Mar
26

Just how dangerous is compounding?

Way more dangerous than we’ve been led to believe by compounding pharmacies and their supporters. A report in the Washington Post by two investigative journalists highlights shoddy practices and unsanitary conditions at three pharmacies that have sickened and killed patients.

Unfortunately compounding is a growing phenomenon, especially in workers’ comp.  Research from CWCI and other sources indicate that despite the lack of any evidence-based research justifying widespread use, compound meds are becoming a larger part of pharmacy spend.  Fortunately, we can observe what’s happened in California to forecast the future for compounding in other states.

California recently tried to address the issue thru bill AB 378, which specifically focused on the ingredient cost; the net? the number of scripts dropped 35% (from 3.1% of all scripts to 2%)…however the cost per script zoomed.  Compounds now account for one out of every eight dollars spent on drugs…

(see CWCI’s February 2013 report for details on what happened and why)

In his blog, David DePaolo reported on a criminal case involving payments to physicians for prescribing compounds;

“The complaint, filed by the owners of a medical billing company in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, alleges that Cyrus Sorat is a part owner of Health Care Pharmacy and Deutsche Medical Services in Tustin, Calif., and paid 208 doctors to prescribe compound drugs to injured workers needing topical analgesics. Sorat promised to pay the doctors an unreported fee for each prescription they wrote, and also agreed to handle billing and recover receivables on behalf of the physicians, according to the complaint.”

While cases such as these are unusual, the increased use of compounds, and specifically the changes in the compound drugs dispensed are clearly intended to maximize reimbursement.

Make no mistake – this isn’t about patient care or return to work or excellent medicine, it is about enriching a few at the expense of employers and taxpayers, while not caring one whit about possible patient safety issues.

Workers’ comp – the last refuge of scoundrels and charlatans.  Again.

 

 

 


Mar
25

The latest on workers’ comp physician dispensing in Louisiana

The good folks in Louisiana are rejoicing over a recent court decision in a case involving LUBA Workers’ Comp; here’s the interpretation from Jeffrey Napolitano of Juge Napolitano Guilbreau Ruli & Frieman PLC, a legal firm in Metairie, LA…

the court found “a wholesale pharmacy distributor, who contracts with physicians to provide pharmaceuticals to the physicians on a consignment basis for dispensing to their workers compensation patients, has no right of action to bring suit against the employer/insurer for payment for pharmaceuticals. [emphasis added] The court held that only the employee or healthcare provider has a right to brig suit for payment for providing medical services to an injured workers under the workers compensation act.”

While the Pelican State may have a reputation as a bit of a hellhole for workers comp payers, this latest shows that there’s always good to be found – if you have a good enough case and a smart enough attorney.

Kudos to LUBA for fighting the good fight.

Unfortunately, we can expect physicians to start billing for themselves, or figuring out some equally creative way to suck more money out of employers and taxpayers.

What does this mean for you?

The briefest of respites…

 


Mar
19

What business are you in?

The good folk at WorkCompWire asked me to contribute a piece this week; you can find it here.

The main point – Most workers’ comp executives – C-suite residents included – do not understand the business they are in. They think they are in the insurance business – and they are not. They are in the medical and disability management business – with medical listed first in order of priority.

Let the brickbats fly.


Mar
8

Wrapping up the workers’ comp week

Here’s the highlights from the week after the annual WCRI meeting and Physician Dispensing Summit…

The incontrovertible proof that physician dispensing of repackaged drugs extends disability and increases claims costs has raised the stakes in Maryland, Hawai’i, and Pennsylvania, states that are all working on legislation or regulations addressing physician dispensing.  The key takeaway – dispensing extends disability and raises medical costs – over and above the cost of the drugs.

It’s no longer about controlling the cost of the repackaged drugs, it’s now about the impact of dispensing on employers and taxpayers.

I’ve heard from multiple sources – including folks in Hawai’i –  that the new new thing in the repackaging/physician dispensing world is SpeedGel...developed and sold by the wonderful folks at Gensco Labs.  SpeedGel is currently available in both OTC and prescription strengths, but word is the over-the-counter version will no longer be available (amazing what you can learn when you talk to their sales reps).  Evidently some payers have been reimbursing the prescription version at the OTC price, and we can’t have that!!

As you can see from the link, Gensco isn’t resting on their laurels.  Nope, they’ve been busy filing trademarks for new and wonderful topical medications that are sure to solve myriad problems – to date Randy M Goldberg has filed for 43! Coincidentally, there’s a gentleman with the same name who’s affiliated with Automated Healthcare Solutions…

They sure are busy down there in Miramar, Florida!

Don’t worry about the disclaimer on their site…the one that reads “The products and the claims made about specific products on or through this site have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are not approved to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Finally, I’m going to be on holiday all next week in Italy.  See you in ten days.

 


Mar
4

Mark Walls moves to Marsh

Good friend, colleague, and social media/marketing star Mark Walls is now at Marsh, where he’ll be “developing market research, insight, and other content for Marsh colleagues, clients, and prospects on emerging issues, trends, regulatory, and other changes that affect the workers’ compensation market.”

But mostly he’ll be doing what he does better than anyone; connecting people, commenting on current issues, generating dialogue, and taking positions.

This was a very, very smart move for Marsh.  They got themselves the guy who is arguably the best-known “brand” in work comp social media.  And they’re going to let him be himself: travel to and speak at conferences, help plan and participate in industry events; engage the industry and the various stakeholders.  The benefits for Marsh are incalculable; every time Mark posts, hosts, or toasts the Marsh brand will be there for all to see.

For Mark’s former employer, Safety National, this is a loss perhaps much bigger than they know.  Many in this industry associate SN with Mark; his work greatly improved their standing in the industry, opened many doors, and generated huge amounts of positive press.  Unfortunately, my sense is his bosses didn’t “get” Mark’s value to Safety National, did not understand how his market presence benefited the company, and as a result didn’t take full advantage of Mark.

That said, SN did encourage Mark’s activity and certainly benefited from that activity.  While many WC payers would have looked very skeptically on an employee engaged in social media, SN embraced that activity, generally supported it, and in so doing helped establish a presence for the company that is far wider and deeper than they’d have seen otherwise.

Mark’s WCAG group is the largest networked group in workers’ compensation.  He organizes several conferences, national as well as regional.  He’s a sought-after speaker and expert for media.  I have no idea what Mark is making at Marsh, but it’s a bargain for the return they’re going to get.

Congratulations Mark, smart move Marsh, and kudos to Safety National for getting this started.


Mar
4

WCRI’s research wrap-up

Only the thoroughly nerdy (and yes that includes your intrepid reporter) stuck around for the final session, a WCRI research sampler based on their CompScope research database for lost time claims from 2008-2011.

It’s not just medical benefits that vary wildly – indemnity benefits per claim ranged from almost $10,000 per claim in IN to $28,000 in NC.  The researchers broke this down into the various components and sub-components; temporary and permanent disability benefits.

This is NOT my area of expertise – so be warned.

One study looked at the Michigan workers’ employment after a lump-sum settlement of their claim.  19% of those claimants who didn’t have a job at the time of settlement found one within a year, most took their time.

Among those claimants who were working at their “pre-injury” employer, 41% left their job and were no longer employed a year later.  For those who had found a job at a new employer after their original injury, 75% kept that job.

About a third who had a job at time of settlement quit and weren’t employed a year after that settlement.

That’s it for me – time to get back get back to work.


Mar
1

WCRI Wrap-up

With a day and a drive to reflect on the WCRI conference, there’s much to be taken away.

Attendance was high.  Over the last decade, WCRI has become a must-attend for many payers and regulators, and as a result the number of service entities at the conference has grown steadily.  That’s good; all stakeholders need to hear what’s happening, share ideas, and debate solutions.

WCRI’s growing use and acceptance of social media is impressive.  Andrew Kenneally was tweeting away through every session, and there were several other media folks there live blogging (including your trusty author).  They’ve gone out of their way to make our work easier, and the benefits for WCRI can be measured in the media mentions – which were likely in the gazillions.

From a content perspective, it was (with one exception) perhaps the best I’ve attended.  WCRI’s done an admirable job “freshening” their data: a past criticism was that the research was based on data that was quite dated, and therefore was not actionable.  The research we heard about this week reflected information from November 2011 – quite an improvement.

The discussion of guidelines was (generally) quite good – a solid explanation and background, a necessary albeit discouraging discussion of challenges getting docs to comply with guidelines, and a good synopsis of some key results in the non-WC world. There was also a review of some WC-specific results (I would have liked more results, but that’s a quibble). Prof. Wickizer’s summary was excellent, altho some of the citations were dated.

Some came away from that talk lamenting that they hadn’t heard much they hadn’t heard before.  I hadn’t either, but in fairness those I spoke with have very long and deep experience in this area; several could have given the talk themselves.  For many attendees, it was “new news”.

The focus on opioids on day two was absolutely on point.  I have the uneasy feeling most payers, actuaries, and rating agencies have yet to consider the financial impact of long-term opioid usage – and when they do it’s going to be really ugly.

OperationUNITE’s Karen Kelly gave a presentation on the human impact of opioid abuse that was terrifying.  In some counties in Kentucky, over half the kids are in households with NO PARENTS.  In one small elementary school, over ten percent of the kids had lost parents to opioid abuse. And there’s no question we in the workers’ comp world are contributing to this problem.

A colleague texted me during that session that IAIABC’s Executive Committee would do well to meet with Ms Kelly; they may well decide to reverse their decision and promulgate model language for opioids…

The following sessions detailed the cost, prevalence, and trends of opioid usage in WC.  Data on opioid usage was revealing, current, and actionable.

That was followed by two presentations by vendors – Paradigm (cat claims management) and Ameritox (urine drug testing).  Both were well-done, professional, and polished.  And totally inappropriate for WCRI.  The speakers discussed their company’s programs, provided details on their results, and shared their research, essentially marketing their services to the 350 attendees.  More to the point, their presence on the podium amounted to a subtle, if unintended, endorsement by WCRI. It would have been acceptable if their clients had presented; Paradigm has a long and successful relationship with the Travelers and Ameritox has many payer customers who have used their services for years.

Lest you, dear reader, think this is sour grapes, it is not.  As I’ve disclosed umpteen times, a competitor in the UDT space, Millennium Labs, is a consulting client.  If Millennium had asked me for my views on presenting at WCRI, I would have strongly discouraged their participation.  There are plenty of other venues where it is quite appropriate; the National WC and Disability conference, WCI, and RIMS are the top three.

WCRI is different.  And should remain so.

 

 


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
27

It has long been known that medical care delivery can vary dramatically from state to state, and even within a state.  Jack Wennberg and his colleagues at Dartmouth have reported deep and long on the issue, with the initial revelation – and it was that – coming forty years ago.  The latest work can be found at the Dartmouth Atlas of healthcare – and it is well worth visiting.

So, here’s the deal – medicine is as much art as science, driven by local knowledge and personal beliefs as much as by best practices and evidence-based clinical guidelines.  While we like to THINK it’s about science, it often isn’t.

WCRI’s Dr Rebecca Yang delivered the initial presentation at WCRI’s annual meeting focused on interstate variation in medical care.  Their analysis looked at surgery, MRIs, pain management injections, and physical medicine; a few highlights (for those not able or willing to make it to Boston this year) include:

  • Surgical rates varied from about 18 percent in Massachusetts to 38 percent in Indiana.
  • MRIs of the lumbar region had an even larger range, from 18% in MA to 50% (FIFTY PERCENT!) in Florida; Florida’s rate was 20% (8 points) above the next highest state.
These data raise multiple questions; do the UR requirements in MA have anything to do with the lower rate of surgery?  Could that rate be affected by Mass’ very low reimbursement for workers’ comp surgery?
Florida has (relatively) tight managed care provisions, yet their MRI rate was 250% of Massachusetts.  Both states have strong UR, and in FL employers can direct. And there’s no discernable variation in the types of injury.  Which begs the question – what are payers not doing that they should be doing in FL?
And another – are there too few MRIs in Massachusetts? ( I personally doubt this, as the rate may well too high even in MA).   Much more in Dr Yang’s presentation…
Ohio State Prof. Tom Wickizer followed Dr Yang.  He gave an excellent background on small area analysis and practice pattern variation.  he mentioned one of my heroes, Dr Jack Wennberg (noted above): and highlighted seminal research indicates “spending 50% – 80% more on health care did not lead to meaningful differences..”
Wickizer quickly pivoted to matters of specific interest to WC, discussing the wide variation in back surgery rates across the nation; there’s a nine-fold difference in the lumbar fusion rate between the northeast and the west…(which says don’t bother pre-certing in New England, but pre-cert every case in the southwest).
So, how does one “fix” this?  Well, guidelines can help improve results – if they are used.  Wickizer said adherence – the usage of guidelines – is often less than 50 percent.  There are a number of reasons for this, but not many are very good (a few are valid).  And, adhering to guidelines does lead to improvement in functional outcomes and better health – although it’s not a dramatic difference (Feuerstein study, 2003).  There was a larger impact in a study of the impact of PT guidelines, with costs and pain rating much lower and better outcomes as well.
All that’s well and good, and it indicates that guidelines can and do help – but they have to be used.  And getting providers to follow guidelines is very difficult – unless you force the issue.  The state of Washington did just that, and delivered better outcomes and lower costs way back in the early nineties… and those better outcomes included lower disability payments.  One can, and probably should, infer that better medical care delivers lower medical costs.
Thereby “proving the meme”…

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.