– the accuracy and consistency of the underlying data is questionable. Ingenix cannot assure that the entities (health plans and claims administrators and insurance companies) that supply the data that Ingenix uses to determine what usual customary and reasonable charges are in specific areas are all using the same criteria, are coding consistently and accurately, and are aggregating the data in the same way.
– Ingenix may not always have enough charge data to provide a statistically valid sample for every CPT code. In that case, it appears that Ingenix may aggregate data from similar codes to produce a large enough sample. The potential issue with this work-around is obvious. In some instances, Ingenix actually called medical providers in specific areas where it did not have enough data to ask what they would charge for specific procedures. Thus they were combining telephonic survey data with actual charge data in their UCR databases, a commingling of very different data from very different sources with varying reliability.
– Ingenix itself defines the sociodemographic region boundary lines that are used to determine which charges are relevant for which geographic areas. In the Davekos case, the court appeared to be concerned when Ingenix could not give a defensible rationale for the logic or process they used to determine the boundaries for charge areas.
– Ingenix scrubs the data to extract charges that they decide are outliers for reasons that appear to be subjective. It also appears Ingenix removes high end values but not low end outliers. If this is the case, it would likely skew the charge data towards the lower end.
Those are some of the details behind the Ingenix UCR settlements. As to what will happen next, Bob Laszewski’s perspective provides insights as only he can.
What does this mean for you?
If you are using the Ingenix UCR database, you may want to look for other options.

Jan
8

Who benefits from universal coverage?

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 | Comments

As Bob Laszewski trenchantly notes, covering everyone will not reduce costs in and of itself – at least not on a system-wide basis. Absent major changes in reimbursement and demand management, covering more people will just increase total costs.
That said, universal coverage should significantly decrease costs for private payers and their members, as well as the employers who fund most group coverage. Most significantly, a substantial portion (about eight percent, or over $1000 per family) of health insurance premiums go to cover the cost of uncompensated care. Note that this includes costs for both the uninsured and underfunded care; Medicaid is the most often cited example of inadequate compensation.
Covering everyone would not eliminate the inadequate compensation and resulting cost-shifting, but it certainly would reduce providers’ need to recoup lost revenue from treating the uninsured.
Among the beneficiaries of universal coverage, workers comp payers might see the most benefit. Not only is comp a very soft target for cost-shifting, it is also likely claimants without other health insurance receive treatment for their non-occupational conditions in the course of treatment. This is not due to laziness or incompetence or fraud, but rather because the insurer understands that the injured worker cannot return to work unless the injury and any complicating medical conditions are resolved.
What does this mean for you?
The pluses of universal coverage are not often obvious.

Jan
6

Misleading managed care headlines

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, January 6th, 2009 | Comments

Last week a study hit the wires indicating that managed care plans did not have better outcomes for carotid endarterectomies (CEs), a surgical procedure ostensibly intended to reduce the risk of stroke.
Here’s the headline from UPI – “No managed care link for stroke-prevention”.
A quick read of the headline and abstract leads the reader to the conclusion that managed care is ineffective. But there’s much more to it than the headline and brief synopsis. For starters, the data was ten years old. It was from one state (NY), that is not exactly known as a hotbed of managed care. And it lumps all kinds of ‘managed care’ – from group model HMOs to PPOs under the same category.
And the study’s conclusions are muddy. In fact, there had been a good bit of research into the procedure itself (it involves cleaning out the carotid artery (the big one in the neck that bad guys are forever threatening to cut in movies), and the data used indicated “the rate of inappropriate surgery dropped substantially from 32 percent in 1981 prior to the RCTs [randomized controlled trials] to 8.6 percent in 1998/1999 after publication of the clinical trials [by AHRQ].” Clearly, medical practice had changed dramatically over that period, due primarily to publication of data indicating the procedure “reduced the risk of stroke and death compared to medication alone among carefully selected patients and surgeons.”; the research also showed many patients did not benefit from the surgery.
It wasn’t that simple. In fact, the surgery rate had dropped in the mid-eighties after publication of research indicating the procedure had high complication risks. A decade later, additional research seemed to show that CEs did benefit some patients, and the rate shot up again, only to start a gradual decline.
What happened? Generally accepted medical practice changed. Was the rate different within “managed care’ plans? No. But why would it have been?
I worked for large managed care/health plan companies during the late eighties and early nineties, with responsibilities in customer reporting and managed care product development. We all knew there were probably too many carotid endarterectomies performed, but we didn’t really know which ones were inappropriate. The indications were rather uncertain, and it did appear the procedure helped some patients. What was not clear was which patients would benefit and which would likely not. The ‘choice’ we made was to encourage/mandate/require second surgical opinions (at that time the state of the art in managed care) to ensure the patient got at least one other physician’s views on the potential risks and benefits. There wasn’t much in the way of clinical guidelines that we could use to deny the procedure outright, and the legal risks of a denial were so high that this option was never seriously considered.
Truth be told, the managed care firms I worked for had little ‘control’ over medical practice. Sure, we had contracts with physicians, but our influence was minimal – we were ‘two inches deep and a hundred miles wide’. With little ‘market share’ in any one physician’s office, it was unlikely most of ‘our’ docs would pay much attention to directives from one of our Medical Directors. We did notice that our rate of surgeries was dropping, but did not have the data to know if this was occurring across the board and thereby due to our efforts (I’m pretty sure we took credit for the decrease…) or was driven by external factors.
Contrast our very loose ‘managed care’ with the much different model exemplified by group and staff HMOs – Kaiser Permanente, Group Health of Puget Sound, HIP, etc. I don’t know what the group/staff model HMO rates were, but I’d bet they were lower than my employers’.
In retrospect, it is obvious that external factors were the reason for the decline in my employer’s number and rate of carotid endarterectomies. In retrospect.
What does this mean for you?
There’s far too much superficiality in the press, superficiality that can distort public views of managed care and the effectiveness thereof. In this case, the headline, although nominally accurate, is highly misleading.

Dec
16

Doing harm by doing good

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, December 16th, 2008 | Comments

I’m a baseball fan. Weekend mornings I always listen to Ed Randall, one of the more knowledgeable and listen-able baseball analysts; he really knows the game and has a style that is modest yet insightful. For years Mr Randall has been a tireless advocate for prostate cancer screening, and by his efforts he has likely encouraged thousands of men to get tested.
As much as I admire Mr Randall’s expertise in baseball and desire to do good, he’s really doing a disservice to public health. While his efforts undoubtedly result in an increased early diagnosis of many cancers, they are also increasing costs, scaring many men and their families, and likely harming a portion of men who follow his advice.
In his quest to get as many men tested as possible, Mr Randall is causing as least as much harm as good.
First, a little background about prostate cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, between 27 percent and 37 percent of men between 55 to 74 years of age have prostate cancer. It is a very slow growing cancer; most men who have it end up dying of something else.
The ugly truth about prostate cancer testing is it doesn’t work. The most common test, a blood test known as PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) is terribly inaccurate. Men who have been tested have no better survival rate than men who have not.
This isn’t my opinion, it is the finding of research published in The Archives of Internal Medicine in 2006. The authors found that neither a PSA test, nor a rectal exam reduced the chance of death from prostate cancer.
OK, so what’s the problem? Men get tested, no harm no foul? Actually there are lots of problems. First they aren’t free – PSA tests range in cost from $70 – $200, dollars that could be saved or spent on more effective medical services. OK, what happens if you decide the heck with the cost, I’m going to get a PSA test. The PSA level can be abnormal even when a man does not have prostate cancer. Seventy percent of positive PSA tests are false positives; the patient does not have prostate cancer. (if you test negative, there’s only a one-to-two percent chance you still have prostate cancer.) Of course, those who test positive worry about the result, and think they may well have cancer. I don’t know how to place a value on peace of mind, but anyone who has worried about a positive cancer test certainly knows how scary it is. (
When an abnormal P.S.A. level is discovered, most often the next step is a biopsy. Which are often inconclusive. Tissue from a negative screening may have come from parts of the prostate that are free of cancerous cells. If a cancer is found, an operation may not be necessary; remember this cancer grows so slowly most victims die of something else. So, you get an operation, what’s the big deal?
The big deal is patients who undergo treatment (radiation and/or surgery) may well end up impotent (38% – 63%) or incontinent (13% to 52%) or have bowel issues (5% to 17%. As a fifty year old man, I don’t much like those odds.
This doesn’t mean testing is futile or pointless. There are undoubtedly many men who would have never discovered their cancer until it had progressed quite far; the men in this group have to thank people like Mr Randall – on a personal level, he has undoubtedly helped save them. But there’s a societal cost for that benefit. Here’s one physician’s view (from the NYTimes):
“I’m a little worried we may look back on the prostate cancer screening era, after we learn results of clinical trials, and see that we’ve harmed a lot of people without doing them good [emphasis added],” said Dr. David Ransohoff, a professor of medicine and cancer screening researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “By being so aggressive with so many people, did we do the right thing? I don’t know that it’s going to turn out that way.”

Dec
9

National health reform – implications for workers comp

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 | Comments

I’ve gotten several queries about the future of work comp if/when health reform occurs. The real answer is – no one knows. But I’m happy to take an educated guess.
I very much doubt comp will be directly impacted by or addressed in any health reform bill. It is going to be difficult at best to pass health reform legislation; adding comp is unlikely to increase support but would almost certainly drive work comp stakeholders to lobby against the bill. There’s just no upside for including comp in health reform.
Back in the Clinton health reform days, comp was part of health care reform, where it ran into objections (most warranted) from employers, industry types, insurers, and providers. Work comp was addressed in Title X, which “would have required that employees receive all of their health care through the same insurance plan, regardless of whether the injury or illness occurred at home or at work.” For lots of reasons, this was a non-starter.
President Elect Obama may well have learned from his future Secretary of State’s errors: nowhere do the words ‘workers compensation’ or similar terms appear in President Elect Obama’s website, policy papers on health reform, or in the several speeches he has made on the subject.
Finally comp is not linked to/mentioned in the Baucus plan, Wyden/Bennett Healthy Americans Act, or on Sen. Kennedy’s policy pages. These should be viewed as drafts of final bills; if policymakers were actively considering incorporating work comp it is likely we’d have seen it appear in one or more of these bills.
What does this mean for you?
Don’t expect to see work comp directly addressed in reform legislation on the Federal level.
But, any reform initiatives will undoubtedly affect workers comp. Here are a couple specifics.
Physician reimbursement
The fall will be highlighted by a debate over Medicare physician compensation. With docs scheduled to see their reimbursement drop by around 20% in 2010, the caterwauling will be heard loud and clear inside the Beltway. Don’t look for a major policy change, but rather something to satisfy the physician community and build a little equity for the future. My sense is CMS will increase reimbursement for E&M codes (cognitive services). Almost all WC fee schedules are based on Medicare, so any change in Medicare directly and immediately impacts comp reimbursement. Watch Capitol Hill carefully; if Congress passes legislation signed by future President Obama affecting Medicare reimbursement, clinic companies may be big winners.
This will also be good news over the long term for comp in general. Good work comp medical care requires physicians to spend time listening to patients, and talking with employers, adjusters, and case managers. Docs don’t get paid (at least not adequately) for this time, therefore any increase in reimbursement for office visits will encourage docs to spend time with claimants instead of doing procedures. Well, at least not discourage doctor-patient discourse…
Medical care delivery
If there is a major reform initiative passed, there will likely be fundamental changes in the way health care is delivered, the virtual ‘location’ delivering that care, and the evaluation of care.
And that would dramatically affect workers comp.
Today, health care is delivered episode by episode; diagnosis, care plan, treatment, assessment, and repeat steps 2-4 until the situation is resolved. This episodic model of care will (over time) change to one based on functional outcome management – care focused on returning the patient to functionality, and maintaining that functionality.
This will be in large part driven by the growing influence of chronic care and need to develop a better care model to address chronic care, one that will heavily emphasize patient education and monitoring. It will also require a different ‘location’ of care – the medical home.Dr Kathryn Mueller of the University of Colorado sees the medical home model as a big part of the solution in workers compensation, as the medical home may well be the dominant model for delivery of care throughout the health system in years to come. Studies indicate the home decreases medical errors and improves the quality of care delivered. Notably, the medical home model is NOT a primary-care gatekeeper model – but rather a model wherein the physician is tasked with and responsible for coordinating care and educating the patient.
Drugs
If Congress calls for the Feds to negotiate drug prices, this will affect comp in one of two ways. Either comp payers will be able to piggyback on the Feds’ negotiated rates, in which case per-pill prices will come down, or (more likely) comp payers find their per-pill prices increase due to cost shifting.

Dec
5

They’ve got to be kidding!

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, December 5th, 2008 | Comments

In what has to rank as the ballsiest move of the year, managed care giant United Healthcare has come up with a ‘guaranteed insurability’ product for anyone fearing they will lose their health insurance and be unable to obtain coverage in the individual market.
For a fee of a mere 20% of the actual premium, individuals can buy a guarantee from United that they will be able to buy individual health insurance if they need it in the future.
What a deal.
Who’s going to buy this? A really tiny market comprised of very healthy paranoid individuals with more money than brains.
Recall that people working for employers with 20 or more full-time employees who leave can still get the same health care benefits for 18 to 36 months, provided they pay the full cost of the premium plus a small upcharge for administrative fees.
HIPAA requires insurers in the individual market guarantee renewability of coverage in most situations.
So, who’s left? Anyone who thinks they will lose their group coverage and their COBRA coverage will expire who also won’t be able to get individual coverage and doesn’t believe there will be meaningful changes in regulation of medical underwriting and treatment of pre-existing conditions. Perhaps my earlier characterization was inaccurate, and the market is not tiny but infinitesimal.
As applicants will have to qualify up front, UHC will (wherever possible) do their medical underwriting and rating for folks applying for the ‘Continuity’ product. So, if you are covered under a group program and have a pre-ex (as many do), you’re not likely to get that condition covered by UHC (in states that allow that practice).
What a great country.

Dec
2

The taming of the wild west – PPO regulation is getting serious

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 | Comments

The PPO world is about to get more complicated, and likely less profitable – for the PPOs.
The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) has developed model legislation tightly regulating PPOs, legislation that looks to be on the docket in at least two states next year, and likely others as well.
According to Bill Kidd in today’s WorkCompCentral, the model act “allows unlimited “downstream” rentals of PPO contracts and physician discounts, but requires that network access information be made available to providers.
The model establishes criteria for network and discount access and contract termination; sets out contracting entity rights and responsibilities, requires disclosure to providers and contracting entities of third-party access; provides for registration of unlicensed contracting entities; prohibits and penalizes under a state’s unfair trade practices act unauthorized access to provider network contracts and allows physicians to refuse a network discount without a contractual basis.”
The key is the notification requirement. The model act calls for PPOs to periodically inform providers of all the networks and ‘access brokers’ who can access the network contract. Providers have to be kept informed of changes to the list, and the list has to be emailed, mailed, and/or posted on a secure website.
While the issue of silent PPOs has been on a slow boil for years in many jurisdictions, It has been much more contentious in several states including Louisiana, Texas, California, and Oregon. Provider groups have complained that the managed care contracts they enter into have been sold and resold multiple times without their permission or agreement. That complaint is arguably minor; what is definitely not is providers’ belief that the payers accessing the contracts ‘downstream’ are not doing anything to direct patients, but are simply accessing contracts to get a discount.
This is the core issue – PPOs trade volume for discounts. For far too long, big, yellow-pages PPOs have done little to actually increase a provider’s patient volume. Many claim they have contracts with and/or access to hundreds of thousands of providers. If that’s the case, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, there is no way the PPO can claim it is actually directing care to a selected group of providers.
If everyone’s a member of the PPO, then it isn’t a ‘Preferred’ Provider Organization.
The bill under consideration in Texas provides a window into what other states may see on their legislative agendas.

Nov
17

When health insurance…isn’t

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, November 17th, 2008 | Comments

Friday’s New York Times had an excellent piece about the major changes occurring in the type of policies gaining traction in the group health insurance market – consumer-directed health plans with high deductibles. According to the NYT’s Milt Freudenheim, more than a hundred large companies, including Nissan and Delta Airlines are now offering one plan – a high deductible one. The corporate types interviewed for the article claimed their employers had changed from other options to the single high-deductible one because
While Nissan and Delta are contributing to the deductible account, they are the exception rather than the rule. Only a quarter of employee HSA accounts actually have any funds in them. If, or more accurately when, the worker or a family member gets care, they will have to pay for that care with post-tax funds from their regular cash flow – if not, it likely goes on the credit card, where it not only is paid with post-tax dollars, but it may well add to the family’s debt burden.
Although consumer-directed health plans have struggled to gain traction, it looks like we can expect more and more employers to adopt them – gaining a significant reduction in costs in the first year, with some, albeit unconvincing, evidence of slightly lower costs in subsequent years. I’d note that the evidence is rather thin, and the cost savings may well be due more to adverse selection (healthier folks choose HSA plans when they have a choice, with their less-healthy coworkers sticking with HMO or other richer plans).
While I’d like to believe the benefits folks from Nissan and Delta are doing this to encourage better spending habits and healthy behaviors, the real reason they’re dumping their richer plans is cost. Both companies have been and will likely continue to be hammered by the recession, high energy costs, and declining demand. Health care plans cost $13,000 per family – it’s no wonder employers are switching to lower cost alternatives.
No, companies changing to consumer-directed health plans are doing it to cut costs. But they may well find their efforts backfire.
The underpinnings of CDHPs lie in the economic theory of “Moral Hazard.” Journalist-author Malcolm Gladwell describes this as the belief that “insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured” and notes that it is popular among many economists and think-tank types and, consequently, has been influential in shaping health care delivery systems. The idea is that if insurance covers the bills, people are more likely to seek care and run up unnecessary costs.
The Moral Hazard theory falls short when confronted by the rather uncomfortable reality of actually having health care services rendered to one’s own person. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to surgery or hospitalization if there were an option to avoid it and just go fishing instead?
But on the surface, the concept makes some sense. Most people would be careful about getting an MRI if they knew they had to foot the bill, but perhaps too careful. People will not simply avoid discretionary care; they will avoid necessary care, as several studies indicate. One Rand Corporation study concludes that when individuals are required to pay more for prescription drugs, they don’t take them as they should. This leads to nasty physical and financial problems, such as more strokes, which cause lots of pain and cost lots of money to fix when a few blood-pressure pills might have sufficed. As far as drug copays go, increasing consumers’ costs actually drives up total medical expenses. It’s not a great leap to think individuals with high deductibles will likely wait before scheduling an appointment with their physician to see if a problem just goes away on its own. In a time when the Centers for Disease Control describe diabetes as “a runaway train,” is it economically wise to foster measures that discourage preventive care?
The coup de gras for CDHP is its old nemesis, the real world. CDHP’s fatal flaw is that the “consumer” part is directed at the wrong people. Half of U.S. health care costs are spent on five percent of the population. A deductible has little impact on the purchasing behavior of these folks; they’ll blow through a few thousand bucks in a couple of months
Conversely, over two-thirds of Americans spend less than a thousand dollars a year on health care. The only effect a high deductible will have on these folks is to discourage the use of preventive care.
Consumerism is not all bad – health care shouldn’t be “free” for anyone. Requiring people to share in the cost of their care should be a part of any serious reform effort. The fix for CDHP is relatively simple – get rid of high deductibles, which are unaffordable for many and may well discourage preventive care, and replace them with coinsurance per service to ensure patients have some financial skin in the game. Insurance companies should keep an income-indexed out-of pocket-maximum, while covering preventive services and maintenance medications at very low copays to encourage their use.
I”d add that employers really interested in reducing costs over the long term do have another alternative – buy a CDHP plan, and then fund the deductibles. One company has saved their clients significant dollars with this hybrid approach.