I’m only aware of three major work comp insurers (Travelers, BWC-Ohio, Washington L&I) that have pharmacists on staff; the North Dakota State Fund does as well.
With pharmacy costs accounting for somewhere around 15% of total medical spend, that seems like a “miss”. Yes, pharmacy costs have been flat in recent years, but the impact of drugs on work comp claim duration and the medical and indemnity expense associated with long-term drug use is quite significant.
Many payers have medical directors, nurses, and other clinicians on staff to help address medical issues; in some instances ALL medical issues are the purview of clinicians. Yet these payers don’t have pharmacists on staff, relying instead on medical folks. Sure, they have knowledge of pharmacy, but nowhere near the depth and breadth of expertise resident in even the greenest pharmacist.
As physician dispensing of medications increases, payers begin (yes, most are just beginning) to address their long-term opioid users, off-label prescribing continues to grow, new medications come on the market, and compounding spreads, payers will find themselves at a disadvantage if they don’t have inhouse expertise.
Sure, PBMs have pharmacists on staff, and most are very, very experienced, understand pain management, and know work comp. They have the added benefit of being “free”; they don’t increase overhead expenses. But they work for the PBM, aren’t available on an ongoing basis to address the issues listed above, and if the insurer switches PBMs, that experience and corporate history disappears.
Twenty years ago rare was the insurer with any real medical expertise on staff. Claim adjusters were quite capable of handling medical issues, thank you.
It won’t - at least it shouldn’t – take that long for insurers to see the wisdom of hiring pharmacists.