Mar
9

Regulators are increasingly seeking politically low-cost ways to reduce workers comp costs. Some have decided to use the Medicaid reimbursement rate for drugs for Workers Comp, evidently figuring that if pharmacies accept it for Medicaid, they’ll do the same for WC. Same ‘logic’ evidently goes for PBMs.
The only problem is it is dead wrong.
1. Unlike Medicaid, there are no copays, restrictive formularies, or other cost- and utilization containment measures. Thus all cost containment efforts in WC for drugs involve resource-intensive Drug Utilization Review processes; pharmacists and clinicians reviewing scripts for appropriateness, medical necessity, potential conflicts and adverse outcomes, and relatedness to the WC medical condition.
2. PBMs pay pharmacies more for WC drugs than for Medicaid drugs; a lot more.
3. Unlike Medicaid, to the extent they exist at all, rebates are much lower in WC. Medicaid rebates are a minimum of 11% of the Average Manufacturer’s Price per unit (and even higher in many states). The rebate revenue significantly reduces states’ costs for drugs. As these rebates are much lower or nonexistent in WC, PBMs do not have rebate dollars to offset their drug costs.
Unlike Medicaid, most workers comp claimants have no idea how WC works, much less who their insurer is; the chances of the claimant presenting with a card is therefore quite low (less than 25% of all WC first fills go to the appropriate PBM). When a Medicaid recipient shows up at a pharmacy, they have been enrolled and thus have a card, and the transaction process is instantaneous and very low cost.
There is no positive enrollment in WC, unless the claimant presents a card, the pharmacy has no way to identify the appropriate PBM. This presents pharmacies with a high level of risk, a level that is not balanced by a reimbursement that makes that risk level tolerable. Specifically;
1. pharmacies are ‘at risk’ for initial fills where they cannot be sure the carrier/employer will accept the claim – this higher risk level requires a higher reimbursement. There is nothing preventing an individual from writing ‘WC’ on a paper script, thereby perpetrating fraud on the pharmacy.
2. the current regs pay pharmacies 25% more for scripts that are ‘controverted’; that is, where the carrier/employer has said they will not (yet) accept the claim
3. The ‘controverted’ situation is very similar to first fills – the carrier/employer has not indicated they will accept the claim, yet the pharmacy is required to fill it, without guarantee of reimbursement
4. the additional risk forced upon the pharmacies may lead them to:
• not fill scripts without a claim number/specific notice from the carrier/employer
• use the claimant’s existing profile (usually a group health PBM card) to fill the script, thereby increasing group health costs
• require the claimant to pay cash which they may, or may not, be able to do
We’re all for reducing work comp medical expense, but the blunt instrument of deep, and inappropriate, cuts in reimbursement for drugs is also counterproductive.
The key driver of prescription drug cost inflation is not the price per pill but utilization – the volume and type of drugs dispensed. The National Council on Compensation Insurance’s recent study on drug costs in workers comp stated “Utilization changes are the driving force in drug cost changes for WC…Utilization is the biggest reason for cost differences between states” (Workers Compensation Prescription Drug Study, 2007 Update; Barry Lipton et al; NCCI, p. 4, 6).
PBMs have adopted and are continuously improving programs designed to address inappropriate utilization. These programs include
• development of clinical evidence-based guidelines for the use of drugs for musculoskeletal injuries
• outreach by PBM physicians in specific cases where the drug treatment plan may be inappropriate
• data mining to identify potentially questionable prescribing patterns including off-label usage of drugs such as Actiq and Fentora
• Prior Authorization of specific drugs (e.g. narcotic opioids, cardiovascular medications).
What does this mean for you?
If PBMs don’t operate in a state or can’t generate any margin, they’ll eliminate any and all utilization control measures.
And drug costs will increase.


Mar
3

Wasted dollars

Alex Swedlow and the good folks at CWCI have published a study that clearly demonstrates the amount of waste in the US health care system, waste generated by nothing other than greed and lousy medicine. While the analysis focused on workers comp, the lessons cross all coverage.
The great thing about workers comp is that unlike health insurance, payers are actually concerned about and financially motivated to ensure claimants get the amount and type of care needed to help them recover and get back to work. And there is a wealth of data to evaluate the effects of medical treatment on RTW.
California changed its workers comp rules a few years ago to limit the number of physical or occupational therapy or chiropractic visits a claimant would get covered by workers comp. The limit was 24 (for each, not together), which all the data suggest is more than adequate to take care of 90%+ of WC medical conditions – surgical or non.
So, what happened?
The average number of PT, OT, or chiro visits per patient dropped by almost half, and the number of patients with more than 24 visits dropped from 30.4% to 9.7% (a decline of 68%). Costs declined dramatically as well.
But did this lead to poorer outcomes?
The results, while encouraging, are not as clear.
While there are data from California that appear to show reductions in the length of disability, the results are muddled by a cap on benefit payments that was also part of the WC reforms. The duration of disability (the length of time claimants were out of work) did decline post-reform. Comparing disability duration two years post-injury, the median length of disability declined by 21.4% (average was down 17.4%).
My sense is the reduction in physical medicine visits contributed to the drop in disability duration – without endless visits to PTs and Chiros to receive ‘care’ that was not helping them recover but merely extending the process, claimants were more likely to be released to return to work.
There’s a lesson here for the non-workers comp world, and policy wonks in particular. It is this – providers overtreat, to the detriment of the patient and the payer. Draconian measures such as flat limits on the amount of treatment do work.
With health reform on the horizon, here’s a great example of the waste in our health care ‘system’, waste that benefits the provider.


Feb
29

CorVel’s financials

I’ve been remiss in not keeping faithful readers up to date on developments at CorVel. I had a chance to listen to their latest earnings call, and here’s the report.
All in all, things are looking up, a bit.
Revenue for the quarter was $76.7 million, up 15.2% from the December 2006 quarter with EPS also improving to $0.43 for the quarter or 61% from the year before.

Continue reading CorVel’s financials


Feb
28

Coventry and PMSI

No, Coventry has not bought PMSI. And I don’t think they will.
As of today, there are still several entities looking at the deal, and as near as I can tell the process is nowhere near complete. Is Coventry looking at PMSI? Probably – as the owner of a competing PBM they’d be foolish not to.
But buying PMSI wouldn’t materially strengthen Coventry’s WC offering. Yes, they’d pick up even more MSA business (which they appear to value); yes, they’d get a major position in the DME/Home health business, but they’d also get a PBM business that is deteriorating, due in no small part to Coventry’s ability to take customers from PMSI.
If I’m Coventry (and both parties are glad that’s not the case) why would I pay a couple hundred million bucks for a property that is deteriorating and I’m beating in the market?
That said, stranger things have happened…


Feb
26

So, you want to invest in workers comp managed care?

The private equity and venture capital folks have been prowling around the WC managed care world for a couple of years now, looking for opportunities to invest their hard-solicited cash. Firms have invested in PBMs (MSC and Cypress Care), bill review firms (StrataCare), case management providers (Genex), and specialty firms (OneCall Medical). And the interest is not waning.
I’ve had more than a few conversations with everyone from freshly-minted MBAs to grey-haired veterans, and they always seem to start with the same set of questions.
So here, at the risk of giving away information that I (and others) could charge for, are the answers to that first round of questions.
Market size – the WC medical market was about $27 billion in 2007 and is increasing at around 8% per year.
Segments (percentage of total spend by category)
(actual results may vary depending on location and definitional differences)

  • Hospital and facility – 30%
  • Physician services – 22%
  • Pharmacy – 15%
  • Physical medicine (PT and Chiro) – 21%
  • Imaging – 6%
  • DME, home health, lab, other – 6%

Major players – general managed care services

  • Coventry (includes Focus, First Health, and Aetna networks marketed by Coventry) – $700+ million
  • CorVel – $300 million
  • Genex – $200 million
  • Intracorp – $200 million

Key issues

  • fee schedules – a majority of states control prices paid to providers via fee schedules, others use UCR as basis for reimbursement
  • managed care regulations – different states have very different regulatory environments, with some favoring strong programs with lots of employer control eg FL and NJ, while others are much more employee focused eg NY, and others seem to favor providers eg IL
  • Claims frequency is declining, meaning the annual number of claims has decreased for the last 15 years by over 50%…and this trend is continuing
  • Group health players occasionally dip their toes in the murky waters of WC, but in the last ten years, the only one to stick it out has been Aetna

Trends

  • Frequency (see above)
  • Consolidation – Coventry is looking to make this a big part of its business, and is investing heavily in acquisitions and absorption thereof to generate top line, and secondarily bottom line.
  • The rise of the specialists – Specialty managed care companies are eating the generalist PPO’s lunch (and stealing their lunch money too) – companies such as MedRisk (physical medicine management and HSA client) and FairPay Solutions (facility bill review and also HSA client) and OneCall Medical (imaging) are ‘hollowing out’ the generalist PPOs’ revenue stream by doing a much better job of managing their niche businesses
  • Drive to outcomes – yes, after 12 years of talking about it, I’m finally starting to see some real movement from payers towards attempting to identify and direct claimants to the best providers.

Want more? We’ll have to start the clock…


Feb
19

Why is workers comp reimbursement based on Medicare?

Many states have physician fee schedules for workers comp, and most of those are based on Medicare.
That makes no sense.
Medicare covers all the health conditions and maladies encountered by elderly and disabled folks – from breast cancer to cataracts, from dementia to diverticulitis. There is little to no concern for the patient’s ability to ‘return to work’; few are actually working.
In contrast, most of the working population is not old, and the conditions are overwhelmingly musculoskeletal, and returning that claimant to functionality is critical. There is lots of paperwork to fill out, return to work scripts to write, adjusters to talk with, job descriptions to review, and employers to appease, all while treating an injury and dealing with a worker who may/may not want to return to their job.
Sure, many states pay providers a slight premium over Medicare, but that premium doesn’t even offset the already low medicare rate, much less adequately compensate providers for the additional work.
Unfortunately, a bad situation may well get worse. Medicare reimbursement is scheduled to decline, and not by a little. According to Paul Ginsburg writing in the Health Affairs blog, “a cumulative payment rate reduction of 41 percent is scheduled through 2016 (9.9 percent on 1 July 2008 and approximately 5 percent annually thereafter), in contrast to a 21 percent increase in physician input prices projected by the Medicare Actuary.”
Yes, although their costs are going up 21% over the next ten years, they will be paid 41% less. And due to the shortsightedness of regulators and legislators, reimbursement for comp will suffer an identical drop. I know, Congress always bails out the docs and increases reimbursement…but sooner or later that won’t happen. Then we’re really in trouble.
Perhaps states should start thinking now about a smarter way to pay docs.
Or, we can wait for Congress…


Feb
12

Workers comp payers’ deadly blind spot

Medical costs are rising much faster in workers comp than in group health. Over the last ten years, WC medical trend has been going up more than twice as fast as overall medical inflation. Medical is now almost 60% of claims costs and is projected to hit 70% within ten years.
Why?
Simple, really. Workers comp payers just don’t get it. They don’t understand that medical drives everything. Sure, they may pay it lip service, may ‘think’ they are controlling medical by implementing discount-based PPO networks, bill review, and case management/UR, but these programs have been in place for years – and medical trend has increased during those same years.
If the industry doesn’t figure it out, they will go the way of the group health indemnity payers – the Home Life’s, Phoenix’, Mutual of Omaha’s, Travelers’, and Met Life’s. These insurance companies and their competitors dominated the group health industry in the eighties. To these insurance companies, ‘medical’ was a line item on a loss run, a cost of doing business, a black box to be addressed with ‘cost containment’ programs.
Now, almost without exception, these big insurers are out of the health business, killed off by HMOs who understood that their business was not insurance, but health care.
We are now at that point in workers comp. Most of the senior people in workers comp payers don’t understand that they are in the medical business. They think they are insurance companies that prosper by risk selection and financial wizardry. They evaluate their managed care programs by network penetration and savings below billed charges, by denied procedures and slashed bills.
They are saving themselves to death. Instead of bill reductions, payers should be looking at cost per claim. Replace network penetration with physician performance evaluation, based on total outcomes. Stop looking at denied procedures and start identifying the providers who do a great job, send claimants to them, and leave them alone.
What is scary is that many in the industry think they are making progress. They are plodding deliberately along, studying, evaluating, debating, discussing, re-organizing, considering, meeting, presenting, recommending.
Just like the indemnity insurance companies did right up until United HealthCare ate their lunch.
What does this mean for you?
In ten years, many of today’s largest workers comp payers will be out of the business.
How about you?


Feb
11

Signs of the softening market

Liberty Mutual’s announcement that profits dipped slightly in 2007 (albeit from a pretty solid 2006) looks to reinforce the impression that the workers comp market is softening.
Anecdotally other writers in New England note that Liberty is pursuing risks in the $100k and up range very aggressively – and this is not just holding on to current policyholders, but new risks as well.
Liberty is not the only one facing declining prices, and workers comp is not the only line. According to a recent study, pricing for liability, D&O, and property coverage is also decreasing.


Feb
8

Coventry work comp’s fourth quarter results

For Coventry, 2007 was an excellent year. Total revenue (including group and medicare) came in just short of the $10 billion mark, the commercial group medical loss ratio (MLR) was a stellar 77.3%, and there was modest membership growth in group, Part D and the individual health lines.
The workers comp business, which is under the “specialty business” division at Coventry, also produced solid numbers. Revenues for the quarter were up 4% over the previous quarter, from $156.8 million to $163.1. But this doesn’t begin to tell the whole story.

Continue reading Coventry work comp’s fourth quarter results