Why did Coventry’s medical loss ratio increase?

Because they allowed workers comp and national accounts to dictate provider contracting strategies, a decision that drove up the core group business’ medical loss ratio.
Here’s how.
The beginning of the tough times for Coventry came last spring. Up till then, things had been moving along quite nicely – just a year ago, I noted “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.”
Just before the wheels came off, I said “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.”
Well, I was half right – and half wrong. Coventry may be expert in managing pricing but it is now obvious that it doesn’t understand reimbursement.
Now that new CEO Allen Wise is on the job, Coventry’s staff is conducting a top to bottom review to determine, in part, what drove medical costs up so high without anyone noticing/understanding/fixing it early on. Here’s how Wise characterized what happened in the earnings call earlier this week, as provided by the good folks at SeekingAlpha in the transcript.
“When I was conducting a review of the company, I was trying to determine the cause of the 300 or 350-basis point deterioration in the commercial medical loss ratio, and I think it is impossible for me to determine precisely what happened there. You heard a little bit about the flow and you heard a little bit about MSDRGs [new medicare hospital pricing methodology], and you heard a little bit about [hospital] unit costs, and I think it’s a probably a little bit of every thing, but there was not any question there was stress at the local health plan of a contractual nature by some of our other businesses, and by that I mean the network rental business, the Workers’ Comp business. I am not sure on the Medicare front, but when you interviewed people here and in the field, look at our litigation count on litigations for network-related issues, there was stress enough there, and enough of frequency to people recounting stops among major providers they started off with that until you solve X or Y problem, none of which were connected to the commercial health risk thing that your rates are going to go up or something.…[emphasis added] I think there was a bit of pressure on unit cost. I expected to find some deterioration in local patient management activities. I did not find that. The core competency of the company, while there is plenty of clutter with new activities and a feeling of a lot of things going on at one time, I did not find a loss of focus at the local health plan levels. Many of those medical directors have been with us for a decade, and I didn’t see much change there. If you take the unit cost level, I just think in meeting with our new guy Allen Karp and best practices in each of the plans and having more quantitative information on what really happens on a month to month basis out there, I think there’s just room for improvement there.”
Shawn M. Guertin, Coventry’s CFO, went on to say “…There is no doubt that the facility unit cost experience was worse than it had historically been and worse than we had expected in ’08…”
Coventry’s local provider relations folks were tasked with getting contracts with providers, contracts wherein providers would agree to discount their prices to patients affiliated with Coventry – either health plan members, employees of larger employers who used Coventry’s PPO contracts, workers comp claimants, and Medicare members. It appears the contracting effort was hampered by the need to include all these ‘products’ in provider contracts – especially for hospitals. As Wise said, during the contracting process, “[recruiting and contracting] people [were] recounting stops among major providers they started off with that until you [Coventry] solve X or Y problem, none of which were connected to the commercial health risk thing that your rates are going to go up or something…”
Coventry has determined that their group health MLR was higher than it should have been because their hospital costs were too high. This was driven by their hospital contracts – and the contracted rates were too high because Coventry wanted their payers to accept all products. When hospitals dug in their heels, Coventry’s staff gave away some discount for the group health rates in return for discounts for workers comp and PPO claimants.
Remember group health is the big business at Coventry – work comp accounts for less than 7% of the company’s total revenues. I get the sense that Wise is wondering why the needs of the workers comp and PPO businesses were allowed to take precedence over his core business – and increase the group business’ MLR.
Good question.