Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Jul
7

Demagogues, Deficits and Healthcare

I’ve just about had it with the GOP’s demagoguing about deficits.
The party of fiscal responsibility, of low taxes and small government, of controlled spending and personal responsibility – that party – seems to have rediscovered its roots of late, with strident calls for fiscal restraint, an end to wasteful government spending and strict adherence to pay-as-you-go guidelines.
This from the party that added over $9 trillion to the deficit the last time they passed a health care bill.
Let’s return, for just a moment, to the early and mid oughts, the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, when the entire government was under the firm control of the fiscally prudent.
Here’s what those wise stewards of the nation’s wealth did.
Point One
Pass Medicare Part D with no funding – short term, long term, any term. Hell, they would’ve been more fiscally prudent if they’d included a few hundred million to bet on the horses. At least that would have shown some desire to pay for the thing. But no, the GOP decided to NOT set aside funds, or raise taxes, or cut other programs; they just passed Part D, committed to paying for it out of ‘general funds’ and to hell with the future.
The latest Medicare Actuary report indicates the GOP-passed Part D program has contributed $9.4 trillion to the $38 trillion Federal healthcare deficit. (page 126)
The Bush-era GOP makes President Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of those spendthrift Dems look like a bunch of cheapskates; even a GOP analysis finds “the new reform law will raise the deficit by more than $500 billion during the first ten years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.”
Point Two
Prevent CMS from basing reimbursement on effectiveness. As I said a couple months ago, “‘the Republican Congress and Administration was responsible for preventing Medicare from considering any cost-benefit criteria in determining whether and what Medicare would pay for procedures, drugs, treatments, devices, etc. Yep, these deficit hawks thought it was just fine for we taxpayers to be forced to pay for procedures with very little efficacy. (Medicare Modernization Act)
Hmmm, wise stewards indeed…
How’d the GOP get away with this? Simple. The Republicans suspended Congress’ PAYGO rules, the requirement that any bill that spent more money had to be offset by more revenue or cuts elsewhere.
By the way, those PAYGO rules? The Dems reinstated them.
From all the caterwauling from the GOP side of the aisle, you’d think that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich et al were well practiced in the art of controlling spending, of not spending what you don’t have.
And you’d be wrong.
According to the Wall Street Journal, speaking about a recent effort to extend unemployment benefits, McConnell said “The principle Democrats are defending is that they will not pass a bill unless it adds to the deficit,” McConnell voted for both Part D and MMA.
Speaking about the health reform bill a couple months ago, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, “the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said “Hiding spending does not reduce spending. We all know this bill is a budget Frankenstein. It is a house of cards. It is going to give us a huge deficits now and even larger deficits in the future.” Ryan voted for Part D and MMA.
Here’s party leader Newt Gingrich: “Republicans, I think, are going to draw a very firm line against any kind of tax increase that would kill jobs, and that’s very hard for liberal Democrats to live with because all of their plans require bigger spending, higher deficits and more taxes, and it’s a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the world.”
I could go on, but you get the point.
What does this man for you?
I’ve had, and voiced, deep concerns about the health reform bill and its associated costs. What makes me, and should make you, really angry is the demagoguing by elected officials who’ve done exponentially more to damage our fiscal future than even the most pessimistic assessment of the health reform bill.


Jul
6

Coventry’s $278 million miscue

Coventry Health will be taking a $278 million charge against earnings to cover the company’s fine plus interest and legal costs resulting from last week’s Louisiana appellate courte ruling in a workers comp PPO network case.
On a per-share basis, the bill is $1.18 pre-tax.
the charge will be partially offset by improved earnings from other sectors, including Medicare Advantage Private-Fee-for-Service. According to Zacks, the “2010 EPS outlook was also revised to $1.57−$1.72 in view of the impact of the charge, down from the prior range of $2.35−$2.50 per share. Excluding the charge, Coventry anticipates the EPS outlook to increase by 40 cents per share to range between $2.75 and $2.90.”
Since moving back into the executive suite over a year ago, CEO and Chairman Allen Wise has done an excellent job turning the company around – refocusing the company on its core businesses, shedding underperforming and inefficient operations and profit centers, even revamping the way the company negotiates provider contracts to focus on Medicaid, Medicare, group, and individual health businesses.
The quarter-billion dollar charge is undoubtedly the subject of much discussion at the company’s, executive committee meetings as it will suck cash out of the coffers that would have been used to acquire more regional health plans and help Coventry prepare for the post-reform health insurance world. It is also notable as it comes from a division, workers comp, which heretofore had been a cash machine, generating significantly more profits than its rather modest top line would predict.
For now, Coventry appears to be weathering the storm, recently announcing the acquisition of a couple of regional health plans and predicting continued improvements in operating earnings.
Whether this continues may depend in some part on the outcome of the company’s appeal of the LA case.


Jul
2

Yesterday’s Louisiana appellate court ruling against Coventry’s First Health work comp network is a major blow to comp insurers, employers, and networks in Louisiana, with potential impact in other states as well.
The ruling is here.
The court’s finding supported a lower court’s ruling affirming a state statute requiring PPOs to provide injured workers with PPO identity cards or give notice to providers 30 days before taking discounts. While Coventry will appeal to the state Supreme Court, the appellate court ruled against almost all of Coventry’s arguments, making this an uphill battle for the nation’s biggest work comp managed care firm. I’d also note that the decision itself takes Coventry’s legal team to task for failings to accurately cite evidence in its written appeal, stating the “failure to provide record citations suggests that many of these assignments were interposed only for purposes of delay and confusion.”
Ouch. (no pun intended)
While the finding may be bad enough, the size of the penalty is stunning – Coventry will have to pay $262 million – $2000 for each of the “131,024 instances in the past 10 years when it discounted providers’ charges below the state workers’ compensation fee schedule.” (WorkCompCentral)
Some workers comp networks decided early on to avoid doing business at all in LA; MedRisk (HSA client) left the state after the initial ruling against Coventry along with several other PPO and specialty networks.
Implications
For Coventry, it doesn’t look good. While I’ve taken the company to task in the past for what I perceive to be missteps, and some would argue that they should have pulled out long ago, it’s hard to fault Coventry for believing they could conduct business in LA as they do in most other states, by contracting with providers to deliver discounted care to workers comp claimants. The additional notice requirements in Louisiana are unique to that state; in retrospect all networks should have picked up on this nuance, but in retrospect we all would have sold our stocks two months ago…
It doesn’t look good for employers in Louisiana either. As MedRisk’s General Counsel, Darrell Demoss noted in the WorkCompCentral piece, WCRI data suggests comp medical costs are significantly higher in Louisiana than in other states. Now that the ruling has been upheld, expect insurers and managed care organizations to avoid the state completely in fear that they too could be nailed by class-action suit.
On a national basis, this ruling will likely cause many network vendors and insurers to stop and very carefully review each state’s laws and regulations pertaining to networks, with compliance staffs tasked with doubly ensuring their contracts comply with the letter and spirit of each jurisdiction’s rules and regs. That’s not a bad thing, as it’s a heck of a lot cheaper to pay attorneys and compliance staff than a $262 million penalty.
What does this mean for you?
Sorry, but bad news on a Friday – and a holiday Friday at that.
Except if you’re a comp provider in LA.

Thanks to WorkCompCentral for the heads up.


Jul
1

Injury rates – (very) early indications of increases

Anecdotal information indicates the comp injury rate is heading up just a bit. In email conversations with Jim Greenwood, CEO of Concentra, Inc., the nation’s largest occ/urgent care clinic company, Jim sounded encouraged by the upward trend in the company’s growth, particularly in an increase in patient visits.
Concentra is seeing its strongest growth “in the Great Lakes (Chicago, Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio and Western PA), followed closely by the Mid Atlantic / New Jersey / Philadelphia.
Texas is also doing well, but “activity levels in the southeast, far southwest and west coast [are] best described as moderate on a relative basis.”
According to Greenwood, the growth in patient visits appears to be due to two primary factos: increased hiring in the transportation sector and greater market share for Concentra’s clinics.
Department of Labor employment data doesn’t necessarily correlate with Concentra’s results. For example, Texas employment was up by 43,600 in May, and California saw 28,300 net new jobs that month; TX correlates with Concentra results but California doesn’t. And, a spokesman for DoL noted: ” the worst hit states remain the housing bubble states and manufacturing states around the Great Lakes…”.
What does this mean for you?
If you’re in the work comp services business, a little good news. Employment is clearly nowhere near where anyone would like it to be, but it is improving, if ever so slowly.


Jun
29

Average Wholesale Price – not dead yet…

Wolters-Kluwer, publisher of the Medi-Span pharmaceutical pricing database, just announced it will not stop publishing that database at the end of 2011, or any other date certain.
The reasoning behind the decision appears to be the lack of consensus around a replacement for the AWP standard.
According to W-K’s press release, “discontinuation of AWP before development and industry-wide acceptance of a viable alternative price benchmark to replace AWP could create significant customer problems and confusion or disruption throughout the entire healthcare industry. We also recognize that changes to the data published in our drug information products may impact our customers’ businesses and require significant lead time for them to make corresponding technical and contractual adjustments. It appears that consensus around a comprehensive alternative pricing standard will not be reached this year…”
Included in the release is a rather detailed discussion of precisely what the ‘AWP’ is – and is not. W-K has obviously taken notice of the litigation surrounding AWP, and the release, and further details provided in an accompanying document [opens pdf], provide a pretty very thorough primer on AWP and the W-K database’s development, methodology, and limitations.
The rationale – there is no consensus on a replacement for AWP. rings true As flawed as AWP is, there are inherent problems with alternate pricing methodologies, problems that are not dissimilar from those associated with AWP. The most significant issue is the fact that AWP is NOT an Average nor a Wholesale Price. The MediSpan database is comprised of self-reported data, does not include all ‘wholesalers’ nor rebates and other behind-the-scenes financial transactions, and therefore does not reflect actual pricing. Similar issues plague Average Sales Price, Wholesale Acquisition Cost, and other metrics.

What does this mean for you?

This may motivate buyers and other stakeholders to get cracking on an alternate – either one of the current options or perhaps something new and different. What is abundantly clear is AWP remains flawed – at best. The failure of the industry to find a suitable alternative shows just how opaque the entire pharma pricing/rebate/cost picture is.


Jun
28

CVS Caremark and Walgreens – what happened?

The public spat between retail drug giant Walgreens and PBM/retail giant CVS Caremark ended last week. The first question most will ask is ‘who won’? After asking that myself, I realized that’s not the most important issue.
From here, it looks like the winners will be employers and members, who should be able to continue to access Walgreens thru Caremark (the giant PBM has some 2200 corporate clients and claims 53 million lives. As the financial details of the deal weren’t (publicly) disclosed, we don’t know if:
a) Caremark agreed to stop shifting Walgreens customers to Caremark mail order;
b) Caremark will stop trying to move members from Walgreens stores over to CVS (one of Walgreens’ allegations)
c) Walgreens decided the pain was going to outweigh the benefits of dropping Caremark
d) the execs decided to set aside their concerns when their stock prices took a hit.
This last likely had some influence, as both companies (in theory) exist to serve their shareholders. Both entities’ share prices declined after the spat became public; when the resolution was announced share values jumped 5% for each company.
Sources indicate that the deal included compromise on two key points – Caremark will continue to market PBM options that favor CVS stores and Walgreens will get their concerns about pricing inconsistencies addressed.
There’s no question the loss of Walgreens, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain with 7000+ stores, would have significantly hurt Caremark’s marketing efforts, especially in New York, San Francisco, and other key markets where Walgreens is the dominant chain. And the timing was tough for the big PBM, coming just as large employers were making decisions about their 2011 benefit plans. Perhaps Caremark felt a bit of pressure from current customers, and decided to compromise rather than risk losing significant share to competitors Medco and Express Scripts.
Conversely, although Caremark’s prescription business only accounted for 7% of revenues, the people picking up scripts also bought cosmetics, batteries, toiletries, and other products that probably accounted for a few more percentage points of revenue for Walgreens. In the low-margin retail pharmacy business, the loss of these profitable dollars would be very, very hard to offset.
What does this mean for you?
The takeaway for me is a renewed realization of just how interdependent providers and payers are.
As you think about markets in health care, it is helpful to remember most are highly mature with significant barriers to entry especially for payers.


Jun
25

Medicare physician reimbursement increase passes

Yesterday the House passed legislation increasing Medicare physician reimbursement till November 30, when it is slated to drop by 23%. Then, barely a month later, physicians will see another cut which will cut their pay by another seven points.
The temporary fix will increase payments by just over two percent.
For six months.
Then the whole debacle/fiasco/mess will resurrect it’s ugly head and we’ll be right back where we are today, except the cost of an ultimate fix will then be close to $300 billion.
But that will happen after the fall elections, and well before the 2012 voting season starts.
On the workers comp side, several states will see their doc fee schedules change in step with Federal reimbursement, while the impact on most jurisdictions’ fee schedules will play out over time as regulators and legislators work thru the politically-charged process, alter conversion factors and assess their potential impact on access and cost.
The indirect impact is likely to be much more significant as physicians and other providers billing CPT codes seeking to maximize reimbursement from private payers to offset (inflation adjusted) losses in revenue from the Feds.
For those interested in more detail, click here.


Jun
25

Friday’s news – Stranger than reality TV

Newsday broke a story yesterday about a former Islip, NY parks workers who was busted for insurance fraud.
But this isn’t your typical “out on TTD, moonlighting as a handyman” gig.
Nope, John Livingston, out of work due to a comp injury and according to his statements to his employer and adjuster, unable to find employment, was allegedly working as a bouncer at a bar.
A nude bar.
It seems that the $17 grand Livingston collected so far wasn’t enough to sustain his lifestyle and other obligations, so a man’s got to do, what a man’s got to do. In this case, what Mr Livingston had to do was ensure patrons didn’t get unruly or obstreperous. Let’s think about this. Livingston, who was employed as an automotive equipment operator, told the Town he couldn’t work in that job, yet he was able to find work tossing potentially beefy, probably inebriated guys out of a ‘gentleman’s’ club.
Livingston’s previous job must’ve been much more strenuous than your typical truck driving gig, or perhaps he couldn’t sit for long hours, yet could, without too much pain or chance for injury exacerbation, latch onto struggling guys and launch them thru the back door.
Or maybe this was part of his therapy and work conditioning program.
Livingston pled not guilty.
The Empire State has gotten rather forceful about comp fraud, so I’d expect Mr Livingston will come to regret his alleged decision to mess with the system.
Hats off (no pun intended) to the adjuster or employer who ordered the investigation (if in fact this was the result of surveillance) and busted Mr Livingston.


Jun
24

The latest policy research

Brad Wright’s edition of Health Wonk Review is a terrific synopsis of the blog-o-sphere’s take on the latest research on policy, cost, outcomes, and the impact of reform.
This is an excellent read.


Jun
24

We’ve got a long way to go, baby… ranking the US health care system

Why do we need health reform? Don’t we have the best health care system in the world?
No. Not even close.
According to a study released yesterday by the Commonwealth Fund, “Compared with six other nations–Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom–the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.” [emphasis added].
The report goes on to note “Newly enacted health reform legislation in the U.S. will start to address these problems by extending coverage to those without and helping to close gaps in coverage–leading to improved disease management, care coordination, and better outcomes over time.”
While there’s no question there are some very, very good hospitals, physicians, and other providers in the US, this isn’t about individual providers – it measures the entire ‘system’.
The report was based on surveys of patients and primary care providers and data on outcomes from previous Commonwealth Fund research.
While the report notes a major failing of our system is a failure to provide coverage for all Americans, even when access issues are not considered, we still rank below the other countries on most measures. This is particularly valid when considering cost, the only area where we rank far above the other six countries.
Slide1.jpg
The top-ranked country overall is the Netherlands, followed by the oft-decried Brits. But the most troubling finding is not a shortcoming on one of the various measures of quality or cost; the US ranks lowest in living long, healthy, productive lives.
“The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2003 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Canada and Australia. ”
What does this mean for you?
The newly-enacted reform bill will help improve access, quality, technology usage, and other metrics.
But we’re still going to be – far and away – the most cost-inefficient system in the world.


Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2025. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives

error: Content is protected !!