Aug
28

Your life without healthcare reform – Part One

The reports from consulting firms Segal and Aon that health benefit costs will jump more than ten percent next year shows exactly what we’re in for if reform efforts fail.
And by ‘reform’ I mean reform with strong cost controls.
When costs increase ten percent a year, they double every seven years. With current family premiums in the $15,000 range, employers and employees will be paying $30,000 per family in 2016. And that’s not including deductibles and copays, which are sure to rise.
If you’re relying on so-called consumer-directed health plans to stem the tide, good luck – their costs went up two points more than ‘regular’ HMO and PPO plans. Industry veterans aren’t surprised, as new insurance products almost always have good experience in the first couple years and as the block ‘ages’, claims creep up. As I’ve noted previously, CDHPs are not a panacea, in fact they may well drive up costs due to delayed care. (That said, with substantial changes CDHPs could be a valuable tool in cost containment.)
Eventually the US will reform its health insurance and health care delivery ‘systems’. Unfortunately I don’t see it happening this year due to the failure of the Democrats to put forth a program that controls costs, make a cogent argument and control the debate, and the decision by the Republicans to remain nothing more than the ‘Party of No’.
But when something can no longer continue, it won’t. When enough Americans lose their coverage, when cost-shifting gets to the point where those left with insurance are paying thousands in premiums to cover those without, when local taxes to pay for teachers’ and police benefits get so high that folks are losing their houses, when Medicare finally goes insolvent, when hospitals are collapsing due to the cost of indigent care, when big pharma and device companies are no longer making the gazillions they so richly deserve, then, and only then, will the screaming hordes at Town Hall meetings decide that any health care coverage is better than none.
What happens then?
Well, we may end up with single payer, or Medicare for All, or some version of the German or Swiss or French systems. The false patriots championing freedom and the American tradition of independence and all that other hooey will find themselves drowned out by the moms and dads desperate for insurance to cover their kids and parents.
While the opponents of reform may well win this battle, in the long run they will lose the war. Their best chance (which some seem to have recognized, albeit half-heartedly) is to engage now, get the best deal they can, and retool their business models to prosper without relying primarily on risk selection and underwriting to avoid unhealthy members.
What does this mean for you?
If you are an investor, look closely at the chronic care solutions offered by health insurers – the ones who are investing heavily will be the long term winners.


Aug
27

CORRECTION – The big PBMs and changes in AWP

My post yesterday about the coming changes to the AWP pricing formula for drugs included the statement

Understandably, the pharmacies, both independents and chains, are asking the big PBMs to change their contracts to account for the change by reimbursing the pharmacies a few points higher then their current rate.
Word is the big PBMs – Medco, Express – have politely declined.

The second sentence is wrong. Sources indicate the pharmacy chains/independents and the big PBMs are working thru the issue, or have already agreed to terms intended to preserve “cost neutrality” for the pharmacies.
I don’t have all the details on this yet, but wanted to correct my mistake as quickly as possible. More information to follow…
I apologize for the error.


Aug
27

Whatever happened to AIG?

After this spring’s ugly display of ignorance in the form of public pillorying of undeserving AIG personnel, what happened to AIG?
Well, hard as it is to believe, mostly good stuff. There was a big push to sell assets in the spring, a push that, for very good reason, didn’t result in many sales. That’s a good thing, as buyers were looking for fire-sale prices, and for a while it looked like the Feds were eager to dump as much of AIG as possible regardless of the financial consequences. It’s our good fortune the sales didn’t happen then.
To date the company has sold off assets amounting to about $8 billion, while also reporting solid financial results for the last quarter – and in anybody’s book, $1.8 billion is pretty solid.
The company that brought down the giant, AIG Financial Products, is slowly being unwound, with credit derivative exposure reduced by some seventeen percent since January 1 of this year – but it’s still $1.3 trillion.
And the new CEO promises that taxpayers will be reimbursed, and AIG will arise again. At least the stock markets took heart, pushing the company’s value up some 30% on the strength of not much more then Benmosche’s cheerleading.
Earlier this year, AIG sold auto insurer 21st Century to Zurich’s Farmer’s division for $1.9 billion, got a quarter-billion dollars for AIG Private Bank Ltd. and $680 million for AICredit, while netting $1.1 billion from the public offering of shares in reinsurer Transatlantic Holdings Inc.
Still on the books are American International Assurance Co. (valued at $25 billion) and American Life Insurance Co., ($18 billion) and Chartis’ book value is about $38 billion. And according to Reuters, AIG’s Taiwan life unit Nan Shan Life “could attract a bid of about $2 billion”, and AIG is in talks to sell two Japanese life insurers, AIG Edison Life Insurance Co and AIG Star Life Insurance.
One of the pricier assets still on the block is airplane owner International Lease Finance Corp, which has been valued anywhere from $2.5 to $8 billion. The tight credit markets appear to be the obstacle to a deal for now.
Against those assets, AIG owes the taxpayers about $88 billion as of June 30, 2009.
Meanwhile, the core insurance business has a new nameChartis – and a bit of a new attitude. The Chartis folks I’ve spoken with are happy to be out, away and on their own, without the derivative mess looming over them like the merchant of death. There are still lots of hard feelings, but less handwringing and more of a ‘we’ve got work to do’ attitude. And internally they are getting the work done, making progress on a number of fronts particularly in underwriting and claims.
I’d expect to see Chartis go to an IPO in the next couple of years, after the credit markets loosen up and valuations start to climb. While taxpayers may not get all of our money back, a little patience and a lot of hard work on the part of AIG folk past and current may minimize the damage.
Here’s hoping that those same politicians who insulted, degraded, denigrated, and verbally assaulted AIG execs back in the spring are adult enough to commend these folks if and when they deserve it.
Holding your breath?


Aug
26

Are you ready for the change in pharma pricing?

On September 26, 2009, First DataBank and MediSpan, the firms that publishe Average Wholesale Pricing tables is changing its methodology. This change will reduce the AWP amount by almost four percent.
So what you say?
Here’s what.
Pharmacies will now be reimbursed at a lower amount for each script filled. With margins on most drugs thin already, this change will push many near to breakeven. Recall that AWP affects retail pricing, not the price paid by pharmacies to manufacturers and their intermediaries.
Understandably, the pharmacies, both independents and chains, are asking the big PBMs to change their contracts to account for the change by reimbursing the pharmacies a few points higher then their current rate.
Word is the big PBMs – Medco, Express – have politely declined. CORRECTION – this statement is incorrect. The big PBMs are in fact negotiating with the retail pharmacies to reach an agreement.
No word on how Caremark is addressing this; as they are owned by the second largest pharmacy chain (CVS) they may well be thinking a little differently about the issue.
In the much smaller work comp world (about $4 billion in annual Rx spend), things aren’t quite as clear. Many payers apparently still think the change isn’t going to happen for another two years (which is when the legal settlement required it), but the publishers were required to make the change within 180 days of the settlement – which means the changes are effective in precisely one month. Regardless, expect there to be quite a bit of discussion amongst PBMs, their customers, and pharmacies over the next thirty days as all try to figure out how to deal with the change while maintaining decent relationships with each other.
I would note that regulators in several of the larger states don’t appear to be interested in making any changes to their fee schedules or reimbursement rules to address the change.
More to follow…


Aug
25

My firm, Health Strategy Associates, has conducted a survey of prescription drug management each year for the last five. I’m well into the survey portion of the Sixth Annual Survey, and here are some preliminary findings.
1. Drug cost inflation appears to show signs of rebounding after five years of decreases in the rate of increase. The data is by no means complete, but most of the respondents to date reported cost inflation was higher in 2008 than the previous year.
2. More respondents are tracking their first fill capture rate this year than last. There appears to be a significant focus on this metric, based at least in part on the sense that the earlier the PBM can get involved in a claim, the more likely it will be able to minimize over-prescribing and inappropriate dispensing.
3. Respondents are more aware of the actual strengths and weaknesses of specific PBMs than they were in the past; the buyers with strong knowledge of and experience in this niche are pretty savvy.
4. The primary cost driver remains utilization – too many of the wrong type of drugs dispensed by too many physicians, especially for pain.
5. Clinical management programs are increasingly important to payers (see 5. above), and they are getting smarter about these programs, what works and what doesn’t, and why. Marketing pitches aren’t cutting it any more; these folks want to see programs in action, study the reports, and understand the logic.
The report will be out next month. If you’d like to download copies of the previous reports, click here.


Aug
24

It’s about cost, stupid!

The latest argument in favor of Washington getting serious about health care reform came late last week with the announcement that health premiums increased 95% since 2000.
Even more troubling, that premium increase isn’t in ‘2000 plan dollars’; deductibles and copays have increased and benefits have been cut over the last nine years, making the ‘real’ increase much higher. Yet despite the reduction in benefits, the number of employers offering coverage has declined from 69% at the start of the decade to 63% in 2008.
It’s about cost, stupid.
The Democrats’ plans (with the notable exception of Wyden-Bennett) don’t address cost – no, the public option isn’t a solution (see earlier posts for why) and the ‘co-op’ option will do even less to restrain inflation. Republicans have been even more useless in this ‘debate’, distorting the various health care reform initiatives, cherrypicking provisions and then lying about the intent and potential impact, and offering no meaningful alternatives.
We don’t need health care reform, we need health care cost reform.
If we don’t fix the cost problem, family premiums will total $23,842 by 2020 according to a report authored by the Commonwealth Fund. (note that the Fund backs a strong public plan option and believes it will control costs; under the terms laid out by the Fund’s Karen Davis, it would control price but constraints on utilization are weak at best – and that’s where most inflation occurs.)
At what point will cost get so high, and the impact of those costs become so devastating, that we’ll get reform?
It could be now – but I don’t think so. Reform will happen, but the longer it is delayed, the more likely we’ll end up with a draconian change in the system – perhaps single payer, or mandated government price controls. While the opponents of reform may think they are winning, they are merely delaying the inevitable. The same is true for those pushing reform without cost control – if they pass reform, and if costs continue to rise, their political future is certain.


Aug
21

Health reform is above the fold, and HWR is above that

Health Wonk Review is up at David Williams’ Health Business Blog.
With thousands of folks getting all wonk-y at town hall meetings, it’s no surprise that David’s edition is chock full of all that’s reform. He did managed to separate wheat from chaff, so it’s also all good…


Aug
21

Could we please just stop talking about the public plan option?

It’s quite clear the public plan option is not going to be part of any health reform bill, if any health reform bill is passed.
This despite the announcement yesterday that sixty progressive/Democrat members of Congress signed a document that they would not support a reform bill that does not include a public plan option. While I admire their willingness to take a stand, I don’t believe that they will follow through.
THe good folks at the Campaign for America’s Future invited me to participate in a call yesterday with Dr. Jacob Hacker, the brains behind the public plan option, as well as two Congressmen, Rep. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. The gentlemen waxed eloquent about the progressive caucus’ commitment to the public plan option, and all the reporters who got to ask questions focused on the political issues surrounding their position.
I didn’t get to ask the ‘other’ question, which was in three parts; “How will this save money, and how will you convince providers to sign up, and how will it prevent cost shifting to private plans?”
Dr. Hacker addressed these questions in a monograph published by CAF; providers would be automatically signed up but could opt out; reimbursement would be set at 5% above Medicare; and cost-shifting is overblown.
I don’t agree with Dr Hacker that most providers would join (why would they join a plan with no members at reimbursement much less than they are currently getting to serve their current patients?) or that cost-shifting is overblown – I see too much of this every day. I also don’t see how a public plan would control the single biggest driver of health cost – utilization.
But it doesn’t really matter if he’s right or I’m right or we’re both wrong – what matters is the political reality is there aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass a plan with a public option.
The continued political brawl over the public option is pointless on at least two levels – it is clear there is not enough support for the option to include it in a bill that will pass the House and Senate, and if health reform legislation is written intelligently, the public option is unnecessary. Moreover, I seriously doubt the progressives will fall on their collective swords and vote ‘No’ on a comprehensive health reform bill if it doesn’t include a public plan option.
My sense all along has been the public option is a stalking horse, one that the President and a few Democrats let out of the stable to create a little excitement, rile up the opposition, and distract attention from other provisions that are more important and meaningful, like insurance reform, mandated universal coverage, and comparative effectiveness research.
Boy were they successful. Once out of the stable, the horse took off bucking and snorting, and kicked up enough of a ruckus to perhaps kill the whole reform process.


Aug
20

Death by a thousand cuts – the fate of health reform

The scaremongers have apparently succeeded in forcing Senate Democrats to remove end of life planning from their health reform plans. This despite the original provision was introduced by a Republican (Johnny Isakson of Georgia) support of the measure by none other than conservative icon Newt Gingrich (at least he supported it until a few weeks ago…), a new study that demonstrates the importance of end of life planning, and the bill itself, which does NOT include mandatory ‘advance care planning’.
(Section 1233 of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. Media Matters notes “According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section “[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify ‘Medicare & You’ handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician’s quality reporting initiative.” [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09])
The reality is a relatively innocuous provision that had broad bipartisan support and was widely recognized as appropriate and helpful by the medical community has been used by opponents of health reform to scare the bejesus out of enough Americans to force its removal from the (future) Senate Bill.
And if you think the battle is over, you’re sadly mistaken.
I don’t know what seemingly mundane the next battle will be over, but if reform opponents can use advance life care planning as a cudgel to beat the heck out of the Democrats, than no provision is safe.
The Dems have all but lost the reform battle; polls are not favorable, opponents have created fear and concern among independents and moderates, and the President has been unable (to date) to use his formidable communicative powers and infrastructure to regain the momentum.
Unless President Obama and the Democrats get their act together, reform’s chances are fading like an iceberg in a heat wave.


Aug
18

The recovery is coming – what does that mean for work comp?

Work comp is affected by several factors, but none are as significant as the economy. After over a year of horrible news, things look to be slowly getting better. As activity picks up, we can expect the comp industry to start breathing again.
Last week the index of leading economic indicators improved again, marked by increases in housing starts and sales of existing homes, and manufacturing hours worked. Things have been on the upswing since April, although digging out of the worst recession since the 1930s is proving hugely difficult.
The employment picture also brightened somewhat in July, but the improvement is an indicator of just how bad things have been. 247,000 jobs were lost during July, the lowest total since last August. Auto sales were also up fifteen percent in the month driven in part by the ‘cash for clunkers’ program, and Ford announced it will actually increase production by 21% later this year.
The big concern has been inflation, which would choke off any recovery; so far, there appears to be no dramatic increase in consumer prices, with the consumer price index flat last month.
Those of us deep in the workers comp business have watched as the injury rate has declined along with the economy; with fewer people working fewer hours, particularly in high-frequency industries such as manufacturing, construction, and transportation, the number of claims ‘fell off a cliff’ during the winter. Moreover, the people who were laid off were the ones with less experience, and the pace of work likely lessened as well.
The drop in frequency hammered many workers comp service firms; with fewer claims, there has been much less demand for claim intake and triage, claims management, primary medical care, physical therapy and diagnostic imaging, medical case management, bill repricing, and utilization review. Provider networks have suffered as well with fewer bills resulting in lower revenues.
The decline in frequency was somewhat offset by a continued rise in severity – medical expenses and wage replacement costs.
Now what?
As economic activity increases, premium volume will increase in line with payroll. That’s the good news – more revenue for comp writers. The bad news – for those comp writers, is the injury rate is likely to jump, and there are no indications that severity is going to decline. We may well be looking at an increase in the number of injuries coupled with higher costs per injury.
The good folks at the NCCI have looked at the impact of economic recoveries on workers comp, finding “Job creation is related to an increase in the proportion of workers who are inexperienced in their current job and, hence, more likely to sustain a workplace injury.”
As firms staff up to meet demand for new houses, cars, and services, the faster pace of work, coupled with the inexperience of the new hires, will likely result in more injuries both in total and as a function of hours worked. Again, according to NCCI, “On net, the effect of job creation dominates quantitatively, thus generating the observed pro cyclical behavior in the growth rate of workplace injury and illness incidence rates. Further, it is shown that the growth rate of frequency tends to overshoot during economic recoveries, although this effect is not common to all recessions.”
In layman’s terms, we can expect a ‘higher than expected’ increase in the number and frequency of injuries. Here’s how this will affect the comp industry:
– Insurers – higher claims volume and higher medical/indemnity expense equals greater losses, which may not be balanced by premium increases. I’m expecting combined ratios to increase this year and next, as premiums tend to lag experience (the continued soft market is a contributing factor, as some comp insurers persist in fighting price wars,)
– Claims organizations – TPAs can’t wait much longer for a better market. Several have cratered, and others are losing business at a scary rate. Many TPAs get paid on a per-claim basis, and the drop in frequency has just murdered their top line, while the increase in severity means they are spending more resources (or not, for those TPAs near death) to manage those claims that do occur.
– Medical providers – The occ clinic companies – Concentra, USHealthworks, and their regional and health system-affiliated competitors, have been hammered by the drop in frequency. These clinics are primary-care focused, and are directly, and immediately, affected by any changes in frequency. Increases in severity have little effect on their results, as more expensive claims are almost always treated by specialists which don’t practice at clinics.
– Managed care firms – While Coventry has continued to increase revenue during the recession, this has been driven by price increases and hard bargaining. Other firms, including Genex, IntraCorp, and the regional players have seen precipitous drops in activity for two reasons. The obvious one is there are fewer claims to handle; the less obvious is many of their customers – TPAs and insurers – have internalized managed care functions in an effort to hold on to revenue and capture whatever margin went to vendors.
– Specialty managed care firms – Companies focused on PT, pharmacy, and especially durable medical equipment and home health care have been affected less severely than other service firms. As the injury rate picks up, they will see more volume, particularly in the areas of PT and pharmacy.
What to watch for
Tracking trends in work comp requires the ability to see ‘over the horizon’; none of the reporting agencies or entities have been able to collect data in real time, or anything close to it. Unless you want to wait for eighteen months, you’ll have to rely on anecdotal ‘data’. Here are a couple potential sources.
– TPAs and case management firms posting new jobs
– Individual company hiring notices, especially in manufacturing, construction, transportation, health care
– Employment statistics, particularly increases in hours worked and jobs created