Feb
2

AIG, General Re face Federal charges

A potential legal blockbuster involving top executives at General Re and AIG was disclosed in today’s New York Times. According to the Times’ report, three former top executives at Berkshire Hathaway’s General Re subsidiary and the former head of AIG’s reinsurance operation are to be charged today with civil and criminal complaints stemming from AIG’s alleged use of improper financial transactions to boost reserves.
The charges have been brewing for months, and are among the most serious offenses that emerged from NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s investigations into AIG. Of note, unlike previous charges which were filed at the state level by Spitzer and other state attorneys general, the complaints will be filed at the Federal level by the US Justice Department and the SEC. The reason is these charges are related to stock manipulation, a Federal issue.
At the risk of way over-simplifying the situation, it appears that AIG and General Re are charged with entering into a financial transaction designed to artificially add $500 million to AIG’s reserves in 2000 and 2001. However, the transaction did not meet the legal test necessary to qualify as an insurance policy, and was actually a loan. Why is that important? Unlike a straight insurance claim that transfers cash based on a legal claim from the insurer to the policyholder (your house burns down, the insurance company sends you a check for $400,000), a loan counts as a liability on the balance sheet (you take out a mortgage on your house for $400,000) (and the cash proceeds count as an asset).
This is not just a one-and-done thing, as it appears AIG and its chairman engaged in an ongoing effort to pump up the balance sheet, smoothing out earnings to keep the stock price heading ever upward.
This particular part of the mess arises out of the allegedly fraudulent accounting for the policy/loan. The deal served to make AIG’s financial statements appear stronger than they actually were. It appears this was an attempt to manipulate AIG’s stock price, a charge that has been levied against Hank Greenberg, the ousted chairman of AIG.
General Re is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, whose chairman Warren Buffett was not aware of the nature of the transaction. There are back and forth claims about what he knew and when he knew it, but the Times article is pretty clear that Buffett’s participation was likely after the fact and did not cross the line into illegal activity.
What does this mean for you?
The insurance scandals just will not go away, and this announcement means they’ll be with us for a while.


Feb
1

High expectations at Ohio’s scandal-plagued work comp bureau

In an attempt to turn over a new leaf, the administrator of Ohio’s troubled Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) has announced plans to improve financial results by up to $424 million. These improvements appear to be based on plans to cut health care expenses, improve investment income, and other administrative changes.
Ohio’s workers comp fund, the only source for comp insurance in the state, has been hammered by reports of excessive payments to hospitals, fraudulent investments, including reserves invested in rare coins, cronyism and back-room dealings resulting from ineffective oversight.
While I sincerely hope they get their act together, if they do, I’ll sure miss the entertainment value. After all, its not every day you see work comp hit the daily news… and certainly rare indeed when comp is mentioned in the same sentence with Abramoff, Delay, and the rest of the current crop of miscreants.


Feb
1

Bush’s answer to health cost inflation – HSAs, CDHPs, AHPs, and HIT

Pres. Bush’s statements on health care and health insurance in the State of the Union (free subscription required) address left me somewhat confused about the President’s real objectives. While he advocated controlling the cost of care, he also strongly endorsed extending tax breaks for insurance and any individual expenditure on anything medical.
These two programs are contradictory. Reducing the consumer’s real cost of health care makes them less likely to reduce expenditures, thereby feeding medical inflation.
The central premise of the Bush plan appears to be a belief in the power of information and tax policy to encourage better decision making by health care consumers. This approach, known as consumer-directed health care, will do nothing to reduce health care inflation.
Bush also:


Jan
29

The HSA debate

An excellent ongoing debate on HSAs is raging at Ezra Klein’s blog.
Ezra is engaged in a discussion w libertarian/conservative Adrienne and others about the role of and impact upon society of HSAs.
Here’s an excerpt
” (Adrienne) If your ultimate goal as a health policy wonk is to push for government-financed health care, then criticizing HSAs and the consumer-driven health care approach is your bread and butter, the overwhelming evidence that many people like having the HSA option notwithstanding.
(Ezra) Well, yeah. If yesterday I was paying to help sick, old people not go bankrupt and today I’m not, I’ll probably be a happy camper. At least till I get sick and/or old. I’m sure the healthy young things populating HSA’s are ecstatic to have lower premiums, but I’m similarly sure that HSA’s are a bad idea. And since they will eventually destroy regular insurance if widely adopted…”
Leaving aside the ideological asides, the debate provides good perspective on the pros cons and disagreements about same. There’s also less twisting of facts and perceptions than one normally finds in left-right debates.
My perspective is once you strip aside the labels and ideology, it is blindingly apparent that HSAs and CDHPs cannot and will not reduce health care inflation – they just do not address the key drivers – aging, technology, over-utilization…
So, if you want to debate HSAs on their merits, go ahead – just don’t confuse them with medical cost containment.


Jan
29

HSAs – what’s the point?

There are several missing points in the ongoing debates about HSAs.
1. Much of the adoption of HSAs has been due to employers eliminating their other plans in favor of CDHP-HSA plans. So, the argument that individuals are jumping on the bandwagon is a little disingenuous.
2. Employers are dumping their regular plans (well, a few are, most are not) because they can’t afford to buy health insurance for their workers any more. And a big part of the reason they can’t is because of cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured. The uninsured get care, they just don’t pay for it. see https://www.joepaduda.com/archives/000395.html for more on this.
3. The larger employers who are offering HSAs are seeing very low adoption rates. IBM has been offering them for over two years, and less than 3% of eligibles have signed up.
The real issue is how much drag on the US economy is a result of our present funding mechanism for health care. Clearly health care costs play a role in the industrial competitiveness of US companies; the HSA-CDHP debate merely clouds the overall issue – if we don’t get our act together we will get our economic butt kicked.


Jan
27

Part D (D=Disaster)

Health policy expert (and good friend) Bob Laszewski was interviewed on NPR this morning about the Part D program, bringing a little much-needed perspective to this over-spun topic. The net – if enrollment among “voluntaries” (those without present coverage) does not increase 500% the program is a disaster.
Here are the quotes from Judy Rovner’s piece:


Jan
27

Docs as drug dealers

One of the emerging issues in workers comp is the dispensing of drugs by physicians on a grand scale. Clients (big WC payers) are seeing over half of their drug costs in California coming from doc-dispensed drugs. While that sounds great; injured workers get their meds quickly and without having to drive to a store and argue with a clerk over who pays, there are a few problems – and a couple really really big problems.
Drugs are reimbursed according to a fee schedule in work comp in many states. But, the fee schedule only applies to drugs that are “standard”; i.e. have an NDC number. So, when the fee schedule was slashed in CA two years ago creative capitalists simply repackaged the drugs, which now did not have an NDC number and therefore no state-set fee (showing the futility of price controls).
Actually, there is no state set fee, but there is a reimbursement methodology that results in drug costs much higher than the “regular” drug packages. CA law required payers to pay for these repackaged drugs according to the old OMFS fee schedule. And this is one generous fee schedule – 140% of AWP plus a $7.50 dispensing fee for generics and 110% plus $4 for brand. The margins on this for docs must be amazing.
BY way of reference, the new WC drug fee schedule in CA is about 90% of AWP…
Lesson here is price fixing creates opportunities for creative entrepreneurs; my bet is while this gaming has been going on, drug utilization in California WC has been increasing.
What does this mean for you?
If you are a WC payer in California, headaches (that may get treated with doc-dispensed drugs!).


Jan
26

CDHPs as cost shifting

Half of the 2 million people who have signed up for consumer directed plans with health savings accounts have yet to put anything into the accounts. Interesting, as one of, if not the major attraction of the plans was the tax-favored status of the dollars going into the savings accounts.
(Matthew Holt at The Healthcare Blog has a transcript of Pres. Bush’s interview with the Wall Street Journal in which Bush describes HSAs as one of the ways to make health care more affordable…)
What appears to be happening is what I (and others) have been predicting all along. Employers, staggering under the burden of rising health care costs, have all but given up and thrown in the towel. Those who have given up are dropping their health plans in favor of the new high-deductible plans, thereby shifting more of the burden onto employees. In those instances where the CDHP option is offered alongside regular heath plans, CDHP participation is in the low single digits.
The idea (at least the politicians’ idea) behind CDHPs is that they will make the consumers more directive, more involved, more aware of their health and thus better consumers. I’m not sure the employers care much about the theory; what they do care about is health care inflation is now less of a problem for them.
I write that with no malice towards employers; many have decided health care is simply unmanageable. It is digging into their profits, their ability to fund new businesses or products, increase wages, enhance training, pay bonuses and executive stock options, and hire new workers. Employers in the US are tasked with addressing the health care needs of their workers, a challenge their competitors in other OECD countries don’t worry about.
Here’s more detail from Milt Freudenheim’s article in today’s New York Times:
” people have evidently signed up not because they are eager to direct their own medical spending but because the plan looked cheap or they had no other insurance option. And at least half of those enrolled have not put money in their health savings accounts. So there will be no money building up for next year’s out-of-pocket expenses


Jan
26

Property and casualty results for 2005

Dr. Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute recently gave an interview to Insurance Journal on the US property and casualty industry’s 2005 results, and made a few predictions about this year. According to Hartwig, 2005 will deliver a combined ratio of 99%, a surprisingly strong result given the impact of the four hurricanes. The weather had a huge effect on results; after stripping out extra-ordinary events, the industry actually would have had a combined ratio of in the 80’s. (However, there are always extra-ordinary results, so I’m not sure what stripping them out does


Jan
25

Immigrant workers issues

Friend and colleague Peter Rousmaniere has started a new blog dealing with immigrant worker issues. Peter is a well-known author on all things workers comp, occupational health and safety, and an insightful critic at large.
One of Peter’s more troubling findings is the tendency of alien workers to not report occupational injuries or illnesses. With the large number of immigrants working in the US today, and the well-publicized decline in the occupational injury rate, I’m wondering if there is a relationship between the two.
Are migrant workers replacing citizens, then getting injured and not reporting it, thereby artificially reducing the reported injury rate?
Anyone?