Jun
10

Work comp is worried about the wrong thing.

Finishing up the second survey report on the impact of COVID19 on workers’ comp and one takeaway has me shaking my head.

There’s a lot more fear and trepidation about presumption than I think is warranted. Across the 24 payers surveyed (including very large TPAs, insurers, state funds, and employers) there were less than 7,000 COVID claims accepted to date. Yes, several have considerable business in California, Kentucky, and Illinois and more than a few have a lot of health care and public entity clients.

Relatively few of those 7,000 claims are expensive, perhaps less than 5%. And even then they aren’t nearly as costly as real cats with expenses above $1,000,000. And this in an industry that is wildly over-reserved, like $10 billion over-reserved

There’s some – but significantly less concern over plummeting premiums driven by business closures and dramatic declines in payroll. That should be a lot scarier; we are talking billions of dollars of premiums lost, and the potential that figure premiums will not return to pre-COVID levels for a long time – if ever.

This will get worse as governmental entities are forced to layoff workers when sales tax revenues aren’t sufficient to cover payroll.

This is like worrying that your cable bill is going up when your salary’s been cut 30% and your hours reduced.

What does this mean for you?

Focus on the dollars, the pennies are just pennies.


Jun
4

COVID and pharmacy benefit management – an update

COVID19 is having an impact on work comp payers’ pharmacy programs – but this isn’t due to treatments for the disease itself.

That’s largely because there are no medications that have been shown to be safe and effective in treating COVID19 in credible clinical trials.  As a result, there’s little consistency in how payers are approaching medications intended to treat COVID and the symptoms thereof.

Some are approving hydroxychloroquine without a prior authorization (PA) while others require a PA for initial and refills. As the surveys were completed before the latest news that hydroxychloroquine research found less-than-promising clinical results for patients exposed to the virus, it is possible more payers will require at least a PA for future prescriptions. (Other research that reported specific health risks recently came under fire from multiple sources.)

None of the respondents mentioned remdesivir, a brand antiviral that has shown some promise (based on limited clinical trials). This may well change if and when additional trials are completed and the results are satisfactory.

What is consistent is payers’ moves to loosen other prior auth requirements to allow refills for other medications for longer periods and earlier than usual.

Home delivery has also ramped up appreciably, with many retail outlets offering delivery in an effort to keep customers tied to their local store as opposed to using the PBM’s mail order pharmacy.

What does this mean for you?

Unfortunately, we don’t yet have any medications that have been proven to be safe and effective in preventing COVID19 or moderating COVID19’s effects.

Read studies carefully, and get your clinical experts to weigh in on coverage decisions. Science matters.


Jun
3

Which work comp service entities are most affected by COVID?

That’s one of the questions I asked 36 payers and service providers; here’s a snapshot of their responses along with some interpretation…

Service types

Briefly, those services that happen earliest in the claim and/or require face-to-face contact have seen the greatest impact as new claims volumes dropped overnight.

Initial visits to occ med clinics, transportation, imaging, PT and rehab, IMEs, Field Case Management, surgery and management thereof have taken the biggest hit to date. Network revenues are suffering as a result, as is UR.

As the shutdown and peoples’ reluctance to expose themselves to infection continue, there have been significant reductions in bill review and network business volume.

Less  – but still somewhat – affected are sectors that get most of their revenue from longer-duration claims. Think home health care and DME, Pharmacy Benefit Management.

Business models

Cash-rich companies with manageable (or no) debt are in far better position to weather the crisis than highly leveraged firms. This generally benefits founder-owned companies and those with solid cash reserves.

Networks may well weather the crisis as they are generally high-margin businesses with relatively low staffing requirements.

Companies that have kept more of their business functions on-shore are in far better shape than those that outsourced critical functions  such as turning paper into pixels (processing documents), clinical support, provider relations, and call center operations.

There’s a lot of nuance to this; thanks to the 36 respondents for their insightful and sometimes surprising views.

What does this mean for you?

Cash is king. On-shoring is critical. 

Note – A public version of the report will be available in 2 weeks; respondents will receive a detailed version. A third version with additional interpretation will be available for purchase.


Jun
1

Covid’s economic effect on workers’ comp

COVID’s biggest impact on workers’ comp has not been from the disease, but rather from efforts to control its spread and the resulting impact on the economy.

35 workers’ comp insurers, state funds, TPAs, and service providers and large self-insured/self-administered employers took part in our second Survey of the impact of COVID-19 on Workers’ Comp. Payers have received about 33,000 COVID-19 claims to date and accepted just over 1/5th of all claims filed.

While there are major differences in claim acceptance policies across the respondents, by far the most common reason claims have not been accepted is a lack of a diagnosis, no symptoms, and/or a negative test for COVID19.

The “non-COVID” effects include:

  • a drop of 25% to 50% in new injury claims since the outbreak,
  • slower return to work due to an inability or unwillingness to access care and/or adjudication processes, and
  • respondents’ estimate that 2020 will end with a 20% decrease in the total number of claims.

For payers with large books of small businesses, retail, hospitality, and travel the picture so far is grim, with most expecting major declines in premiums.

The good news is the cost of COVID claims remains pretty low, with most accepted claims resolving with minimal expense. A relative handful have been quite expensive (>$200,000) due to costs associated with ICU and ventilator care.

The big winner is tele-everything. The big service providers all reported massive increases in tele-rehab, tele-triage, and tele-medicine visits with most indicating they expect this to persist after we are through the COVID19 pandemic.

As I work thru the data we’ll be publishing more details; a public version of the report will be available in about 3 weeks.

What does this mean for you?

This will be a very tough six months. The big decline in new claims and drop in premiums will have knock-on effects throughout the industry and every stakeholder.


May
27

Covid’s impact on workers’ comp – initial Survey results

We are more than halfway thru our second Survey of COVID19’s Impact on Workers’ Compensation (details on the first survey and a link to the abstract is here).

Respondents include:

  • TPAs
  • Insurers
  • State Funds
  • Large self-insured/self-administered employers
  • Service providers/managed care firms

Top takeaways from the 18 surveys completed to date:

  • 83% of respondents rated COVID’s impact on workers’ comp a 4 or 5 (very or extremely significant impact)
  • Across all respondents over 10,000 COVID claims have been reported
  • To date about 15% have been accepted; many are still under review
  • The number of new injury claims has dropped significantly, although this varies greatly by type of employer
  • Disability durations are a major concern due to high unemployment and far fewer jobs to return to
  • To date, the incurred cost for COVID claims has been relatively modest

Service provider takeaways:

  • Field case management took a big hit early on and has yet to recover
  • UR volumes plummeted as well
  • Transportation got hammered early on…there’s some evidence it is recovering
  • Medical bill counts are trending lower (there’s a lag)
  • Pharmacy management is among the service lines least affected

I’ll finish the Surveys late tomorrow, then it’s analysis and report prep. Respondents will get a (very) detailed version of the Survey Report; an abstract will be available to the public.

And thanks VERY much to the 30+ payer executives who are sharing their experience; their reward will be knowing a lot more about the impacts of COVID, how other payers are responding, and how others are adapting.

What does this mean for you?

COVID’s impact on workers’ comp will not be COVID claims or costs. 


May
22

Hey legislators…don’t do stupid stuff

Four months into the COVID pandemic, early data show workers’ comp insurers are doing the right thing.

Two data sources support this assertion – CWCI’s just-released analysis of 1,077 California claims and a dozen conversations I’ve had with insurers, large self-insured employers, and service providers over the last two days.

First, CWCI.

CWCI’s researchers and statisticians analyzed 1,077 COVID-19 claims from 28 insurer and self-insured CWCI members. Notably, these are claims filed before April 30, a week before the governor’s Order granted the disputable presumption.

Key findings:

  • Only 35% of the COVID-19 claims were denied
  • 7 out of 10 workers whose claims were denied tested negative for the virus
  • Other denials were due to:
    • the employee had not been exposed at work,
    • no diagnosis or symptoms of COVID-19,
    • the employee had been working at home, or
    • refused to take a COVID-19 test.

Next, I’m in the midst of a second national survey of payers and service providers about their experience with COVID-19. (details on the first survey are here.)

Key preliminary findings (based on a dozen completed surveys):

  • most payers have developed COVID-specific intake processes, trained staff to handle COVID claims, and set specific policies and procedures to address COVID.
  • so far, payers have accepted about 15% of COVID-19 claims
  • the range is about 10% to 25% of COVID claims filed
  • where possible, insurers surveyed are “paying without prejudice” on claims filed but not yet accepted or denied. That is, insurers are paying medical bills even if they don’t know if the patient has COVID-19.
  • Several very large self-insured employers are providing two weeks’ leave with pay to workers who fear they’ve been exposed at work, regardless of test results

What we know so far.

  1. Some percentage of filed claims are still under review, so the acceptance rate will increase.
  2. Employees who think they may have been exposed at work are filing claims, even if they are asymptomatic.

Based on what we know today, workers’ comp insurers, state funds, and self-insured employers are doing the right thing.

Despite that, several states are contemplating bills or executive action to make workers’ comp the default payer for COVID19.

California’s SB1159 is the poster child; from CWCI – “By including all types of employment without regard to the level of risk actually posted, the presumptions greatly expand the nature and scope traditionally encompassed by presumptions of compensability in California.

More specifically, the bill makes workers’ comp responsible for COVID-19 diagnoses even among workers deemed “low risk” for contracting the disease at work by OSHA. That is, workers with “minimal occupational contact with co-workers or the public.”

COVID-19 is a relatively small occupational issue, but a huge societal one.

Yes, workers who contract the disease through work should be covered by workers’ comp – and all the evidence to date indicates that’s happening.

But work comp should NOT be the piggy bank for any and all COVID claims – which is precisely what SB1159 and similar actions in other states would do.

What’s driving this is our totally dysfunctional healthcare system, one that relies on private insurers, employers, and employees to generate much of the revenue and all of the profits. Hospitals, health systems, medical practices and other providers are in desperate financial shape; it will get worse over the next few months.

Dumping the responsibility for a societal pandemic on a tiny industry that pays less than 1 percent of total US medical costs is not only irresponsible, it also won’t work. Workers’ comp insurers, excess insurers, employers, and governmental entities don’t have the financial resources, skills, staff, or capability to manage and pay for the care of hundreds of thousands of patients, while also covering their lost wages.

This is society’s problem. It’s time governors, state legislators, Congress and the President do their job. Take responsibility – just like the workers’ comp industry has.

What does this mean for you?

Workers’ comp payers – keep doing what you’re doing.

 


May
21

Hospitals and medical practices are losing billions.

And that has big implications for private insurance and workers’ comp.

An insightful piece by Milbank Fund President Chris Koller details the carnage (Chris and I serve on Commonwealth Care Alliance’s Board of Directors).

Total healthcare spending in March was more than 5% lower than the same month in 2019.

From Altarum’s report:

This decline was led by the two largest spending categories: hospital spending, which showed an 8.7% decline, and spending on physician and clinical services, which declined by a huge 19.3%, year over year.

In late April, outpatient office visits were down more than 60%. Visit counts have rebounded in the last few weeks, but are still quite low – especially for surgical and orthopedic specialties.  (From the Commonwealth Foundation)

The financial impact on healthcare providers is devastating.  To date, big health systems have already lost about $400 million – each.

80% of New York doctors have lost more than half of their income, and providers in other states haven’t fared much better. Not surprisingly the ones hardest hit are those that do procedures – especially surgery. While primary care docs and behavioral specialists have been able to switch some patient visits to tele-services, that isn’t possible for proceduralists.

Implications.

  • Some practices will not survive. New practices, those without strong referral sources, and those with high debt are most at risk.
  • Provider consolidation will ramp up and the number of smaller practices will shrink as the big get bigger – and more powerful. Big practices and healthcare systems are getting more than their share of relief dollars, and are better equipped to make it through months of financial losses. They’ll be snapping up physician practices for pennies on the dollar.
  • Near term, proceduralists are going to favor profitable payers as they open up. Expect provider billing and collection practices to get a lot more aggressive.

Workers’ comp bill review systems, logic, and rules are woefully inadequate and payers using those systems will suffer the consequences.

Private insurers are significantly better off due to much more sophisticated systems…but over the longer term they can expect provider groups will push hard for increased reimbursement.

What does this mean for you?

Workers’ comp payers and private insurers are making a lot of money these days. That will not last.

They would be well-advised to invest now in reimbursement systems, expertise, and tools.

 

 


May
20

Clarification, chronic pain treatment, COVID’s impact, and camel pee

First, a clarification.

Last week’s post re NCCI’s virtual Annual Issues Symposium needs clarification.

Before I published the post I asked NCCI to comment on the lack of any reference to COVID claims counts in the presentation, saying “Any early data would have been quite helpful; any comment?” I received a response and published it in the post. NCCI’s response did not indicate that it did not yet have any Q1 data.
After the post was published, NCCI wrote me to clarify, stating they won’t receive any data on Q1 claims until October, 2020 at the earliest.
NCCI CEO Bill Donnell wrote me as well; here’s the relevant part of that email:
I wanted to respond to what I would label a policy issue. The post includes a sentence…”I can understand why NCCI-and other research organizations don’t want to provide any data that might encourage politicians to look to WC to cover the costs of Covid-19.” I take issue with this because it implies that we would withhold data for political reasons (my interpretation).

Fair point.

If I had known NCCI didn’t have Q1 data, I would not have made that statement. However, Bill’s concern is valid and I should have been more careful with my choice of words – and will be in the future.

Workers’ comp has made remarkable progress preventing overprescribing of opioids to new patients – but there’s much to be done to address chronic pain and long-term opioid use.

One therapy that must be considered is medication-assisted therapy. From HealthAffairs comes new research indicating the long-term use of buprenorphine shows significantly better outcomes than short courses of treatment do.

Research estimates that 28 million surgeries have been postponed or will not be done over a 12 weeks period due to COVID. That’s a major reason US health systems are in dire financial straits…to date, average losses are $400 million. 

Colleague Peter Rousmaniere is having a very productive “retirement”; his latest post at Working Immigrants includes these findings:

  • Nationwide, one quarter of practicing doctors are foreign born [emphasis mine]
  • 23% of all science and engineering workers are foreign born (40% in California)

COVID will alter the US healthcare system – experts opine on 9 potentially significant changes.

One potential change will likely NOT include ingesting camel urine to cure COVID…despite a claim that drinking a glass of the elixir three times a day for three days will do just that. (btw, camels are notoriously cranky…one wonders how amenable they are when a urine collector involves himself in a very personal process… and would any injury be compensable?)

There is one bright spot…unlike some other unproven cures, ungulate urine won’t cause heart attacks.

What does this mean for you?

Be careful with assumptions, thank your immigrant healthcare worker, support medication-assisted therapy…and keep your sense of humor.


May
19

COVID update – hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I’ve stayed away from most of the COVID stuff because Tom Lynch at WorkersCompInsider has been… as the kids say…crushing it.

Yesterday’s news that Moderna, a new company in Massachusetts reported very early results from tests of a potential vaccine was welcome indeed. The experimental vaccine appeared to help increase resistance** to COVID19 in a handful of people without undue harm.

It was also extremely preliminary.

The trial actually involved 45 people, but the press reports were based on results from 8. That’s less than a fifth of those involved…as one wag put it, “The drug trial sample size seems to be as big as 2 full of people.”

The double asterisk after “resistance” is because the experiment involved taking a blood sample from those 8 people, putting it in petri dishes with the virus, and measuring the antibodies ability to “kill” the virus. That is waaaaaay different from conveying immunity in the human body.

Perhaps coincidentally, the person charged with leading Operation Warp Speed, the White House initiative to develop a vaccine, has 156,000 shares of stock in Moderna, the vaccine research firm in question. And the company had just been awarded almost a half billion dollars in taxpayer money to help fund research.

I get that we are all looking for any hint of good news, and we all desperately hope Moderna’s vaccine:

  • is effective and preventing COVID;
  • is safe for humans;
  • can be manufactured in huge quantities quickly and cheaply.

But vaccine development is full of fits and starts, blind alleys and dead ends, promising early results leading to disappointing failures.

Fewer than one in ten vaccine candidates reach production. Vaccines typically take 10 – 15 years to develop. “And while biotechnology underlying this drug has existed for nearly 30 years, it has never yielded a working vaccine for any human disease” (quote from NatGeo).

Yet we’ve never seen the might of the entire world’s vaccine expertise focused on a single problem, an unprecedented level of effort that – hopefully – will produce an unprecedented result.

Meanwhile, the virus has killed over 90,000 of our friends, parents, neighbors and grandparents so far, while infecting over 1.5 million of us. Thousands more will die, even if the vaccine is everything we hope it is.

People and organizations who focus on what they can control – reducing the risk of infection – will come out of this far better off than those who ignore the risks that remain real and deadly.

What does this mean for you?

Hope for the best and plan for the worst.

 

 

 

 

A useful discussion of how some companies are handling this crisis is here.


May
15

It’s the facility costs, folks.

Hospitals are drowning in red ink. In many states, workers’ comp is the lifeline.

Privately-insured patients are avoiding hospitals while those facilities have spent huge dollars to buy PPE, make modifications, and ensure they are ready for a COVID19 patient influx.

Kaufman Hall provides the graph; the blue curve shows hospital profits pre-COVID, the yellow line reflects COVID. The “0” vertical line is the breakeven point, so the graph indicates the vast majority of hospitals are losing big bucks.

Staff layoffs are all over the news, while research shows the most profitable facilities are getting disproportionally more taxpayer dollars as part of Congress’ aid packages. Rural hospitals are especially hard hit – and this comes after over 150 closed in the last 15 years.

Where are those facilities going to find the $$ they desperately need?

(your picture here)

Just in time, the fine folk at WCRI published a detailed review of outpatient hospital costs and related services. [free to members, there is a charge for non-members] I read the report (yes, the entire thing, minus the super-wonky discussion of statistical methodology). The lede was spot-on:

While the full impact of COVID-19 is currently unclear, this study will also be a useful baseline to monitor the effects on hospital payments.

The analysis is thorough, comprehensive, and easy to follow. Rui Yang PhD and Olesya Fomenko PhD have analyzed 36 states; here are a few key takeaways.

  • costs in states without fixed-amount fee schedules are at least 50% higher than in those with fixed-amount reimbursement
  • in states with fee schedules, percent of charges fee schedules are the worst offenders [my words not the authors’]
  • BUT, there are gaping loopholes in other fee schedule types that allow facilities to maximize reimbursement (looking at you, Florida)
  • many states don’t even have fee schedules, which in some cases is just as bad.

What’s a payer to do?

First, identify low cost, high quality facilities and direct your patients to them.

Second, do NOT allow physicians to schedule surgeries in high-cost facilities. The Golden Rule applies – she who has the gold rules, and you are that “she”.

Third, “cost” is the actual cost, NOT the PPO discount. Don’t be fooled – discounts tend to be higher at high-cost facilities.

More on this issue here, here, and here.