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.


Mar
9

Why we have to bail out AIG – and why it may fail anyway

There have been many complaints about the $150 billion pumped into AIG by we taxpayers, from the Fed Chairman, Senators, individuals, and MCM readers.
AIG is not too big to fail; it is too ‘connected’ to be allowed to fail. AIG provides the underpinning for many pension funds and retirement plans; its financial instruments guarantee the returns for pensioners. It backs up the investment of many banks. It owns many of the airlines’ airplanes, planes that might be repossessed if AIG goes under. AIG insures many Fortune 500 companies, and is among the largest writers of workers comp in the nation. It is a large individual auto insurer as well.
An article in today’s LATimes lays out a few of the myriad ways AIG is involved in the economy and individuals’ lives. It also describes how we got here:
” Beyond the more or less predictable consequences of letting a company like AIG go down are the murkier possibilities known as “systemic risks” — most of them arising from AIG’s rush in recent decades into all sorts of highly speculative businesses that were a huge departure from the staid world of insurance.
Some experts say what these ventures have done is make an AIG or a Citigroup that’s “too interconnected to fail.” And it’s not just the size that would matter. AIG’s interconnectedness with other companies, markets and economies is so huge and convoluted that it’s almost impossible to foresee what all the consequences of collapse would be.
The prime example of this problem is about $500 billion in unregulated credit default swaps held by AIG. Those complex financial instruments are essentially insurance policies taken out on mortgage-backed securities and other assets. The swaps were designed to pay out money to buyers who got caught in exactly the type of financial crisis taking place right now.
In essence, AIG was committed to insuring hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in investments. When the housing market crashed and the economy nose-dived, those investments tanked as well. And AIG was liable for the losses — a liability so large that it is now overwhelming the rest of the company, including the still-profitable parts.
What’s worse, because credit default swaps were unregulated and the layers of transactions so arcane that they are difficult to understand clearly, the true cost is essentially impossible to measure with certainty. Once the dominoes began to fall, no one knew where the process would end.”
What the Feds have done with the latest re-configuration of the bail out is to buy time – months during which the company can sell off assets, write down losses, and separate out the still-viable businesses from the essentially-bankrupt. As I predicted a week ago, the domestic insurance business will in all likelihood be spun off, raising billions to begin the repayment process. The Asian businesses will be carefully packaged for sale, a step necessary when potential buyers backed out ten days ago. The auto and life business will also be separated, sanitized, and sold off.
The resulting funds will go a long ways to paying us back. Not all the way, but a long way.
That’s all good. What isn’t good is AIG’s desperate effort to add premium dollars, an effort that by several accounts is leading the company to abandon all pretense of underwriting. Sources from headquarters staff at large competitors to several brokers around the country indicate AIG is quoting rates for P&C coverage that have only a ephemeral relationship to the actual cost of risk. The sense is that AIG is doing anything it can to add premium, and thereby build up the companies’ financials.
So, down the road – say in a couple years, the shortsightedness of this approach will become obvious. Even more obvious than it is today. Claims will come in, reserves will be needed to fund those claims, and it is possible, if not likely, that there won’t be enough capital to fund future claims.
What does this mean for you?
A very tough market to sell into – for now. By mortgaging its future, AIG is guaranteeing it will survive for a while, and may well be assuring its eventual demise.


Mar
6

AIG – a problem the size of France

That’s how NYS Insurance Commissioner Eric Dinallo characterized AIG’s derivative business during testimony yesterday. Mike Whitely of WorkCompCentral reported on the Senate hearings this morning, saying:
“American International Group’s financial products unit amassed a portfolio of shaky credit default swaps, futures and other derivatives with a notional value of $2.7 trillion before regulators stepped in to stop the bleeding last September, New York Insurance Supt. Eric Dinallo said Thursday.
“For context, that is equal to the gross national product of France,” Dinallo told the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. “Losses on certain credit default swaps and collateral calls by global banks, broker dealers and hedge funds that were counterparties to these credit default swaps are the main source of AIG’s troubles.”
There are lots of moving pieces here, but the most current problem is the inability of AIG to sell off assets to meet credit obligations. I discussed this issue in a series of interviews on Fox Business News earlier this week; the video is here and here.


Mar
6

Coventry’s work comp developments

In no particular order, here’s what I’m hearing about goings-on at Coventry’s workers comp division.
Coventry has told several clients it is hiring dozens of staff to improve the quality of provider data; interestingly this message has gotten to some customers but not to all. This message was out there for a few months, and has been repeated recently – but again, not all have heard the same message. If this is indeed happening, kudos, albeit belated, to the company for recognizing that bad data not only frustrates customers but reduces Coventry’s own revenues and profits.
Much more recently there seems to be movement within the provider relations/contracting units to split work comp provider contracting out separately from the other lines of coverage – group, PPO, and Medicare. There had been some indication Cvty was considering just adding WC specific contracting staff, but this seems inconsistent with senior management’s push to restrain SG&A expenses. This is a little puzzling, as the other lines added much needed bargaining power to Coventry’s efforts to get attractive work comp rates from hospitals and other providers. If it is indeed splitting the negotiations, Coventry seems to be following through on CEO Allen Wise’s stated desire to emphasize its core business – small group HMO.
There are also indications that the company is getting ready for a re-organization of its work comp business, a re-org that will likely affect operations in the [correction] Burlington MA, Sacramento, and Dallas offices. No specific word on timing, but my guess is sooner rather than later.
There’s more swirling around, but these data points are the only ones that have been confirmed by multiple sources.


Mar
5

What about physician reimbursement

As Bob Laszewski points out today, the current Obama budget does little to actually reduce health care costs. But, as I pointed out last week, the only sacred cow yet to be gored is that of physician reimbursement.
Bob notes:
“The Obama budget did not tackle physician payment reform or call for any physician payment cuts but said, “The Administration believes that the current physician payment system, while it has served to limit spending to a degree, needs to be reformed to give physicians incentives to improve quality and efficiency. Thus, while the baseline reflects our best estimate of what the Congress has done in recent years, we are not suggesting that should be the future policy[emphasis added]. As part of health care reform, the Administration would support comprehensive, but fiscally responsible, reforms to the payment formula. ”
Last week I thought that this might have been intentional, noting “Is it possible that the absence of physician reimbursement cuts from the proposal is part of an overall strategy whereby everyone else complains about docs not doing their part? Is this a calculation on the part of the Administration, who recognizes that the physician lobby is the strongest it will have to contend with? Have they deliberately set up a physicians v. everyone else ‘discussion’?”
Before my physician friends start throwing electronic rocks at me, realize I am reporting, not advocating.


Mar
5

HWR is up, running, and entertaining

We welcome a new host to the pantheon of Health Wonks, Brady Augustine of Medicaid Front Page. Brady’s initial effort is a winner – the Watchmen edition.
Brady writes very well, and has a flair for design, too.


Mar
5

Coventry’s work comp business – what’s my point?

My post yesterday regarding Coventry’s workers comp business generated a few emails – some asking what exactly was my point? For those unwilling to click back, my closing sentence was “The work comp business accounts for 6.2% of [Coventry’s} total revenues.”
My point was workers comp amounts to less than one-sixteenth of Coventry’s total revenue ergo it is not nearly as important/significant/vital as those in the work comp field might think. Yes, it may be inordinately profitable (helped by price increases over the last couple years, but hurt by bargain pricing on the pharmacy business), but it is still only 6.2% of total revenue.
Now lets think about that.
The new CEO, Allen Wise, has publicly stated his desire to focus more closely on the core business (small group HMO). To that end, Wise has slashed spending intended to expand Medicare networks, begun a close examination of SG&A spending in the work comp business, and asked a lot of tough questions about provider contracting, and more specifically, hospital contracting. As reported here earlier, He was quite vocal about his concern over rising hospital costs, and their impact on the HMO medical loss ratio (MLR).
In the work comp business, Coventry has committed to hire (or is already hiring) dozens more staff to help clean up their provider database – a task that is, according to some clients, long overdue. It is also working on several significant upgrades to its bill review application. They are also continuing to try to build a carve-out network comprised of expert physicians, and are reportedly marketing that to several large payers.
These efforts, while laudable and necessary, are also expensive, and will further increase SG&A expenditures.
So, the question you have to ask yourself is, if you were Allen Wise, and you were running a company that was really good at small group HMO, and had kinda lost its way, and you looked at this other business which was generating six percent of your revenue and eating up resources, and distracting your provider relations people and perhaps increasing your HMO hospital costs, what would you do?
What does this mean for you?
If you haven’t figured it out by now…