Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Mar
17

AIG – should bonuses be paid?

No, they’re not eating cake or fiddling while Rome burns – but that’s the impression you’d get from watching TV or listening to the radio talking heads. I’m referring to the AIG execs currently in the pillory for accepting bonuses after losing $43 billion last year.
This is a rather significant digression from MCM’s headline topic, but one that is so topical that I spent most of yesterday doing television interviews on the subject. Yesterday morning I tried to make the point to Fox Business News viewers that 116,000 AIG employees not working for AIG Financial Products should not be tarred with the same brush used to paint AIGFP’s 450-odd workers. AIGFP lost $43 billion last year, or about a hundred million dollars per employee – likely a record for any erstwhile-profit making enterprise.
On Nightline last night, about fifteen minutes of interview were left on the editing room floor in favor of two sound bites – one of which had me noting that the AIGFP execs should not take their bonuses, as they did not, by any civilized measure, earn them.
Easy for me to say. In fact, this statement came after several minutes of back and forth wherein I described the high-pressure environment, the relentless competition, the brutally stressful world that is AIG senior management – not as a justification for getting bonuses for blowing $40 billion, but rather to show that individuals who survived in that environment very likely felt they had earned their financial rewards. Here’s an earlier post describing the cultural roots of the problems.
At the end of all the hysteria and hand-wringing, the bonuses are due and payable. Not paying them would result in litigation and further delay in cleaning up the mess. To date AIGFP has reportedly closed out fully a quarter of its CDS positions; in all liklihood this would not have happened if the staff was fired/shot/drawn and quartered. As AIG’s owners the faster they fix this the better for us.
Yes, the Obama Administration should do everything it can to limit those bonuses, but not at the expense of successfully winding down AIGFP’s positions. Lets be adults here, and to quote the President, not ‘govern out of anger’ but rather out of intelligence. Sure, it makes great politics, but that doesn’t get we taxpayers a dime of our investment back.
Cool, calculating, careful thought will.


Mar
16

Oxycontin – can you get some of your money back?

Friend and colleague Peter Rousmaniere sent the following to me; with his permission I’m posting his note in its entirety.
“I want to alert people to a case of criminal fraud by a drug company affecting pretty much every self insured employer and workers compensation, auto and health insurer. If you work for or advise one of them, you should learn about this case and know what to do. [emphasis added]
In 2007 Purdue Pharma pled guilty to criminal charges that it mislead physicians about the risks of addiction to Oxycontin. It paid a large fine to the Federal government. Now, a federal court is in the process of implementing a class action settlement, which enables any party that paid for Oxycontin between 1995 and 2008 to recover some of its payments.
This case is not just about Purdue misleading physicians to promote this drug. It is also about using deception to increase the probability that thousands of patients, many of them injured workers, will become psychologically and physically dependent on pain medication
The settlement is not designed to recompense injured workers whose lives were up-ended by addiction to Oxycontin. That would require another suit on behalf of these workers.
At this moment, is it incumbent on self insured employers and insurers to file by May 19 in order to recover from Purdue some of their Oxycontin outlays. [emphasis added] Go to www.oxycontintppsettlement.com. I’d appreciate your keeping in touch with me on this matter.”
You can reach Peter at pfr@rousmaniere.com.


Mar
13

Employers’ self-defeating behavior

Frank Pennachio is one of the smartest people in workers comp. His piece on the complicity of employers in screwing up their own claims published in Risk and Insurance is just terrific.
TPAs are making a lot of money on managed care. At least in part, that’s because employers are hammering them on claims handling costs. There is just no way that a TPA can effectively adjudicate a lost time claim for $1200 for the life of the claim/contract.

So, they have to make up the margin somewhere, and managed care is that ‘somewhere’.
Here’s Frank’s summary:
“Claims administration contracts between employers and their insurance companies or third-party administrators have created a cycle of misaligned incentives and unintended consequences.
Many employers have lost sight of what a workers’ compensation program is supposed to do, and vendors have created products and services that often drive costs up instead of down.”


Mar
13

Florida’s work comp business is heading south

One of the more successful reforms in work comp over the last decade was in Florida. But there are two major issues getting lots of attention that may well overturn much of the good achieved in the Sunshine State.
Dennis Ross, one of the primary authors of the reform plan that became law in 2003, has written an excellent article summarizing these two problems. In brief –
Litigation expense was slashed dramatically under reform. That happy result looks to be in serious trouble, and legal costs may once gain skyrocket.
Before reform, attorneys would litigate anything, no matter how minor, because they would get paid their hourly rate for all work on the claimant’s case. As a result there was litigation around ‘underpayments’ of a few dollars, where the legal fees would be ten times the actual ‘underpayment’. Now, due to a recent court decision, some parts of the reform look to be in jeopardy – the very parts that eliminated the incentive to litigate everything all the time.
The specific case I’m referring to is Murray v Mariners Health/ACE USA. As things stand now, we can expect litigation costs to increase dramatically, and we’ll likely see a big upsurge in medical utilization as attorneys will once again be incentivized to push claimants to get as much care as possible.
Ok, that’s bad. What’s going to happen with hospital costs may even be worse.
Medical costs came down dramatically as well, thanks to changes in the fee schedule that actually increased reimbursement for physicians and should have cut facility costs (but apparently didn’t). As a result, more docs participated in comp, and the ones that did were doing good work (amazing how that happens when you pay docs a fair rate…) But the decision by the three member panel to fundamentally change facility reimbursement will likely add several hundred million dollars to employer’s work comp claim costs.
I’ve posted on this before – here’s the net. The proposed change to the Fee Schedule would link the “usual and customary” payment standard for outpatient hospital claims contained in Fl. St. § 440.13(12) to the ratio between what Florida hospitals charge Medicare and what Medicare actually pays. The net result would be a dramatic increase in the reimbursement for outpatient services billed by hospitals. There are four issues here.
First, methodology will increase costs – today – by 181% for surgeries and 330% for other hospital outpatient services.
Second, the annual inflation rate for charges in FL is 14%. So today’s high costs will be tomorrow’s even higher costs and the day after will bring really really high costs…
Third, the location of services will likely change dramatically to the higher cost hospital location. Thus procedures which were being done in offices will now be billed – at the much higher rates – by hospitals.
Fourth, as a result, surgeries which were done on an outpatient basis will likely shift to inpatient to take advantage of the much higher reimbursement.
What does this mean for you?
Work comp costs in Florida are going to go up – a lot.


Mar
12

North Dakota’s work comp boss – curiouser and curiouser

Yesterday I posted on the hiring of a former state trooper as head of North Dakota’s Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) entity – the state’s sole work comp agency. For those unfamiliar with ND, they are one of the few states where the state is the exclusive provider of workers comp insurance – they, and Ohio and Washington, are ‘monopolistic’ states.
A bit of googling brought up a bit more information about the new boss – Bryan Klipfel. His background is law enforcement, he does not appear to have any comp experience, and was actively involved in the investigation of the former head of the agency, Charles Blunt. Blunt was terminated after an investigation into an alleged theft of state funds. Blunt was subsequently convicted by a jury of one felony charge of misappropriating state funds.
A quick google of the Blunt case raises more questions than answers. After watching the fiasco at the Ohio fund brought on by a few criminals in the executive suite, I was prepared for another orgy of self-dealing at the public trough.
Apparently not. In fact there aren’t any charges that Blunt took money himself, but rather authorized sick leave for an executive that may not have been ill, and, according to a news report, used somewhere around $26,000 of “WSI funds to pay for employee meals and drinks and buying illegal gifts and trinkets for staff…”.
Ok, so Blunt made a few bad decisions and/or didn’t follow all the rules by the book. But a felony conviction for a sick leave authorization and some apparently inexpensive ‘gifts’?
Boy those Dakotans are brutal. But even if they are, I can’t imagine Blunt was the only exec in the entire history of WSI to run afoul of the employee handbook. So, why the big expensive investigation?
I’m really curious. The investigator who has no experience in work comp and no P and L experience (never ran a business) is the head of a big comp insurer after helping convict the former occupant of his new office of using state funds to pay for meals, sick leave, and gifts?


Mar
11

Coventry correction (?)

In my post earlier this week I reported on the change at the top of Coventry’s workers comp division, saying “Young came into the organization in the Concentra deal. Generally well regarded by customers, his promotion has been characterized by several as a good thing; he is viewed as more customer-oriented than execs from First Health.”
Well, it looks like there are two very different perspectives regarding Mr Young. I received several emails questioning my positive statements about Young and a couple of calls as well. All disagreed specifically with my ‘customer-oriented’ claim.
I’ve met Mr Young a couple times, do not really know him except by reputation, and defer to those who know him better than I. I’ll retract my earlier characterization and replace it with this “it is safe to say that Mr Young has supporters and detractors among coventry customers.” I’d also note that people generally complain more than they compliment, so perhaps my correspondents were not representative.
And thanks to all who shared their opinions, even those who blistered my inbox in the process.


Mar
11

North Dakota’s new work comp boss

The folks at WorkCompCentral find the most interesting stuff. Today’s edition featured an item about the new head of North Dakota’s work comp agency – here’s how they put it:
“Highway Patrol Director Bryan Klipfel [was named] as director of Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture executive Clare Carlson as deputy director and public affairs officer for the agency.”
The announcement, which came from the Governor’s office, quoted the governor: “in his 30 years with the Highway Patrol, Klipfel had a strong record of accomplishments and was highly regarded for his knowledge and integrity in both the Highway Patrol agency and law enforcement statewide.”
WorkCompCentral noted “Klipfel currently is the human resources manager for Job Service North Dakota. He has a degree in public administration from the University of North Dakota.”
Is it just me, or does this look like political patronage?
What does a former patrolman know about workers comp? Turns out he admittedly doesn’t know anything.
According to a local paper in ND, “Bryan Klipfel says he knows little about workers compensation, but the former state Highway Patrol commander believes his management and listening skills will help him do well as director of North Dakota’s Workforce Safety and Insurance agency…”I’m going to work with Bruce (Furness) for a couple of weeks, and I’ll just have to learn some of that information as time goes on,” Klipfel said. “My strong points are that I have leadership ability, and I understand human resources, how to deal with people. And I think that’s the big part (of the job) right now.”
Huh?
He’s going to learn on the job? While getting mentoring for a ‘couple of weeks”? In a business that is incredibly complex? At a time when investments and reserving practices are critically important?
And his qualifications are his understanding of human resources and leadership ability?
Yikes. This bears further investigation.


Mar
10

Health Reform Scaremongering

As health reform starts to build momentum, there’s a lot of half-truths, untruths, and misdirection attempts floating out there in the ether. In a recent post, Maggie Mahar does a terrific job of dismantling some of the more pernicious falsehoods/lies coming from the GOP. Here are a couple highlights:
– Roy Blunt, R MO, is “concerned that . . . [the government] will eventually push out the private health care plans that millions of Americans enjoy today.” Why? As I’ve noted before, and as Maggie notes in her post, if private insurers can’t beat Medicare, they shouldn’t be in business.
– Talking about the potential for a government-sponsored health plan, Blunt said “This could cause your employer to simply stop offering coverage, hoping the government will pick up the slack.” Why would a government option have that effect? Maggie says:
“Under virtually every progressive proposal for reform, if your employer stops offering you coverage, he has to pay into a pool that helps fund the public-sector plan. Many employers would rather continue offering their own coverage because they know their employees prefer a known (what they have now) to an unknown (a new government plan.) Moreover, they realize that if they drop benefits, and the amount they pay into the national pool does not equal the amount they are now spending on health benefits, some highly-valued employees will expect a pay raise to make up the difference.”
I’d add that even if employers did drop insurance, how would that be different from today, where many employers are dropping coverage because it is unaffordable? Oh, the workers actually would be able to get insurance. Is that bad, Mr Blunt?
There’s a lot more here; Maggie’s done a great job debunking the BS from Blunt. His logic is faulty, data wrong, and facts missing. But he’s probably pretty effective, at least with those who love to bash government as completely, totally, and always incompetent.
And after the last eight years, who could blame them?


Mar
9

Coventry work comp – the change has started

Jim McGarry has moved on, and David Young has moved in. That’s the quick report on changes at the top of Coventry’s work comp unit – but more is coming.
McGarry, who reportedly has a solid relationship with Allen Wise, will be working on other tasks within the company. And no, this isn’t one of those executive sinecures hiding an internal exile. By all accounts McGarry is well respected and liked by his colleagues on the senior management team, and bigger things are in the offing.
Young came into the organization in the Concentra deal. Generally well regarded by customers, his promotion has been characterized by several as a good thing; he is viewed as more customer-oriented than execs from First Health.
The change was relayed to several Coventry work comp customers Friday and today, along with news about a restructuring of the IT support and maintenance functions. These were consolidated along with other product line support in the Coventry IT department; going forward work comp will have dedicated resources. No surprise here; there have been indications for several weeks that new CEO Allen Wise has been seeking to better allocate costs by product. More specifically there has been ongoing concern about SG&A expense for work comp.
The restructuring of provider contracting and relations is not yet final. That said, there are signs that work comp contracting will be handled by separate staff. While this will likely help reduce facility costs for other lines (that deliver over 80% of Coventry’s total revenues) without the market share of group and Medicare, comp contracting staff will find it very hard indeed to negotiate with facilities. Remember, comp only amounts to 2% of the typical hospital’s revenues.
With the hiring several weeks ago of Pat Scullion as work comp CFO at Coventry, the new management team is almost complete. And the timing of the Scullion hire was nothing if not fortuitous, as several sources indicate Aetna is seeking to renegotiate its PPO contract with Coventry. As Aetna is the de facto network for Coventry in multiple jurisdictions (Coventry has exclusive marketing rights for four more years), it is negotiating from a rather strong position – Coventry would be in a very tough spot without Aetna.
What makes this particularly interesting is the Aetna exec seeking to renegotiate the deal is Dan Fishbein, the same Dan Fishbein who ousted Scullion from his prior role as president of Aetna’s work comp unit. And yes, that was the same Pat Scullion who negotiated the original deal on behalf of Aetna.
Now that must make for a very fun negotiation session; Aetna is negotiating for a higher price (that’s just a guess) or better terms while sitting across the table is the guy who knows more about their financial position than anyone left at Aetna.


Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2026. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives

error: Content is protected !!