Aug
15

Paul Ryan’s evolving stance on deficits and Medicare spending

Rep Ryan has taken what, by any definition, is a very bold and aggressive position regarding Medicare. He has – quite rightly – acknowledged that Medicare’s current financial trajectory is unsustainable. While one can argue with Ryan’s solution, one cannot disagree with the diagnosis.
He has also been in the forefront of the deficit debate, again rightly describing the fiscal disaster that awaits if we fail to control entitlement spending.
Paul Ryan’s faith in the free market is obvious, and is evident in his approach to resolving the Medicare cost problem.
One of the tenets of that faith in the free market is that better/cheaper products and services will win out over costlier/less effective alternatives. The thinking is, over time consumers will force suppliers to improve their products and reduce the cost of those products.
Unfortunately, Ryan has specifically voted against basing payment on a product’s effectiveness, and in so doing, has undoubtedly helped increase medical costs while not improving outcomes.
I’m referring to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which Rep Ryan supported.
MMA does not allow CMS to alter reimbursement on the basis of efficacy.
If a new drug or device comes on the market and is only 1 percent as effective as the existing drug or device, CMS cannot consider that effectiveness when determining reimbursement.
Here’s how the Kaiser Foundation described it:
“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was precluded by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) from incorporating results from the comparative effectiveness [CE] research authorized under MMA into its coverage decisions for Medicare.”
The pertinent language from the Act reads as follows – CMS will pay for items or services “reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member” (Fed Reg 65-95, p 31124- 31129, 2003 MMA); there is no mention of cost).
So, we taxpayers funded CE research, yet the feds can’t use that to ensure our taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately. And they can’t because the people who voted for MMA – including Paul Ryan – forbade it.
There’s more.
One of the other impacts of the Medicare Modernization Act was the reclassification of 6.2 million Medicaid recipients; low-income elderly and disabled people who had been receiving drug coverage through Medicaid were moved into Part D, where they got the same drugs, just at higher prices.
Medicaid negotiates with manufacturers and gets about a 26% price cut, under MMA Medicare is prohibited from doing so, so we taxpayers only get about 8 points off the cost. As a result of this language in the Act, pharma’s profits increased a bit under $3 billion dollars per year – a direct transfer from taxpayers to private industry.
The difference between Rep Ryan’s avowed belief in the free market and laser-like focus on deficit reduction and his strong support for MMA is striking.
It isn’t just a difference, it is Jekyll-and-Hyde like.
The vote for MMA increased the deficit and eliminated pay for performance, while his current persona rails against that very behavior.


Aug
14

Responsible opioid prescribing – your support needed

From a note I received from several folks –
I’m writing in the hope that you’ll submit comments to FDA limiting drug manufacturers’ promotion of the long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

PLEASE DO THIS NOW. IT TAKES TWO MINUTES.
Here’s the link where you can submit comments:
As you may have heard, a couple of weeks ago the group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing filed a petition with FDA. The petition will prohibit drug manufacturers’ promotion of the long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and the medical community will be informed that this practice has not been proven safe and effective.
In the comments box, say something like:

I support PROP’s petition placing controls on drug manufacturers’ promotion of the long term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Until and unless there is sound scientific evidence of the efficacy of opioids for CNCP this promotion should be severely limited.

More detail…
From PROP – “We believe that this will help reduce overprescribing of opioids. And since it’s overprescribing that’s harming pain patients and fueling the opioid addiction epidemic, the label change could help bring this public health crisis under control...This request has received support from members of Congress, including Rep. Mary Bono Mack and Hal Rogers, so we believe that FDA is paying close attention.”
You can read the petition here; and here’s a press release about the petition that was issued by Public Citizen:
FDA just started receiving comments from the public about the petition. It takes just a couple of minutes to submit comments. And just a few sentences are fine. Just make sure to state clearly in the first or second sentence that you support the petition. If you want, you’re able to upload attachments, including medical articles, newspaper stories or anything that might help you get your point across.
FDA will periodically post comments that are submitted. So far, comments opposing the petition outnumber comments supporting the petition… so PLEASE submit your comments and please ask others to submit comments too.
The petition is here.


Aug
13

Ryan on health care, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility

Mitt Romney’s naming of Wisconsin Rep Paul Ryan (R) as his running mate will place Ryan’s record under a microscope. That doesn’t mean most observers will understand, or realize the implications of what they see.
Before we take our turn at the viewing lens, a couple quick points.
1. I have NO problem with politicians advocating unpopular positions. They often cause the rest of us to rethink our positions and challenge commonly-held opinions.
2. I agree – absolutely – with the need to rein in entitlement spending.
3. I’m sure all of us abhor hypocrisy, particularly when it involves flip-flopping on political issues to gain votes.
Ryan has become the darling of conservative intellectuals for his “bold” budgetary proposals and willingness to “take on entitlement spending”, as well as his plan to slash taxes, particularly on investment income.
It’s one thing to advocate policy, come out with plans and proposals. To really understand a politician it is best to examine their record – so that’s what we’ll do.
We’ll start with the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since 1964 – Medicare Part D.
Eight years ago Ryan and the GOP passed the Medicare Part D drug benefit with no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-generators. Three-quarters of the ultimate cost – which is now around nineteen trillion dollars – was simply added to the federal budget deficit.
The latest Medicare Actuaries’ report states the “estimated present value of Part D expenditures through the infinite horizon of $19.2 trillion, of which $9.1 trillion would occur during the first 75 years.” (see page 129)
I’d note that Ryan’s recent budget proposals and speeches are silent on Part D’s ultimate cost, funding, and impact on the deficit. At least I couldn’t find any references. The comments I could find touted the decline in projected costs – in fact, cost projections have come down over the last couple years – which is a good thing. However, unless they come down to zero – a long way from $19 trillion to be sure – the fact is Ryan voted for a huge expansion in entitlement spending and continues to stand behind that vote.
Squaring that position with Ryan’s current status as a budgetary hawk is going to be a bit of a challenge…
There’s just a little more. Ryan also voted against allowing the Feds to use their bargaining power to negotiate drug prices for Part D, a move that would have reduced costs by about $20 billion per year.
In a 2006 House analysis, a report “showed that under the new Medicare plan, prices for 10 commonly prescribed drugs were 80% higher than those negotiated by the Veterans Department [emphasis added], 60% above that paid by Canadian consumers and still 3% higher than volume pharmacies such as Costco and Drugstore.com.”
Another study indicated “An annual savings of over $20 billion could be realized if FSS [Federal Supply Schedule] prices could be achieved by the federal government for the majority of drugs used by seniors in 2003-2004…”
That’s defensible – perhaps – from a purely ideological position. It provides useful insight into Ryan’s priorities; when balancing his political ideology and, one might argue political expediency against an avowed commitment to budgetary discipline, the budget appears to lose.


Aug
9

So, what does the MSC deal mean?

While there have been a plethora of deals in the work comp services industry of late, the pending acquisition of MSC by OneCall Medical has surprised many. The rumored size of the transaction, the buyer, and the level of interest in MSC among investors and strategic buyers are causing folks to re-examine long-held views of the business as slow-moving, stodgy, and insular.
The success of MSC, who chose to sell its pharmacy management business several years ago to concentrate on durable medical equipment and home health care, has been remarkable. This was a bit of a contrarian play, as most services firms were looking to diversify, adding additional service lines in an effort to capture more revenue from their existing customer base. PBMs and other vendors added DME and HHC, diversified into PT, imaging, and other lines as they sought to be all things to their customers.
For most suppliers, this wasn’t terrible successful. The additional lines added some revenue, but the time, energy, and resources invested in the diversification effort took away from the focus on their core business. Moreover, it was hard for most suppliers to build much credibility or differentiate their offerings in these new service lines; their level of expertise and experience just weren’t that impressive.
In contrast, after spinning off their PBM to Express Scripts, MSC invested heavily in systems and sales staff, seeking to deeply penetrate its existing customer base and add as many new customers as possible. By all accounts it was quite successful, taking share from competitors through a coordinated effort targeting both home office buyers and individual adjusters and case managers.
MSC will be added to OneCall’s product portfolio, not as another product line but as the leading supplier in the DME and HHC sectors. Combining MSC’s transportation and translation business with that of OneCall consolidates their position as the leading T&T provider. Adding their leadership position in the small but rumored-to-be-highly profitable work comp dental space gives OneCall a rather interesting combination of products and services.
Equally, if not more important, is the combined companies’ sales and service footprint. While there will almost certainly be some reduction in the total number of staff, there’s no question OneCall will have more “feet on the street” than any other vendor in the business. The ability of OneCall to stay in front of adjusters and case managers, service national accounts, stay in touch with market trends and competitive dynamics, and measure and track what’s selling where and to whom for how much will be unparalleled.
Make no mistake, the MSC-OneCall deal is a watershed moment in the workers comp services industry. For decades this has been a cottage, mom-and-pop business, with most suppliers either small, local vendors or entities that grew up from those mom-and-pops. The industry will mature:
– Expect the pace of consolidation to continue, if not accelerate, as local suppliers – of all service types – fear their ability to compete with the big national suppliers decreases with each deal.
– New entrants will emerge, focusing on ever-more-tightly-defined niches, seeking to carve out and “own” a space where their expertise and capabilities are enough of an advantage to convince payers that adding one more vendor is worth the hassles.
– More investors – private equity funds in particular – are focusing on this space. They will likely drive up the price of deals (somewhat), although the tough credit markets will help keep multiples down.
What does this mean for you?
Opportunities to be sure, at the top end, and in newly-defined niches – for smart, creative, and, most importantly, disciplined entrepreneurs and managers.


Aug
7

Workers comp: heading over the “Fiscal Cliff”?

With Washington seemingly frozen in place, unable to agree on anything except it’s the other side’s fault, the awful specter of the Fiscal Cliff looks more and more possible. But unlike any other fall from a great height, we’re already getting hurt.
The “Fiscal Cliff” is shorthand for the automatic government spending cuts and tax increases that will go into effect January 1, 2013 – less than five months from today – if Congress fails to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit. The CBO projects the cuts and tax increases will reduce the deficit by over a half-trillion dollars, but they will also cut four points from GDP and trigger another recession.
The CBO also projected that a failure to reach agreement early in 2012 would negatively affect the economy, leading households and businesses to cut spending and thereby reducing 20123 GDP by a half-point.
That projection appears to be prescient.
Manufacturers are already cutting back on orders. Some companies are holding off on hiring new workers. The hospitality industry is watching occupancy rates decline. Failure to address the Cliff will mean infrastructure construction and maintenance projects are in jeopardy
All this at a time when workers comp insurers are finally seeing some consistent premium rate increases, increases desperately needed to build up deficient reserves and cover rising medical expenses.
Employment drives workers comp, and employment in manufacturing and construction has a disproportionate effect. Although forecasts are still positive for hiring (particularly in non-residential construction), the closer we get to 12/31/12 the more dicey things will get.
What does this mean for you?
Watch what happens in DC; A resolution to the deficit crisis bodes well for work comp; no resolution would be bad news indeed.


Aug
6

Coventry’s Q2 work comp performance

The results for the second quarter are in, and Coventry’s doing well.
For now, we’ll focus on the work comp sector; if you are looking for any insights into Chariman Allen Wise’ views on comp, you won’t find them in his comments or the transcript of the earnings call. Both the Coventry folks and the analysts were entirely focused on preparations for reform, Medicaid, Part D, and expansion plans.
Despair not, as there’s enough other info out there that we can discern some trends with their work comp sector.
Fortunately Coventry has been reporting the work comp sector’s revenues on a separate line for a couple of quarters. The data indicates essentially flat sales with a slight dip this quarter (2.5 percent) compared to the same quarter in 2011. That’s a solid accomplishment, as its came despite the loss of significant PBM revenue with the move of ACE’s pharmacy business to rival Progressive Medical.
Pharmacy drives Coventry’s work comp top line. Coventry’s PBM, First Script, (and all PBMs) count pass-thru pharmacy transaction revenue as Coventry revenue. Contrast this to other service lines such as bill review and networks, where only Coventry’s portion of the spend hits their top line, and the importance of pharmacy to top line becomes evident.
Those other lines are under pressure as well. ACE reportedly is moving other business away from Coventry, including provider networks. Macro factors, such as the continued soft employment picture and fewer workers comp claims are also dragging down performance, reducing case management, bill review, and network business.
A factor that is getting almost no attention is the impact of physician dispensing on First Script’s revenue. With almost two-thirds of work comp pharmacy spend in Illinois and Florida and over a third of national spend from dispensing physicians , First Script’s top line is about a third lower than it would be if this practice was limited — as well it should be.
Best guess is Coventry’s work comp revenues would be about a hundred million dollars greater if not for dispensing docs.
To keep expenses down, management has been reducing staff; sources indicated several analysts from the reporting group were let go a few months back.