Nov
29

WCRI recap

Closing out MCM’s coverage of WCRI’s annual meeting, here’s a few final observations.
In general, this was one of the better WCRI meetings I’ve attended over the past fifteen years. The material was more current, the focus was on issues near and dear to my heart (lots of research on drugs, pricing, and utilization of medical services), and attendance was robust. WCRI’s also recognized the influence of press and social media, and worked diligently to accommodate both.
One of the sessions addressed the oft-asked question “Do work comp fee schedules affect the actual prices paid for medical services?”
The answer? Yes.
But not consistently.

According to data provided by WCRI, states with the highest prices for medical services are generally those that do not have few schedules. The non-FS states also exhibited higher growth in costs than those jurisdictions with fee schedules.
However, my home state of Conn. was one of the states in the ‘high price’ group but it has a fee schedule, albeit a particularly high one. Illinois was even pricier but there’s a lot more to that, namely the IL FS was a pretty loose one (and was one of the reasons reform was passed earlier this year).
Interestingly, there was a BIG variation in medical prices paid with the highest prices 2.5 times greater than the lowest. There’s been much discussion and research into this in the past, and the correlation isn’t very strong.
Note that this research addressed price – and not cost. While price is one component of cost, its influence is often overshadowed by utilization. Moreover, price is not directly linked with cost. For example let’s look once again at Connecticut. While we have high prices, we don’t have high costs. In fact, CT’s costs are consistently about average among WCRI’s study states.
Finally, I’d vote for WCRI to move their conference to the first quarter instead of the same month as National WC. The two conferences compete for a similar target market, and moving to a different date may increase attendance as heading to Las Vegas one week only to pack up and travel to Boston the next is tough. (National WC can’t move as they have a 5 year facility contract.)


Nov
27

Which states have the most narcotic usage and what’s working?

This morning’s opening session at the WCRI packed more insight into an hour than anyone could reasonably expect to digest. That’s not a criticism but rather a compliment directed at the four speakers.
First, the macro view as provided by WCRI’s Dongchun Wang. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and New York had narcotic utilization significantly higher than the other study states, with NY occupying the top spot.
Massachusetts had by far the largest percentage of Schedule II drugs used as pain medications.
Long term usage of narcotics is a critical issue in comp: claimants on these drugs are not likely returning to work and incur higher medical costs. Again NY and LA had high percentages of claimants on narcotics who continued using them for an extended time. WCRI also examined public policy implications of their research findings on long term narcotic usage. Researcher Dongchun Wang reported data indicating compliance with chronic pain guidelines was all but non-existent (my words not her’s). The data showed only 7% of users were drug tested while 4% had psych evaluations/treatment.
This is a disaster. 19 out of 20 claimants prescribed narcotics over the long term are pretty much on their own. These prescribing physicians are NOT complying with the basic treatment guidelines.
Addiction, which Pain Management physician Janet Pearl MD defined as a psychological dependence on a drug, is a very significant and all-too prevalent among work comp claimants using opioids over an extended period. Pearl also noted that there is no evidence to support high dose opioid therapy while moderate dosing helps with pain but NOT with function.
Finally Colorado work comp medical director Kathryn Mueller MD described how her state addresses the issue. My main takeaway involves Colorado’s decision to pay physicians for managing chronic pain based on a code-based reimbursement for review of drug screens, and the implementation and monitoring of opioid agreements.
This is one of those blindingly obvious solutions that every payer and state should implement now. Paying a physician to do the extra work required in managing claimants with chronic pain is just common sense.


Nov
22

From WCRI, Rick Victor’s elephant is…

Employment.
After much discussion and debate, WCRI Executive Director Rick Victor informed WCRI meeting attendees that one of the more significant issues facing work comp is the gap between jobs needed to return to pre-recession levels of employment and current employment.
Specifically, Rick noted there are now 25 million potential workers and 3.5 million current job openings. This will – and undoubtedly is – dramatically affecting claimants looking to return to work in a new position.
If those jobs aren’t there;
– disability durations will increase
– medical costs may well escalate
– overall claim costs will rise
– older workers may find it particularly hard to get hired
– states with older populations and declining industries may be particularly hard hit
Combine Rick’s elephant with rapidly rising hospital and pharmacy expenses (the ‘elephant’ CWCI research guru Alex Swedlow and I discussed at length over dinner last week) and things aren’t looking so bright.
Quite the opposite.


Nov
21

How’s your PR?

Probably lousy, maybe okay, and just possibly pretty good.
Last week I received a PR email from a work comp services company that had me shaking my head. After I reattached my jaw.
I won’t get into the generalities, much less the details, but it was just not helpful to the company behind it.
Public relations is (pick one or more)
– grossly misunderstood,
– complicated and complex,
– overly involved and time-consuming,
– usually poorly done,
– not worth the money, and/or
– critically important.
My vote is “most of the above”, especially when we’re talking health care/work comp/health insurance.
Public relations deals with a couple areas – building brand and addressing problems. PR is MUCH more important for building brands than advertising – advertising claims aren’t credible, it’s much more expensive on a cost-per-impression basis, and no one believes advertising (especially when it’s from an entity you haven’t heard of or don’t have a solid brand impression of).
There’s a lot of attempted differentiation in the managed care space, but the differentiation exists mostly in the minds of the execs leading the vendors’ efforts. What they see as a definite, valuable, obvious difference their market either a) doesn’t see or b) doesn’t care.
I can’t remember all the times I’ve heard “the market just doesn’t get it” from a CEO lamenting their inability to break thru the clutter and get the market to understand just how great their product/service offering really is. But here’s the key – the CEOs are right, sort of: the market doesn’t get it because it hasn’t been explained to them in a way that will resonate and stick.
The way PR works in building brand is
– credible third party sources
– discuss, debate, define,
– an innovative product or service,
– in mass media, online vehicles, or public forums.
How that happens is the tough part. Press releases about relatively unexciting issues don’t work to build brand (they can have other uses); some press releases (such as the one mentioned in the lead) hurt the brand by confusing the reader, clouding the message, or because they’re just plain unprofessional.
What works is discussion of that brand, product or service by credible sources. But you can’t just get a reporter or writer to blather on about yet another predictive modeling approach, surveillance company, UR firm, disease management concept, network enhancement.
What reporters want to write about is stuff that’s new, different, exciting, fresh. They’re bored to tears writing up stuff they’ve written about countless times; they want something that’s really new, really different, really interesting.
So here’s the hard part, where most companies make a critical mistake. Writers and reporters don’t care what YOU think is new and innovative. It has to be really new and innovative, obviously so. And, except in rare circumstances, if it takes more than fifteen seconds to explain and they still don’t think it’s cool, you’re toast.
That’s where the hard work of PR comes in. Developing and refining your approach, critically thinking about positioning, getting past long-held ego-based self-held ideas about how great/important/innovative your company is, and instead looking in from outside, comparing what you do and how you do it to competitors, and paring down your message to its core.
What does this mean for you?
Most won’t be able to do this, as it can be painful. But those who can, and do, will be much more successful.


Nov
18

Health care and the Super Committee – the cost of failure

The chances that the Congressional Super-Committee will achieve its stated goal of cutting $1.5 trillion from federal expenditures over the next decade are fading fast.
What happens when the six Republicans and six Democrats can’t agree on cuts?
Big – really big – increases in costs for health plans and workers comp payers. I’ll get to that in a minute, but first let’s walk thru what happens if the Supers can’t agree.
Theoretically automatic, almost-across-the-board cuts in military, entitlement program, and ongoing operational budgets go into effect 1/1/2013.
Don’t bet on it.
The threat of across-the-board cuts was supposed to motivate/force the Supers to hammer out their differences and get to a solution. All reports indicate that isn’t going to happen, as the Republicans refuse to contemplate any form of tax increases and Democrats, who believe they’ve given enough on the entitlement side, refuse to go further unless the GOP budges on taxes.
The looming threat of across the board cuts has become a good deal less likely to happen as politicians on both sides acknowledge that the threat is just that – a threat – and not much more. As with any bill passed by Congress, the threat can be overturned when/if Congress passes another bill overturning the original law.
That’s probably what the GOP members are banking on. If they are able to maintain control of the House, take over the majority in the Senate, and win the Presidency in next fall’s elections (a distinct possibility), Republicans will be able to do what they wish. I’d expect immediate action to rescind cuts in military spending, extend the Bush tax cuts for top earners, and slash entitlement spending.
From a political perspective, it’s hard to see the GOP members of the Super Committee agreeing to ANY agreement that could be construed as increasing taxes. And that’s exactly what is required to reach a deal with their Democratic colleagues.
So, what does this mean for health care?
My sense is the biggest short term effect may well be on Medicare physician reimbursement. Remember, there’s no solution on the table for the 27.5% cut in Medicare physician reimbursement scheduled to take effect in exactly six weeks. There’s little focus on this as all eyes are on the Supers, but that will change in early December as the AMA marshals its forces to attack Congress. I don’t see a solution before the end of the year, so get ready for an increasingly nasty and public screaming match as politicians of all stripes seek to blame someone else.
If this gets really vitriolic, we could be looking at massive physician ‘dis-enrollment’ from Medicare.
Both parties will try to develop short term solutions to kick the can even further down the road, but the SGR issue (the shorthand term for Medicare’s physician reimbursement ‘methodology’), as big as it is, is nowhere near as significant, nor as important politically, as the budget battle.
What does this mean for you?
If the cuts go into effect, cost-shifting to private payers is going to explode from today’s already outrageous level to one that will drive trend rates through the roof.


Nov
17

Treating chronic pain: alternatives to opioids

After all the discussion of drugs and their role in pain management, and the problems inherent in using drugs for pain.
MedRisk CEO Shelley Boyce introduced experts from the Netherlands and the US. There are several key differences between the US and the Netherlands. The Dutch health care system is compulsory and based on managed competition between insurers; consumers can switch insurers yearly without penalty. The disability system is employer based with total annual costs of about 465 million euros.
Rehab centers are licensed, with Ciran one of the largest providers with annual revenue of about 16.6 million euros. Interestingly Ciran operates on a franchise model, with uniform operating standards and guidelines. Ciran doesn’t use any medications in their work, instead relying on their structured approach, inclusion of cognitive behavioral therapy, and pre-planned treatment course that is developed in advance of treatment. Patient progress and achievement of goals are measured weekly.
Ciran’s outcomes are remarkable.
In a population where 77% present with musculoskeletal, pain, and mental health problems; and a large percentage have ‘claims’ more than two years old. Clearly these are tough patients. The data presented by Ciran clearly indicate improvements in physical function, reduced levels of depression and anxiety, and improved coping over the 16 week treatment regimen. Health complaints are also dramatically reduced and health status improved.
The session’s final speaker reported that fully 13.5% of the US population were treated for spine issues in 2006. Over the ten years before 2006, inpatient costs went up 53%, medications more than doubled, and overall cost of treatment doubled.
Yet there was no discernible improvement, and the data actually indicate functional health status of patients declined across several metrics over the same period.
That’s right: cost of spinal care doubled and outcomes were worse.
The presentation continued with what can only be described as a debunking of ideas and concepts that are commonly accepted as truisms. Spinal issues are not caused by injuries but rather by genetically-driven disc degeneration due to – you guessed it – aging.
The implications are enormous. Work activities account for 1% of disc degeneration, genetics accounts for 74%.
Back pain isn’t caused by accidents or work-related injuries or disc degeneration but by genetics. And there is no real association between herniated discs, bulging discs, or even ruptured discs and pain.
This is big news and deserves a dedicated post. I’ll do that next week.


Nov
17

Controlling work comp drug costs: does Washington have the answer?

This year the WCRI meeting has a strong focus on chronic pain, narcotic utilization and the impact thereof. Three of the sessions were devoted to the topic, a reflection of the primary importance of pain and opioid use for the work comp industry.
Washington State’s monopolistic work comp insurer spent a paltry 4% if total medical costs in drugs. In contrast, payers in the rest of the country saw drugs consume just under 20% of total medical costs. This was one of the findings reported at yesterday’s afternoon session.
As a monopolistic payer, the state fund (Labor and Industry or L&I) has a lot of power, share, and regulatory authority about which payers in other states can only dream. L&I has a tight formulary, strict generic mandate, tight limits on physician dispensing, bill submission and processing, fee schedule and other controls that undoubtedly help keep drug costs quite low.
Generic fill is at 88%, well above almost all other payers.
While many of these programs/regs/policies might well be helpful in other states, remember they are in place in a state dominated by one very large payer. Pharmacies don’t wonder where to send their bills nor if a drug will be covered. They also know howuch they will be paid and when. Eligibility is quickly verified. Physicians are well aware of the formulary and generic mandate.
Most of these are only possible in a monopolistic state.
That was precisely the point made by the last speaker, PMSI CEO Eileen Auen.
Eileen reported that theres no difference in generic efficiency berween states with and without generic mandates.
Regarding fee schedules, Auen noted that there’s no correlation between low fee schedules and drug costs, citing data indicating California which has the lowest fee schedule, has costs right at the median. New York which also has an extremely low fee schedule, exhibits costs in the highest quintile.


Nov
16

Workers comp hospital costs – perspective from Indiana and Virginia

After Dr Barth’s high level background we dove head first into the details of hospital costs and trends and management thereof.
Indiana’s Linda Hamilton shared insights into hospital cost regulation in IN, a state with a rather inadequate cost control history. Hamilton noted the substantial increase in providers appealing work comp payments for their services. A usual and customary state, IN has seen rather significant hospital cost growth, perhaps in part due to the lack of comparable hospital charge data on which to base “usual and customary”. Many of these were addressed by paying bills at the 80th percentile, However as there wasn’t adequate comparable data, the state didn’t really know on what to base payment.
As a result, the cost of inpatient care went up 93% from 2003-2007, and there is no real solution in sight.
Hamilton showed slides indicating wide variation in the cost for similar services within the state: neighboring states are seeing much lower costs. That’s one reason medical costs account for 75% of losses in the state.
If you are expecting a happy ending you’ll have to keep that patience cap on…However Hamilton did note that the state is working on a certified database to help address the difficulty in ascertaining an “appropriate” reimbursement.
Mike Paladino, a WC claim and management exec from a health care system in Richmond, then entertained the audience with a revealing view of the financials of his system.
75% of their revenue is government paid. Paladino asserted that Medicare and Medicaid both reimburse below the actual cost of providing those services; medicare at 80% of costs and Medicaid at 94%. Clearly the health system has to cover those shortfalls by getting private insurers – and workers comp – to pay way more than cost.

A thoughtful and knowledgeable speaker, Paladino noted the services provided by the system benefit society as a whole. He did not claim that the cost shifting that occurs at the system is good bad or indifferent, but it is absolutely clear that it occurs.
My takeaway?
This is a hidden tax on employers and burden on taxpayers and insurers.


Nov
16

WCRI’s opening talk – how we got here

The fall conference schedule comes to a close with this week’s annual WCRI meeting in Boston. I’ll be posting from my iPhone as the wifi access fee is $100(!) so watch out for typos…
Peter Barth began with a history of work comp, with particular emphasis on the societal issues that helped give rise to Wisconsin’s first in the nation state comp laws. (more accurately the first WC law that survived legal challenges) Barth noted that one county in PA had more than five hundred workplace fatalities one year in the early nineteen-hundreds.
The National Commission on WC and the impact thereof was discussed in some detail. For the non-work comp folks out there, the Commission led to rather remarkable changes in many state work comp systems by shining a very bright light on the differences among and between the various states. By developing and promulgating universal objectives, the Commission helped accelerate the pace of change and modernization in those states that had long lagged more progressive jurisdictions.
This being the anniversary of the passage of Wisconsin’s comp law, there have been many reviews of the history of comp; Barth’s presentation was one of the better ones. Perhaps the most revealing takeaway was the drastic change in medical benefits from the early days.
Barth reported that several states allowed claimants a maximum of fourteen days to obtain medical care, two states had rather brief medical benefits periods (Massachusetts with 14 days) as late as1940.
Next up for public consumption is a discussion of pharmacy costs – which is a subject near and dear indeed.
.


Nov
11

Report from Vegas, day two

Amidst about a dozen meetings yesterday there was precious little time to catch up on the latest and greatest vendor offerings, greet old friends and colleagues, and sit down and learn from experts.
But I did pick up on a few things of note.
Excellent session on chronic pain led by Broadspire medical director Jake Lazarovic MD. Dr Jake discussed warning signs indicating potential risk for chronic pain that would trigger interventions, as well as the processes and tools (e.g. case management, peer review, referral to an addiction management provider) to address those claims. The tools/processes go under the overall title “Pain Central”, a catchy term that helps focus internal and prospect – attention on an integrated solution.
The award for most new booths goes to the surgical implant cost control business. There were several new entrants, as well as a featured spot within MSC’s booth for their new service line.
Examworks’ by-no-well-recognized huge booth was staffed by hordes of orange-clad folk extolling the benefits of awarding all your IME business to the big player. Meanwhile, competitor MCN had a much more visible presence at the show than is typical for them. Sources indicate MCN’s business is growing, rather significantly, despite, or perhaps in part because, of EXAM’s rapid expansion.
Lots of rumors floating around, including a report of ESIS leaving Coventry for another bill review vendor. This would be a rather substantial loss for the industry-dominator, so we’ll keep you posted.
I’m hoping conference boss Nancy Grover can convince the authorities to schedule the annual daylight savings time change to fall during the conference; the extra hour of sleep would be most welcome.
After I’ve recovered from the frenzy of the last three days I’ll post a more thoughtful and less random review.
For now, safe travels home from Vegas, and for many, see you next week at WCRI in Boston