Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Mar
7

Impact of health reform on work comp

Over at Mark Wall’s Linked-In Group there’s a passionate discussion going on about the impact of health reform on workers comp.
I have my own views on the impact of reform on workers comp, namely the Affordable Care Act, aka PPACA, aka Obamacare, is generally good news for the comp industry. That may not sit well with the ideologically pure, but here’s why.
Healthier claimants – those with insurance are healthier than those without
– no need for WC to pay for non-occ conditions once the claimant has coverage (whether the WC payer follows thru on this is a separate issue)
– more science and less art in the practice of medicine as comparative effectiveness research gains traction – good news indeed for comp payers saddled with back surgeries and H-Wave devices.
– of course, there’s bad news – mostly for comp networks who are going to become increasingly ineffective in their efforts to negotiate favorable deals with big provider groups, facilities, and systems.
But, as Mark and others point out, while we think we know what’s going to happen, we really can’t know…


Mar
6

Prosecuting drug-dealing docs

A California physician has been charged with murder in the deaths of three patients who died of fatal overdoses. Dr. Hsiu-Ying “Lisa” Tseng, arrested earlier this week in Los Angeles, has been linked to five more fatal overdoses.
Tseng’s arrest comes two weeks after Dr Paul Volkman, the southern Ohio pill mill prescriber, was sentenced to four life sentences by a Cincinnati court. Volkman was convicted of killing four patients; he was associated with eight other deaths but there wasn’t enough direct evidence for convictions in those cases.
The DEA has dramatically stepped up its efforts to identify and charge physicians and pharmacists engaged in illegal distribution of controlled substances. Pill Nation II, the DEA’s latest initiative, resulted in the arrest of eight Florida physicians and two pharmacists, two Colorado docs, last fall, and a long list of other docs engaged in similar behavior.
Patients drove from as far away as Tempe Arizona to see Dr Tseng in her LA County office. Tseng had been under investigation by state and Federal agencies for years. She had been forced to give up her medical license just one day before her arrest, an event that occurred far too late for the three young men, all in their twenties, who had died after taking drugs prescribed by Tseng.
Tseng, charged with 20 counts of prescribing drugs – including oxycodone and aprazolam – for patients with no legitimate need for the drugs, had been under investigation by the DEA since 2007; her office was raided in 2010.
The sister of one of Tseng’s alleged victims had reported Tseng to the local district attorney three years ago, after her brother’s death from an overdose – two years after the DEA investigation began. I’m not pointing fingers at the FDA, rather noting how difficult it can be for law enforcement to:
– learn of the possibility that a crime has been committed
– investigate and determine if a crime has been committed (obtaining necessary judicial authorization for warrants while protecting patient confidentiality if appropriate)
– obtain a commitment from the prosecuting authorities that they support further investigation
– develop and substantiate enough information to give authorities confidence they have a solid case
– coordinate efforts with other investigating entities, develop the charges, and proceed with the arrest.
That’s likely scant comfort for the mother of Joey Rovero, but she’s turned her grief into action, forming the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse.
What does this mean for you?
If you suspect a doc or pharmacist is prescribing or dispensing illegally, contact the DEA at 1-877-RxAbuse (1-877-792-2873) – it’s confidential.


Mar
5

Work comp – 2012 regulatory changes

Every year any number of states change their workers comp regulations, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a minor tweak. This year there’s some of both.
Illinois has to be on the top of anyone’s list – the changes passed last summer are going to be working their way thru the regulatory – and judicial – systems for some time to come (more on Illinois workers comp reforms here).
This year, the Workers’Compensation Research Institute and IAIABC have collaborated on the annual compendium of state workers comp regs. I asked IAIABC Executive Director Jennifer Wolf Horejsh about the major changes over 2011: she reported “a few states experienced significant reforms in 2011 (KS, IL, MT, MI) that impacted the laws as of 2012.”
Montana’s had high costs for some time, and there were some relatively minor changes in the Big Sky state. Costs appear to be the factor in changes this year; again, Wolf Horejsh
“I would surmise that the major driver of change was system cost of one kind or another. High premiums in Montana and Illinois had been a source of frustration for several years. Of course, medical cost containment is an area that is still discussed frequently among the workers’ compensation regulatory community. The issue of physician-dispensing…is on the radar in some states and I anticipate it will still be an area of continuing reform in the next few years.”
Several states did take action to limit costs on physician-dispensed drugs; Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi are all among those addressing the problem via regulation. (note the report doesn’t include details on reimbursement)


Mar
3

What health research articles can you believe?

There’s a lot of mindless blather in the media about scientific studies on health that purport to say this or that about something or other – much of it confusing, contradictory, and/or outright wrong.
While a lot is just sloppy journalism, there’s quite a bit that can be attributed to bias; physicians and/or researchers on the payroll of a specific company or industry conduct and/or report on research that is favorable to their financial supporter. Roy Poses and Gary Schwitzer have been two of the most prominent voices focused on this issue, and both have done exemplary work not only identifying individual examples of biased “research” but in calling for a higher standard of reporting by all members of the media.
Roy’s work exposing the influence of big money on academic medicine is exemplary.
That’s not to say that some of these advocates aren’t honorable and well-intentioned folks, and some of the research reports and/or advocacy positions are well-developed, legitimate and quite useful.
The tough work is identifying which ones are reliable and which may be less so. One resource is Gary’s list of experts with no links to purveyors of medical devices, medications, and/or treatment. Journalists seeking an unbiased, critical opinion can likely find someone on his list who can provide the straight scoop on the latest claim about peach pits, botox, or mercury toxicity.
A better bet may be to understand what makes for good research, and what’s not – and why, and how reporters can (unintentionally, one hopes) mischaracterize health research in such a way as to mislead the reader.
Here’s one example; a NYT article on treating baldness reported on “treating” mail hair loss by transplanting hair from the patients’ legs to their head. Schwitzer critiqued the piece as “observational with a sample of two patients, it misses nearly all of our measures and allows the author of the study to provide readers with a 777 word advertisement.” [emphasis added]
Ouch.
To answer my headline question, I’d say “yes, but check to see who the”experts” cited by the articles are and where they make their money.”


Mar
1

Streaming Health Wonk Review

Trying something new in this fortnight’s edition of Health Wonk Review – instead of grouping contributions by topic, we’ll take them as they come – just like we encounter them on the web – and at the end, I’ll try to summarize and find common themes and make sense out of the chaos.
note the use of the word “try”…
Our revered colleague Hank Stern is pushing hard for full insurance coverage of men’s facial grooming products. Hank, you kill me!
David Williams takes issue with Mitt Romney’s call to increase the Medicare eligibility age, asking why we can’t start raising it now, and faster than Romney suggests. Good policy isn’t good politics, and to me this looks more like another Romney effort to address a perceived problem without angering a voting block… (I do agree with David’s note that a better faster way to reduce the long term deficit would be repeal of Medicare Part D…)
From new mandates we jump to the latest from Health IT, with dedicated reporter Neil Versel bringing us the news from the HIMSS 2012 conference. Neil walked the aisles, listed to talks, and chatted up insiders, all so we don’t have to suffer the sore feet and info overload. Think “meaningful use” and ICD-10…
Just in time, our colleagues at Health Affairs contributed their observations on the proposed rules for Meaningful Use of EHR , diving deeper into the issue with another post from an EHR stakeholder, noting the list of quality measures is likely to be significantly trimmed in the final rule.
Louise Norris – a retail health insurance broker in Colorado – combines a deep understanding of the implications of health policy on a national scale with her hands-on, daily working knowledge of how health insurance markets actually work, and that rare combination makes her observation “if all continues as currently planned but with the individual mandate eliminated, I would expect premiums – in the long run – to be significantly higher than they would be with the individual mandate in place…” one we would be well-advised to carefully consider…
Changing gears, At Workers’ Comp Insider, Julie Ferguson has been following the ingoing criminal probe and charges related to the 2010 Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. Many insiders believe that criminal charges will climb higher up the criminal ladder. How high? Stay tuned. (Ed. note – the Big Branch mine safety boss just got a three year prison term…)
HWR veteran Jason Shafrin PhD provides a critical review of a paper exploring factors affecting patients’ access to care. The always-insightful Shafrin’s summary is tight.
A different take on access comes from Anthony Wright who reports county-based Low-Income Health Programs (LIHPs) in California have already increased access to coverage for a quarter-million folks under the poverty level thanks to an early expansion of the Affordable Care Act.
Transparency in health care decisions is great – as long as consumers understand what the “price” buys, and the relative value and effectiveness and issues of different treatment options. That’s the point Joe Colucci makes while noting we’re a loooooong way from having access to enough usable information.
Another view comes from Greg Scandlen, who wants Medicare to incorporate spending accounts so individuals can set aside funds to cover their deductibles and copays. As a side note, Scandlen claims that his recent 19% premium increase is due to “ObamaCare”, a meme that has been debunked here and here – see page 19. In fact, PPACA’s impact on health insurance premiums accounts for about 1.5% of trend on average, and at most less than 5% when direct and indirect impacts are counted. In return, there’s coverage for dependents to 26 (adds <0.2%), elimination of lifetime dollar limits, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and free preventive care. There's rarely a point in time where it is suddenly and clearly obvious that no more medical care should be provided to a deathly ill patient, rather, it is a long and gradual decline, and suddenly we find ourselves with a very old, very infirm person with multiple problems all seemingly insoluble requiring Herculean efforts incurring massive cost. That’s Brad Flansbaum’s conclusion in his post on the timing of death.
Gary Schwitzer’s Health News Watchdog is fast becoming the go-to site for intelligent analysis of the mass media’s handling of health topics. Gary takes on the media’s handling of new research on colon cancer screening, noting “One study [in the New England Journal of Medicine focused] on colonoscopy, one on a form of blood stool testing, plus an editorial that addressed both. Some benefits for each approach were found in each study. Some stories only reported on the colonoscopy study, ignoring the blood stool test study. Others ignored the editorial – which provided easy access to an independent perspective.” Gary’s point? The blood stool study shows significant promise, and not discussing it in context diminishes the reader’s ability to understand that.
Perhaps the most diligent watchdog in the industry is Roy Poses, MD. Roy’s tireless efforts to uncover self-dealing and unethical behavior in the health care industry is notable not only for its thoroughness but, sadly, for the wealth of material. Roy takes on lazy reporters’ patent inability to see through conflicts of interest in health care research, and the logical fallacies that make a mockery of their “reporting.”
A new contributor is Wing of Zock (no, that’s not a typo), and from Michael Weitekamp MD comes a solid post leading with HL Mencken’s oft-used quote “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” Dr Weitekamp notes “The free market cannot fix this. We spent $2.6 trillion on health care in 2010 and the vested interest in the status quo is formidable.” Weitekamp goes on to note a government mandate won’t address duplication of low value services either. A very good overview; here’s hoping he continues with a series on solutions.
Good to hear from Maggie Mahar, who sends us her piece on obesity – I learned that it’s not the weight that kills, it’s the lack of activity. Obesity – in and of itself – isn’t near as damaging as inert behavior.
At Corporate Wellness Insights, Fiona Gathright has a different lament – many health care providers aren’t exactly pictures of health themselves, noting ” health care workers (nurses, aides, hospital administrators, etc) have some of the highest rates of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes in the country!”
Jared Rhoads discusses an effort to better understand public survey non-respondents views on health care reform, and laments the inadequacy of the “don’t know” answer.
A big component of some health plans’ efforts to improve patient care is the “medical home”. Jaan Sidorov MD isn’t sure medical homes are “all that”, and some research supporting medical homes is rather limited in scope.
A different perspective comes from Kerry Willis MD, who has a practitioner’s view of the issues with the health care system.
Finally, Avik Roy takes big pharma to task for working to delay approval of drugs, thereby forcing biotech firms to partner with big pharma companies if they’re going to survive long enough to get their molecules to market.
So, what does this all mean?
Technology adoption isn’t a panacea, and mixed and changed messages from CMS are causing mega-heartburn in the tech and health systems sectors. Most payers are pushing hard to prepare for reform, understanding that the world is changing with or without an individual mandate.
Big money has big influence and as long as it does, we’re likely not going to see significant reform – there’s just too many billions at stake.
And big media doesn’t help, with their superficial and under-researched take on news, studies, and assessments thereof.


Feb
28

North Dakota’s chickens are coming home to roost

Well, when you falsely accuse a (very) competent public servant of malfeasance and get rid of him, you get what you deserve.
That’s exactly what’s happening in North Dakota. The state workers comp fund (WSI) is dealing with two separate scandals, one involving alleged illegal removal of a nurse’s entry from a claim file, and the other alleged efforts by management to manipulate WSI’s Medical Director to change his medical opinions.
You would think that the current CEO, Bryan Klipfel, would be on this like white on rice. Alas, Klipfel stumbled into this job, with a grand total of zero prior experience in workers comp, insurance, medical care, rehab, finance, or customer service. But he was a “good listener…”
According to press reports, WSI’s “chief doctor who reviews injured North Dakota workers’ compensation claims said he twice resisted efforts by agency managers to alter his medical opinion.
Dr. Luis Vilella, the medical director for Workforce Safety and Insurance, said he refused to change his medical opinions when asked to do so on two occasions in February or March of 2010.”
I don’t know if the recent effort by WSI management to establish more control over their medical directors is related to those two earlier attempts to get Viella to alter his opinion, but the coincidence is certainly worthy of investigation.
Reading Klipfel’s comments on these issues, it is easy to see just how big a screw up the powers that be made in ousting Sandy Blunt and putting Klipfel, a complete newcomer to business, let alone insurance, never mind workers comp, in charge. Evidently WSI was working on this “policy”, but only submitted it to the state board of medical examiners after Viella asked for the Board’s help. According to press reports, Kilpfel said: “This is a draft policy…We were going to have some work done on it. We want to make sure the policy we have reflects the longstanding policy that legal never drives medical in handling our claims.”
As anyone who knows anything about comp learns on day one, you do NOT mess with medical opinions, and you most certainly do NOT try to get your medical director to alter his or hers’. Yet WSI was in the process of reviewing a policy that would “dictate how medical opinions are to be transcribed, documented, or recorded.”
That’s not all. A WSI nurse case manager found that her entry in a claim file was deleted by a claims manager who didn’t like that the case manager’s statement strengthened the claimant’s case.
Well, folks, you get what you deserve. The real reason Sandy Blunt was prosecuted was because he was working his butt off to reform a dysfunctional state agency that had long been subject to political manipulation; Blunt didn’t stand for that. Now he’s out, a complete incompetent is running the place, and the citizens of North Dakota are paying the price.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Someone is going to have a big job shoveling out the coop after Klipfel et al move out.
Or, as Bob Wilson notes, the dodos are the ones doing the roosting..


Feb
27

What is your hand worth?

Three numbskulls in South Carolina decided one hand was worth $671,000, the amount they collected from various insurance policies after sawing off one of their six hands.
Yep, one idiot agreed to have his hand cut off so he and his fellows could split the take from three AD&D policies; no word on how they picked which one would give it up for his buddies, nor if he got more of the take as compensation.
Evidently the FBI found out about the three stooges some time after the amputation and subsequent remuneration, Christina Bramlet of PropertyCasualty360 reported (in a pun-filled piece) on the event.
The surgical instrument of choice was – brace yourself – a pole saw. One of those long poles with a combination saw and lopper at the end for trimming branches in trees. No word if it was powered or manual…
pruner-trees-adjustable-pole-saw-200X200.jpg
So, walk me through this.
You’re sitting around with your buddies, likely a few beers into the evening, and you confess your deep sense of shame over your life-long-hand-to-mouth existence. Someone says he heard of someone else who collected big bucks from an accident where he lost his arm.

The lightbulb goes off.
..among this triumvirate, a rare event to be sure.
Then, the debate starts – no, it’s not “if”; it’s “who”.
How do you pick the unlucky co-conspirator? draw straws? rock-paper-scissors? flip coins? odds and evens, with odd man out losing his left?
Do you follow thru then, or give the unlucky guy a couple days with his soon-to-be-departed appendage, a sort of farewell tour. Maybe play a little baseball, tickle the ivories, tie a couple knots, drive a manual transmission car a few miles, button a few shirts, go a couple rounds with the ol’ pinball machine?
Or just grab the nearest sharp object and start whacking away?
And who has to do the surgery? Do both of the lucky ones agree they’ll do it together, to spread the guilt around, or maybe just see what it feels like to cripple a good friend?
Too bad there’s not a category for on-purpose maiming in the annual Darwin Awards...


Feb
24

Health reform, jobs lost and jobs gained

My post yesterday about the impact of health reform on employment generated an email from NFIB’s Bob Graboyes correcting an error in attribution (thanks Bob). It also got me to dig deeper into the issue of employment and reform – specifically, what’s the net effect – what jobs and how many will be lost to to PPACA, and what jobs and how many will be gained as a result of health reform.
Let’s leave aside the fact that with reform it will be a lot easier for workers to move from a big company and their health plan to individually-insured plan, enabling more would-be entrepreneurs to start their own firms.
According to Monster, there will be a plethora of new jobs for technicians, clinicians, and support workers.
And NFIB’s own analysis estimates the employer mandate [opens pdf, see p 20] – the old one, not the one that exempted employers with fewer than 50 workers – would have created 890,000 jobs. (NFIB hasn’t updated their numbers to reflect the lack of mandate for small employers.)
That said, NFIB indicated the mandate would create a lot of jobs – and good paying ones at that:
“The employer mandate would boost demand for healthcare goods and services, thereby increasing employment in healthcare-related sectors. The number of ambulatory healthcare professionals (physicians, dentists, and other healthcare practitioners) needed will increase by 330,000. An additional 327,000 staff will be required to work in hospitals. Some 157,000 more nurses (net of retirements) will be needed to staff doctors’ offices, outpatient clinics, and other provider locations. And payrolls at insurance companies will expand by 76,000 workers.”
Okay, so we have 330,000 more jobs for docs and dentists, and 157,000 net new openings for nurses. That’s almost half a million new high-paying jobs; these aren’t retail clerks, burger flippers or car wash attendees, these are folks making from $50,000 to $400,000.
True, some jobs will be lost, but we don’t know if there will be a net loss or gain. But lets say there’s a net loss. According to NFIB, the vast majority of the jobs we’ll lose are in retail and food service.
Marketwatch notes that the Sunshine State may well see more jobs added as a result of reform. The article goes on to note some experts’ opinions that while there will be more jobs open, many will go unfilled due to a lack of trained clinicians.
One hopes that the invisible hand will remedy this situation.
Of course, we’d be much better off if we could look into the future. Fortunately, we can. Recall Massachusetts enacted legislation very similar to PPACA back in 2009.
Overall, employment gains in healthcare Massachusetts have outstripped the rest of the country by four points; Mass added 9.5% more health care jobs since passage of reform while the rest of the nation averaged 5.5%.
But the impact wasn’t just on health care job counts. While the rest of the country saw a 2.9% drop in employment since Massachusetts passed reform, Mass’ employment dropped by a mere 0.2%.
What does this mean?
Well, there will likely be fewer overall jobs, but there will be a lot of new, high-paying jobs that may balance out the loss of what look to be lower paying jobs.


Feb
23

Physician dispensing and auto insurance

Over the last couple weeks I’ve fielded several calls from automobile insurance companies seeking information about the big drug bills they’ve been getting for physician dispensed drugs.
This is more of an issue in states with high dollar coverage for medical costs, but there’s increasing evidence that physician dispensing is hitting more and more auto claimants in many different jurisdictions.
There’s several reasons these bad actors are pushing into auto.
1. some states are controlling the pricing of repackaged/physician dispensed medications for workers comp, so docs – and their suppliers – are looking for greener pastures.
2. many auto insurers aren’t yet aware of the practice, so they’re just paying the bills without much scrutiny
3. it’s profitable – really, really profitable.
There’s a downside for consumers as well as their insurers. In addition to the added health risks inherent in physician-dispensed medications, these inflated charges also cause insureds to reach their policy limits much faster, thereby running out of insurance coverage for their medical costs.
This is happening in Hawai’i, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, and likely many other states.
So, what’s an auto insurer to do?

I suggest you start by figuring out the size of the problem. Find out the TINs these entities are billing under, total up their charges, scripts, and your payments, and see how bad it is.
If it’s not much, that’s great – for now. That won’t last.


Feb
22

Obamacare and jobs

Will the health reform bill kill jobs? Devastate small businesses? Push us back into recession?
According to several organizations and and anti=reform politicians, it’s the worst thing to hit the economy since the Depression.
But it turns out those doomsayers are mostly wrong.
Here’s what FactCheck.com says about these claims:
“this is health-care hooey, aimed at exploiting public concern over continuing high unemployment, with little basis in fact.
As we’ve said before (a few times), experts project that the law will cause a small loss of low-wage jobs — and also some gains in better-paid jobs in the health care and insurance industries. [emphasis added]
It’s also expected that more workers will decide to retire earlier, or work fewer hours, when they no longer need employer-sponsored insurance and can obtain it on their own with help from federal subsidies. But that just means fewer people willing to work — and it will free up jobs for those who want them. If anything, that could reduce the jobless rate.” [emphasis added]
Here are a few factoids about the PPACA (aka Accountable Care Act) that seem to have escaped the attention of those concerned about health reform and jobs.
– some employers with fewer than 25 FTEs are already receiving government aid to help defray the cost of insurance
– employers with fewer than 50 FTEs are exempt from the requirement to provide coverage
– the original CBO analysis of reform’s impact on employment [opens pdf] indicated job losses from the employer mandate “would probably be small.”
In fact, the jobs picture, according to the CBO, is mixed.
“According to CBO’s August 2010 analysis, the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount–roughly half a percent–primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.30 That net effect reflects changes in incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more.”
The well-regarded Lewin Group concurs:
“Lewin’s analysis showed 150,000 to 300,000 jobs lost, all minimum wage or near minimum wage positions that would be lost permanently. That doesn’t account for increases in jobs in other sectors, mainly health care, that Sheils also expects but hasn’t quantified.”
There are entities with different opinions, but they are not neutral parties. Again, here’s FactCheck:
“a study by the National Federation of Independent Business…projecting a 1.6 million job loss…was issued Jan. 26, 2009 — well over a year before the new law was actually enacted. NFIB has not issued any study of what actually became law, and one of this study’s authors, Michael Chow, told us by e-mail that it has no present plans to do so…
NFIB did not study the new law. Its report was based on a hypothetical employer mandate that bears little resemblance to what was actually passed — and it also projects a gain of hundreds of thousands of health care and insurance industry jobs.”
I’d note that this hasn’t stopped the GOP from using the 1.6 million lost job figure when referring to jobs lost due to PPACA…
(note – an earlier version credited the NFIB with continued usage of the 1.6 million statistic; I should have said the GOP. I regret the error)
What does this mean for you?
While there are problems with PPACA, while it is far from perfect, and while it could stand improvement in many areas, no matter what NFIB et al claim, it is not a “job-killer.”


Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2025. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives