Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Jan
21

MCM’s position on SOPA and PIPA

I don’t like these bills, and neither should you.
First, my perspective.
I’m a content provider and a copyright holder. I don’t want anyone else taking my intellectual property without permission and/or compensation. This isn’t just about MCM; I’ve also written a book (The Art of Sculling) that has been in print for twenty years, and while the revenue from that book is tiny, it is payment for my work and no one should be able to access that work without paying for it.
I get the movie producers’, actors’, artists, and musicians’ perspective and agree with it.
The two bills currently before Congress are waaaaay too overreaching – sure they solve the problem of internet piracy. So would shutting down the internet. While SOPA/PIPA don’t go that far, they do make innocent parties suffer for the acts of others.
Here’s how this could affect me – and you, loyal reader.
Say someone posts a comment with a link to a copyrighted video, image, document, song; and the Feds get a complaint. Under SOPA/PIPA, they could legally shut down MCM immediately, and I’d have to spend tons of time and energy dealing with the issue before I could get MCM back up and running. That would harm me, and end your ability to access MCM.
Bob Wilson provides more insight:
“First, the government would have been able to force search engines to “delist” any website they suspected of these activities. The second would be to require ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) to disable “Domain Name Service” to the suspected sites. The DNS service is essentially what allows the “domain name” that you are familiar with to work.”
I get the intellectual property argument – I absolutely get it. But SOPA/PIPA are a heavy-handed, highly punitive, and poorly designed solution that would cause far more damage than necessary.
Sign the SOPA/PIPA petition, and let’s stop this idiocy.


Jan
19

Physician dispensed drug costs – progress in Florida!

Earlier this year, I predicted Florida would pass a bill limiting reimbursement for physician dispensed drugs. This morning, we made some significant progress.
Spent a good chunk of the morning watching the Florida Senate hearing on Sen Hays’ bill that would peg reimbursement for physician dispensed drugs at what a retail pharmacy would charge for the same drug.
Automated Healthcare Services’ lobbyist Tom Panza was up to speak in opposition. A passionate advocate for his client, Panza’s speech was notable for its energy if not for its accuracy.
He conflated drug costs, saying that repackaged/physician dispensed drugs average price of $137 is the same as the average pharmacy price of $120. What Panza didn’t say, and none of the Senators asked about, is drug mix. Physician dispensers almost exclusively dispense generics, which are much cheaper – on a per script basis – than brand drugs. And retail chains sell brands and generics – brands cost over $200 per script. Thus, Panza’s claim that physician dispensed drugs only cost $17 more on average than retail was misleading and false on its face; in fact WCRI’s recent report on pharmacy in Florida notes: “physicians were paid 35-60 percent more than pharmacies for the same prescription.”
Panza also trotted out the hoary old chestnut that physician dispensing increases compliance, citing the statistic that 30% of scripts aren’t filled – ignoring that this figure is a) dated; b) addresses group health and not work comp; and c) the main reason people don’t fill their group health scripts is cost. And as we all know, comp claimants don’t pay anything for drugs.
Panza also stated that physician dispensed drugs reduced litigation and increased patient satisfaction, without citing any data or research to support that assertion. Gotta respect his passion, even if his logic and supporting data (of which there was almost none) was suspect at best.
Lori Lovgren came up after Panza, and debunked his claim that prices were the same for physician and pharmacy prices. Sen Bennett was somehow confused about her response, or perhaps more accurately Bennett didn’t like what he heard. Bennett’s been vocal about his support for the egregious over-billing for drugs by physician dispensers. Sen Negron, another physician dispensing supporter, asked some unsubtle questions asking if insurers had any ownership of pharmacies or PBMs, which Lovgren did not answer – the answer, of course, is no.
While Lovgren was, or course, accurate, she wasn’t a particularly effective speaker, and failed twice to make key points refuting Panza’s claims. It’s one thing to have the right information, but it’s a whole different thing to present that information cogently and effectively.
Several other Senators seemed to focus on narcotics, and wanted to know if the pill mill bill had changed the financial picture, making NCCI’s cost figures irrelevant. Lovgren responded that no, there was no significant impact on cost, but that didn’t seem to bear much weight
A number of potential speakers from all manner of employer, taxpayer, and payer advocacy organizations waived their chance to speak but voiced support for Sen. Hays’ bill (restricting overcharging for physician dispensed medications).
A physician advocated for physician dispensing said he couldn’t dispense at the costs set by the Hays bill as he has to hire additional staff and buy software etc and therefore the bill killed physician dispensing
David Deitz, MD spoke directly to the physicians’ claims that physician dispensing increases compliance, noting there are no studies supporting that claim. He also noted that Liberty Mutual does not oppose physician dispensing but rather repackaging. Another Senator cut off Dr Deitz, and the Committee did not allow any of the other dozens of supporters to speak. That’s too bad, as Dr Deitz knows this subject very well.
There was some very brief discussion, but the bill passed out of Committee by a substantial margin
This is a big step, a critically important one, but only a step. There’s much to be done to get this bill passed by the Senate and signed into law.

We’ll keep you posted.
Thanks to Carol Gentry of HealthNews Florida for the head’s up.


Jan
19

New Year, New Health Wonk Review

HWR’s tech guru and all-around social media expert Julie Ferguson is this biweek’s editor of Health Wonk Review.
There are lots of predictions and insights, and much discussion of reform and the Supremes.


Jan
18

I shoulda warned you, Bob…

Colleague Bob Wilson of WorkersCompensation.com has been delving deeply into the disaster that is North Dakota “justice”, at least justice as applied in the Sandy Blunt case.
Bob’s efforts have uncovered some amazing stuff…
For instance, the same state that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting Sandy Blunt for giving a few thousand dollars of incentive presents such as balloons and chocolate chip cookies and five dollar (five dollar!!) gift cards to employees also used a Predator drone to nail some farmers for keeping six of a neighbor’s cows on their property.
Yep, that’s a $154 million aircraft used to get $6000 worth of beef.
There’s a new definition of RoI; it’s no longer “return on investment” but Reminder of Idiocy.
Alas, some of the good bad folks of NoDak don’t see that as a problem, instead choosing to hurl imprecations (for you NoDak Sandy-Haters that means “say nasty things”) at Bob for his ignorance and temerity (again, for NDSHers, that means “unmitigated gall”; oops, that won’t work…how about “excessive boldness”?).
Net is, they’ve been pretty awful, and not very articulately awful at that. Lots of “oh yeahs?” and “yo mama” type stuff, so much so that Bob had to shut down comments before the offenders sprained their brains tying to decipher his multisyllabic retorts.
But Bob says it better than I can. Go read his “People’s Republic of North Dakota” piece and see for your own self.
And don’t forget to sign up for the Friends of Sandy Blunt afterwards…
(Now before all the GOOD folks of NoDak pillory me, I know you’re out there, admire you immensely for standing by Sandy, and appreciate your support for the guy. I’m also sorry you have to live on the same planet with those jerks)


Jan
17

Why work comp pharmacy is nothing like group health

Today’s WorkCompWire has a great piece authored by PMSI CEO EIleen Auen on the differences between work comp and group pharmacy management.
Among Eileen’s points are:
– “Group health benefits generally focus on sickness and illness while workers’ compensation focuses on workplace injuries and returning individuals to work. Although a fairly obvious difference, it underlies many of the other differences that make workers’ compensation unique, including drug mix.” (I’d add that work comp ONLY covers drugs specifically for treatment of the occupational injury or illness).
– “The types of drugs used. Because of the focus of care, the medication mix in workers’ compensation is much more focused towards pain management rather than illness management.”
There’s quite a bit more on differences in clinical management, formulary, and financial incentives, and how these effect prescriber and patient behavior.
Well worth the read, especially if you’re an investor type trying to understand the WC PBM industry.
(Note PMSI is a member of CompPharma, and Eileen is a good friend)


Jan
17

No, Mitt, you can’t fire your insurance company

Mitt Romney’s comment ” I like to be able to fire people” has been turned against him by his GOP Presidential candidate opponents, with Gingrich and Rick Perry (remember him?) using it to illustrate Romney’s “out of touchiness” with regular Americans.
Of course they’re taking it way out of context. All who try to beat Romney will – a time-tested way to win is to use your opponent’s words against her/him; if he makes it thru as the GOP Presidential candidate, expect the Dems to feature that prominently in key states.
But there’s a deeper message here – yes, Mitt is out of touch – but no, not for the reasons cited by his opponents.
Romney clearly doesn’t understand that most of us can’t fire our insurance companies. A piece in the Columbia Journalism Review makes this point: Can you really fire your insurance company? The answer is that it’s darn difficult even in Massachusetts–the land of Romneycare.
For those covered by large employer or union plans, what you’ve got is what you’ve got – and if we don’t like it that’s too bad. Of course, many large employers offer several choices, so these folks have better options than those of us who don’t work for large employers – which happens to be most of us.
If your coverage is thru a small employer, your selection is most likely limited to one plan. While your employer probably shops the plan every few years, the only one who can “fire” his/her insurer is the employer. And that supposes the insurer doesn’t fire the employer first by raising rates to the point where the employer has to move to another health plan.
Those of us (that includes your faithful scribe) who get their coverage thru the individual market face even more limited choices (depending on where you live). If your health status changes while insured, it will be very tough for you to get a new insurer to take you on – and if they do, expect to pay a lot more for a plan that doesn’t cover your pre-existing conditions for some period of time (how long that period lasts depends on your state).
The net? While we’d all love to be able to fire our insurance company, most of us can’t.
And under Mitt’s health reform plan (such as it is), your ability to get coverage would be even more limited.
Of course, Mitt may have been paying a compliment to his potential opponent in the fall Presidential race – under PPACA (health reform), individuals can fire their insurance company, small employers may well have more choice (and the cost of that insurance will be less for many employers).
What does this mean for you?
Mitt is definitely out of touch – we can’t fire our insurance companies, but they sure can fire us.

There’s lots more detail on Federal limits on pre-ex here.


Jan
16

Physician dispensing – the latest from Florida

Physician dispensing in Florida is back in the news, as we await with bated breath the outcome of this session’s legislative battle.
On one side is the Florida Medical Association and Automated Healthcare Solutions, the Miramar company that provides software, billing services, and otherwise enables the physician dispensing industry.
On the other is the Chamber of Commerce, most of the state’s work comp insurers, and several large employers seeking to correct a loophole in the law, a loophole that has enabled dispensers and their facilitators to suck over $50 million out of employers’ and taxpayers’ wallets to pay for drugs at inflated prices.
Here, excerpted for brevity’s sake, three recent articles:
An editorial in the Palm Beach Post says this:
[In late 2010, the GOP majority in the Senate was poised to end the loophole by overriding a veto of a bill by past Gov Charlie Crist]:
By late 2010, however, Automated Healthcare Solution had given nearly $1 million to the Republican Party of Florida. The company also gave big to the political action committees of new Senate President Mike Haridopolos and new House Speaker, Dean Cannon. Physician groups had given. The override never happened.
Meanwhile, Alan Hays [author of a bill to close the loophole] had moved from the House to the Senate. Last year, he introduced the loophole-closing bill again. It had no House companion, and went nowhere. This year, Sen. Hays is back with a similar bill, SB 668. There is a House bill, HB 503. It has passed one committee, by a vote of 14-1.
For those who oppose his bill, Sen. Hays said, “It’s all about how many millions they can make from gaming the system.” Indeed, the estimated savings from closing the loophole are now $62 million. In August, the Workers Compensation Research Institute reported that “the average payment per claim for prescription drugs in Florida’s worker compensation system was 45 percent higher than the median” of other states the group had studied between 2006 and 2008, all because of repackaging. Recall that unexpected rate increase in 2009.
Those who profit from it claim that the current system helps workers take medicine more faithfully and get back to work quicker. In fact, SB 668 would not prevent physicians from dispensing drugs. They just would have to charge based on the normal fee schedule. They couldn’t rip off the system.
Automated Healthcare Solutions’ main argument against this bill is the $160,000 it has donated to the Republican Party and the $10,000 it has donated to Rep. Cannon’s PAC, the Florida Freedom Council. The Florida Medical Association has donated, and its ex-lobbyist is Sen. John Thrasher. He chairs the Rules Committee, and can stop any bill from reaching the floor.
This isn’t Special Interests vs. The Little Guy. Florida’s major business groups support the bill. Still, the biggest thing wrong with Tallahassee is that certain groups use lobbyists to get certain favors that help a few people but hurt the state overall. You’ve heard Gov. Scott and most legislators claim that they want Florida to be more business-friendly. So cozy up to this bill. Confound the skeptics.
Friend and colleague David Depaolo has a post in Work Comp World:
“Our WorkCompCentral news story calls AHCS a software firm, but that is not an accurate representation – the company manages physician dispensing of drugs with automated systems to control inventory, repackaging, and claims management to help ensure top dollar reimbursement to the physician…
According to news reports, companies controlled by AHCS executives Dr. Paul Zimmerman and Gerald Glass gave $100,000 to a committee that supported Scott during the 2010 elections. Five companies affiliated with AHCS sent $500 checks each to Scott’s campaign, according to the publication Health Care News Florida.
The FMA seems to be tightly integrated with AHCS. FMA spokeswoman Erin VanSickle referred questions by WorkCompCentral on FMA’s stance on the bills to Alia Faraj-Johnson, an outside media consultant for AHCS.”
And WorkCompInsider adds this
“A Tampa Bay news report talks about how the state’s pill mill crackdown was held up by proponents of doc dispensing, including AHCS principals: “The two Miramar workers’ compensation doctors have helped pump about $3 million into the political system through a dozen companies in the past year.”
On the other side of the issue comes this from Stanley T Padgett, an attorney who is also “CEO of FPP Health Solutions, LLC (“FPP”). FPP is the exclusive Pharmacy Services Provider to the FMA [Florida Medical Association];
“Dispensing provides patient convenience, better patient compliance and better medical outcomes. It also provides an additional revenue stream [emphasis added] to offset the constant onslaught of government and provider reimbursement cuts for physician services.”
Stanley T Padgett’s argument is that compliance increases with physician dispensing, but nowhere in his article does he reference the fact that the vast majority of physician dispensing in the Sunshine State is for work comp patients. In fact, Stanley T Padgett only discusses patients with chronic conditions, specifically hypertension – a diagnosis that is extremely rare in comp. We’ll also ignore his unfounded assertion that somehow compliance will increase if docs dispense medication (there are many reasons for non-compliance, and asserting that it’s more convenient to get your pills from a doctor than from one of the three pharmacies on the next street corner and therefore physician dispensing will reduce medical costs in Florida by over $10 billion is just laughable.
If, as Stanley T Padgett claims, the purpose is to “provide patient convenience, better patient compliance and better medical outcomes”, then why, pray tell, don’t those docs dispense drugs for Medicare, Medicaid, and group health patients?
What does this mean for you?
It’s crunch time, folks. If you want to end this outrageous assault on employers and taxpayers, tell Florida’s Governor and legislators to back Sen. Hays’ bill.


Jan
13

The hardening work comp market

Today’s’ WorkCompCentral arrives with a solid piece[sub req] from Greg Jones detailing the current work comp insurance market environment, which III’s Bob Hartwig characterizes as “firming”; rates are up but not (yet) into the double digit territory which is Hartwig’s definition of “hard”.
It’s been a long five or six years, rates are at historic lows in many states, and the hardening is spotty – some states (Texas) are still seeing rates that are flat or nearly so, while others (Florida) are looking at big increases.
For now, the question is not “when will the market harden?”, rather it is “how fast and how much are rates going to increase?”
TPAs are hoping the answer is “very soon and a lot”, and most insurers are as well – especially the ones who have reserve deficiencies…
What does this mean for you?
Realism in pricing is good, even though prices are up for employers, the recent pricing was simply too low. If it had continued, real damage would have been done to lots of insurers, and we’d be looking at insolvencies and a very hard market coming very quickly.


Jan
12

Okay, here’s the last of my predictions for the work comp business 2012…
7. The physician dispensing cost control bill currently pending in Florida will pass.
After several years of political intrigue, huge campaign contributions from companies making enormous profits from physician dispensing, and continual efforts by good actors in the system, outraged taxpayers and employers will finally succeed in limiting reimbursement for drugs dispensed by docs to the original underlying price of the non-repackaged drug.
I hope. And so should you.
That won’t’ be the end of the issue; Maryland, South Carolina, and other states are also battling to limit this latest and greatest abuse of the comp system. Even if we win in Florida, there will be many more battles ahead.
8. More payers will diversify their provider network partners.
As Aetna winds up its work comp network operation, payers’ interest in exploring other network options will increase. Following the lead of Broadspire and ESIS and enabled by technology that makes it easier than ever to mix and match provider networks, we’ll see several other large payers award more network business to more network companies. Expect firms such as Anthem, HFN, Horizon, Cofinity, Rockport and Prime to gain share.
That doesn’t mean anyone should count Coventry out. They are the oldest, largest, and most entrenched, and are working hard to address network gaps that will arise when their relationship with Aetna finally ends (which is still a long way away).
9. York Claims will finish the year well on its way to becoming a top-tier TPA.
Through savvy deal-making, a pretty intelligent sales approach, and what is by several accounts a strong focus on doing the right thing for the employer (and not just generating fees for York), York has transformed itself from what was a not-very-good TPA a decade ago to a well-regarded and very well run organization. York’s robust technology and strong market share in key sectors (especially governmental entities in several states), coupled with the expertise they’ve added as a result of acquisition (I’m especially impressed with the JI Companies deal) bodes well for their future.
Perhaps I should modify the headline – York already is a top tier TPA in terms of capabilities; these capabilities will drive them towards the top tier in terms of revenue and market share.
10. Oklahoma will eliminate the requirement that all employers have workers comp insurance.
There are moves afoot in several states to reconsider the work comp mandate, but none have more traction than the one in OK. Whether it’s because they share a long border with the only state that doesn’t require comp (Texas), many of their larger employers also have big operations in Texas and like the opt-out there, or there’s something more ephemeral, a sense that work comp as currently constructed doesn’t work the way it should anymore, Oklahoma may well be the next state to allow employers to opt out.
There’s already a study group authorized by the State Senate that’s looking into the feasibility of the change; their findings should be released in the next few weeks. that will be just in time for the next legislative session which starts in February.
This may not become law in 2012, but I’d expect some movement that allows some employers to opt out, perhaps in a pilot program as early as next year.
Well, there we have it. Oh, there’s one more..
11. My annual April Fool’s post will generate some controversy, tick off a few people, and generally cause consternation among those who either don’t have a sense of humor or can’t read a calendar. It will also not get me in as much hot water as some others because I have to vet it through my PR department…


Jan
11

How concerned are workers comp execs about opioids?

I’m finishing up compiling results from the most recent survey of pharmacy management in workers comp, and had to take a break and get this out.
I just totaled up the responses to the question “How much of an issue are opioids in workers comp?”
The average response was 4.8 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 “extremely significant”.

This is the highest score for any question in the eight year history of the survey.
Moreover, respondents are deeply concerned about the increased risk of addiction and dependency inherent in widespread and prolonged use of these highly addictive drugs. They rated their level of concern at 4.4.
Respondents were from a variety of payers: state funds, large private insurers, TPAs and smaller regional carriers.
Kudos to WCRI, NCCI, and CWCI for raising awareness of the issue.
Next step is to put solutions in place.


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