Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Apr
11

China’s health ‘system’

Niko Karvounis has written a terrific summary of the evolution of the Chinese health care system over at The Century Foundation’s blog.
Of particular interest is this – health care inflation in China is in the 16% range, a full seven points higher than GDP growth. This inflation is primarily driven by physicians overprescribing drugs and imaging – the only two types of care that they can price high enough to generate a profit.
Yes, communist physicians are making money the old-fashioned way, by over-utilizing.


Apr
11

When insurance companies go bad…

regulators and legislators take charge. Legislators in California are well on the way to passing a law that would severely restrict health plans’ ability to cancel members’ coverage, a law that would supersede internal guidelines and policies.
Over the last five years, about 700 individual policies have been canceled under these internal guidelines, with members having little in the way of formal recourse. The press has publicized some of the more egregious cancellations, where individuals with serious health problems had policies cancelled because they did not document minor health issues that occurred years before the application was filed (conditions unrelated to the member’s current health problems) .
Even more egregious, at least one payer evaluated, and bonused, a manager in part on her ability to find policies to cancel.
There are actually two bills (which may be merged), one that requires all cancelations be approved by a third party; the other would give health plans a maximum of six months from the date of issue to review patients’ policy applications. While many bills are offered, few are passed – but that doesn’t look to be the case here; one of the bills has already passed out of the Health Committee on a unanimous vote.
If these bills, or something like them, are passed and signed into law, it may well make it more difficult and expensive to underwrite individual health insurance in the state. It may make it harder to obtain health insurance.
But these bills never would have come about if certain insurers hadn’t crossed the stupid line. Here’s hoping other insurers in other states watch and learn.


Apr
10

What’s going on in Pennsylvania?

It’s 2008. There are thousands of really smart people working to change the delivery of health care, reduce inappropriate use, and improve outcomes.
But in one state, things aren’t getting better – they are getting worse. (I’m not picking on Pennsylvania; they just have the misfortune of being in the news more than other states lately)
A study of admission rates in Pennsylvania found that patients with chronic conditions are being admitted to the hospital more often. The analysis focused on HMO members with diabetes, asthma, and/or hypertension and the result is particularly troubling as these conditions are responsible for a large percentage of US health care costs.
Notably, these HMOs have also been lauded for their effectiveness in delivering preventive care, care that should help reduce the number of admissions for these conditions.
Previous studies indicate that effective primary care can dramatically reduce the number of admissions for these conditions. And further reductions can be achieved by implementing quality improvement programs, programs that have well-documented results.
So we’re left with the conclusion that despite the fact that we know how to keep patients with chronic conditions out of the hospital, admission rates are going up. And Pennsylvania is not particularly bad – there are a dozen other states that spend a lot more money on inpatient chronic care than the national average.
Can you sense the frustration?


Apr
9

Get your figures right

There has been, and will be, a lot of comparing and contrasting among competing versions of health care reform in this election. The brouhaha surrounding Sen Obama’s not-quite-universal coverage consumed a good bit of the blogosphere earlier this year, and (if the Dems ever agree on a candidate) the election itself will see the two candidates holding forth on the likelihood that their proposals will reduce the number of uninsured, cut costs, make us all healthier, and brighten our teeth as white as they can be.
Before you condemn or condone, dig into their stats, the basis for their arguments. Do their claims make sense? Are they basing their position on shaky ground? How are they validating their assumptions?
A lot is going to come down to statistics. Unless you are a blind ideologue (which this blog seems to have an uncanny ability to attract), in which case you won’t be bothered by facts, data, or logic.
Which makes this article from Wharton particularly relevant. Here’s what to watch out for.

  • Selection bias – do the data selected to assess the plan look to be slanted in a particular direction?
  • Misrepresentation – did the advocate report all relevant results, and not just the ones that supported their position? (this is very common in the policy world)
  • Unintentional errors – are there math mistakes?

Here’s an example. A survey from the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) purports to speak for America’s small businesses. The NFIB has long been an advocate of high deductible plans and an opponent of mandated health insurance coverage. Knowing their history, it is not surprising their survey questions appear to reflect selection bias. Here’s an example.
Question – What is the BEST (their caps) general approach to controlling health care costs (Mark ONE only.)
1. Individuals shopping for the best prices in health care and health insurance.
2. Government regulating health insurance and health care prices
3. Employers choosing/purchasing health insurance on employees’ behalf
Surprisingly, only 49% of respondents voted for number 1. Surprising, because the other options are anathema to the typical independent small business owner. Yet the survey report stated “Small business owners responding to the survey indicated they believe the price mechanism could work to reduce healthcare costs.”
The last quote is indeed accurate, but it does reflect a certain amount of ‘selection bias’, both in the way the question was worded, and the way the responses were described (note the quote did not say how many small business owners believed…)
I’m not picking on the NFIB, which is doing some good work on the national health reform front – merely pointing out that agendas tend to drive results.
As the campaigns continue, keep a skeptical eye out for candidates torturing numbers to get them to say what they want.


Apr
7

The soft market is here – big time

The market is softening – and fast. For workers comp and D&O, significantly faster than pundits (myself included) expected – D&O rates are down 19% and WC has declined 11%.
Even property rates are down, by 6%.
Why so much so fast? Simple – too much capital plus an economic recession, equals too many insurers looking to get more than their share of a shrinking pie.
Expect price competition to heat up over the next three quarters, and more than a few carriers to leap right across the stupid line.


Apr
4

Be careful what you buy

A couple weeks ago I used this space to make a few pointed recommendations to entrepreneurs thinking of selling their companies. This week’s news that FairIsaac is selling off its bill review unit reminds us that mistakes can be made on both sides of the deal.
FI merged with/bought out HNC (which included the bill review business and other assets) almost six years ago in a deal that valued HNC at about $240 million.
Reports indicate Mitchell is paying between $10 – $15 million for FI’s bill review unit. While it is impossible (from here) to know how FI valued the bill review part of the deal, there is no doubt a substantial portion of that quarter-billion dollars will have to be written off.
What happened? Why wasn’t FI able to make a go of it in bill review? A couple factors likely contributed to the failure.
First, did FI know what it was buying? Workers comp is a unique and different business with a language and culture all its own. More of a craft industry than a modern business, bill review (as practiced by the vast majority of firms) is as dependent on the expertise and knowledge of processors as it is on the rules and algorithms embedded in applications. (Note it doesn’t have to be, and to my mind should not be, this way – but it is) FI’s business is based on the use of computing power to sort through terabytes of data to find the bits of importance; they may well have discounted the role of the human, which in turn may have led to insufficient emphasis on end-user training.
Second, by several accounts the IT development process at FI was somewhat less than rigorous. Documentation was scarce, schedules were vague, and responsibilities undefined. This led to missed delivery dates and angry customers, a situation that has dramatically improved in the last year or two.
Third, the installation at Texas Mutual was, for a time, a disaster. TM accused FI of overselling and not delivering, and FI countered that TM did not adequately support the installation. TM sued FI for allegedly misrepresenting the application; the suit was settled a few months ago with FI paying Texas Mutual somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.
Finally, the BR business was part of the HNC deal, along with decision support technology and other assets; it wasn’t exactly central to the deal, yet FI kept it around. They neither invested in it nor sold it/closed it, with the result that the business was slowly starved. Without attention and investment, it is not surprising that FI’s bill review business had the problems it did.
Lessons? Nothing new here – FI didn’t understand the business it bought, and rather than make a decision to invest in it or blow it up, did nothing. As this became painfully obvious to the unit’s staff, morale plummeted, commitments were missed, and customers angered. Despite all this one of their larger customers, SCIF, is relatively pleased with FI’s work.


Apr
3

Gooz’ HWR edition is up and ready

Merrill Goozner shows why he’s one of the best in his edition of HWR over at the Health Care Blog.
He’s also been kind enough to separate the wheat from the chaff for you, dear reader, leaving only the best for your reading pleasure.


Apr
3

From Chairman Dale Wolf’s desk

When a high-flying stock hits the tank, owners get nervous. In some cases (Enron and Bear Stearns come to mind) that is an appropriate reaction. In others, the only reaction is to look with incredulity at the behavior of the ‘markets’ and the wise ones who steer their course.
Health plan stocks have taken a beating of late, a beating that in my mind is (for most companies) wholly unjustified. One of those with black and blues is Coventry. Here’s one perspective on that situation from the desk of Dale Wolf, Chairman and CEO of Coventry – (slimmed down for your reading efficiency) to Coventry employees, with my commentary interspersed.
“…Year-to-date stock prices in the U.S. are down by 8.1% as measured in the S&P 500 and 5.4% in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. On world markets, declines are even greater, as demonstrated by the 17.8% decline in the Dow Jones Euro Stock Index. Closer to home, our own stock is off 28.1% since the beginning of the year, as compared to a 35.3% decline for our peer group in managed care.
What’s driving all this?
Obviously, on the national and world scene, it’s a compilation of the factors outlined above, including the mind-boggling repercussions of previous irrational exuberance in housing prices and lending practices…
The managed care industry has been hit harder than overall equity markets. While one never knows for sure, it is clear that an upcoming election, and its prospects for how health care is financed in the future, clearly weighs on the minds of investors. (I agree with Mr. Wolf; although the future of health care reform is indeed cloudy, what is crystal clear is health plans will play the central role in any reform initiative that gets through Congress and is signed into law. Why investors don’t or won’t or can’t see this is puzzling). Notwithstanding all the other turmoil, this single fact was likely to have had a dampening effect on sector stock prices in 2008. (On top of that, the announcement two weeks ago by one of our competitors of an earnings shortfall sent investors into a tizzy about price discipline, reserve adequacy, the “underwriting cycle”, etc. While most of the companies in the industry have indicated they are not experiencing similar issues, it has been confusing to investors, and hence a major sell off.
(Coventry has been dinged for a failure to adequately forecast and price for this year’s particularly rough flu season. Flu, unlike overall medical trend, is a wild card, and by definition can’t be ‘predicted’ or priced for with a high degree of accuracy. Investors and analysts might as well blame crop insurers for damage caused by falling meteors)
So what happens next?
In the short run, I could speculate. (and does…) Certainly stable first and second quarter earnings will be positively viewed by investors. Encouraging prospects for 2009 will also be favorably viewed by investors. But, fears of the shifting political winds will continue to be a headwind. These various data points make it pointless for me to speculate when our company’s stock, and indeed that of the managed care industry, will return to normalcy…whatever that is.
But what I can be highly confident of is that, in the longer run, equity values will follow the fundamentals. Investors look for growth in earnings – over simplified, that is more or less all that matters. Our job, as stewards of their money, is to produce earnings growth. If we, as an industry but, more importantly, we as a company, continue to produce earnings growth north of 10% a year, we will be recognized by investors through appreciation in our share price. While I don’t know when and to what degree, I feel very confident that our current stock price is disjointed from the performance of our company, and if we continue to perform as we have, these will realign.
More importantly, other than buying back our stock with our free cash, which we have been doing as a company, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about our share price except to take care of our customers, find new sources of revenue, and thereby continue to grow the earnings of this company. While I understand completely that many of you have felt the sting of our declining equity prices in terms of your own financial security, I can assure you that there are many others in this country for whom the economy over the next number of months will produce a far worse result… ”
Disclosure – I don’t own Coventry stock. But with a PE of 10, I may well buy it.
One observation re Coventry – this is a company that, justifiably, prides itself on its ability to predict and price for medical trend. It is not expert in nor does it even emphasize medical management, chronic care management, outcomes assessment, provider profiling, or any other form of ‘managed care’. Coventry is expert at managing the balance between pricing and reimbursement.
If and when true reform with universal coverage becomes the law of the land, health plans will no longer be able to win by underwriting; they must be able to deliver a lower medical cost for their population along with higher levels of member satisfaction. This will be a problem for Coventry – a potentially big problem.


Apr
2

UPDATE – FairIsaac confirms sale

There are two leads to this story – FairIsaac confirming what we reported yesterday (their bill review unit was sold to Mitchell International), and an amazingly over-the-top example of corporatespeak.
We’ll do the serious stuff first.
The bill review unit sale will be completed sometime during FI’s Fiscal Q3. The price was not disclosed, but sources indicate it was “not close to eight figures” (FI sold several units for a total price of $65 million).
Approximately 200 FI employees will be affected, and the announcement did not give any clues as to their eventual disposition. We’ll keep you posted.
Now on to the corporatespeak. Here’s a passage that is so bad on so many levels that it is worthy of special consideration…(parens are mine)
“details of a reengineering plan designed to grow revenues (I think they just said that they’ll increase revenues by, wait for it, cutting staff and closing operations…) through strategic resource reallocation (uh, I think they mean tactical, except that doesn’t sound as smart) and improve profitability through significant cost reduction (we’re going to slash our way to profits!). Key components of the plan include rationalizing the business portfolio (dumping businesses we should not have bought in the first place), simplifying management hierarchy (laying off people), eliminating low-priority positions (laying off more people), consolidating facilities and aggressively managing fixed and variable costs.
It is bad enough when your company is sold, but this SAT-word-stuffed run-on justification for dumping a business and firing folks will fool no one, not even the author’s high school English teacher.
FI got out of bill review because they didn’t give the business enough resources and attention, and probably should not have bought it in the first place.


Apr
1

Fair Isaac has sold their bill review business

Fair Isaac will announce today that they have sold their workers comp and auto bill review unit to competitor Mitchell Medical.
And no, this isn’t an April Fool’s prank.
FI has been on the market, with several financial and strategic buyers looking over the property but no firm offers until one was proffered by IME and peer review firm MCN. Sources indicate MCN was the likely buyer, till Mitchell stepped back in (they had previously engaged and withdrawn) and in a matter of days consummated the deal.
The acquisition makes sense strategically; Mitchell dominates the auto claims business, and FI has solid share in WC as well as some auto business. What FI really needs is consistent, reliable investment in its technology, something the parent company was unlikely to continue.
Mitchell will now have a reasonable entre into the WC business, and eliminate one of its competitors for auto bill review.
For FI’s current clients, this is likely good news, as their uncertain future made for difficult decisions. We’ll have to wait and see what changes Mitchell makes; word is the execs (unnamed, to be sure) at FI will be fine. I’m just a bit curious about this; surely they must accept some share of the responsibility for some of the problems that has led to the sale.
Here’s hoping that the non-exec working folks don’t get tossed – not only would that be unfortunate, but there’s a lot of corporate and industry knowledge in those heads that Mitchell will need if it wants to grow the business.


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 2025. 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