Back to the work comp services business…

A while ago I wrote about how some buyers’ attitudes are a bit overbearing. I know, unusual for me to be rather subtle.

The post itself generated a few comments; many more were sent to me directly with the request they not be made public. I will always honor that request.

But…

Here are a few ways buyers mistreat “vendors”.

1. The Jerk-Around
   This begins pleasantly enough, with lunches and dinners and meetings building rapport and “relationships.”  The buyer is really, really interested, voicing approval of the vendor’s product/service, requesting more information, discussing needs and priorities. The vendor is convinced the buyer is really interested, it’s just not the right time. Perhaps in a couple months.

   Then, a new management focus appears, and this is on the back burner for a bit. Oops, a change in systems resources is holding things up.  It may be because the buyer is really trying to get a deal done. More likely, the buyer just doesn’t want to say “no”. While understandable, this is the wrong thing to do – for everyone.A fast No is far better than a long maybe.Yes, the sales person is at fault too. They should be asking, probing, talking with others at the buyer’s employer. But if they keep getting the wrong information and are led the wrong way, it’s easy to succumb.

2. The Disappearing RFP
   This starts with a voluminous request for proposal asking every possible question and attestation in multiple ways. It takes weeks of work by the vendor, pulling scarce resources away from other projects.

   And then…crickets.

   Days become weeks, weeks stretch out into months, and months disappear into the void. Eventually everyone involved forgets what happened, who wrote what why, and where things stand. And the vendor has lost tens of thousands of dollars in labor costs…so has the buyer. Why payers go thru all the work to write an rfp only to abandon it, often without informing – and apologizing to – the respondents, is a mystery.

   (Actually it isn’t…there are way more service providers with way more capacity then there are potential customers, so you’ve got no choice…you HAVE to respond to every RFP even though you know your chances are miniscule…)

   What you’d LIKE to say…

   

3. The Change-a-Thon
   The original specs both parties agreed to are set forth in stone. Well, still-liquid mud actually, but mud is just stone that hasn’t solidified quite yet.

   Then, there’s a Note/email/change request… “due to regulatory issues, or a change in management, or because we just forgot something, we now need your data to feed this other system/comply with this standard/include these fields that we never told you we wanted, and/or your staff has to have the following credentials, and/or we need the reports on pink paper on Tuesday.”Oh, and we can’t pay you any more for this.Then there’s another change request, and another, and on it goes.

4. The “We Need a Better Price”
   You’ve negotiated everything, and it’s pretty much a done deal. Then the buyer – often a procurement person – says they need a better price.  You’ve been hearing for months that the customer wants better service, is leaving their current vendor because of lousy service, and places a premium on service.Except they refuse to pay for it.

   So, you’re stuck.  It’s either agree to barely break-even or perhaps even lose money, or agree to the price knowing you’re going to reneg on service once the contract is signed.Which leads to the final problem (although I’m sure you have your own list)

5. The Procurement Problem
   Oh boy.  The business people have written the specs, delved deeply into your capabilities, certifications, experience, and results.  They fully understand that the service they want – and what you are expert in – is hugely complex, requires deep experience and highly trained staff, and will evolve over time as you work together and learn how to do things smarter/faster.

   The procurement/purchasing folks have been involved, but up till now they’ve been pretty much silent.

   Now they start negotiating price, and the dreaded Service Level Agreement (SLA). They want performance guarantees with financial penalties, but won’t agree to bonuses based on stellar achievements. They may demand you agree to specific time frames and project specs, refusing to factor in possible screwups/delays on their side of the implementation process. They negotiate price like a pitbull; in fact they focus most of their effort ratcheting down the price.Your business contacts plead with you to agree to the terms, saying they’ll work it out. Then, you’re locked in, and once again stuck in the “we can’t afford to deliver this for that price” – so it’s lose money or be accused of failing to deliver.

   (Terrific insights into marketing and procurement here.)

   (Now that I’ve thoroughly angered my friends in purchasing/procurement roles, know that some – a few – are reasonable, thoughtful professionals that seek to understand these issues and recognize the price implications.)

   What does this mean for you?

   You get what you pay for.

   Workers comp services is a shrinking business in a highly mature market. The only way vendors grow is by taking business from a competitor. Buyers have all the negotiating power, and often use every bit of it to wring concessions from suppliers.

   That’s almost always a grave mistake, leading to poor service and poor results.

NCCI started with a terrific video featuring several people who suffered significant occupational injuries – and how work comp helped them recover. The video was really well done…kudos to NCCI and their partners for publicizing the good work done by many of you.

That’s the people side of things – one that the industry is doing a much better job publicizing. On the business side, the workers’ comp insurance industry has had a seven year run of increasingly positive results – measured by operating gains.

NCCI CEO Bill Donnell noted that technology may be moderating the “insurance cycle”; the hard-and-soft market waves that have bedeviled the industry for decades. The thinking is we’re more on top of indicators and track potential changes in real time, enabling players to anticipate and react quickly.

I’m not so sure.

Look at the stock market, where automated trading algorithms have led to wild swings in stock prices. Different environment to be sure, but a telling example of how tech has led to more volatility – not less.

And, we only know the metrics we are measuring. Things can move very quickly and we likely don’t know all of the factors/indicators/metrics that may – in the future – contribute to changes in WC results.

Frequency has declined by a third over last decade.  But, we’re getting older – more of the workforce is over 55 than ever before. Despite that, frequency keeps declining. While claims counts likely are flat to slightly higher, that is due to employment. As we’re at full employment, we can only expect claim counts to decline in the future.

It’s apparent to me that there are few new issues in workers’ comp that are worth getting excited about. Medical marijuana, the gig economy, fee schedule changes, pending legislation, all generate some excitement – but really, do these things move the needle?

Structurally workers’ comp is a declining industry. Costs continue to moderate, consolidation is the overarching theme, premiums are steadily declining. I challenge anyone to find an employer up in arms about their work comp program.

Contrast that to industry news that many insurers are looking to grow their work comp books.

These two things can’t happen. The drive for growth could push some insurers to cross the stupid line and cut prices below sustainable levels.  Focused intently on their new analytical reports, they won’t see the chasm until they are in it.

 

What does this mean for you?

Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

• Direct written premium was flat,
• combined ratio stayed low,
• loss costs decrease, and
• reserve deficiencies disappeared.

Later this week I’m going to do a series of posts unpacking these findings and opining on what it means for you. For now, here are the key takeaways

The big number – the combined ratio – got a lot better – declining to 83 from 2017’s 89. That is a historically low number.

Here’s the entire presentation.

We’ll focus on indemnity and medical expenses for a moment, as these are key cost drivers. Note that these data are ONLY for NCCI states – which don’t include some big states such as New York.

The graph below shows that indemnity claim severity – the cost per claims did increase – albeit modestly.

Medical costs barely increased last year. I’ll have a lot more to say about this in a future post.

Kathy does an excellent job making really complex data understandable while making it relevant.

For example, payroll increased by 5.3% in 2018, more than offset by total loss costs (driven by frequency and claim costs) which dropped almost 9%. The takeaway – claim costs decreases are more than offsetting increases in payroll and employment. That happened despite a big increase in employment in construction, which is a higher frequency, higher severity industry.

The result, only 5 percent of surveyed respondents saw an increase in their WC premium rate this year; almost everyone had no increase or a decline.

Let’s pause here.

This has never happened in workers’ comp. We have never seen this level of financial performance, and it is clear insurers are still trying to figure out why this is happening, when it will end, what will cause a change, and what the warning signs will be.

What does this mean for you?

Life is pretty great right now. We do know it will end.  We do NOT know what will cause that event.

 

 

Yesterday was post 2 of Pharmacy Week at MCM, an intro to drug pricing. Today we’ll get you up to speed on why the list prices for drugs are irrelevant – mostly. 

Recall that almost all work comp drug fee schedules are based on Average Wholesale Price – a metric that is three falsehoods in one, as it is neither “average”, “wholesale”, or the “price”.  Regardless, when calculating the “savings” from a PBM contract, buyers almost always use AWP as the baseline. And that’s what buyers report to their bosses and customers; here’s what we saved below states’ fee schedules…

As we discussed yesterday, brand drug manufacturers pay PBMs (and other entities in the drug supply chain) rebates on their drugs so the PBMs will allow patients to get those drugs without going thru the Prior Authorization process.

That’s quite effective in the commercial health insurance world, where insurers have complete control on what drugs are “on formulary” and drive consumer behavior by setting co-pay amounts. It’s a lot less effective in work comp, where formularies are driven by a) state regulations and/or b) treatment guidelines. In either case, work comp payers can’t encourage patients to use preferred brand drugs by setting the co-pay lower than non-preferred brand drugs.

That’s not to say work comp PBMs don’t get paid rebates for brand drugs – in many cases they do, although the amounts can be a lot lower for comp.  And, PBMs often, and with some justification, use these rebates to offset price reductions.

You’re wondering: “well, how many dollars are we talking about?” I’ve heard different things from different people, from an average of $35 per brand script to $74.  Or, in percentage terms, up to 30%. Those payments aren’t for ALL brand drugs, and it’s highly likely the manufacturers don’t even know they are sending those dollars to work comp PBMs and payers; Work comp is such a tiny piece of total drug spend that most entities don’t bother to track it.

What does this mean for you?

Rebates are being paid to work comp PBMs and payers. Some payers don’t want the rebate payments; they’re afraid those payments could be construed as affecting decisions about medical treatment.

Others look at this as a fiduciary responsibility issue; they want to know so they can better manage their customers’ dollars.

With all the attention being paid to pharmacy prices, it’s time we dug deep into  PBM pricing, rebates, and what this all means to you.

We’ve learned from all the lawsuits, Congressional hearings, media blitzes and punditry is that this is everyone else’s fault.

We’ve heard that Ohio is suing Optum over alleged improprieties related to the state’s work comp and Medicaid pharmacy programs [to be clear, Optum’s Ohio work comp problems arose from Optum’s acquisition of Catamaran, which served BWC. The ensuing debacle was not due to Optum’s work comp PBM.]

We’ve heard testimony before Congress that it’s the manufacturers’ fault, the PBMs’ fault, the gubmint’s fault, employers’ fault.

To unpack the issue we have to begin with the list price of drugs vs the actual price.

And we have to separate brand drugs vs generics;  most of the press about prices pertains to brand drugs. These are medications that are still covered by patents; only the patent holder can sell the drug, and they can set any price they want. In work comp, brand drugs account for about 15% of scripts, but a bit over half of total drug costs; as the manufacturer has monopoly pricing power, that’s not surprising.

(Generics are drugs that have lost patent protection and can be made and sold by any FDA-approved manufacturer.)

In work comp, most states with fee schedules use “Average Wholesale Price”, a metric that is published by several entities- Medispan is one of the more common. It’s critical to understand that AWP is NOT the real “average wholesale price”, it is merely the price the manufacturer sent to Medispan et al. There’s no checking, auditing, or verification of this price by any outside entity; there’s no independent confirmation that the manufacturer’s AWP is what it charges for the pill.

To estimate the actual price, one has to factor in rebates and other financial mechanisms used by manufacturers to market their drugs. Rebates are paid to Pharmacy Benefit Managers – that then pass most of the rebate $$ along to employers and insurers – to encourage the PBM to “put the drug on formulary.” In English, that means the PBM makes it easy and cheap for you, the consumer, to get that medication.

source – Milliman

If a medication is not on a preferred formulary, it will cost a lot more, and you have to go thru the “prior authorization” process to get approval for it.

Clearly manufacturers are highly motivated to get their drugs “on formulary” – and they use rebates to incent PBMs, insurers, and employers to do just that.

So, when calculating the price of the pill, one has to factor in the rebate paid to the PBM/insurer/employer to get to the TRUE price – which is usually a lot less than the published AWP price.

Tomorrow, what this actually looks like – and a few more pricing definitions.

What does this mean for you?

Rebates are critical to understanding pharmacy pricing.

 

The information every work comp professional needs is ready – the annual comparison of every state’s workers comp laws is available here.  Put together by the experts at WCRI and IAIABC, it includes laws for each of Canada’s provinces too.

Oh, and in case you missed it, you can still get WCRI’s compilation of state laws on treatment guidelines and medical management here.

From NCCI we get a report on the impact of changing workforce demographics on injury frequency. One major change from previous research – older workers are getting injured more often than their younger co-workers. That’s a significant change, and one we need to monitor carefully.

Sticking with work comp, CWCI released it’s analysis of the impact of California’s formulary  – more drugs that are “exempt” from review were prescribed, but that’s just one finding

If you want to know what your REAL cost of healthcare is, check out the Kaiser Family Foundation’s healthcare cost calculator. Plug in some basic information, and – spoiler alert – be shocked.

Finally, there’s much talk about Medicare for All, who supports what, and all that stuff. And, a majority of people in a Fox News “town hall” indicated they support MFA, surprising Bernie Sanders and his interviewers. Find out how much support there really is here.

And happy spring!

 

A few years back an acquaintance called me to ask for help finding a job; s/he’d been let go after a merger.

While we had known each other for some time professionally I’d always found him/her to be hard to reach, not responsive, and somewhat arrogant. When s/he needed something, the expectation was I – and no doubt others – would respond fully and immediately.

Now s/he was reaching out for help. And again the expectation was a full and immediate response.

I attempted to gently inform the person that they were in a different position now, and would make a lot more progress – and get a lot more help – if they handled things a little more diplomatically.  I won’t characterize the response, as I may have misinterpreted it.

I sort of understand this; as a buyer, the person was used to being accommodated – if not outright fawned over – by vendors eager to curry favor. The golden rule applied – S/he who has the gold rules.

As I think back on this, I recall being in meetings with this person where vendors were told to improve results. When those vendors attempted to meet his/her needs by suggesting program changes, IT connection improvements, or different communications procedures, the answer was always the same – we don’t have the resources to do that, that’s your responsibility, you figure it out.

The net is this.  Buyers do not help themselves by bossing potential vendors around, being unnecessarily difficult, demanding, unrealistic and dictatorial. And, often vendors can’t meet certain objectives unless the client pitches in as well. Sure, every payer has limits, resource restrictions, and budget constraints, but expecting a vendor to deliver data to your system seamlessly, consistently, and accurately while refusing to upgrade your technology to allow that is not only unrealistic, it is certain to fail.

That’s on the business side.

On the personal side, individuals who conduct themselves this way may well find things change when they no longer “have the gold”. Their calls go unanswered, references aren’t provided, job leads not shared.

What does this mean for you?

Many vendors have excellent ideas they’ve learned from working with other payers, ideas that can make your program more effective, efficient, impactful. Ask them what you can do to better work together.

And remember the real golden rule –