Oct
30

Are opioids driving up comp medical costs?

Two articles in WorkCompCentral yesterday grabbed my attention.

One discussed an 8.7% rate increase recommended by California’s regulators (down from a 9.5% recommended by another group.  Part of the increase was attributable to “overall market deterioration, the causes of which are not clear.”  Greg Jones’ piece went on to paraphrase Dave Bellusci, EVP and Chief Actuary for California’s rating bureau, who reportedly said it was “too early to say what is driving the higher medical loss severity and growing claim frequency.”

Another piece cited the latest research by CWCI and Axiomedics’ Dr Laura Gardner. The lede of the story was this:

“Claims featuring multiple opioid prescriptions are linked to higher rates of indemnity claims, more expensive medical benefits payments, a greater probability of attorney involvement and lower claim closure rates.”

I don’t want to leap to conclusions here, as correlation does not equal causation, however the juxtaposition of the two stories was striking, especially when one recalls that the prevalence of opioids in workers comp has increased dramatically over the last decade.

What does this mean for you?

What is the impact of opioids on your medical and claims costs?


Oct
17

First Survey of Opioids in Work Comp – initial results

We’re plowing thru the responses from 400 front-line and management folks who responded to HSA’s first Survey of Opioids in Workers’ Comp; thanks to CID Management for sponsoring the Survey.

Thanks also to the folks who took the time to complete the Survey; they’ll each get a detailed Survey Report (out in a couple of weeks). Fellow New Englander Andrew Burton won the drawing for the iPad mini; here’s the handsome devil himself…

andrew burton

Here are a few of the initial findings;

  • more than 80% of ALL respondents said opioids lead to addiction, increase disability duration, and increase the risk of fraud and abuse
  • more than half think the problem is getting worse or significantly worse
  • that’s not to say respondents think opioids have no place in work comp, in fact more than 90% believe there is an appropriate role for opioids
  • over 94% of both groups indicated the treating physician was their pick for “whose responsibility it it to manage opioids”
  • over 45% of both groups believe payers have been somewhat or very ineffective in addressing opioids...the cause of this is primarily due to regulatory restrictions, although internal obstacles are considered a very significant contributor as well.
  • Re solutions, about 80% listed
    • peer/physician review for claims > 90/180 days,
    • drug utilization review,
    • random drug testing, and
    • opioid agreement/contracts as components of the ideal solution.

Lots more to come as we’ve got a couple gigabytes of data to review and cross-tabulate.  There will also be a webinar on the Survey results in early November, and I’ll be at CID-M’s booth in Vegas to answer questions about the Survey as well.

Will get you more details shortly.


Oct
11

WCRI’s CompScope – quick takeaways

WCRI’s latest CompScope reports are out – there’s a megaton of info in the 16 state reports (I certainly have NOT read them all), but here’s what I’ve gleaned from an initial review of the reports on several large states.

Reforms often have unintended consequences – primarily increasing, rather than decreasing, medical costs.  Providers and their helpers find ways around the regs or actually use them to generate more profit, and there are a plethora of examples:

    • CA physician dispensing of drugs not on Medi-Cal fee schedule – when the drug fee schedule change drastically reduced payments for drugs, the loophole the dispensing profiteers drove thru was this; if the drug was not listed by Medi-Cal, then it was paid under the old AWP-based fee schedule.  Voila, a huge opportunity for selling repackaged drugs thru dispensing docs;
    • CA cost of compounded drugs went up after fee schedule was imposed, something predicted by several experts, yet ignored by the politicians searching for a quick and easy fix.  They got their quick and easy, but didn’t get a fix.
    • FL outpatient facility costs went up after the change to fee schedule from 75% of billed charges to 60%.  Anyone could have predicted this; all hospitals have to do is increase their billed charges, which, shockingly, they did.

Reform changes that appear to have the most real impact on costs are typically adopting an RBRVS or MS-DRG based fee schedule and adopting binding UR and strong clinical guidelines.  Ideally, both. This addresses the price and utilization issues at the same time, making it harder (not impossible, but harder) for providers seeking to game the system to succeed.

What does this mean for you?

Good reform can be effective. Bad reform is often very counter-productive – and there’s a lot of bad reform.


Oct
8

On work comp back surgery, Minnesota gets it right

Back surgery is far too common, far too risky, and far too costly – it’s also far from proven effective for most conditions.

That’s why Minnesota’s decision to educate workers’ comp claimants contemplating back surgery is a great example of legislators and regulators getting it right.  The legislature passed SB1234 which among other things called for a two-year pilot program:

“for employees with back injuries who are considering back fusion surgery. The purpose of the program is to ensure that injured workers understand their treatment options and receive treatment for their work injuries according to accepted medical standards. The services provided by the patient advocate shall be paid for from the special compensation fund.”

The program’s Patient Advocate helps claimants determine if lumbar fusion surgery is appropriate, educates them about the risks (only half get better after surgery, about a third have a “poor” result), complications, likelihood of repeat surgery (about 25% get another surgery), and poor outcomes (less than half return to work).

This makes so much sense on so many levels. The research indicates PT and anti-inflammatories deliver better outcomes than surgery for degenerative disk disease, probably the most common cause of low-back pain.  That’s not to say surgery isn’t the right treatment for some; a government research project indicates patients getting surgery for herniated disks have better outcomes in all categories except one – return to work.

Leaving aside that rather big caveat, this is exactly what the workers’ comp system needs – more science, better educated claimants, and a clear and understandable discussion of potential risks and benefits prior to aggressive treatment.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t note the State of Washington dealt with lumbar fusion some years ago, requiring conservative care before contemplating surgery and banning multiple level lumbar fusion for patients with no prior lumbar surgery.

Hat tip to WorkCompCentral for the head’s up.

What does this mean for you?

See, legislators and regulators can – and do – get it right.


Sep
27

NCCI’s latest pharmacy report – the highlights

The good folks at NCCI just published a new study of prescription drugs in workers’ comp; here are a few highlights; the data is from 2011.

  • Narcotic usage increased significantly, from 21% of costs in 2010 to 25% in 2011.
  • Physician dispensing increased as well, along with the average cost for physician dispensed drugs.
  • NCCI estimates drugs account for 18% of all medical expenses; note that this is based on total incurred cost, or for the layperson, their estimate of what the total including already-paid and future drug costs.
  • The older the claim, the greater the percentage of total medical costs due to drugs – up to 40 percent.
  • On a cost per claim basis, NCCI indicates drug costs increased six percent in 2011.
  • Generics account for 76 percent of the scripts, but only 44 percent of the cost.

So, what does this all mean?

Couple things stand out.

First, NCCI’s numbers are based on total incurred, therefore there’s a bit of forecasting involved. I note this as the 18% figure (drug costs as a percentage of total medical spend) is significantly higher than most payers I work with; the range is around 12% – 14%.

Second, drug spend declined in 2011 according to CompPharma’s annual Survey of Prescription Drugs in Workers’ Comp.

Why the difference (NCCI indicates a 6 percent increase)?

  1. CompPharma looks at total, not per-claim cost, so claim frequency has some impact.
  2. NCCI uses incurred (there it is again), the Survey is based on actual paid amounts.
  3. CompPharma is a survey of 23 payers, all of which use PBMs.  These are generally fairly-to-very sophisticated payers.  In contrast, NCCI’s data comes from a much broader spectrum of payers, some of which don’t use PBMs, and others don’t use them effectively.

What does this mean for you?

Drug cost increases are moderating, but physician dispensing remains a big problem, and opioid usage increased almost 20% (four points) year over year.

That’s really bad.


Sep
17

Workers’ comp claim frequency is down, will it stay there?

Claim frequency dropped another 5% in 2012, continuing a 25-year trend of ever-decreasing frequency…well, except for that one-year uptick during the recession.

More tellingly, NCCI data indicates frequency has been steadily declining across all industry groups.  However, this has been partially offset by a small but steady rise in medical costs.  Although medical costs  increased at an average rate of 5.7% from 2002 – 2011, NCCI reports trend over the last three years was substantially below that figure.

I must admit to being somewhat puzzled by this, as several clients are reporting higher increases. It could be that NCCI uses paid and estimated future medical expense (“developed to ultimate”) while the payers I work with look at paid data (when we project medical costs).  Nevertheless, we are seeing medical trend rates in the mid to upper single digits, driven by facility costs.  

One area of interest is the oil and gas industry, where employment has been steadily increasing over the last five years. Yet the frequency trend has been down in all but one segment of this industry, mirroring overall trends.  Overall, payroll is up 16% in that time, while frequency declined over 20 percent; notably severity increases more than outweighed the positive effect of the drop in frequency, as costs were up 22%.

So, what does this mean?

First, frequency is continuing its decline, however I’d expect the rate of decline to decrease over the next couple years.  Second, severity – NCCI estimates are it is in the low single digits, while I see it as significantly higher.  I think the key is in the methodology.  NCCI bases severity on a projection of what today’s claims will ultimately cost while my admittedly-anecdotal information is based on what’s actually been paid.

The net – as employment trends up (if the morons in Congress don’t find some principled-but-stupid reason to refuse to increase the debt ceiling) the number of claims will too, partially or completely off-setting the frequency drop.  And medical costs are going to increase.  


Sep
16

Buy this book

WCRI’s just published a comprehensive guide to physician dispensing in workers’ comp, complete with cost trends, state regulations and legislation, individual drug price differentials, and a wealth of other great information.

Here is the key take-away.

  • in four states – IL MD FL CA – physician dispensing accounts for more than 55 percent of all drug spend.
  • In four more – CT PA TN GA – it accounts for more than 30%.
  • and it continues to grow across the board.

What’s notable is that after regulations to limit upcharging for repackaged drugs were put in place in California, the percentage of scripts dispensed by docs didn’t change appreciably.  

With other states, e.g. GA IL MI CT all taking similar action, we will know more about the impact of price controls on dispensing.  My sense is the controls will not significantly reduce physician dispensing.

That is too bad, as CWCI research proves physician dispensing increases medical costs over and above the higher cost of the drugs – while extending disability duration and total claims cost.

All to enrich a few docs and their dispensing company allies.

What does this mean for you?

Higher costs.  Worse outcomes.

 


Sep
11

Health insurance costs under PPACA…not what you’ve heard

There’s been a lot of yelling about insurance costs under PPACA/Obamacare of late, most of which is uninformed, unintelligible, ideologically based or just plain wrong.

Here’s the scoop.

As of 8/30, 17 states and DC have released comprehensive rates for insurance plans bought via their Exchanges. And the news is quite good.

The CBO’s  projected rates for a  40 year old individual were $320; the benchmark rates in 15 of 18 states out so far are lower than CBO projection.  Benchmark rates are based on the second lowest priced Silver plan.  The two highest cost states – VT and NY – are anomalies as the rates and plans are affected by current rate limits and the existing ban on medical underwriting, both of which drove rates up.

Because the actual premiums are lower than projections, the federal budgetary cost of subsidies is actually going to be lower than projected.  This assessment is based on a comprehensive analysis done by the good folk at Kaiser Family Foundation did a comprehensive analysis.

If a 40 year old individual with income at 250% of the FPL uses tax subsidy to buy a bronze plan, insured’s rate can be as low as $97 in Hartford CT.

So what accounts for the differences in today’s premiums vs ACA premiums?

Rates are higher than today’s because:

–       pre-existing conditions will be covered under ACA will increase premiums

–       coverage is more comprehensive; for many people, their coverage will improve; todays plans often have (much) higher deductibles, limits on specific types of services,

–       limits on cost variation by age, medical underwriting, and gender rating

Rates are lower than projected because:

–       80/20 MLR threshold lowers premiums (insurers have to pay at least 80% of premiums for actual health services

–       rate review by states/feds will reduce premiums; in some states it already as as the local regulators have required insurers to cut premiums to earn a place in the Exchanges

–       federal reinsurance for high risk members will lower premiums

–       most purchasers will get subsidies, either via credits based on their income (declining subsidies based on income from 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level) or credits for small employers.

–       Most importantly, and I’d argue most significantly over the long term, PPACA’s Exchanges will engender fierce price competition, price competition that doesn’t occur today because consumers don’t know what their cost will be until they’ve completed the underwriting process.  In the Exchanges, they’ll be able to directly and quickly compare plans from multiple insurers, without having to wade thru the minutia of different benefit designs, coverage limits, and exclusions and limitations.

Notably, in Oregon, two insurers’ plan costs came in high; the insurers realized they were priced out of the market and reduced their premiums to compete – this is very different from today where medical underwriting and the application process hides actual prices.

What does this mean for you?

Perhaps the biggest benefit of PPACA’s Exchanges is they level the playing field, making it easy for consumers to figure out what their costs will be for which plans.  This is going to force insurers to compete based on value, not on how well they can underwrite – aka avoid selling insurance to anyone who might actually have a claim.

 

 


Sep
9

Survey of Prescription Drug Management in Work Comp – results are in

CompPharma’s Tenth Annual Survey of Prescription Drug Management in Worker’s Comp is available for download here.

There are two key takeaways from this year’s Survey; the continued decline in drug costs for programs managed by PBMs, and the industry’s sophistication, knowledge, and expertise about all things drug-related.  The latter is one of those findings that is not immediately apparent as it has gradually increased over the last ten years; it is blindingly obvious when one reviews the first Survey and compares it to this year’s.

Respondents’ knowledge of pharmacy is deep and broad; their comments on issues, concerns, and results reflects that knowledge as they discuss issues including:

  • the dangers of benzos and opioids prescribed together,
  • concerns about opioid addiction and treatment thereof,
  • rapid growth in urine drug monitoring,
  • safety issues inherent in physician dispensing,
  • and drug utilization review functions and programs

For the third consecutive year, respondents reported an aggregate flat or decrease in drug spend.  Careful observers may find this puzzling as overall industry data indicates drug costs are up.  However, the Survey’s respondents all use PBMs, with most taking full advantage of many of the programs and services offered by their PBM.  Perhaps more telling, other data indicates spend on opioids on programs managed by PBMs was also down last year.  

All good, right?

No.  

Senior management remains quite concerned about drugs, with the long term impact of opioids the key driver of that concern. 

And concerned they should be.


Aug
26

Opioids in work comp – Survey says…

We are just about done with our Survey on Opioid Management in Workers’ Comp and there are a few early findings that caught our attention.

(to complete the survey, and register for the iPad we’re giving to one respondent, click here)

About 2/3 of respondents have been in WC for more than 15 years, and about the same percentage work in claims or medical management.  In all, a highly experienced, very knowledgeable group.

The most common first words that come to mind when they hear the word “opioids” are addiction and abuse. 

40% of respondents said senior management is “very concerned” about opioids.

A majority of respondents think payers’ efforts to address opioids have been somewhat or very ineffective; most blame lack of effective regulations.

Payers would like to see regulations: 

  • instituting evidence-based clinical guidelines; 
  • supporting urine drug monitoring;  and
  • requiring opioid agreements/contracts.

Finally, 94% said opioid usage has lead to addiction/dependency.

94%.

Is your hair on fire?