Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Dec
5

They’ve got to be kidding!

In what has to rank as the ballsiest move of the year, managed care giant United Healthcare has come up with a ‘guaranteed insurability’ product for anyone fearing they will lose their health insurance and be unable to obtain coverage in the individual market.
For a fee of a mere 20% of the actual premium, individuals can buy a guarantee from United that they will be able to buy individual health insurance if they need it in the future.
What a deal.
Who’s going to buy this? A really tiny market comprised of very healthy paranoid individuals with more money than brains.
Recall that people working for employers with 20 or more full-time employees who leave can still get the same health care benefits for 18 to 36 months, provided they pay the full cost of the premium plus a small upcharge for administrative fees.
HIPAA requires insurers in the individual market guarantee renewability of coverage in most situations.
So, who’s left? Anyone who thinks they will lose their group coverage and their COBRA coverage will expire who also won’t be able to get individual coverage and doesn’t believe there will be meaningful changes in regulation of medical underwriting and treatment of pre-existing conditions. Perhaps my earlier characterization was inaccurate, and the market is not tiny but infinitesimal.
As applicants will have to qualify up front, UHC will (wherever possible) do their medical underwriting and rating for folks applying for the ‘Continuity’ product. So, if you are covered under a group program and have a pre-ex (as many do), you’re not likely to get that condition covered by UHC (in states that allow that practice).
What a great country.


Dec
5

Tough times ahead for work comp managed care

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
3

Health care reform – we have to deal with costs

No, that’s not my entry for understatement of the decade. It is a follow up to my post last week about the impossibility of comprehensive health care reform given today’s rather difficult environment.
Yet a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine says Congress and the President-elect can deliver on reform, if they move quickly, act forcefully, and ignore costs. The piece is an excellent analysis of how Medicare came to be, paying particular attention to political maneuvering and manipulation.
As good as it is, I have a major bone to pick – the authors’ rather cavalier approach to the cost issue.
Here’s how they put it:
“The expansion of health care to large populations is expensive, and presidents may need to quiet their inner economists.[emphasis added] [then-President Lyndon] Johnson decided, in effect, to expand coverage now and worry about how to afford it later. Accurate cost estimates might very well have sunk Medicare. In fact, this generalization holds across every administration from Harry Truman to George W. Bush. Major expansions of health care coverage rarely fit the budget and generally drew cautions (and often alarms) from the economic team. Of course, under current federal budgetary circumstances, managing the economics of health care reform may be more difficult than ever before.”
Well, it’s safe to say we know a heckuva lot more about costs, drivers thereof, and implications of governmental programs than they did forty-five years ago. As an example, I give you Medicare Part D. After Part D, the largest expansion of government-assisted health care since 1964, went into effect drug manufacturers raised prices by an average of 7.4%. Why? Because they knew there was a large new customer base, eager to get drugs, that was not very concerned about cost.
The passage of Part D was a boon for big pharma, as the industry enjoyed a substantial increase in profits and revenues attributable to Part D. Part D did not benefit the managed care firms; many have not profited from their offering, and more than a few (see Humana) got hammered. For 2009, the big Part D carriers are raising premiums significantly; Humana by 51% and United Healthcare by 18%, with copays also on the rise.
On a national scale, the program is a disaster. The ultimate liability for Part D is $8 trillion, a liability that is unfunded. This is what we can expect if Congress passes and President Obama signs into law national health reform that does not aggressively, and forcefully, address cost – a deficit explosion that will make the cost of the current bailouts look like lunch money.
Simply put, you just can’t ignore cost. Even if the Democrats tried to push thru universal coverage without strong cost controls (which they won’t) the Republicans would crucify them (which they should).
But, with one exception, the current bills before Congress and ideas floating in Washington don’t address cost. There’s talk about fraud and abuse, electronic medical records, prevention and wellness – all the usual sound bites. What there is not is any meaningful discussion of cost control.
(The Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act was carefully analyzed by the Lewin Group before it was released (the analysis indicates it will actually reduce costs). Sen Wyden (D OR) is astute enough to understand that any reform bill that does not explicitly address costs is a waste of time, dead before it even hits the floor.)
So what do we do? We obviously can’t rely on private insurers, as they have demonstrated absolutely zero ability to manage costs. I’ll take that up tomorrow.


Dec
2

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

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
26

Why big reform won’t happen in 2009

In the three and a half years I’ve been publishing MCM, I’ve been labeled a conservative, libertarian, apologist for the insurance industry, socialist, leftist, liberal, and other less printable terms.
It’s nice to be part of so many seemingly diverse groups.
Yesterday the Center for American Progress (a progressive organization) called me out for my statements that we won’t see big health reform any time soon. They make a rather compelling case for health reform, citing all the good reasons for the ‘big fix’.
While I applaud their motives, perspective and logic, I would also note that their piece completely misses the big point, a point they themselves explicitly acknowledge. None of the health care reform initiatives presently before Congress (except for the Wyden-Bennett bill), nor President-elect Obama’s health reform platform address costs.
Folks, wake up! We cannot afford to cover 50 million more Americans unless and until we do something meaningful about costs!
Once people get insurance, they tend to use it. And as we’ve seen with Part D, once the medical/pharma/device/hospital industry figures out there are a lot more people with coverage, they will raise prices, buy more technology, and build more capacity to service those new customers
Obama’s campaign speeches and white papers acknowledged this central issue. Yet he has yet to come out with anything remotely addressing cost savings initiatives. The contention that his plan will save the average family $2500 is simply not credible; there is no backup for that claim.
There’s a very good reason for the absence of cost cutting; politically it would make the Obama plan dead on arrival; or more accurately, dead before conception.
The combination of the political impossibility of keeping every health stakeholder happy, today’s economic situation, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russian and North Korean belligerence, energy, and the world wide implications of the recession and credit market collapse leave no oxygen for major health reform. Yes, there will be incremental initiatives (see here) and these incremental improvements might actually be big changes.
But anyone who wants to see the whole mess fixed at one fell swoop is going to be sorely disappointed.


Nov
25

What’s wrong with the US health care system

is exemplified by drug manufacturer Cephalon’s drug pricing strategy. The company’s narcolepsy drug Provigil is coming off patent in 2012. So, like any good corporation seeking to maximize shareholder wealth, it has developed a replacement drug – Nuvigil, that is a longer-acting version of the same medication.
But Cephalon is not content with just doing what other pharma companies do – patenting a long-acting version of an old standby, and releasing that LA version just as the older drug goes off patent. Instead, the fine folks at Cephalon are jacking up the price of Provigil now, to make it even more expensive. Then, when Nuvigil comes out, it will be priced less than Provigil, encouraging patients to switch.
And because there won’t be a generic for Nuvigil for years, Cephalon holds on to a nice revenue stream.
Cephalon is the poster child for sleazy pharma marketing practices. Just a couple months ago Cephalon pled guilty to illegally marketing Provigil and pain drug Actiq, and paid a $444 million fine for their criminal behavior. The company has been shoving Actiq down the throats of workers comp patients for years, despite the drug not being FDA approved for anything but breakthrough cancer pain.
No matter to the profit-at-any-cost execs at Cephalon. In their dedicated, unending quest for more shareholder wealth, they have proven they will do anything to gain more revenue.
Realists will understand that Cephalon’s strategy is short-sighted at best. With national health reform coming, one of the earliest items on the agenda is likely to be legislation encouraging/allowing the Feds to negotiate prices with big pharma. Although few industries are as adept at marketing as big pharma, there’s a new sheriff in town.
House Energy and Commerce chair Henry Waxman’s record on pharma is mixed. Co-author of the landmark 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984, which has had the effect of speeding up the introduction of generics while offering some protections for branded drugs, Waxman has more recently taken a more aggressive stance, putting drug development firms on notice that their attempts to circumvent patent expiration terms is unacceptable.
In a speech in 2005, Waxman stated:
“Current law does not strike the right balance. We cannot continue to have a system that
effectively enshrines permanent monopoly status for some of our most important medicines. Of course, some intellectual property protections are needed to encourage innovation by brand-name manufacturers. But permanent monopolies are neither needed nor wise.”
Waxman has been a loud and consistent critic of pharma’s reaction to Part D. Here’s an excerpt from the Congressman’s letter to the GAO in January 2006:
“A report I released in November showed that prices for brand-name drugs under the new Medicare drug benefit are 84% higher than the prices that the Department of Veterans Affairs negotiates for the federal government.[13] An analysis that GAO did for me in October 2000 showed that on average, Medicaid’s prices for brand-name drugs were 43% higher than the prices negotiated by the VA.”
What does this mean?
Cephalon’s shareholder-wealth-maximization strategy is short-sighted. There will be a major push in the next Congress to find the money to do something big in health care reform, and pharma profits may be a very attractive source. Cephalon’s blatantly greedy practices make it even more likely the Feds will negotiate price.


Nov
24

The (short term) future of workers comp managed care

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
21

Florida – the end of the happy times

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
20

Two new network offerings

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.


Nov
20

Las Vegas – the sort-of perfect analogy for workers comp

Las Vegas is a weird setting for a workers comp conference. The hyperactive, eternally lit, wildly exciting town that is ‘Vegas’ makes for a bizarre counterpoint to the world of risk management – a business that works very hard to be steady, buttoned-down, predictable, and is certainly not glamorous.
Then again, the boom-and-bust that plays out every minute on the felt of the craps tables and poker games is workers comp in miniature.
Right now the sense seems to be the comp industry is starting to recover from the years-long soft market. Vendors throughout the hall are seeing employers and insurers focusing more tightly on cost drivers, on risk management and loss prevention. Risk managers are looking for new answers, different ways to attack the problem of rising medical costs that has been the one constant in this highly cyclical industry. The vendors’ perspective is borne out in conversations with managed care execs, who are getting much more attention from large employers interested in ‘real managed care’, who want to delve into the details, the workflows, outcomes, and results. No longer satisfied with ‘yeah, we’ve got that managed care stuff’, employers are (finally) getting serious.
About time.
For too long employers have been satisfied with ‘me, too’, cookie-cutter approaches to managed care. Most every large payer uses the same network, the same case management and UR schemes, pretty generic bill review and some amalgamation of specialty managed care vendors. They’ve been talking about outcomes oriented networks for years, and far too complacent when vendors have consistently failed to deliver on their promises to actually build them.
Yet employers haven’t been completely complacent. While the market’s been soft, employers have beat the bejesus out of their TPAs and carriers, demanding more and more coverage and service at ever-lower costs.
Now it’s coming back to them. Medical costs are rising, the power is shifting to the other side of the table, and there are few new and promising answers.
The good news – there are a few answers. I’ll talk about them later today.


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 !!