Jun
26

Immigrants and health care – who’s paying, who’s getting

Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 Billion More To The Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out In 2002–09 – that’s the headline from a piece in Health Affairs this month.

“immigrants may be disproportionately subsidizing the Medicare Trust Fund, which supports payments to hospitals and institutions…In 2009 immigrants made 14.7 percent of Trust Fund contributions but accounted for only 7.9 percent of its expenditures—a net surplus of $13.8 billion. In contrast, US-born people generated a $30.9 billion deficit…

Most of the surplus from immigrants was contributed by noncitizens [emphasis added] and was a result of the high proportion of working-age taxpayers in this group. Policies that restrict immigration may deplete Medicare’s financial resources.”

When one considers that birth rates among citizens are declining, and thus there will be fewer young working folks to support us aged people, the current anti-immigrant/nativist stance starts to look a little problematic.

Fact is, Medicare and Social Security depend on contributions from working age people; if we drastically restrict immigration and deport all undocumented aliens those two programs will be in dire financial straits much sooner than anticipated.

Conversely, a more “open” policy would go a long way toward reducing the strain on Medicare and SS.

Just saying.


Jun
25

Workers’ comp rates are up, but still no profit.

While workers’ comp premiums have been increasing steadily for two years, the industry is still not profitable.

Why not?

There are a bunch of pluses and minuses influencing profitability; premiums were up 7 percent in 2012, driven by higher rates and growing payrolls.  Rates have been trending up for eight consecutive quarters and increases are now in the double-digits. That helped improve 2012’s combined to 110.

On the negative side, today’s historically-low interest rates get part of the blame, but their impact is somewhat offset by declining frequency (down 5 percent last year).  Fitch’s latest report noted the industry still suffers from reserve deficiencies, making the current combined ratio a bit optimistic.

The industry’s performance is simply a composite of all insurers, and here’s where it gets really interesting.  Couple things stand out from Fitch’s analysis (access is free to registrants).

  • Companies with weaker underwriting performance shrank their books; specifically, all insurers with combineds over 100 reduced their premiums over the last five years.
  • Liberty Mutual is once again at the top of the market-share list, despite dropping from 11.1% share to 9.9%.  AIG has reduced its exposure by over $3.5 billion over the last half-decade.
  • Fitch notes that the implementation of health reform under PPACA will likely affect “volatility in workers’ compensation claims costs”; that’s certainly true, but I’d suggest the impact of long-term opioid usage will be rather more significant.
  • The report authors also note “the industry will continue to report unfavorable reserve development” in work comp over the next several years.  In English, they are saying insurers haven’t set aside enough money to pay for the future medical and indemnity expenses of claims that have already occurred.  

I remain convinced most insurers don’t have a firm grasp on medical costs and drivers thereof.  Fitch’s comments about reserve inadequacy support that belief, as do anecdotal discussions with executives.  I detect a distinct uneasiness when discussing medical costs, a sense that things are not as under-control as one would think from reading industry reports and company press releases.

What does this mean for you?

Rates will continue to go up; more employers will go self-insured; and the carriers we expect to be the biggest will likely not be in a few years.


Jun
24

The true cost of opioids

A workers’ comp claim with no opioid scripts costs about $13,000.  Those with long-acting opioids like Oxycontin?  $117,000.

This and other factoids were reported in yesterday’s NYTimes in a revealing piece by Barry Meier; you may recall Meier was responsible for two articles last year in the Times on opioids and workers’ comp physician dispensing.

  • There were 16,651 deaths associated with opioids in 2010. My best guess is several hundred of those were workers’ comp claimants.
  • The price-per-pill for Vicodin dispensed by docs was roughly three times that of Vicodin purchased at a retail pharmacy.
  • Opioid sales more than doubled to $8.34 billion in 2012; workers’ comp accounts for about 18% – 20% of total opioid costs
    (remember workers’ comp medical is less than 2 percent of total US medical expense…)
  • The number of patients in drug treatment – inpatient, outpatient, or using drugs intended to address addiction – has increased dramatically over the last ten years.

What does this mean for you?

Do you have any idea what opioids do to your claim costs?  Not just the cost of the drugs; the other medical expenses, extended disability duration, legal expense, and settlement costs?

 

 


Jun
21

PPACA/Obamacare and Medicare fraud

Among the hundreds of pages of the PPACA are passages addressing provider fraud, a far-too-common and far-too-costly issue that has long plagued the program.

The good news is, things seem to be getting better.

CMS just reported they recovered a record $14.9 billion in 2011 and 2012 from anti-fraud prosecutions and judgments.  The number of providers kicked out of Medicare more than doubled in the two years after PPACA was passed. And the most recent large action saw 89 individuals charged with $223 million in false billing.

One occurred in Miami (shocking, I know), where a local TV celeb was busted for allegedly falsely billing Medicare some $20 million for home health care services for diabetics…(you gotta see this picture of the alleged perp…)

There are a bunch of reasons for the increased success;

  • PPACA allocated an additional $350 million over ten years to anti-fraud efforts;
  • the FBI has dedicated more resources to the effort,
  • CMS investigations staff and resources have been increased and given more authority and a more prominent position in the Department;
  • computer programs designed to identify potential fraud have been developed and improved, and
  • rewards for tips may be drastically increased – up to a maximum of $9.9 million.

That’s all good – but every time I see a TV ad for that hoverround chair I think there’s still  some rather significant “opportunities” to reduce taxpayers’ burden.

If those companies can afford to stuff my cable box full of adverts, they are making too much profit.


Jun
20

HWR welcomes summer

Wing of Zock (a great blog name and one you’ll have to click on to understand) has the last edition of the spring – or as I like to think of it, the first of the SUMMER!!


Jun
20

Pharmacies’ self interest v silos v ignorance

$1.7 billion in workers’ comp drug costs are for drugs dispensed by physicians.  

Why don’t the big retail pharmacies care about physician dispensing in workers’ comp?

Why isn’t Walgreens, and CVS, and Rite-Aid, and Medicine Shoppe up in arms about this?

After all, claimants who get their drugs from their docs don’t visit a drug store, don’t pick up those other essentials, don’t establish a relationship with a pharmacist and possibly a store.

I’ve been stumped by this for years.  Here’s why.  About 65 percent of a chain drug store’s sales are for drugs; for independents its 93 percent.  The margin on most of those medications is pretty thin, and almost non-existent for Medicaid drugs in some states.  Chain drug stores sell drugs to get people to come in and buy toothpaste and magazines and convenience foods and cosmetics, where they do make a decent profit. And independents live and die on drug sales; and these days, most are dying. 

Yet anyone who’s tracked anti-physician dispensing efforts in Florida, Maryland, Hawai’i, Michigan, Illinois – anywhere, has not seen hide nor hair of anyone remotely associated with a drug store.

Is this a case of silos, where the department/person responsible for workers’ comp drug sales has no power or influence or is measured on percentage margin and not total sales or profits (because WC drugs are VERY profitable for pharmacies; the margins are many times those of drugs dispensed for group health plans).

Or is it ignorance, where the powers-that-be don’t care about WC drugs because they only represent a couple percentage points of scripts?  Of course, the total would be a lot higher if physicians weren’t dispensing, and this ignores the much higher profits on those drugs, but hey, ignorance is bliss, right?

Whatever the reason, it is abundantly clear that insurers, employers, PBMs, and others (me, for instance) have been fighting chain and independent pharmacies’ battles for them.

If independents don’t sell drugs, they’re dead.  And more are dying every day, as overall drug sales level off, and they are increasingly unable to compete with the chains and huge food-and-drugs.  Yet I’ve never seen anyone from an independent pharmacy, or their national trade group, engaged in the issue.

Folks on workers’ comp are either employed or getting a check to cover lost wages; they need toiletries and food and other medications and batteries, stuff they’ll likely get from the Big Box store if they don’t come in to the corner drug store to get their workers’ comp meds.  Yet NACDS and the other “advocacy” groups are nowhere on this issue.

It isn’t like I – and others – haven’t tried, multiple times, to get drug stores engaged.  For whatever reason, there’s been no response.

Meanwhile, the investment and provider communities have figured out that workers’ comp is a great business – profitable, with relatively low regulatory risk.  Comp is an “insulator”, a payer type that is removed from PPACA, Medicaid, Medicare, and all the changes coming down from Washington; a service line not affected by budget cuts or Obamacare.

At some point, perhaps when the last independent drug store is about to close up shop, someone may say “gosh, those dispensing docs sure killed our comp business; we could have used those dollars to stay open and profitable.”

Or a chain store exec may wonder “gee, why is my average profit per script lower than ever?’

Or, more likely, Not.

 


Jun
18

Implementing health reform, random report 1

Today brings another in our random reports on progress and stumbles in implementing reform, starting and running Exchanges, and sussing out the reality from the BS.

It looks like there will be more competition for individual insurance come 2014 than there is in today’s market – “the number of carriers offering non-group insurance plans [in the 10 states where data is available] will increase substantially, from 52 to 70–an increase of 35 percent. Six of the 10 states will see more insurers operating on the non-group exchange compared to the number of significant competitors pre-reform.” Four will see no change.

One example is Colorado, where there are 243 individual and group plans available come October.  Rates are in, and while they aren’t lower than current rates, the additional benefits and (in some cases MUCH) lower out-of-pocket maximums make for much better coverage.  Individual rates for lower-end plans range from around $200 for young’uns to $250 or so for 40 year olds, and that’s BEFORE any subsidy, which about 466 thousand Coloradans qualify for.  The folks who know waaaaay more than I do about Colorado health plans are Louise and Jay; they’ve done quite a bit of research into costs, benefits, and the balance between the two.

Louise notes that the demise of medical underwriting makes it impossible for insurers to keep individual insurance rates much below small group premiums; on the other hand, many more individuals will be able to get coverage who can’t today.  And, those unfortunates who are stuck in one job because they need the insurance will be able to move, start a new job, or a new business after 1/1/14.

Gotta love that free market!

Moving a thousand miles plus to the east, data on insurance premiums from the D.C. Exchange are in; rates for the four insurers filing to date are “in line with current rates”; a bronze plan for youngsters can be had for $124, the older folks can get one for $296 on the individual market, with group rates somewhat higher.

Finally, there is growing evidence that the ACOs working in Medicare are beginning to have a measurable impact on outcomes; readmissions fell by one percentage point last year, the first drop in five years. Anecdotally, some hospitals participating in ACOs are reporting decreases in ER visits for Medicare recipients enrolled in ACOs.


Jun
17

The latest workers’ comp intel

 

 

The weather is heating up, and so is the workers’ comp services industry.  Here are a few of the latest and greatest.

The big news remains CWCI’s report on opioid usage; some are using the headline that use is “leveling off”, which, to be completely factual, is, well, factual.  It is also just like saying “new cases of bubonic plague in (insert your home town name) have leveled off after hitting an all time high and killing lots of your neighbors.”

Oh goodie.

On the upside, Accident Fund Insurance Company just received a patent for “evaluating medical service providers and directing claimants using a computer and a database…”  The rationale, in patent-ese, is this:

“a method and system is needed to transform the processing of claimants. Without the additional step of directing certain types of claimants to specific medical service providers, not provider networks, the success of directing claimants cannot be effectively measured and used to redefine medical service provider groups and claimant groups in order to improve efficiency and optimize medical costs at the claim level.”

As a consultant, it is rare indeed to see something you actually worked on years ago reach full implementation.  And immensely gratifying as well. Kudos to Jeffrey Austin White, Craig Bilinski, Pat Walsh, Marsha Fenton, Lisa Riddle, and their colleagues at AF.  While others continue to talk, you guys are actually doing it.   

Healthcare Solutions has hired industry pro Rich Leonardo to run PBM sales.  Rich is a highly-experienced and well-regarded exec with a long track record of success.  He’s a good guy too.  Good move by HCS; Rich’s experience running sales for Express’ WC PBM will be invaluable.

PMSI continues on a roll; heard they landed the State Fund of Wyoming PBM contract.  Word is this is in the “several million dollar” range; implementation is underway.

Saw a press release recently that Medata had won the bill review business for a Florida-based auto insurer; that got me interested in re-visiting the medical bill review business to see what’s been going on.  Lots of private equity attention being paid to this space of late; word is one or more of the jumbos are for sale.  Not surprising; if anything the investor activity in P&C services is – if anything – heating up.

Of note, auto insurers in some states (Michigan and Hawai’i in particular) are seeing a big increase in physician-dispensed medications, an unfortunate occurrence that is not only driving up medical costs and will lead to higher settlements, but adding confusion and delay to medical bill processing.  Insurers are wrestling with how best to address bills for physician dispensed drugs, as some are extremely costly and their medical appropriateness (Prilosec et al) can be rather questionable at times.  And yes, this is hitting the PIP/auto insurance lines – and in many cases completely using up the available medical coverage.  

Then there’s this…A Michigan company is hiring 50 (!) reps to sell a compound pharmaceutical narcotic pain cream. Sources indicate a local doc is behind the venture, undoubtedly designed to bring much-needed relief to those poor souls who can’t swallow pills.  Both of them.

Proving that I’m waaaay behind in my mandatory reading and reporting, a few weeks back Chris Walsh wrote a great piece in WorkCompWire about improving workers comp outcomes with systems automation.  Chris started his career in the HMO IT business and knows of what he speaks.  Well worth a read.

Finally, now that Aetna’s completed the legal/financial part of acquiring Coventry, the real work begins.  Well, actually, continues – because the two companies have been working on integrating/combining their operations for months.  Don’t expect to see Aetna sell off the workers’ comp business – because a) it makes a ton of money; b) it is a regulatory risk mitigator; and c) even if they wanted to – which they do NOT – they can’t.   

 


Jun
14

Workers’ comp opioid usage in California…

Schedule II opioid scripts in California increased 557% from 2005 to 2012.  

According to a study released by CWCI yesterday, growth seems to have topped out, with S-IIs accounting 7.2 percent of all drugs prescribed in the 4th quarter of 2012 after hitting 7.1 percent in 2011.

Some may see this as progress.  If “progress” is defined as not getting any worse, perhaps that’s accurate.  I’d suggest that stabilizing at 7.2 percent of scripts and 19 percent of drug spend for drugs that have little place in treating workers’ comp injuries is only good news if one doesn’t consider the long-term impact of opioids.

Claimants taking opioids over the long term are not going back to work, aren’t going to settle claims, and are going to cost far more than claimants – with the same diagnoses – that aren’t on opioids.  Lest you think this another “insight” from Captain Obvious, ask your actuaries if they have projected future costs factoring in the impact of opioids.

Fact is there is precious little research into the impact of opioids on financials over the long term. I’ve asked many industry experts, insiders, and thought leaders, along with several comp actuaries, if they’ve heard of or done much in the way of analysis.  With some notable exceptions, the answer is “not really”.

In defense of actuaries, they’re using historical data to predict the future.  So, the financial effect of a pentupling of opioid usage hasn’t revealed itself in the data yet; or more accurately, the impact has yet to be fully realized.

When it is, the stuff is going to hit the fan.

I’d note that these data refer to California’s experience and may not be – and in all likelihood are not – representative of the entire country.  I’d hazard a guess that some states have yet to reach their “opioid peak” while others may be close to stabilizing growth.  Scary thing is, outside of California and Texas, payers just don’t know.

We do know that initial opioid usage in Texas has decreased thanks to the closed formulary and tough UR standards.  We also know that payers using PBMs have seen declines in opioid usage (see here and here).

What does this mean for you?

Do you KNOW the financial impact of opioids?


Jun
12

“Rate shock” explained

Obamacare is going to raise rates by 88% in Ohio while California officials think health reform has “hit a home run for consumers.”  As these are the only two large states with published rates (not that I don’t love and respect Vermont), we’ll focus on OH and CA.

(For the quick net-net, see the last paragraph)

As Jonathan Cohn points out, this is really an apples to grapefruit comparison.  In order to accurately assess the cost differential, one has to do an actuarially accurate comparison.

Alas, I can’t find any that are credible; Ohio’s doesn’t factor in benefit design differences or the impact of no medical underwriting and fewer age bands; there are several other factors that affect what consumers will actually pay.

First – this only affects people who get coverage thru the exchanges.  That’s about 14 percent in California. Most get insurance thru their employers, Medicaid, or Medicare, so they are unaffected.

Second, a LOT of people will get subsidized coverage, so what they pay will be less – sometimes a lot less – than the advertised price. In California, about half of those getting benefits from the Exchange will get coverage at a lower cost; a 40 year old who makes just under $24,000 a year will get very good insurance at $90 a month (Health Net Silver plan). (I know, taxpayers, hospitals, drug companies, and insurers will pay for those subsidies, but most of the press has been focused on what the insured’s cost will be, so we’ll focus on that)

Third, it’s NOT just the cost of the insurance, it’s the cost of care – premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.  The benefits covered by the Exchange plans are much richer than the lowest-cost plans now offered in many states.  For example, the individual Bronze plan in Ohio has an out-of-pocket cap of $6,350, compared to UnitedHealthcare’s Saver 80’s $13,000 max out of pocket.  But the Saver 80 doesn’t cover maternity, vision, mental health care, drugs or office visits (except for very limited wellcare visits).  So consumers who pay less in premiums for today’s Saver 80 than tomorrow’s Bronze plan will spend much more out of pocket, far outweighing any premium savings.

Fourth, costs for younger people will likely be higher under the Exchange, while costs for older folks may well come down.  That’s a function of the reduced number of “age bands”;  insurance-speak for charging us older folks more because we are worse risks than you young pups.

Fifth, because medical underwriting is banned under Obamacare, many individuals who can’t get coverage at any price today will get coverage tomorrow.  Today, many folks with a history of heart disease or cancer or other serious conditions can’t get any coverage in some states, and only at incredibly high prices in others – due to pre-existing medical conditions.  For those people, any conversation about higher costs is irrelevant, because no one will sell them insurance, or if they do it will be at rates unaffordable to anyone but the top 0.1%.  So, if you have high blood pressure, a family history of heart disease or cancer, a BMI above an acceptable range, lupus or diabetes or high cholesterol or asthma or depression or any of dozens of other “conditions”, you will be able to get coverage next year – at the same price as anyone else your age.

Here’s the net.

For older folks, benefits will likely be richer, out-of-pocket expenses and premiums lower.  Younger people will likely pay more for better coverage than they have today.