Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Apr
8

Rep Paul Ryan’s (R WI) Plan to address the deficit relies heavily on private health insurers to solve the seemingly-intractable health care cost inflation problem. Today we’ll finish the discussion of his solution for Medicare.
Ryan’s Medicare plan does include means-testing and increases in the age of eligibility, both of which will affect costs on a macro scale. Means testing increases revenues for CMS, while increasing the eligibility age reduces the number of recipients – both valuable and needed, but neither does anything meaningful to restrain the increase in health care costs for Medicare recipients.
In fact, Ryan’s plan will increase Medicare’s cost trend by ‘fixing’ the physician reimbursement schedule, a fix that will add about $350 billion to the deficit today, and do nothing to reduce physician costs going forward. Beyond that, there’s precious little in his plan that does anything material to address the real problem – health care cost inflation.
For that, Ryan is relying on private insurers, who would take over responsibility for Medicare. They would be paid a fixed price, and would be expected to provide all necessary benefits for that price – an approach that’s very similar to how the private insurance market works today. How’s that going to work?
Pretty well, according to Ryan, who asserted that the Congressional Budget Office had reviewed his numbers. (at least that’s what I think he says; read it yourself here.)
Well, the CBO did review his plan, and the results are pretty discouraging.
Here’s Forbes’ Rick Ungar:
“Accordingly to the CBO estimates, the program would result in seniors paying twice as much for their care – a sum that would total more than $12,510 a year…
The GOP proposal, which would begin in 2022, involves providing a ‘voucher’ – or as Ryan likes to call it, ‘premium support’ – to seniors to help pay for their health insurance. The average American would receive a check for $8,000, representing roughly what the CBO estimates Medicare would have to fork out for the average beneficiary in 2022. In addition to the government’s costs, the CBO estimates that seniors, in 2022, would lay out about $6,150.00 in out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare system. That totals an average cost of health care for participating seniors, in 2022, to be $14,770.
Under the GOP privatization plan, the cost to purchase the health insurance policy would cost about $20,520 per year – leaving the seniors out of pocket in the amount of $12,510 or more than twice what they would pay in 2022 should the Medicare system we currently have continue.”
Ryan says his plan is adjusted to account for medical inflation; in actuality Medicare premium increases in the Ryan plan are based on the overall inflation rate, which is significantly lower than the medical CPI.
Fact is, private insurers have been managing Medicare for millions of beneficiaries for well over a decade, and they’ve shown no ability whatsoever to control costs. In fact, when the subsidy paid to private insurers was cut, they screamed bloody murder.
What does this mean for you?
While there are parts of Ryan’s Medicare plan that deserve serious consideration (increasing eligibility age for one), his reliance on private insurance is naive at best, and the complete lack of real controls over cost is quite disappointing. After all the fanfare over his plan and willingness to take on the tough issues, Ryan’s shown himself to be just another number-massaging political operator.


Apr
6

Paul Ryan’s health care ‘fix’

Rep Paul Ryan (R WI) has come up with an economic/philosophical/governance plan that puts our problems squarely on the table – unsustainable government spending, driven in large part by health care costs.
While that’s not exactly new news, it is helpful to be reminded of how big the issue is. And some of his ideas, like increasing the eligibility age and means-testing for Medicare, make a lot of sense. And they will help, on the margins.
If you were looking for real solutions to the health cost problem, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. Limiting eligibility doesn’t address cost drivers, it just limits the number of people in the program. And that’s where Ryan’s ‘plan’ falls apart.
Unfortunately, he’s fallen into the same trap his Democratic colleagues did with their version of health reform – the Ryan plan does little to address costs.
The main pillars of Ryan’s plan are privatizing Medicare, changing Medicaid to a block grant program, and replacing health reform with a refundable tax credit ($2300 for individuals, $5700 for families).
While each of those ideas are attractive on their face, they are not going to do anything to solve the real problem – cost inflation.
If privatizing Medicare was the solution, Medicare Advantage programs would be less expensive than good old government run Medicare, and the private insurers that manage them wouldn’t be screaming about the reduction in their payments from the Feds. MA plans are MORE expensive than plain Medicare. They’ve also been around for about twenty years, more than enough time for the private market to prove it can do a better job delivering benefits while controlling costs.
The sad fact is that hasn’t been the case. While this may be difficult for free market ideologues to grasp, the for-profit system has not delivered better results for the Medicare population, better results defined as lower costs and better outcomes with happier members
Ryan also recommends fixing the Medicare physician fee problem by adding $350 billion to the deficit, an idea that does nothing to control costs, and actually increases the financial burden of the system on taxpayers.
I’ll look at Medicaid and private insurance in later posts – where we’ll examine Ryan’s plan to require insurers to take all comers without forcing people to get coverage before they get sick, and institute tort reform to somehow control costs when credible studies indicate this is a minor cost driver.


Apr
4

The AHCS suit – whatever happened?

Some of you may remember that after I wrote about Automated Healthcare Solutions (AHCS) last September, I was sued for defamation. That case was dismissed by the Federal Judge.
AHCS has not forgotten, and I will not be surprised if AHCS corrects the issues with their initial suit and refiles it. I’ll let you know if that happens but, in the interest of accuracy, I want to summarize those events and to clarify a couple of statements from my September 2010 posts re AHCS.
On or about Thursday September 16, 2010, I received a letter from AHCS attorneys demanding a retraction of my “false statements.” I was traveling at the time, but sent an e-mail response on Monday, September 20th.
In my September 20th e-mail, I stated that I had tried to reach AHCS before my initial post, and had received no response, but that I would still write a correction if it was warranted. Ironically, I added in my closing paragraph that “… I’m looking forward to continued productive dialogue so as to establish the facts…” That was the extent of our dialogue. The following day AHCS filed its lawsuit; it has never responded to my September 20th e-mail.
As I mentioned above, there are two statements in my post of September 9, 2010 which I want to clarify. First, I wrote this:
“An audit of Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ workers comp program determined AHCS-affiliate Prescription Partners, LLC was paid over a quarter million dollars for drugs in 2008. That’s a lot of money, but even more striking is the average cost per script; Prescription Partners; average script was $423.25, by far the highest per script cost of any supplier. Miami-Dade’s PBM had an average cost of $188.52.”
The audit noted in the post referred to a document entitled “OIG Final Audit Report Re: Miami-Dade County Public Schools Workers’ Compensation Program, Ref. IG08-25SB” (OIG refers to Office of the Inspector General).
AHCS took exception to the inclusion of the $453.25 figure in the paragraph that began with the lead “An Audit…” The Final Audit Report included the OIG’s report as well as a response from Gallagher Bassett, the TPA for Miami-Dade Public Schools. While I did not specifically attribute the $423.25 figure to the OIG’s report (I didn’t even mention the OIG), I could have been more clear and noted Prescription Partners’ $423.25 average cost per script figure was provided by Gallagher Bassett in their response to the report (on page 8 of their response, to be precise).
Some may think this a minor detail, but it would have been more precise if I had noted that Prescription Partners’ average cost per script of $423.25 mentioned in the Final Audit Report was determined by Gallagher Bassett.
The second statement is:
“Gerald Glass advertises himself as a ‘medical doctor’. Which he isn’t. Glass, Founder and ‘Co-CEO’, claims he got a medical degree from Windsor University, a Caribbean academic institution. However, I found no evidence that Glass had ever been licensed as a physician in the US…”
I based that statement on a review of Mosby’s Medical Dictionary 8th ed.; American Heritage Medical Dictionary c 2007; Dorland’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers c 2007 – all include licensure as a requirement to be defined as a medical doctor (all sources redirect “medical doctor” to ‘physician’ for definition).
In AHCS’ original lawsuit, they stated “Dr Glass earned his medical degree from Windsor University, and he therefore carries the title of “medical doctor.”
In subsequent conversations with MDs, several opined that earning a medical degree enables one to use the title ‘medical doctor’. I respect their opinions that Glass is entitled to call himself a medical doctor as a result of graduation from Windsor University’s School of Medicine.
Finally, there were several other complaints in their original suit, complaints which I have attempted to discuss with them several times, to no avail.
As I’ve said numerous times, if I made a mistake, I’m more than happy to admit said mistake publicly. Well, happy may not be the correct-est word, but suffice it to say I’ll publish a retraction/correction/apology immediately after I determine I screwed up.
But that retraction/correction/apology can’t happen unless AHCS shows me where I made a mistake. I’ll keep you posted.


Apr
1

Wellpoint is NOT getting into work comp insurance

My annual April Fool’s entry has caused a good bit of agita for Anthem Wellpoint’s workers comp folks.
Wellpoint has been in the workers comp services business, and that business is still operating.
The post put up this morning has turned out to be less than funny; I regret the error in judgment and apologize for the confusion I created. This was my mistake, and my mistake alone.
The post has been deleted.


Mar
31

Drug cost inflation – it’s getting bad

For some time we’ve been hearing about drug costs heading back up – driven by utilization increases (the all-too-common driver) more than price. Of late, price has started to take over the lead as the main cause of drug cost inflation.
From several sources comes news that manufacturers pushed up prices for brand drugs well above medical inflation rates (never mind ‘normal’ inflation, which is much lower than medical inflation). The always-enlightening Seeking Alpha had a piece recently by Daniel S. Levine reporting that the GAO’s research of a market basket analysis of 100 commonly used drugs found “brand name prescription drug prices grew at an annual rate of 8.3 percent from 2006 through the first quarter of 2010, a faster pace than the 3.8 percent annual rise in overall medical costs.”
In total, brand drug prices increased 37.7% over the study period, while generics dropped almost 10 percent.
Fortunately for high generic users (work comp being perhaps the highest), generic drug prices fell over the same period by 2.6 percent per year.
The GAO report (opens pdf) used several pricing levels to develop their report. They examined U&C prices, which are based on the actual cash price for that drug on that day at that pharmacy, AWP, and AMP. While the different methodologies delivered slightly different results, overall, all showed pretty consistent inflation figures.
Another report from Barclays Capital [subscription required for full article] indicated brand prices for the 130 top-selling drugs by sales went up 6.9% in 2010, after an almost-identical increase of 6.8 percent in 2009.
What does this mean for you?
Push generics. And understand that brand prices are driven by brand expiration and manufacturers’ pretty-much-unfettered ability to charge what they want.


Mar
30

Rick Scott and drugs – an ‘inconsistent’ position

This am’s WorkCompCentral reported that Florida Gov. Rick Scott spoke out in favor of a ban on physician dispensing of Scheduled drugs – those medications regulated/tracked by the DEA.
It’s indeed encouraging that Scott has finally decided to do something positive about the pill mills that write scripts for more oxycontin than all other states combined. But the Gov, citing what can only be called specious arguments, still opposes a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.
According to Jim Saunder’s piece in HealthNews Florida, “Scott also at least partially endorsed a House proposal to prevent doctors from dispensing drugs in their offices. Scott, however, added a caveat that such a ban should include “appropriate” exceptions — and didn’t elaborate about what those exceptions might be.”
Moreover, Scott’s new position does nothing to address the $34 million problem.
That’s how much more Florida’s employers are paying for drugs dispensed by docs for workers comp patients than they would if the drugs were dispensed by retail pharmacies.

Here’s how WCRI described the issue:
“Cambridge, MA-based WCRI found that the average payment per claim for prescription drugs in Florida’s workers’ compensation system was $565–38 percent higher than the median of the study states.
The main reason for the higher prescription costs in Florida was that some physicians wrote prescriptions and dispensed the prescribed medications directly to their patients. When physicians dispensed prescription drugs, they often were paid much more than pharmacies for the same prescription.
The WCRI study, Prescription Benchmarks for Florida, found that some Florida physicians wrote prescriptions more often for certain drugs that were especially profitable. For example, Carisoprodol (Soma®, a muscle relaxant) was prescribed for 11 percent of the Florida injured workers with prescriptions, compared to 2 to 4 percent in most other study states.
Financial incentives may help explain more frequent prescription of the drug, as the study suggested. The price per pill paid to Florida physician dispensers for Carisoprodol was 4 times higher than if the same prescription was filled at pharmacies in the state.
The study reported that the average number of prescriptions per claim in Florida was 17 percent higher than in the median state. Similar results can be seen in the average number of pills per claim.”
To say Scott’s position is inconsistent is like saying abuse of prescription drugs is bothersome; a wild understatement.


Mar
29

Comp medical costs are back on the rise

We usually find out about things first when there’s a report out of California; growing facility costs, surgical implants, physician repackaging, compound meds, narcotic usage are among the cost drivers that received wide-spread attention after publicity in California.
Yesterday’s news that medical costs have resumed their seemingly-inexorable rapid climb may be the most troubling revelation yet from the Golden State.
Here’s what CWCI had to say about their review of recent medical cost trends:

The results confirm the findings of the earlier studies, again showing a sharp reduction in medical payments immediately after the reforms were enacted in 2004, followed by a distinct trend of increasing medical payments associated with work injuries beginning in AY 2006 and continuing through the end of the study period. This trend has pushed average medical expenditures per claim significantly above pre-reform levels, with all four of the medical expense categories continuing to rise. [emphasis added

According to CWCI, the growth in medical costs was far outweighed by the increase in medical management/cost containment expenses. That’s concerning, but without these cost containment investments, medical costs would have been much higher.
CWCI again – “Although the utilization review and the Medical Provider Network access fees represent significant, ongoing medical cost containment expenditures for workers’ compensation claims administrators, prior CWCI studies have shown that they are associated with an estimated $12.8 billion to $25.3 billion in medical cost saving between 2004 and 2008. [emphasis added] I would note the terminology is somewhat indirect, cost containment programs are “associated with” the savings. It is impossible to say what would have happened if those programs had not been in place, thus we can only make (well-)educated assumptions.
Which leads to this rather troubling conclusion – despite major reforms, huge investments in what look to be much-more-effective cost containment programs, and ongoing attempts to close regulatory loopholes, medical costs are once again zooming up.
And if its happening in California, a state with pretty strong managed care, it may well be much worse in other jurisdictions.
What does this mean for you?
Do you know where your medical costs are heading?


Mar
28

What’s going to affect work comp in 2012 – MSAs

A couple weeks ago I started a three-part series on what’s going to affect workers comp in 2012. After a few diversions and current-events-driven-interruptions, we’re finishing up today with the impact of MSAs
Pharmacy costs – and CMS’ treatment of same – are causing many payers to delay or reconsider settling claims. While MSAs are not, (very) strictly speaking, required to close claims in most jurisdictions (Maryland being the exception), as a practical matter, payers are quite reluctant to settle claims without an approved MSA.
From conversations with several payers, MSA experts, and claims execs, it is becoming apparent that CMS’ current ‘policy’ related to drugs has reached the point where it is severely affecting claims handling.
There are at least three major issues here – and likely a few others of just-slightly-less importance.
First, CMS is valuing drugs at the current AWP, regardless of the actual price paid, brand status, or likely future pricing. Many scripts are currently paid below AWP, due either to state fee schedules that are below AWP or PBM contracts that offer even more reductions. I’m not sure of the logic here, but it does appear counter-intuitive.
Second, a similar ‘policy’ appears based in the belief that the claimant’s current treatment regimen will never change, that it is set in stone. The drugs dispensed to the claimant at the moment the MSA is developed are what the valuation is based upon. If there are brand drugs that are likely to go off-patent (a definite until the recent OxyContin re-branding), there’s no change in estimates of future cost to account for that. If the meds are typically prescribed for a brief duration, no matter.
In the latter case, CMS has a pretty good case; there are far too many claimants taking drugs today that most reasonable practitioners would characterize as only appropriate for a limited duration – Schedule II narcotics as perhaps the prime example. I’d suggest that in this instance, we’ve done it to ourselves.
Finally, CMS takes a rather dogmatic view of off-label prescribing – it doesn’t like it. This significantly complicates the picture as many claimants’ drug treatment regimens include off-label use of meds. While off-label use can be completely inappropriate, in many instances it is not. Thus, the ‘policy’ can lead to confusion and difficulties in reaching agreement with CMS.
As a result of these and other MSA-related complications, most payers are not able to settle claims that they’d very much like to get off their books once and for all. Claim loads are increasing as a result, and reserves are as well.
Several industry stakeholders are working diligently to resolve these and other issues. What is clear is CMS is going to ensure they are protecting CMS’ interests. While this is a generally good thing (we taxpayers are thereby protected as well), the current stalemate is not helping anyone.


Mar
25

Docs and drugs – details on the ‘high prescribers’

I wasn’t there, but certainly heard enough about it to wish I was.
I’m referring to CWCI’s annual meeting held yesterday in San Francisco, a meeting that might well have been subtitled “Opioids and the Doctors who prescribe them”.
The report that triggered the excitement (CMS has been asked to review the information, national media has weighed in, and some in the physician community are circling the wagons and attacking the study methodology) was discussed in some detail earlier on MCM; more details on who some of the more ‘liberal’ prescribers were and what they prescribed were presented at the meeting yesterday.
As we get more information on what’s happening with opioid prescribing, the revelations are getting even more frightening, particularly the information about Actiq(r) and Fentora(r), drugs that are only FDA approved for breakthrough cancer pain. Shockingly, there were essentially no diagnoses of cancer in the claimant population
The top 10% of docs who prescribed Schedule II opioids prescribed 84% of the Actiq and Fentora ; turns out that these high prescribers were usually prescribing these drugs for back injuries. (by the way, these drugs commonly cost upwards of $3000 per month…)
Overall, about three percent of doctors treating work comp patients prescribed 65% of the Schedule II narcotics. And, more than half of these scripts were for back strains and sprains.
Meanwhile, in my own home state of Connecticut, we learned this morning of yet another physician caught allegedly using his dispensing powers to enrich himself illegally.
What does this mean for you.
It’s long past time for payers to start working together – or individually – to identify these physicians, find out what’s going on, and take action. We can wait for regulators and law enforcement to act, but in the meantime costs are going up, claimants are dying from overdoses, and the damage to society increases.


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