Dec

Why health reform will be so tough

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, December 15th, 2008 | Comments

From the world of workers comp comes a crystal clear picture of what’s wrong with America’s health care system, and how difficult it will be to get it right.
WorkCompCentral has a piece this morning about California’s proposal to not recommend topical analgesics – creams and ointment that are compounded at the pharmacy.
The pharmacy community doesn’t like the proposal, claiming “there’s [sic] prescriptions for these medications, patients have been getting relief, and we think that they should continue to be reimbursed for the medications that are being prescribed for them”.
Opponents of the proposed language also noted that it “conflicts with the DWC’s written policy stating that only “evidence-based, peer-reviewed research concerning the efficacy of a treatment can be the basis for recommending or not recommending a treatment.”
I’d suggest the opposite is the real issue – there is no evidence-based peer reviewed research documenting the effectiveness or efficacy of compounded medications. The pharmacists want to be paid for preparing and dispensing a medication which has not been shown to work. And they are pulling out the lobbyists and PR folks and ‘inhouse experts’ in an attempt to get California to back down.
Further. compounded medications are outside the scope of the the FDA’s authority.
About a third of US health care dollars are spent on treatments that are likely not effective. One has only to look at the history of MRIs, carotid endarterectomy, and angioplasty to identify billions of dollars that have been wasted on treatments that did not help, and may well have harmed, thousands of patients. These treatments, devices, and providers make money for their purveyors and manufacturers, dollars that they are loathe to give up.
Yet the approval process for these treatments/drugs/devices is is almost laughably low. Here’s how a UK researcher put it:

“the FDA dossier showed that the average improvement produced by drugs introduced in the 1960s was 17%, whereas with the drugs introduced in the 1990s it was 16%![emphasis added]…If one looks at the medical interventions we have for many diseases, whether they be psychiatric or neurological disorders, cancer, cardiovascular or respiratory or gastrointestinal problems, or almost any type of illness other than bacterial infections, what evidence-based medicine shows is that, as my colleague found, many of our interventions are pitifully inadequate. Our studies, although beautifully conducted, have been done on patient populations that bear only a limited relationship to those patients we actually see. The number needed to treat to achieve one success over and above that which could be achieved by placebo may be 10, 20, or even as high as 50. Thus, the trials actually give us almost no guidance as to the likely outcome of an intervention in the individual patient who sits in front of us. For many conditions, therapeutic effects are so small that neither the patient, nor the relative, nor the doctor is likely to be able to recognize any differences in the patient’s state as a result of our intervention. We pride ourselves on our large, well-conducted, immaculately analyzed trials that give significant results. But we have forgotten that we need to conduct such enormous trials only because our interventions are so minimally effective. If we were making a really large difference to the outcome, small trials would suffice and provide clearly significant results.”
That’s one side of the argument. Here’s the other.
I give you the condition known as ‘chronic lyme disease’. This tick borne ailment is pretty common in my area (central coast of Connecticut), in fact I live about twenty miles from Lyme. Walk down the main street in Madison and chances are you’ll encounter at least one person who has had recurrent Lyme disease – the mechanic, artist, college student, mom. Yet try to find a doctor who will treat chronic Lyme and you’ll find very few who will risk their reputation and medical license, as several physicians have been disciplined for just that.
The battle over chronic Lyme (and it is a battle) has been brutal, nasty, and vicious. Nay sayers claim no such disease exists, and cite research and articles in prestigious publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine as support for their opinions. Their opponents decry the poor quality and selective nature of that ‘research’, accuse the authors and study leaders of conflicts of interest, and note the successes – patients treated for chronic Lyme that get better.
Anecdotally, I know at least a half-dozen friends and neighbors who have suffered from some condition that robbed them of their energy, caused great pain, and prevented them from doing many of the things the rest of us take for granted. After extensive treatment (we’re talking over a year) with antibiotics, all have gotten better. Much better.
It is abundantly clear that medicine is an art as much as a science, and art is, as famously described, in the eye of the beholder.
And that’s one reason health reform, which must attack cost, will be so very difficult.

Dec

Networks in Texas – what are the results?

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, December 12th, 2008 | Comments

Back in September the good folks at the Texas Department of Insurance published a most interesting report (shows what a geek I am) – the 2008 Workers’ Compensation Network Report Card. Let’s start with the overall numbers.
Medical costs were about $130 lower for the Texas Star network (a Coventry product) than for the other networks (with non-network claims second least expensive, and all other networks more expensive(!)).
There’s a lot more here, but I’m going to focus on one page in particular – 15 (23 in the pdf file).
More specifically, the top half of that page. It shows (adjusted) average hospital cost per claim, six months post injury, for non-network and several networks. The Texas Star Network’s hospital costs are 5% higher than non-network costs. Corvel’s network costs are significantly higher than Texas Star, and only slightly lower than all the rest of the networks included in the analysis (except Liberty, which has the lowest costs in the study group). Digging deeper into the report, one finds that Texas Star’s higher hospital expense are due to inpatient hospital stays, which are about $3000 more than non-network costs.
By comparison, Corvel’s inpatient costs are a rather stunning twice as high as Texas Star, and over five times higher than Liberty’s HCN.
Like any report, the results generate as many questions as answers. Here are a few of the more intriguing.
Why are Texas Star’s hospital costs higher than non-network?
Texas’ comp regulations require networks include hospitals. Hospitals know this, and according to sources, most refuse to offer any discount, with many forcing networks to pay above the fee schedule. The Texas Star network is priced at around $12 per bill (not including bill review services) or $110 per claim. Thus, the additional cost of using the network is both the access fee, and the ‘premium’ paid to the hospital for the privilege of having them in the network.
Why are Corvel’s inpatient hospital costs so high?
The Corvel numbers look awful, but they have far fewer claimants treated in facilities (a third less than Texas Star, and even fewer than non-network claims). Corvel’s inpatient utilization is very low; most hospital-based care (it appears) is delivered in ambulatory surgical centers and other types of facilities (p. 32). But, the volume of outpatient facility care is off-the-charts higher than non-network claims or any other network’s results.
Which setting delivers the lowest cost per claim?
Too early to tell. Remember, these data are from six months worth of bills. All the expensive claims take years to develop, so we won’t know what the results are for some time. That said, a good chunk of hospital bills hit in the first year of a claim as the acute phase of the injury is treated. While we don’t know what the ultimate result is, it could well be that the inpatient hospital picture doesn’t change much over time.
And what does this mean for you?
Follow this closely, and watch claim development for non-network v network claims. The numbers should start to diverge in favor of networks.

Dec

When claims counts drop, these folks yawn

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, December 11th, 2008 | Comments

This has been a work-comp intensive week, for mostly the wrong reasons (little good news to report, little innovation, you know, typical WC…)
I’ll close this overly long trip down WC way with good news – about which vendors will flourish in the coming tough times for WC managed care.
With the number of claims likely to drop precipitously in 2009, the folks least at risk are those least dependent on a continuous flow of new claims. As claims age, the need for hospitalizations, surgeries, MRIs, and frequent and extensive physician visits and procedures drops off. Physical therapy also declines, or at least should if it is managed appropriately (PT should be focused on return to functionality and not palliative services). What’s left is the type of services needed to keep long term claimants, with what have become chronic conditions, as comfortable as possible. Realistically, these folks are not returning to work, so the need for functionality-improving treatment has been replaced with symptom mitigation.
That would be the purview of home health and pharmacy companies, as well as the non-commodity DME (durable medical equipment).
NCCI has published a study documenting the change in medical services over time. Notably, the study, Relative Cost of Medical Services By Age of Claim and Accident Year, shows that pharmacy, supplies, home health, and DME costs go from a relatively small part of the medical dollar in the initial year after the claim is incurred to almost 50% of medical expense for claims more than four years old.
There’s another positive indicator for the purveyors of chronic condition services – there’s some evidence that during recessions, severity increases as claimants stay out on disability longer. Some may not have jobs to return to, others may not be able to find new jobs, but regardless of the cause, claims appear to persist.
These two factors, coupled with the rule-of-thumb that a third of medical dollars are spent more than three years after the date of accident, means there will be lots of dollars spent for ‘chronic care purveyors’ services for years to come.

Dec

National health reform – implications for workers comp

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 | Comments

I’ve gotten several queries about the future of work comp if/when health reform occurs. The real answer is – no one knows. But I’m happy to take an educated guess.
I very much doubt comp will be directly impacted by or addressed in any health reform bill. It is going to be difficult at best to pass health reform legislation; adding comp is unlikely to increase support but would almost certainly drive work comp stakeholders to lobby against the bill. There’s just no upside for including comp in health reform.
Back in the Clinton health reform days, comp was part of health care reform, where it ran into objections (most warranted) from employers, industry types, insurers, and providers. Work comp was addressed in Title X, which “would have required that employees receive all of their health care through the same insurance plan, regardless of whether the injury or illness occurred at home or at work.” For lots of reasons, this was a non-starter.
President Elect Obama may well have learned from his future Secretary of State’s errors: nowhere do the words ‘workers compensation’ or similar terms appear in President Elect Obama’s website, policy papers on health reform, or in the several speeches he has made on the subject.
Finally comp is not linked to/mentioned in the Baucus plan, Wyden/Bennett Healthy Americans Act, or on Sen. Kennedy’s policy pages. These should be viewed as drafts of final bills; if policymakers were actively considering incorporating work comp it is likely we’d have seen it appear in one or more of these bills.
What does this mean for you?
Don’t expect to see work comp directly addressed in reform legislation on the Federal level.
But, any reform initiatives will undoubtedly affect workers comp. Here are a couple specifics.
Physician reimbursement
The fall will be highlighted by a debate over Medicare physician compensation. With docs scheduled to see their reimbursement drop by around 20% in 2010, the caterwauling will be heard loud and clear inside the Beltway. Don’t look for a major policy change, but rather something to satisfy the physician community and build a little equity for the future. My sense is CMS will increase reimbursement for E&M codes (cognitive services). Almost all WC fee schedules are based on Medicare, so any change in Medicare directly and immediately impacts comp reimbursement. Watch Capitol Hill carefully; if Congress passes legislation signed by future President Obama affecting Medicare reimbursement, clinic companies may be big winners.
This will also be good news over the long term for comp in general. Good work comp medical care requires physicians to spend time listening to patients, and talking with employers, adjusters, and case managers. Docs don’t get paid (at least not adequately) for this time, therefore any increase in reimbursement for office visits will encourage docs to spend time with claimants instead of doing procedures. Well, at least not discourage doctor-patient discourse…
Medical care delivery
If there is a major reform initiative passed, there will likely be fundamental changes in the way health care is delivered, the virtual ‘location’ delivering that care, and the evaluation of care.
And that would dramatically affect workers comp.
Today, health care is delivered episode by episode; diagnosis, care plan, treatment, assessment, and repeat steps 2-4 until the situation is resolved. This episodic model of care will (over time) change to one based on functional outcome management – care focused on returning the patient to functionality, and maintaining that functionality.
This will be in large part driven by the growing influence of chronic care and need to develop a better care model to address chronic care, one that will heavily emphasize patient education and monitoring. It will also require a different ‘location’ of care – the medical home.Dr Kathryn Mueller of the University of Colorado sees the medical home model as a big part of the solution in workers compensation, as the medical home may well be the dominant model for delivery of care throughout the health system in years to come. Studies indicate the home decreases medical errors and improves the quality of care delivered. Notably, the medical home model is NOT a primary-care gatekeeper model – but rather a model wherein the physician is tasked with and responsible for coordinating care and educating the patient.
Drugs
If Congress calls for the Feds to negotiate drug prices, this will affect comp in one of two ways. Either comp payers will be able to piggyback on the Feds’ negotiated rates, in which case per-pill prices will come down, or (more likely) comp payers find their per-pill prices increase due to cost shifting.

Dec

The double whammy = claim frequency and declining employment

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, December 8th, 2008 | Comments

The decline in work comp claims frequency is worrying many in the workers comp managed care business – as well it should. As I noted last week, a drop in the frequency of claims will mean fewer cases to manage, bills to process, and provider bills to profit from.
There is an ‘upside’ to the recession – claim duration could go up. That’s likely true. But the second part of our conversation may well be more important.
During a conversation with the head of a large TPA earlier this week, my colleague made the point that during a recession, claim duration may well increase for a couple of reasons – the folks who are still working are likely older (younger workers with less seniority get laid off first) and we older folks take longer to heal, and have other medical conditions that make the treatment process more complicated, longer, and more expensive.
So claim severity (the medical cost per claim) may well bump up as a result of the recession. But, and it’s a big but, there may be a more dramatic drop in the number of claims than anticipated. The key, as the exec noted, is while there has been a decade-plus long decline in the injury rate, the decline in frequency has been somewhat offset by an increase in employment.
While the economy was expanding, more jobs were being created. The increase in the number of people working offset the decline in claim frequency. (Frequency is measured in terms of injuries/illnesses per 100 FTEs, so the more FTEs the more injuries). Now, jobs are disappearing, with a disproportionate loss from jobs that have higher-than-average injury rates – construction (down 780,000 since December 2007), manufacturing (down 604,000), logistics.
The comp managed care industry has been protected from the decline in frequency by growth in employment, but this growth masked the structural, long term decline in frequency. Now that growth has been reversed, there’s a ‘multiplicative effect’; loss in high-injury-rate jobs times a decline in frequency = bad news for (most) managed care vendors.
What does this mean for you?
Tough times for some vendors; some, but not all. Tomorrow I’ll look at which sectors may be less vulnerable.

Dec

Tough times ahead for work comp managed care

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, December 5th, 2008 | Comments

As if the declining frequency rate wasn’t bad enough, managed care companies are now looking at significantly lower claims volume in 2009, a decline that will spell trouble for work comp managed care.
When the number of injuries goes down (which it does during economic recessions), managed care vendors are directly affected. There are fewer bills (bad news for bill review), fewer treatments and visits to providers (bad news for PPO networks and UR vendors), fewer prescriptions (not as bad news for PBMs as you might think), and fewer cases to manage (bad news for case management firms).
This recession, currently in its twelfth month, may well be tougher on managed care vendors than prior ones. The jobs that are disappearing tend to be those in higher injury rate classes – retail, manufacturing, construction (24 consecutive months of declining employment), transportation/logistics. The auto industry is in freefall with sales down 37% last month, bringing suppliers along for the ride. The unemployment rate has rocketed to 6.8%, the worst result in over sixteen years, and may be headed to 8.5%.
Fewer workers, fewer injuries. Those fortunate enough to keep their jobs tend to be more experienced, better trained, and less likely to report an injury for fear they’ll lose their job. And, the pace of work is slower with much less overtime- all contributing to lower injury rates.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, payers are looking to move more managed care services in-house.
For some time, big (and medium) TPAs and insurers have been internalizing their managed care. Gallagher-Bassett, Liberty Mutual, AIG, Broadspire, and Sedgwick are but a few of the big boys that have long handled much of their own managed care (with the exception of networks – more on networks in a minute). Services such as bill review and telephonic case management are easily handled by the payer, and system vendors usually have modules ready for payers moving in this direction. Payers are able to capture more revenue and profit, while contending (with, in some cases, justification) that their results are better than vendors can deliver. Of late this trend has accelerated, primarily due to the soft market. First Cardinal is one TPA that recently brought case management in-house, others are internalizing bill review and UR as well. Expect this trend to accelerate.
As I noted a couple weeks ago, the network business is under increasing pressure from regulators. In addition to the legal issues in Oregon and Louisiana, is is highly likely the ‘networks of networks’ will find their business model under attack as states adopt legislation/regulations forcing greater disclosure of rental network agreements, requiring positive agreement from providers (providers have to sign off on a document before they can be added to a network). This will mean more work for provider relations, legal, and customer service departments at network vendors, driving up costs.
There is also increasing chatter in the industry about big payers moving towards much smaller, more specialized networks focused around key workers comp physicians. We are seeing significant movement in this direction in California, Florida, and Texas, three states that combined account for a big chunk of workers comp medical spend.
There is a bright spot. Specialty vendors in the DME, Home health, and pharmacy sectors will be least affected. As reported by NCCI, the big dollars in these sectors are spent by long-term claimants. The recession will not affect these companies much, if at all, as most of their business is coming from claimants that were injured years ago.
What does this mean for you?
If you are a vendor, batten down those hatches. Demonstrate your value, service your customers, and get your employees on board.

Dec

The taming of the wild west – PPO regulation is getting serious

Posted by Joe Paduda on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 | Comments

The PPO world is about to get more complicated, and likely less profitable – for the PPOs.
The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) has developed model legislation tightly regulating PPOs, legislation that looks to be on the docket in at least two states next year, and likely others as well.
According to Bill Kidd in today’s WorkCompCentral, the model act “allows unlimited “downstream” rentals of PPO contracts and physician discounts, but requires that network access information be made available to providers.
The model establishes criteria for network and discount access and contract termination; sets out contracting entity rights and responsibilities, requires disclosure to providers and contracting entities of third-party access; provides for registration of unlicensed contracting entities; prohibits and penalizes under a state’s unfair trade practices act unauthorized access to provider network contracts and allows physicians to refuse a network discount without a contractual basis.”
The key is the notification requirement. The model act calls for PPOs to periodically inform providers of all the networks and ‘access brokers’ who can access the network contract. Providers have to be kept informed of changes to the list, and the list has to be emailed, mailed, and/or posted on a secure website.
While the issue of silent PPOs has been on a slow boil for years in many jurisdictions, It has been much more contentious in several states including Louisiana, Texas, California, and Oregon. Provider groups have complained that the managed care contracts they enter into have been sold and resold multiple times without their permission or agreement. That complaint is arguably minor; what is definitely not is providers’ belief that the payers accessing the contracts ‘downstream’ are not doing anything to direct patients, but are simply accessing contracts to get a discount.
This is the core issue – PPOs trade volume for discounts. For far too long, big, yellow-pages PPOs have done little to actually increase a provider’s patient volume. Many claim they have contracts with and/or access to hundreds of thousands of providers. If that’s the case, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, there is no way the PPO can claim it is actually directing care to a selected group of providers.
If everyone’s a member of the PPO, then it isn’t a ‘Preferred’ Provider Organization.
The bill under consideration in Texas provides a window into what other states may see on their legislative agendas.

Nov

The (short term) future of workers comp managed care

Posted by Joe Paduda on Monday, November 24th, 2008 | Comments

The comp conference ended (for me) last Thursday; the passage of time allows for the individual impressions to meld into an overall picture of the current, and near-term future, of the comp managed care industry.
Here’s what it looks like.
The decade-and-a-half decline in frequency that has slashed the injury rate in half is causing real pain among occ health clinics. Sources indicate industry leader Concentra is seeing a decline in work comp patients, a trend that will likely be exacerbated by the steep drop in employment (when the number of people with jobs drops, so does the number of workers comp claims – for more on the impact of recession on workers comp click here). It is likely that other occ health companies such as US Healthworks are also experiencing declines in patient counts.
Together, Concentra and USHW together have almost 450 occ health clinics, and both have been adding clinics in 2008. It is too early to tell if the additions have been worth the added cost in cash or debt, but the current economic situation makes it unlikely they will be looking to expand aggressively over the near term. Unless they find clinics that are finding it difficult to make it on their own, in which case this may well be a good time to expand on the cheap.
The big game-changer will be health care reform. If, as I’ve predicted, Medicare increases reimbursement for E&M codes (cognitive services), then the clinic business could well get a major boost. Almost all WC fee schedules are based on Medicare, so any change in Medicare directly and immediately impacts comp reimbursement. Watch Capitol Hill carefully; if Congress passes legislation signed by future President Obama affecting Medicare reimbursement, clinic companies may be big winners.
Meanwhile, work comp managed care industry leader Coventry is continuing to hurt (due to non-workers comp issues), with rating agencies downgrading their outlook on the company. If anything, the workers comp business at Coventry is a plus, as the fee revenue helps to offset some of their problems in the health insurance, Part D, and Medicare Advantage sectors. Several people I spoke with at the conference confirmed Coventry is continuing to get price increases on their network and bill review products, although pricing for PBM First Script and other services (e.g. MSAs and case management) is soft.
The network business is under increasing pressure from regulators. In addition to the legal issues in Oregon and Louisiana, is is highly likely the ‘networks of networks’ will find their business model under attack as states adopt legislation/regulations forcing greater disclosure of rental network agreements, requiring positive agreement from providers (providers have to sign off on a document before they can be added to a network).
The future of networks that are mostly amalgamations of other network contracts is not promising. They will have to convince payers that their liability is under control and their value (to the payer) is greater than networks with direct provider contracts.
Good luck.
The PBM sector continues to grow, with the biggest player – Express Scripts – looking to add to the distance between itself and its rivals. Despite claims to the contrary, ESI is not winning business by using its group health contracts; a well-informed source adamantly refuted that assertion, stating that all workers comp scripts are processed under their workers comp agreements. Expect this sector to get even more competitive as ESI fights for business with newly-purchased PMSI (second largest PBM by volume), Progressive (excellent reputation for customer service), Cypress Care (aggressive, innovative marketing and strong clinical offering), ScripNet (expanding into the eastern US), and Aetna (cross-marketing to their large group health employer customers). MyMatrixx (focus on pain management) and Modern Medical (highly disciplined and responsive) are also in the mix.
Expect pharmacy to remain highly competitive, with vendors adding value through clinical services, first fill capture, and upgraded reporting and communications capabilities as companies seek to survive and prosper in what has become one of, if not the most, competitive segments of the work comp managed care industry.
I’d also say we need to pay attention to DC. If Congress calls for the Feds to negotiate drug prices, this will affect comp in one of two ways. Either comp payers will be able to piggyback on the Feds’ negotiated rates, in which case per-pill prices will come down, or (more likely) comp payers find their per-pill prices increase due to cost shifting.
Case management firms are facing the same issues confronting occ health clinics, with several folks at the major CM firms bemoaning the decline in volume. With volumes declining, and more big insurers and TPAs taking CM inhouse, expect continued pressure on pricing as Genex, Intracorp, Corvel, and Coventry struggle to ‘feed the monster in the basement‘.
What does this all mean?
External factors are the primary driver of workers comp. Medicare, the economy, and politics are all way more important than internal happenings in comp.
Look up and out if you want to know and understand.

Nov

Florida – the end of the happy times

Posted by Joe Paduda on Friday, November 21st, 2008 | Comments

While I and a few thousand other industry folks have been conferring in Las Vegas, the world (most inconveniently I would add) has been marching forward without us. In Florida, it looks their progress is headed right for the edge of a metaphorical cliff.
Florida’s workers comp regulatory bosses yesterday approved a change in the way workers comp payers will reimburse outpatient facility bills. According to WorkCompCentral, Florida regulators will:
“begin drafting a rule to base outpatient fees paid to hospitals on the Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System. But the fees would be adjusted using Florida-specific multipliers based on the usual-and-customary charges now employed to establish outpatient fees…Under the new system, the Medicare-based fees would be adjusted by a new factor created by a hospital’s usual and customary charges, by 174% for outpatient surgeries and 395% for other outpatient services.”
Okay, here’s why this is a bad idea.
First, Medicare fees are for treatment of elderly folks. Not working age, employed people. As a corollary, providers treating Medicare patients are not concerned with functionality or return to work. CMS has repeatedly stated their reimbursement methodology is specific to their population, and discouraged use of that methodology by other payers.
Second, The reimbursement scheme pays hospitals 74% more than Medicare for surgeries and four times Medicare for other outpatient services. This is insane. Workers comp is already the most profitable line of business for Florida hospitals, and this methodology makes it even more lucrative. It is indeed unfortunate that the Sunshine State has the second highest percentage of working folks without health insurance, but why make workers comp payers cover their medical bills? No, there’s not a direct link, and no, this wasn’t expressly addressed (as far as I know as I wasn’t at the hearing) but from here it sure looks like workers comp payers are being asked to help facilities cover the underpayments from Medicaid and provide funds to help treat the uninsured.
Oh, and these costs will now be the highest in the country.
Third, basing reimbursement on charges is just nutty. Providers increase charges around 14% every year This methodology now locks in a 14% trend rate for outpatient hospital services in Florida. Take it to the bank (if yours is still in business) – the slope of the inflation line is about to steepen dramatically.
Fourth, according to sources present at the hearing, there are serious problems with the methodology and data used to support the three member panel’s decision. Florida State University health economics guru Gary Fortier submitted a brief that stated that the methodology being used by the Department was “fundamentally flawed,, and in my opinion the study and methodology used cannot be relied upon….to make policy.” Fortier also warned that once this payment system, which encourages greatly increased utilization of hospital services to treat WC patients, is put in place it will be hard to change even if payments become more tight-fisted in the future.
Mike Malloy, former managed care analytics expert at E&Y, gave details about how easy it will be for hospitals to game their charges and drive up employers’ costs under the proposed system.
And FairPay Solutions (HSA consulting client) presented industry statistics illustrating how paying hospitals 333% more to treat WC patients than they are paid by FL group health plans creates such significant financial incentives that it will inevitably lead to greatly increased treatment of work comp patients by hospitals and cost Florida employers several hundreds of million of dollars more.
As I’ve noted here and here and here this is going to end up costing the comp industry in Florida a lot more than many think.
What does this mean for you?
the end of the happy times in the Sunshine State.

Nov

Two new network offerings

Posted by Joe Paduda on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 | Comments

My quest for an actual provider-centric network is not complete. But there are a couple of companies that look to be off to a good start.
By way of background, most networks tout their huge directories of lots of providers, their discounts, and not much else. They sell their network by electronically matching their provider database against the prospect’s 1099 data (historical payments to providers). The better the match, the better their chances of landing the deal. At one level this makes perfect sense.
I’d suggest that this methodology is fatally flawed; the payer is asking the wrong question. By identifying networks that have as many docs as possible that already treat the payer’s claimants, the payer is asking for nothing other than a cheaper per-unit price. Yes, they will get a lower price per service from the docs they like, but they will also keep in the network docs they do not like at all – the ones who don’t return adjusters’ calls, don’t understand workers comp, do lots of unnecessary PT in their offices, and dispense drugs at outrageous markups.
Harbor Health takes a different approach – they have developed a process and analytical capability that enables HH and their clients to analyze sort thru their gigabytes of data to identify the providers that meet their definition of ‘good’. The analysis includes claims data as well as patient satisfaction and claims satisfaction information and billing/admin data to identify physicians who meet (customizable) criteria. HH is also building networks. To date, most of their customers have been large self insured employers (SoCal Edison was one of the first, and Sears is their latest).
After spending a half hour discussing Harbor Health’s process, methodology, ranking system, and approach, I’m impressed.
FairPay Solutions (current HSA consulting client) has built a physician-only network in Florida that is currently being evaluated by several large payers and soon to be implemented in Florida by one. FairPay also has access to a wealth of data, and has mined that data using sophisticated criteria as well as local knowledge in their development effort. The folks FPS brought in to develop the network came out of the old Choice Medical Management, acknowledged as the premier network company in the Sunshine State.
FairPay is, quite intelligently, building a physician-only network. There are any number of companies that do an excellent job of managing physical medicine, drugs, DME/HHC, imaging, and hospital costs. What FPS is focused on is the physician who controls how these other services are utilized.

Category: Workers Comp