Feb
28

WCRI – Opioids part three – Treatment Guidelines

Dr Dean Hashimoto’s talk on medical treatment guidelines covered what’s out there, what makes for good guidelines (my words not his) and what happened when MA implemented guidelines for chronic pain.  

We’ll focus on Massachusetts’ experience. (here’s a good synopsis of guidelines)  The state adopted those guidelines in part because there were an estimated 20 workers’ comp claimants were dying as a results of opioid poisoning (overdose).

Dr Hashimoto identified two impacts of Mass’ adoption of guidelines for chronic pain – these guidelines required use of the state prescription drug monitoring program, random drug screening, a written opioid agreement, and cautions when dosage exceeds 120 morphine equivalents per day.

While it is a bit early to assess results, here’s a couple preliminary findings:

  • “there was a leveling off of opioid prescriptions an deaths related to opioid poisoning.”
  • A WCRI study reported longer term use of opioids decreased from 11 percent of claimants to 7 percent after the guidelines were implemented.
Clearly evidence-based guidelines, effectively implemented, with strong UR features and “teeth”, work.  

 


Feb
28

Operation UNITE’s Karen Kelly led off with some of the most disturbing data I’ve ever seen on the impact of opioids in Kentucky and the country.

  • average age of first drug use is 11.  Eleven.
  • in some counties, 50% of children are being raised with no parents in the home.
Operation UNITE is doing terrific work in Kentucky – sponsoring treatment, supporting narcotics enforcement and interdiction, buying drug lock boxes for homes, education of kids and others, sponsoring summer camps, building community coalitions, and drug-free workplace training – among many other initiatives.
And their work is paying off – there’s been a year over year decrease in dispensing of all controlled substances by 11.7% in their area.
There are a wealth of resources available on their site, from videos to educational materials  to news and updates on progress in the battle against opioid abuse.
(I’m moderating a session at the National Rx Drug Abuse Summit with Washington state’s Gary Franklin MD and Amy Lee of Texas DWC  addressing opioids in workers’ comp at their annual meeting in early April.) There are several other sessions addressing opioids, detailing what works, what doesn’t, strategies and results.

 


Feb
27

Report from the Physician Dispensing Summit

Yesterday’s meeting in Boston was very, very productive.  The audience included trade groups, insurers, TPAs, large employers, physicians, researchers, regulators, analysts, PBMs, and media, all focused on the single issue of physician dispensing.

Among the sessions was a report on a just-completed study of the impact of dispensing on claim outcomes – very compelling and highly revealing.

Here were some of the other highlights:

AIA CEO Leigh Ann Pusey led off with the keynote; the fact that Ms Pusey took the time to prepare for and attend the Summit is revealing indeed; her members write over a hundred billion dollars of insurance premiums and are dealing with critical, industry-altering issues including Dodd-Frank, TRIA, and the sequester.  She was very knowledgeable and detailed the work AIA is doing both internally and with other groups and associations.  Suffice it to say that this is a very high priority for AIA and their members.

Dan Reynolds, managing editor of Risk and Insurance moderated an excellent panel on the issue of patient safety.  Pharmacists, a physician, and the nation’s leading authority on prescription drug monitoring programs provided insights into the risks inherent in physician dispensing.  Notably, John Eadie of Brandeis’ PDMP Center for Excellence revealed that most states require/request dispensing physicians access the PDMP prior to dispensing scheduled drugs.   He provided a guide for finding out how different states address the issue; I’ll provide a link in a later post.

Sedgwick’s Kimberly George noted that, where appropriate, the giant TPA uses physician dispensing as a data point in assessing and rating physicians. This can affect the volume of patients directed to specific practitioners.

For me, the major takeaway was CWCI’s analysis of the impact of physician dispensing on claim costs and outcomes.  Alex Swedlow’s concise presentation noted that after reform eliminated the upcharge for repackaged drugs;

  • each physician-dispensed repackaged drug prescription added $545 to the average medical benefit costs. 
  • paid medical benefits on claims with physician-dispensed repackaged drugs averaged $7,297, or 37.3 percent more than the $5,316 average for claims without these types of prescriptions.
  • indemnity payments on claims with physician-dispensed repackaged drugs averaged $5,039, or 28.2 percent more than the $3,930 average for claims without physician-dispensed repackaged drugs.
  • claims with physician-dispensed repacked drugs averaged 50.3 paid TD days – 8.9 percent more than the average of 46.2 days for claims without repackaged drugs.

The research, conducted by Swedlow, John Ireland, and Laura Gardner, destroys physician dispensers’ claim that better outcomes and lower costs result from physician dispensing.  

Undoubtedly, dispensing advocates will now roll out their PR flacks and physician shills in an attempt to refute CWCI’s study results, methodology, impact, and applicability to other states.

Good luck with that.

Swedlow, Ireland, and Gardner are three of the most respected researchers in this industry.  Their expertise, insight, intellectual rigor, and objectivity are beyond question.

With the release of CWCI’s excellent work, we can now refute every claimed benefit offered up by physician dispensers – leaving no doubt as to the only real benefit of the practice:

taking hundreds of million of dollars from taxpayers and employers to do nothing other than line the pockets of dispensing docs, dispensing companies, their investors, and their partners.

What does this mean for you?

Read the study here.

Send it to regulators, employers, policyholders, legislators, lobbyists, attorneys – anyone and everyone.  Get the word out.  


Feb
22

Opioids – the IAIABC responds, and others do too…

After failing to approve model language developed by many volunteers working many hours over many months, the IAIABC’s Executive Committee came out with a press release discussing their decision.

First, kudos to the EC for the release. This is a very contentious and highly visible issue, so the release helps explain the decision.  However, the explanation itself has done little to tamp down the furor over the non-decision.

Second, the entire workers comp world had this as a no-brainer; of COURSE the IAIABC would approve model language; opioids are widely recognized as one of if not the biggest problems in workers’ compensation, the model language development process had been going on for over a year, and there was no real indication from the EC that they had significant problems with the language.  As the trade group for WC regulators, the IAIABC absolutely would be out front on this.

The guidelines were going to be discussed in a session at Operation Unite’s National Rx Drug Abuse Summit in April, a session that has been cancelled.  They were also going to be reviewed in another session at the same conference; obviously that’s not going to happen either.

And that’s why the Executive Committee’s failure to approve the model language was such a shocker.

The press release did say the EC wants the language re-done;

“adopting model legislation and regulation on opioid use could be interpreted as too narrow and restrictive for jurisdictions. The Executive Committee was concerned the models could unintentionally create conflict in jurisdictions that may be already taking steps to initiate regulations for appropriate guidelines. However, they contain valuable information, and as such the Executive Committee is asking that the issues addressed in the drafts be re-framed to offer policy considerations rather than a single policy response.”

Michael Gavin, who worked long and hard on the guidelines wrote at PRIUM’s Evidence-based blog that the EC’s failure to approve the model language:

is absolute nonsense and an abject failure on the part of this organization.

I cannot understand how “model” legislation would in any way harm a jurisdiction.  Can the elected leaders in any one of our great states not resist the vast power and influence of the IAIABC?  Is there no way that a suggested regulatory framework could be changed to the suit the needs of a specific jurisdiction?  Does the IAIABC hold such incredible sway over state legislatures throughout the land that the mere mention of controlling opioid abuse through model laws would cause political, cultural, and clinical mayhem?

Normally a reserved and diplomatic individual, Michael is saying what many others are thinking.  I’m guessing some members of the EC may have been surprised by the reaction to their decision.  IF they were, they shouldn’t have been.  This was, and still is, an opportunity for the IAIABC to lead from the front, to use its considerable influence to begin to stop the dying, the ruining of individual lives and families, the outrageous expense, the societal damage.

If the IAIABC moves quickly to publish comprehensive, specific, and definitive language, the damage – to the organization and its reputation – will be minimized. Call it model language, an example, a guideline, a framework; whatever.  If the process is extended and the result in any way nebulous, ambiguous, vague, or equivocal the damage done will be extensive and lasting.

The IAIABC has done much good work over its long history. The people who work at their offices in Madison, Wisconsin are dedicated, positive, very knowledgeable, and committed.  I’ve met and worked with several members of the EC and been impressed; these are individuals who’ve spent their professional lives working in a highly politicized environment yet succeeding more often than not in making progress on key issues.

To the EC members who blocked approval, I beg of you – get this done, and get it done now.

 

 


Feb
20

Opioids and the IAIABC’s need to lead

The International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions is the trade group for workers’ comp regulators, the folks who have assumed the responsibility of  advancing “the efficiency and effectiveness of workers’ compensation systems.”

By failing to approve model language for regulations/legislation addressing opioids, the IAIABC’s Executive Committee failed to meet that responsibility.

This may seem like a very small issue, one scarcely deserving of attention or even note.

It is not.

Opioid overuse and abuse kills claimants.  Ruins families.  Destroys lives.  Keeps claimants out of work far longer than they should be, while dramatically increasing employers’ and taxpayers’ costs.  Everyone knows this, understands the implications, and realizes that we must do everything we can, as fast as we can, to address the issue.  Yet the model language, developed carefully and wisely in a structured process by a group of committed experts and dozens of stakeholders working hundreds of hours, over a year-long period, for reasons unfathomable, was not approved by the Executive Committee.

I asked the EC why.  They told me via email that “the models would be overreaching on the part of the IAIABC…We believed the consequences of advancing this prescriptive approach could potentially harm jurisdictions more than help.” Frankly, I don’t see the issue. Model language is just that – language that provides a basis, a framework, a starting point  – it is NOT the final word, the only way, the best practice.  Each state takes that language, refines it, adapts it to meet their unique situation, environment, current laws and regulations, and does so in a process that works for them.

How model language could “harm” states is beyond me – and everyone else I’ve spoken with.  When I asked for specific reasons for their decision, the EC responded:

“adopting model legislation and regulation would be too narrow and restrictive. We were concerned the models that were presented could unintentionally create conflict in jurisdictions that may be already taking steps to initiate regulations for appropriate guidelines.[emphasis added]

What conflict?  How?  Someone in some state might ask “Hey, how come our regs are different from IAIABC’s model language?” As if this never occurs, and is somehow a problem?  Would highly experienced, capable, intelligent, articulate regulators be stumped, unable to articulate a reasonable response, like “Things here in Texas/California/MIssissippi/Maine/New York are different than the rest of the states; we already have regulations/our laws require a different process/we have to address the issue primarily via utilization review/other intelligent response?”

I asked if this means the IAIABC will no longer promote model language, and got a nebulous response; “This decision will not impact future decisions to promulgate models and standards when appropriate.” 

Well.  If opioids are not “appropriate” than what, pray tell, is?

If you get the sense that I’m holding back here, you’re right.  I – along with many others who did a lot more work on the language than I did – are frustrated, angry, disappointed.  Yet I hold out hope that the EC will reconsider their decision, understand that this issue is far bigger than any individual concerns about how the model language may cause them a bit of stress, and approve the language.

The clock is ticking…


Feb
15

California State Fund’s great work on opioids

70 doctors are writing one-third of the scripts for opioids in California.

Most of those scripts are for conditions where opioids are NOT appropriate treatment.

Those claimants that get opioids are off work 3.6 times longer; litigation is 60 percent higher, and their claim costs are twice as high as claimants who don’t receive opioids.

Hopefully you’re not so jaded by the flood of bad news about opioids that you yawn and move on to updating your facebook status; given the ongoing flood of bad news about opioids that wouldn’t be surprising.  Most fortunately, California’s state workers comp fund (SCIF), is on this issue like white on rice.

Here’s some of what SCIF is doing:

Kudos to SCIF for their assertive stance; it is great to see a payer take this on with a comprehensive and well-designed approach.
What does this mean for you?
If SCIF can do it, so can you.  And yes, the CA rules may be different, but there are ALWAYS things payers can do to address opioid overuse.

 

 


Feb
13

Medical malpractice and physician dispensing

So, here’s a question for you.  Given the patient safety issues inherent in physician dispensing of repackaged drugs to work comp claimants, are medical malpractice liability carriers considering this issue when underwriting coverage?

If not, why not?

Here are some of the problems with physician dispensing…

  • as research from CWCI and WCRI illustrates, prescribing patterns often change when dispensing rules and reimbursement change. If a patient is harmed, and the prescribing pattern changed before that event, is there added risk for the carrier?
  • the doc often has never seen the patient before, so they don’t know what medication the patient is taking, their medical history, or situation. If they dispense meds, they have to do so without full insightinto
    • the patient’s medical history
    • current drug regimen and possibly dangerous drug-to-drug interactions
    • other treatments the patient is receiving from other providers
  • most dispensing docs only give drugs to their workers comp claimants. So, if a workers comp claimants gets meds and has a problem, and a group health patient with the same diagnosis is treated differently, the plaintiff’s lawyer is going to ask, why? what was the motivator?
  • in many states, docs can and do dispense addictive drugs – opioids particularly.  There’s obviously a financial incentive for the doc to dispense meds to a patient, and if and when one of the doc’s patients is diagnosed as an addict, the plaintiff’s lawyer may well raise the financial incentive as a possible factor.
  • if the doc is dispensing opioids to a patient, and those opioids are being diverted, is there an issue?

And that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head.  I’m guessing underwriters and risk managers can come up with a few more…

 


Jan
24

A tale of two states – Idaho and Florida

Yesterday came the welcome news that the good – and smart – folk in positions of authority in Idaho have drafted work comp regulations designed to prevent outrageous up-charging for physician-dispensed repackaged drugs.  Approved by both Legislative houses, the rules will shortly go into effect.  Idahoans are fortunate indeed to be in a state where they can proactively prevent a problem by implementing regulations, and don’t have to pass legislation to save taxpayers and employers dollars.

Oh, if that were only the case in Florida.  

Two bills have been introduced by allies of physician dispensers that purport to address the issue.  Both require physician dispensers to pay a $15 “rebate” to employers for each physician dispensed script they bill.  Why, you ask?

They say that physician dispensed drugs’ average bill is only $15 higher than the average retail pharmacy bill, so the $15 covers their higher costs.

They are, of course, lying.

First, physician dispensing companies get docs to dispense by telling them they can make another $50 grand (or more!!) a year giving drugs to work comp claimants.  You can’t make fifty grand if you only make $15 more per script – unless you dispense 3,333 scripts a year…

Second,  physician dispensers almost exclusively dispense generics, which are much cheaper – on a per script basis – than brand drugs. Retail chains sell brands and generics – brands cost over $200 per script. Thus, the claim that physician dispensed drugs only cost $15 more on average than retail is misleading and false on its face; in fact WCRI’s recent report on pharmacy in Florida notes: “physicians were paid 35-60 percent more than pharmacies for the same prescription.”

Of course, it is highly likely that the sponsors received thousands of dollars in contributions from those dispensers, who spent over $3 million in the last election cycle to ensure they could keep sucking money out of taxpayers’ and employers’ wallets to buy jets and fancy Italian sports cars – and generate fat profits to their investors – ABRY Partners being the most visible.

To our friends in Idaho; Yippee-Kai-Yay!

To those in Florida; Illegitimi non carborundum.

 


Jan
3

Quick News Briefs for work comp folks

First up, another round of applause for the good folks at the Accident Fund  – their use of predictive analytics combined with medical management expertise to identify and intervene in workers comp claims with potentially inappropriate opioid usage was one of the top ten innovations in the entire insurance industry – group, life, property casualty, and reinsurance. (Accident Fund is an HSA consulting client).  Kudos to Jeffrey Austin White, Pat Walsh, Paul Kauffman, and their colleagues and co-workers.  This is EXACTLY the kind of project work comp carriers should – and can – be doing to attack this issue.

A reviewer for Best’s Review put it this way:

“the idea of using predictive analytics informed by medical subject matter experts with workers compensation claims management software in order to identify – and pro-actively facilitate early intervention when appropriate – cases where injured workers might be reliant on opioids…strikes me as particularly innovative…”

In a related bit of news, makers of so-called “tamper-resistant” opioids are losing a battle to prevent generic versions from hitting the market – this means workers’ comp payers’ drug costs will be lower as they won’t have to pay the premium price charged for branded drugs.  While manufacturers Endo and Purdue claim their new formulations are primarily designed to increase patient safety, the timing of their introduction – just as their current brand drugs’ patent protection expires – indicates profits may be the primary motive…

A great summary of the components of the fiscal cliff deal was put together by the National Priorities project.  In chart form, it tells what happened, what it means, and what’s next.  Read it during lunch…

One of the key components of the deal was the extension of current Medicare reimbursement for physicians.  Under SGR, reimbursement was slated to drop 26.5%, however the deal extends current rates for the rest of the year.  As most WC doc fee schedules are tied indirectly to Medicare, in some states this has a direct impact on WC; in all it as an indirect impact as a cut in reimbursement would likely have led to even more cost shifting to comp…

Of note, there are several deals still working in the comp services/managed care arena.  Now that the cliff deal is done, and the deadline for changes in the capital gains rate has passed, we’ll likely see a bit of a slowdown in transactions.  However, even though the capital gains rate is increasing from 15 to 20 percent, there will still be a lot of transactions in 2014, albeit not at the feverish pace we saw at the end of last year.

Finally, with Michigan and Illinois joining the increasing number of states restricting upcharging for repackaged drugs dispensed by physicians, some payers are starting to see price increases for repackaged drugs in Florida, Maryland, and other states where the sky’s the limit.

Tomorrow, predictions for 2013.  Hoping to do better than 65%…


Dec
18

The latest on compounding pharmacies

Looks like Congress is pressing forward on efforts to clean up the regulatory gaps implicated in the New England Compounding Center tragedy.

Rita Ayers, CEO of Tower MSA Partners, has been tracking the US Senate’s work on the issue; the latest is Tom Harkin, (D IA) Chair of the HELP Committee sent a letter to the Boards of Pharmacy in all fifty states requesting information on their oversight of compounding pharmacies and their efforts to follow up on the NECC disaster.  The letter, which went out in mid-November, requested responses by December 7 of this year.

No word on what Harkin et al heard back, or if the Pharmacy Boards did respond on schedule.

What we do know is this.

  • Oversight of compounding pharmacies is quite a bit looser than pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the regulatory compliance process is much less onerous for compounders
  • Compounds are supposed to be developed/made up for individual patients or a relatively small number of patients.
  • Some compounders look a lot like manufacturers, as they make thousands of doses – just like manufacturers
  • Some states have a very light regulatory “touch” while others are pretty tough.

What does this mean for you?

A warning for patients, providers, and pharmacists alike, and evidence that – in some instances – we need more and better regulation, not less.