Great marketing wins.

myMatrixx’ limo service has done wonders for the company’s brand recognition; their ubiquitous limos were all over the place.  Very well organized, efficiently run, and impossible to miss at the airport or hotels.

MedRisk’s booth has featured magician David Harris for several years; he knows their products and services well, is incredibly skilled at capturing a crowd, and for many is a must-see; “I’ve got to see what he’s come up with this year!” (MedRisk is a client)

If you’re going to announce something “big”, make sure it really is – otherwise you’ll be the proverbial boy-crying-wolf.  To be meaningful, announcements should be either a) really big news (and not just what YOU think is big news) and/or b) really meaningful to prospects and customers.  A new product, venture, website, white paper, hire is NOT news – and no one important really cares.

Except – if it is really well done, notable, and timely.  Rising Medical’s Workers’ Comp Benchmarking Study is one of those all-too-rare reports that is truly newsworthy.  That’s because it covers key issues, is authored by a highly-regarded expert (Denise Zoe Algire), is not overtly self-serving, and the launch was very well done.

A few takeaways:

• there’s always another opportunity for branding; yet another cocktail party or dinner or booth giveaway isn’t getting it done.  be creative.
• find something great and stick with it.  You don’t need something new every year – unless what you’re doing isn’t working.
• take a risk.  I know, I know, risk is anathema to work comp folks, but no risk, no reward.
• it’s about execution.  The best idea will flop unless the details are done right. Those companies that spend the money (yes, effective marketing is expensive, that’s because it is worth it)

The first Women in Work Comp Forum took place today.  As Healthcare Solutions CEO Joe Boures said: “long overdue.”

The good news is there was a similar meeting held a block or two away, so we’re catching up quickly.

Some are focusing on the “conflict” between these two meetings, a focus that is misplaced.  Rather, it’s a good thing – two separate sets of people motivated to bring attention to an ongoing issue/opportunity.  There were about 300+ in attendance, indicating there’s a big demand…

A few observations from panelists worth remembering.

• Danielle Lisenbey, CEO Broadspire – be flexible and adapt; be true to yourself; know the numbers too
• Nanette de la Torre – VP Zenith – embrace opportunities as they come; don’t take things so much to heart, not everyone’s going to like you and that’s OK.
• Nina Smith-Garmon EVP Mitchell Int’l – have sponsors who will support you and mentors who will provide direction – and don’t worry about titles.
• Michelle Weatherson – Director Claims Medical and Regulatory Div, State Fund of CA – take risks, temper what you do when necessary
• Eileen Ramallo EVP Healthcare Solutions – don’t ignore conflict, address it and seek to understand issues

An impressive group with some very useful insights.  As the father of two smart, motivated, successful professional women, I was wishing the younger Padudas were in attendance.

Kudos to Healthcare Solutions for taking the initiative.

I’ll be blogging from the NWCDC this week – here’s what we’ll be looking for…

• latest and greatest new thing on the Exhibit floor.  In the past (waaaay past), it has been MSAs, drug testing, PBMs, disaster recovery, security.  What’s big now?
• new announcements that are actually “new” and worthy of announcement. Every year we (pseudo) media types get flooded with press releases announcing hugely exciting events/deals/breakthroughs – many of which are not a) exciting or b) news.
• best, most useful, and well-done presentation – looks like there will be several potential ones
• wildest rumor on the floor. What will it be this year?
  • Aetna decides to invest in workers comp?
  • Examworks and MES are actually the same company?
  • Bob Wilson is a closet liberal?

And of course, we’ll be hoping the Latin Grammys are in the Mandalay Bay again this year. Gotta have some really exciting new stuff!

Employers, taxpayers and insurers got a very loud wake-up call last month. If there was any doubt about the financial power of dispensing companies and their owners (we’re talking you, ABRY) – and the unbelievable profitability of dispensing – that has been put to rest.

Physician dispensing companies spent over a half-million dollars on lobbying efforts to allow physician dispensing to continue in Pennsylvania.  Unlike battles in other states – Maryland, Florida, Hawaii come to mind – doc dispensing opponents were able to prevail despite an overwhelming disadvantage in financial resources.

In most other battles, we have lost, lost repeatedly, and lost badly.  That’s what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

Yes, employers, injured workers, and taxpayers did win in PA, but only because we were there early, in force, and coordinated – an unfortunately uncommon event.  We managed to overcome dispensing companies’ overwhelming financial resources only with a concerted effort on the part of many, many people and organizations coupled with strong leadership from key influencers and committed and persistent legislators.

Meanwhile, we’re finding that the measures taken in Connecticut to reduce costs of physician dispensed repackaged drugs aren’t working out so well.  A just-released WCRI study indicates that, while prices are down from pre-reform days, doc-dispensed drugs still cost 30 to 60 percent more than the same drugs bought from a retail pharmacy.  In my view, there are a few reasons…

• Docs are dispensing a lot of over-the-counter drugs at prices far higher than the OTC retail price.  We’re talking generic Tylenol(r), Prilosec, etc.
• Dispensing companies are likely sourcing their drugs from manufacturers with high AWP prices; these manufacturers give dispensers a big discount, allowing them to make more money on the “spread” between their cost and what they charge work comp payers.
• The “contract” manufacturers that have targeted the work comp dispensing industry are selling direct to dispensing companies at prices very close to – if not more than – the repackagers. This allows them to get around the “original manufacturer” price that’s set as the cap in CT.
• PBMs get a hefty discount below the fee schedule which reduces employers’ costs rather dramatically – this discount isn’t available from doc-dispensed drugs.

What does this mean for you?

1.  Employers, insurers, and their allies need to get serious about physician dispensing.  It is costing taxpayers and employers about a billion dollars a year.

2.  Regulations/legislation based on “original manufacturer” language, while helpful, are readily circumvented by dispensing companies.

3.  Banning dispensing outright – as Texas, Ohio, Washington, North Dakota, Massachusetts, and New York do – is by far the best answer.

After reading last week’s post on asbestos and work comp, a good friend and colleague sent me the following.  As he is far more knowledgeable about this than I, his view is well worth consideration.

Interesting points you bring regarding the overlap in the asbestosis/mesothelioma latent injury litigation.

The individual states have always relied on the WC statutory time bars for reporting latent disease injuries.  The true reason why the plaintiff’s attorneys have historically chosen the general liability path to litigation is because the claim for conscious pain and suffering is excluded from workers’ compensation.  Also—the trigger theories for liability in GL permit the plaintiff to assert that he could not have known that he was injured until the long-gestating disease was “discovered.”  Hence, the trigger for coverage was extended until that point when the disease manifested, often some 30 to 40 years after actual exposure began.  Those characteristics and the chance to assert punitive damages were the catalysts for asbestos litigation in Federal courts; bigger damages and bigger awards.

That is also why some of the earliest asbestos-related work injury cases were filed in industries like rail, ship-building, steel and glass/insulation fiber industries.  Specifically with the rail employees—WC never applied.  Interstate commerce required FELA to be applied (the Jones Act and US Longshoremen & Harbor workers Act are built off the FELA model).  As a federal statute FELA permits conscious pain and suffering to be considered compensable.   Those claims are litigated under common law, hence a judge and—more specifically–a jury determine the facts of the case and render verdicts.  Juries determine if conscious pain and suffering were applicable in their jury verdict awards.  They also determine if punitive damages apply.  The verdicts can be gigantic.

The exhaustive litigation discovery over the course of the past 30 years of asbestos litigation demonstrated that manufacturers, distributors and users of the product (employers) in the “stream of commerce” knew of the dangerous characteristics of asbestos products—which always created a risk to them that punitive damage awards could be tacked on by jury trials.  That is principally why asbestos litigation defendants negotiate settlements rather than risk adverse jury verdicts.

One other note—of the two claims you cite—the defendant in the PA case is AK Steel—-which is a relatively “young” company.  Without doing any research, my guess that AK Steel is the successor to one of the old line Pittsburgh-based steelmakers.  In that case, the worker would have to demonstrate that his exposure while working for the steelmaker was latent and long-gestating.

Asbestos litigation has been troublesome for the insurance industry for more than 30 years now so the new rulings regarding WC create interesting discussions.