My post on Accident Fund’s ground-breaking analytical work generated a good bit of discussion, some public and much not, some appropriate and some a bit confused.

To clarify, allow me to address a few issues.

1.  As I said yesterday, Illinois has the highest medical costs in workers comp, driven in large part by the second highest fee schedule. WCRI’s CompScope report (12th Ed., ppg 10-11) provides an excellent comparison of medical costs among the study states; IL’s medical costs are – by far – the highest for both lost time and medical only claims (as defined by WCRI).

2.  I did NOT say IL’s workers comp costs were the highest – the state is fourth in that category.  Some readers evidently conflated “medical” with “workers’ comp”; medical is a component of workers comp costs, along with indemnity and administrative expense (ULAE and ALAE).

3.  There are several contributors to IL’s medical cost problem.  The highest outpatient facility costs, an easily-gamed fee schedule, no real employer direction, and high – I would suggest far too high – utilization of physical medicine at prices much higher than those in surrounding states are among the major drivers.  Internal HSA data from several large payers indicates the average number of PT visits for work comp claims in IL was above 15 in 2010; if anyone has more current data I’d love to see it.  This was substantially higher than states surrounding Illinois.

So, what’s to be done?

Well, start with identifying the best providers – defined as those who adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines and deliver the best outcomes: shortest disability duration, lowest medical and indemnity expense, sustained return to work.  Note that patient satisfaction is not automatically included.  Unfortunately some WC claimants don’t want to return to work when they’re physically ready to do so, and therefore don’t like providers who try to get them back quickly.  That’s not to say patient satisfaction should not be factored in, just that one has to be careful when doing so.  Much of what I’ve seen re patient satisfaction doesn’t adequately address this potentially-confounding issue.

Next, develop strong relationships with those selected providers – pay them fairly and quickly, don’t bother them with needless UR requirements, help them schedule ancillary services when and where necessary, and let them know you’ll be monitoring their performance on an on-going basis.

Direct injured workers to those good providers – this can be done in every state except New York. There’s an industry-wide misunderstanding of “direction”; it is legal in every state (but NY), however in some states the claimant can decide where they want to go, while in others the employer can require an injured worker go to a specific provider (or choose from among selected providers in states such as GA and PA).

Finally, monitor and measure outcomes, provide that data to providers, and continuously tweak your network.

Which leads us back to the Accident Fund’s CareAnalytics(tm) approach.  Notably, the analysis of providers did not factor in network participation or discount arrangements, rather it focused on outcomes.  As Jeff White reported in his public presentation at WCI in Orlando, desired outcomes include:

• adherence to evidence-based medical guidelines
• total claims cost
• claim duration
• medical cost
• addiction and dependency prevention

Finally, I’d echo what George Anstadt MD, former president of ACOEM, said yesterday in a comment on MCM: “glad to see insurers looking at good outcomes and recognizing that Occupational Medicine specialists are a great value, as a group, and that within that group are an experienced and ethical sub-group who save insurers even more money and get even better health outcomes for workers and their employers.”

For several years, the Accident Fund (HSA consulting client) has been making major investments in data analytics and working on ways to use their new-found knowledge to reduce costs and improve outcomes.  Now, the results of those efforts are becoming apparent.

Claims costs are coming down, driven by rapid referral of selected claims to top occ med physicians.

AF’s program identifies higher risk claims and claimants, alerts adjusters and case managers, and, when necessary seeks to move the claimant to one of the top docs.

The program, which recently won an award for innovation, is under the direction of Jeffrey Austin White, director of Medical Management Practices and Strategy for Accident Fund Holdings.  In a press release Jeff said “It’s a huge honor to receive this award and it is truly reflective of the hard work of our claims representatives, risk case managers and operating companies…This is a major accomplishment of custom software development to meet our business needs and improve efficiency while also giving us a competitive edge.”

So far, the program has helped identify high-risk claims faster, improved policyholder satisfaction, and reduced claim costs for targeted claims in excess of 20 percent.

Jeff reported on these results at several recent conferences including August’s Workers Comp Institute in Orlando.  Here are a few highlights:

• the more work comp experience a physician has, the better their outcomes are.
• the most experienced docs’ claims costs were 20% below the least experienced
• a lot of claims are handled by docs with zero experience in comp
• claims handled by occ med docs were 20% less costly than average

The net -“change of provider based on experience is an effective cost containment strategy.”

While others are talking, planning, and getting ready to get ready, Accident Fund is doing.  Kudos to Chief Claims Officer Pat Walsh, VP Claims Lisa Riddle, and Jeff White.

 

We’ve recently completed the First Annual Survey of Utilization Review in Workers’ Comp, and some of the results are a bit surprising.

Sponsored by CID Management, there were 118 respondents, both front line and executive staff. While there were some consistent findings, once again it is apparent there are rather more disconnects than one would expect.

• Execs are one-and-a-half times more likely than the front line to report their UM/UR system is integrated with their other medical management programs (e.g., bill review, networks, pharmacy). Interestingly, this is similar to the differences between executive and front line responses that HSA found in its most recent bill review survey; most executives thought BR was integrated with UM/UR, but most desk folks did not.
• Execs appear to be more concerned with the execution of the UM/UR guidelines/rules by the state while the folks on the front lines appear to be more concerned with the state’s poor enforcement/accountability of their guidelines.
• When asked what UR was utilized for, front line staff were more focused on controlling claim costs while management was most focused on delivering the right care at the right time.

Among those respondents using vendors for some or all of their UR work, the average vendor has been in place for five years – however most don’t see much of a barrier to switching vendors. In fact, two-thirds of both groups believe that it is neutral to very easy to make a UM/UR vendor switch. Further yet, approximately a quarter of both the FL and the EXs stated that it would be not hard or very easy to make the switch.

There’s much more detail to the Survey; we’ll be presenting results, and you can get a copy of the Survey Report, at the NWCD Conference in Las Vegas next month.  The presentation and Q&A will be held at CID’s booth; I’ll be posting the schedule next week.