Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Feb
14

ingenix’ troubles

The last couple weeks have been tough for United HealthGroup subsidiary Ingenix. Everyone’s heard about NY Atty Gen Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that his office is filing charges citing Ingenix’ determinations as inaccurate.
A bit less well-known is the January decision by an appellate court in Massachusetts – less well known but no less significant. The Mass. ruling essentially threw out ingenix’ claim that its health care database is an accurate representation of prevailing provider charges.
The case, Davekos v Liberty Mutual, involved a provider who objected to the insurance company reducing his bills; the basis for the reduction was Ingenix’ database and the use of that database to establish a range of ‘reasonable and customary’ charges.’ Davekos was heard in the Northern District. The court found that Ingenix’ database was hearsay and therefore not admissable.

Continue reading ingenix’ troubles


Feb
12

Workers comp payers’ deadly blind spot

Medical costs are rising much faster in workers comp than in group health. Over the last ten years, WC medical trend has been going up more than twice as fast as overall medical inflation. Medical is now almost 60% of claims costs and is projected to hit 70% within ten years.
Why?
Simple, really. Workers comp payers just don’t get it. They don’t understand that medical drives everything. Sure, they may pay it lip service, may ‘think’ they are controlling medical by implementing discount-based PPO networks, bill review, and case management/UR, but these programs have been in place for years – and medical trend has increased during those same years.
If the industry doesn’t figure it out, they will go the way of the group health indemnity payers – the Home Life’s, Phoenix’, Mutual of Omaha’s, Travelers’, and Met Life’s. These insurance companies and their competitors dominated the group health industry in the eighties. To these insurance companies, ‘medical’ was a line item on a loss run, a cost of doing business, a black box to be addressed with ‘cost containment’ programs.
Now, almost without exception, these big insurers are out of the health business, killed off by HMOs who understood that their business was not insurance, but health care.
We are now at that point in workers comp. Most of the senior people in workers comp payers don’t understand that they are in the medical business. They think they are insurance companies that prosper by risk selection and financial wizardry. They evaluate their managed care programs by network penetration and savings below billed charges, by denied procedures and slashed bills.
They are saving themselves to death. Instead of bill reductions, payers should be looking at cost per claim. Replace network penetration with physician performance evaluation, based on total outcomes. Stop looking at denied procedures and start identifying the providers who do a great job, send claimants to them, and leave them alone.
What is scary is that many in the industry think they are making progress. They are plodding deliberately along, studying, evaluating, debating, discussing, re-organizing, considering, meeting, presenting, recommending.
Just like the indemnity insurance companies did right up until United HealthCare ate their lunch.
What does this mean for you?
In ten years, many of today’s largest workers comp payers will be out of the business.
How about you?


Feb
11

Signs of the softening market

Liberty Mutual’s announcement that profits dipped slightly in 2007 (albeit from a pretty solid 2006) looks to reinforce the impression that the workers comp market is softening.
Anecdotally other writers in New England note that Liberty is pursuing risks in the $100k and up range very aggressively – and this is not just holding on to current policyholders, but new risks as well.
Liberty is not the only one facing declining prices, and workers comp is not the only line. According to a recent study, pricing for liability, D&O, and property coverage is also decreasing.


Feb
8

Coventry work comp’s fourth quarter results

For Coventry, 2007 was an excellent year. Total revenue (including group and medicare) came in just short of the $10 billion mark, the commercial group medical loss ratio (MLR) was a stellar 77.3%, and there was modest membership growth in group, Part D and the individual health lines.
The workers comp business, which is under the “specialty business” division at Coventry, also produced solid numbers. Revenues for the quarter were up 4% over the previous quarter, from $156.8 million to $163.1. But this doesn’t begin to tell the whole story.

Continue reading Coventry work comp’s fourth quarter results


Feb
7

Massachusetts – bad news and good news

Massachusetts’ health reform plan is going to cost far more than projected – $1.35 billion annually within three years. That’s compared to the original estimate of $725 million.
That’s bad, right?
Actually, it’s not all bad.
Projected costs are increasing primarily because enrollment is much higher than anticipated – and ultimately will likely be more than two times projections. It appears officials significantly underestimated the number of residents without health insurance, and those without coverage have signed up faster than expected.
I’ll admit to being one of the naysayers – my take was the per-employee penalty of $295 was not going to be enough to encourage employers to offer coverage – and I’m happy to be wrong. The other related criticism (but not from me) had to do with ‘crowd out’ – employers might drop coverage if their workers could obtain it from the Connector (Mass’ name for the health plan buying entity). That doesn’t appear to be a problem either, at least not yet. A relatively small percentage of employers are going to drop coverage this year – a percentage not materially different from employers in other states.
So far, it looks like the reform plan is succeeding in getting more folks covered. But, the program has not met its goals for cost reduction or reduced payouts for indigent care. While the strong enrollment numbers are great, the tough part now starts – and controlling costs is going to be a lot tougher than enrolling members.


Feb
6

How the Clinton and Obama health plans differ

I’ve been meaning to get to this for weeks now – while I (and others) have reviewed and compared the two plans and parts thereof, I’ve yet to see a brief but (reasonably) comprehensive comparison.
First, what these plans are not. They are not ‘socialized medicine”, single payer, or any version thereof. Both Obama and Clinton rely on private insurers to provide coverage, and make no changes to the health care provider community – they do not become government employees.
We’ll start with what others have said is the only real difference between the two – mandated universal coverage – Clinton’s plan requires a mandate; Obama’s doesn’t. I disagree- there are several other key differences, issues that we’ll highlight here and address in detail in future posts. The issues may seem picayune but the devil is in the details, and details in health care add up to half a trillion bucks or so.
From reading Obama’s campaign literature or speeches, it seems like the Senator is in favor of mandated universal coverage. Unfortunately, Obama’s rhetoric is inconsistent with his plan, leading me to suspect he wants to have his cake, eat it too, and not get fat. Obama does have a mandate, but it is specific to children – he requires all kids to have coverage, but his plan does not require working-age people obtain coverage.
(disclaimer – this is not all-encompassing, but rather meant to hit the high and medium points without getting down to the molecular level)

Continue reading How the Clinton and Obama health plans differ


Feb
5

Why is workers comp paying for hospital errors?

Surgical devices left inside a patient. Dispensing the wrong medication or the wrong dosage. Giving a patient the wrong blood type in a transfusion. Serious pressure ulcers incurred while hospitalized. Infections from catheterization in the ICU.
These are among the ‘never-ever’ events – incidents that should never, ever happen during an inpatient stay. CMS recently decided to stop paying hospitals for care required due to certain“preventable complications” — “conditions that result from medical errors or improper care and that can reasonably be expected to be averted” (NEJM, 10/18/07). The list includes air embolisms, certain infections, patient falls, pressure ulcers and the like.
HealthPartners in Minnesota was one of the first payers to identify the problem and take action, way back in 2002. Now, other commercial health insurers, notably Wellpoint and Aetna, are planning to move beyond CMS’ list and eventually refuse payment for 28 events. These events, identified by the National Quality Forum are also under review by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association, United Healthcare, and CIGNA who may decide to stop paying for them.
And the Leapfrog Group’s membership, which includes many of the country’s largest employers, is also asking providers to not bill for these events.
It is not just the payers; hospitals themselves are starting to see the light. Hospital associations in Massachusetts and Minnesota have agreed to not charge payers or patients for these events, which include “wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery, patient death or disability due to wrong use of blood or blood products and medication errors, and follow-up care needed to bring the patient back from such errors.”
The largest payer in the nation, CMS, has decided that paying for certain medical errors is bad policy. So has two of the largest health plans, along with one of the best-run health plans in the country. Our biggest companies have joined the “no pay for mistakes” movement. Hospitals themselves have decided it is inappropriate to charge for their screw-ups.
So why are workers comp payers reimbursing hospitals for ‘never-evers’? I don’t have any empirical evidence that WC payers are not paying for these events. In fact, given the lax payment policies of most payers, I’d be very surprised if more than a very few (if any) payers have the ability to deny payment, much less a policy to do so.
What does this mean for you?
There is clear precedent for non-payment for medical errors. Moreover, workers comp payers may find themselves in the rather awkward position of trying to justify their payments for conditions that their clients have publicly stated are not reimbursable.


Feb
1

A conservative vote for universal coverage

Randall Hoven’s piece in “American Thinker” is admirable; Hoven is outraged that we don’t get what we pay for, and thinks we can do better.
He’s also speaking as one with a daughter that needed a heart transplant; this experience evidently informed his thinking, as Hoven appears to understand the need for insurance.
His views are remarkably consistent with other Republicans, even some of those who consider themselves staunch conservatives.


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