Two just-announced acquisitions are an indicator of where things are in today’s work comp services world.

Tech firm Mitchell (recently bought by Stone Point (!) thanks for correcting me JT!) will acquire IME and peer review firm MCN.  Based in Seattle, privately-held MCN is one of the larger independent firms in that space, has a national network of 13,000 physician reviewers and a solid customer list. Brian Grant MD founded the company 30+ years ago and built it into a firm serving the auto, comp, and disability insurance industries.

This deal adds depth to Mitchell’s already-extensive utilization review/peer review offering, and adds cross-selling opportunities that should help the company compete with Examworks.

Strategically, the acquisition both broadens Mitchell’s non-bill review business and strengthens its offerings outside the auto casualty space, changes that lessen Mitchell’s reliance on auto and work comp review.  Given the long-term uncertainty about those businesses, the transaction makes sense – especially if the company focuses on disability, a space not subject to the impact of autonomous vehicles and the structural decline in work comp claim frequency.

One source indicates the price was in the 12x earnings range; that could not be independently verified.

In an unrelated transaction, TPA SUNZ bought case management firm Ascential Care in a deal announced on WorkCompWire this morning.  SUNZ sells high-deductible work comp plans to professional employer organizations (PEOs), staffing companies and larger employers.

I’d expect Ascential’s case management to be more tightly integrated with SUNZ’ claims management processes. Employers with loss-sensitive plans almost always buy into proactive, rapid use of clinical staff when claims arise. Getting case managers involved – when appropriate – can avoid problems and help patients feel like their employer is working to help them recover.

Ascential CEO Rich Leonardo is staying on and will continue to lead the business and SUNZ is investing in more staff to meet client needs.

Takeaway

For the umpteenth time time, workers’ comp is a very mature industry (as is auto).  Service companies looking to grow have to either:

• take share from competitors;
• buy other, similar businesses;
• buy related businesses; or
• expand into other markets.

Mitchell is growing by acquisition, adding more depth to its current medical management operation.  SUNZ is capturing more of the services delivered to current customers, thereby keeping those dollars inhouse.

What does this mean for you?

If you want to grow, see above. If that’s going to be hard to do, think about who may want to buy you.

Walt Disney, Darden, and Publix’ risk managers gave their views on a variety of topics at last week’s NCCI AIS – including provider networks and outcomes.

Walt Disney direct contracts with providers, evaluates outcomes, and monitors those providers on an ongoing basis. The company also administers its own claims, has its own medical management staff, and tightly coordinates with it’s PBM – myMatrixx/Express Scripts.

Got to say, I’m pretty impressed with this approach, the depth of understanding of real costs drivers it shows, and the investment made by Disney.  Kudos to Risk Management VP Michele Adams and her colleagues.

That said, Disney has a major advantage over other employers – tens of thousands of workers located in one place equals huge buying power. I heard from several risk managers at the break that Disney’s situation is unique and one that doesn’t really apply to them.

My take – there is ALWAYS something you can learn from well-run programs. Instead of focusing on what you can’t do, focus on how you can adopt principles of successful programs in your situation. For example, buying power is a function of dollars per provider; the fewer dollars you have, the fewer providers you need.

Allocate your dollars to a few providers and you will get their attention. And yes, you can soft channel in so-called “non-direction” states.

Publix’ Marc Salm reported that his workers sometimes complain about specific providers they use, and those providers are often the ones with poorer outcomes.  Salm also seemed to infer that most large employers are focused on outcomes, and select providers based in large part on that criterion.

Marc may talk with different folks than I do; suffice it to say I haven’t encountered more than a handful of large employers that are engaged to any measurable degree in provider selection or network evaluation, much less outcomes.

My sense is this is the primary reason outcomes-based networks haven’t taken off; there just isn’t the demand.

That said, there are several companies – Albertsons’ being one – that rely on Kaiser Permanente On-the-Job (KPOJ) for all or a large chunk occupational care.  They’ve made the decision to work exclusively with KPOJ because the care model works, the providers’ incentives are appropriate, and most importantly, the outcomes are superior. So, perhaps Marc and I are talking with the same folks – at least in California.

Darden outsources network selection and pretty much all managed care functions to its claim administrator.