We’ve seen that work comp’s “profitability” isn’t very good, whether measured (inappropriately) as operating gain or (appropriately) as return on net worth/return on equity (ROE).

Today we’ll dig deeper into the data; below is a chart provided courtesy of CWCI, it is NAIC’s 2004-2013 Profitability Report, comparing average rates of return on net worth among California and US WC, property & casualty (P&C) insurers and all industries.

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	04-13Avg
Calif WC	12.6%	14.2%	16.4%	12.1%	7.0%	4.6%	5.2%	7.4%	3.9%	3.0%	8.6%
Calif All Lines	14.8%	14.5%	17.1%	11.9%	6.0%	9.4%	9.7%	8.4%	7.4%	7.6%	10.7%
US WC	10.1%	9.6%	10.0%	9.0%	5.1%	4.2%	3.9%	6.2%	5.9%	7.2%	7.1%
US All Lines	10.0%	5.3%	14.4%	12.5%	2.4%	6.3%	8.0%	4.9%	5.8%	9.0%	7.9%
NAIC P&C	8.0%	8.3%	12.2%	9.7%	2.2%	5.7%	6.0%	3.4%	5.2%	8.0%	6.9%
Fortune All Ind	13.9%	14.9%	15.4%	15.2%	13.1%	10.5%	12.7%	14.3%	13.4%	16.6%	14.0%

First up, look at the last row, Fortune’s All Industry average is higher than the US WC results every year for the last decade.

Over the last decade, WC’s returns have been just half the All Industry average.

Next, kindly allow me to direct your attention to the bolded red numbers – California WC insurers’ return on net worth for 2013 and the national average for the same year.  Fellow WC geeks will recall 2013 was identified by ProPubica/NPR as WC insurers’ “most profitable year in over a decade, bringing in a hefty 18 percent return.”

Oh were it only so.

(We dissected PP/NPR’s interpretation of profitability yesterday)

PP/NPR’s series of “reports” on workers’ comp allege that this “hefty” return is due in large part to reductions in benefits for workers pushed by employers and insurers and “reforms” that have taken away workers’ ability to choose their doctors – among other changes.  The reporters specifically cited big problems in California, where insurers’ doctors “deny” care without seeing the patient, where benefits have been slashed and workers made to suffer due to ill-conceived “reforms”.

This is a classic example of writers looking for “facts” that support their pre-conceived bias.  NAIC’s data shows just how wrong reporters Grabell and Berkes are; if the “reforms” in California were so one-sided, so employee-unfriendly, designed to benefit insurers at the expense of injured workers, those reforms have clearly NOT delivered the intended financial results.

By way of reference, historically the target ROE for US companies is in the 12-15 percent range, making the US WC insurance industry’s 7.1% return over the last decade look shabby indeed.

Remind me again why anyone would want to be a workers comp insurer???

 

 

The capstone to an excellent NCCI AIS was provided by WCRI Exec Dir Dr. Rick Victor and his counterpart at CWCI, Alex Swedlow.

Rick led off with my LEAST favorite topic – physician dispensing of drugs to work comp claimants.  The usually-very-circumspect Dr Victor said that “the evidence is pretty clear in terms of costs and likely benefits of physician dispensing.”

All the evidence indicates:

• physician dispensing is common in big states
• prices are higher than for the same drugs in retail pharmacies
• even after reforms, prices are about 30% higher
• docs write scripts for OTC meds when they dispense those meds
• dispensing docs prescribe unnecessary opioids 
• the price focused reforms – eliminating the upcharge for repackaged drugs – will not deliver long term results.

As great as it was to see Dr Victor and NCCI focus so much time on an issue that I’ve been harping on/screaming about for about 8 years, I – as undoubtedly you – are sick to death of this subject. It’s time to kill the beast – ban physician dispensing and docs profiting from dispensing.

CWCI’s Alex Swedlow jumped full force into a quick review of utilization review in California.

The key takeaway is the decline in medical trend observed recently – which is leading to a reduction in rates – is very good news indeed.

Pharmacy is the fastest growing component of California’s work comp medical expense, now totaling 13.2% measured at 24 months maturity, or $1.2 billion. This despite two fee schedule reforms, implementation of chronic pain guidelines, and shortly opioid-specific guidelines and perhaps a formulary via legislation now under consideration. Yet 45% of UR involves drugs, and 45% of medical reviews do as well.

BTW doc dispensed drugs account for over half of drug spend in the Golden State.

Despite all that effort 29% of pharmacy spend is for Schedule II and II drugs.

That’s just appalling.

Which led Alex to the key question – why is California’s WC medical so much harder to manage?

Alex’ take – a fundamental lack of shared risk – no supply/demand controls, no contractual language that limits care, and a dispute process that features very high levels of litigation.

Which leads to the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process – intended to speed dispute resolution while increasing consistency.  CWCI has done quite a bit of research into this area, most of which is available on their website.

Briefly – 95% of ALL treatment requests are approved.  There is NO wholesale denial of care occurring in California.

Despite what you may have heard, the IMR process is working pretty well.

CWCI’s research (on their website) indicated that the average audit score for timeliness etc was 97%.  And, IMR isn’t nearly as cumbersome as some would like to portray.  

Here’s the real data…

75% of requests for initial treatment are immediately approved.

77% of the 25% that aren’t approved initially are approved after going thru UR. – that equates to 94.1% of all treatment requests are approved initially or after UR.

91.4% of IMRs agreed with UR that the UR-denied treatment was in fact not consistent with evidence-based medical guidelines.

44.7% of services going to IMR were for drugs; those decisions were upheld 92% of the time.  And a lot of the IMR challenges are coming from one area – Los Angeles.  Similarly, the top 1% of docs generated 44% of the letters; only 10 docs were responsible for 11% of ALL IMRs.

What does this mean for you?

Drugs are a big problem, and a relatively few docs are the ones contributing to this problem. 

The IMR process is working pretty well – and would be much better if a very few docs weren’t flooding the system.

 

In MCM’s ongoing effort to help you, dear reader, know things that will likely greatly affect your work world, here’s a quick review of economic predictions and implications thereof.

Moody Analytics is pretty optimistic about the future of hiring, employment, wage growth and the economy in general.

However that optimism is somewhat dampened by concerns overseas as key players in Europe and the BRICs are entering or going thru recession.

One key data point is the “quits rate”, which is simply the rate at which people are leaving jobs.  This is tracking higher, indicating people are moving among employers – according to Moody’s Adam Kamins this presages higher wages as employers have to increase compensation to attract and keep good workers.

Housing starts are a very big part of the recovery, and part of the reason things haven’t gotten better faster. There’s a good bit of pent-up demand, driven in part by millennials living with their parents at historically high rates. Obviously, houses can’t be built without construction workers (at least until 3-D printing of buildings gets a lot more prevalent – which it will…). According to Kamins, we are about 40% below the level we should be for housing construction – which equates to perhaps a couple million workers.

Expect this to be most heavily felt in the west and south, where construction permits have moved up nicely over the last few quarters.  Not surprisingly, the west has led in job creation for several years, with the south catching up over the last year.

Internationally, China’s economy is slowing – which isn’t surprising as it has been growing at a breakneck pace for several years.  Interestingly, Kamins said (I’m somewhat paraphrasing here) “Fortunately, the Chinese government has pretty tight control over the economy.”  With other countries’ economies in a bit of trouble, the dollar is strengthening leading to problems with trade – our stuff is really expensive, while their’s is cheap.  In turn this could hurt domestic manufacturing as demand for US goods drops off.

The dollar’s strength hurts tourism too; it’s really cheap to travel abroad for us but the US is a pretty pricey destination for Europeans and Asians these days.

Workers’ comp net written premiums for funds and insurers were up substantially – 6 percent – over 2013, making for the 4th consecutive year of premium growth.

Meanwhile, the combined ratio for private carriers improved as well – down 4 points to 98, driven by a drop in loss adjustment expense, underwriting expense and loss costs.  State funds saw their combined stay flat at 115.

And yes, the industry returned a pre-tax operating gain  of 14% – NOT to be confused with “profits” or “return” – more on that in a later post.

This was driven in part by a decline in claim frequency – a continuation of a two-decade-plus downward trend in frequency.

This was the introduction to NCCI’s 2015 AIS provided by President and CEO Steve Klingel.  Klingel noted that the industry is rarely able to sustain profitability for very long; factors that may drive changes include the Feds’ moves on interest rates, employment growth, and changes in what defines “employee” and “employer”.

Noting the March OSHA document – essentially an indictment of workers’ comp, legal challenges in FL and OK, and press reports about individuals apparently mis-served by the work comp system (likely referring to the ProPublica/NPR series, much of which has been challenged here and elsewhere), Klingel’s sense is there may well be storm clouds in the near future for work comp.

Next up – the State of the Line…

 

WCRI has done it again.

Carol Telles‘ just-published report on the North Carolina work comp system should be required reading for anyone looking to understand why and how costs and care change in response to regulations.

A couple of items make the point…

• Hospital costs were “among the highest of the states we studied” – despite fee schedule and other changes in 2009 and 2013. There was an 11% drop in 2013 in outpatient surgery payments however whether that’s sustainable is questionable (my interpretation, not Ms Telles’.)
• NC’s work comp claimants receive the highest income benefit payments among all 17 CompScope states – because settlements are higher and disability durations are longer. (there were reforms in 2011, but we don’t know the impact yet)
• From 2009/10 to 2013/14, total costs/claim didn’t change much at all – in contrast to 8% annual increases seed in the prior 6 years.
• There has been substantial reform over the fast six years…

There’s a lot more detail in the report, including the finding that the main reason medical costs haven’t moved much since ’09 is a reduction in utilization – primarily for outpatient hospital services per claim.

One other notable finding; there was a dramatic increase – 21% – in reimbursement for evaluation and management services in 2013.  My take is paying docs to actually talk with and “evaluate” patients may help hold down medical costs, and help reduce the longer-than-average disability duration seen in the Tar Heel State as well.

What does this mean for you?

Reform can effectively mitigate cost drivers IF that reform targets specific factors influencing costs.