Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Jun
28

The health care consumer/voter

On a plane yesterday I engaged in a brief conversation with a professional woman (accountant) working for ING Insurance about health care. An opinionated person, she was quick to tell me that employer-based health care was the only solution and that government based programs were bad due to waste and long waiting lines for treatment.
When I pointed out that Medicare was one of the highest-rated “health plans” in the nation, with administrative expenses significantly lower than any other plan, she stated that the only innovation would come from private insurers, and that the “Clinton plan would have been a disaster”. She then proceeded to complain about the one-year waiting lists for surgery in the UK, and about the problems w the pharma reimbursement system in the UK and it’s refusal to pay anything for “profits”.
Here is a very intelligent, educated, numbers-oriented person who likely votes and contributes and is active, who has some serious misconceptions about health care, and absolutely no appreciation for the trade-offs inherent in health care. As an accountant I would have expected her to argue the cost-benefit of procedures or financing mechanisms, but her arguments were more based on the Health Insurance Assn of America (a now defunct organization)’s famed “Harry and Louise” advertising campaign.
There was no time to engage, and it would not have been productive – her mind was made up. When asked about how to handle the uninsured, she said that doctors should be required to do pro bono work, and then proceeded to complain about socialised medicine. Leaving aside the thought that requiring workers to do something for no compensation via governmental fiat smacks of socialism or communism for that matter, I was amazed at the complete lack of thought given to these obviously firmly-held beliefs.
If this is the kind of voter we have, than we are indeed a long way from addressing the problems inherent in our health care system.
What does this mean for you?

Likely continued frustration…


Jun
27

Health care and productivity

A conference on Cape Cod this weekend concluded that the US’ dependence on employer-sponsored health care is “fundamentally flawed, as it restrains productivity and leaves too many people without health coverage.” I could not disagree more.
Before we enter the debate, a few take-aways from the conference. Panelists noted the benefits of employer-sponsorship which include a drive for innovation and purchasing power together with the enormous costs of “de-coupling the employment link” (63% of non-elderly Americans are insured through their employers) make it quite difficult to shift away from the employer-sponsor system.
Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank, notables including Alain Enthoven of Stanford, Henry Farber of Princeton, and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institute all view the link between employment and health insurance as a significant problem, with Enthoven noting “The employment basis of health insurance is hopelessly flawed.” Among these flaws are:
1. “companies are not in the business of managing health.” They are motivated to produce their particular good or service, and the “responsibility” of providing health coverage is a burden.
2. “Job-based insurance leads to distortions in the labor markets


Jun
24

Workers’s comp claims counts are decreasing

Workers’ Compensation claims counts are down again, reflecting an overall “macro” trend that has been persisting for over a decade. However, the types of claims that have been eliminated tend to be the smaller, less costly ones; overall they have dropped by 34% since 1999, while the most expensive claims (over $50,000) have only decreased by 7% over the same period. And, there has been an increase in the number of claims with long disability duration.
The data comes from a report by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, one fo the major rate-making and research organizations. NCCI’s research is top-notch, credible, and although it suffers from data limitations (it only has data on states where it is involved in rate setting) it clearly indicates national trends.
The big question is why? During periods of economic expansion and flat growth, rising and level/falling employment, the trend has continued. Declines have been consistent across injury types, jurisdictions, occupations, and employer types. Moreover, the shift in occupational types, driven by macro-factors such as off-shoring and increases in construction activity, appear to have little impact on this welcome trend.
Amidst the good news, there are clear signs of trouble.
Disability duration
NCCI looked at claim frequency by duration of disability, and found that there has been a 6% increase in claims with an indemnity duration of more than 31 days. And, the longer the duration of the disability, the smaller the decline in frequency.
Medical costs
The average annual rate of inflation from 1999 through 2004 was 9.8%. This was driven by higher prices, utilization, and the use of more types of medical procedures on the average claim (this from other sources, including WCRI research).
So, all claim counts are dropping, which is good. But the decrease in frequency has been overmatched by medical inflation. That’s bad.
What does this mean for you?
Manage the medical! Be especially careful to identify and manage lost time claims that may become long-term claims, as these most-costly claims appear to be increasing in frequency.


Jun
23

Health care inflation 2004

Health care inflation was 8.2% in 2004 for privately insured Americans. This was 2.6% higher than overall economic growth, and almost twice as high as the general rate of medical inflation (4.4% in February) . The largest driver of health inflation was outpatient hospital, which increased 11.2%, while drug cost inflation moderated somewhat, coming in at 7.2% for the year.
The Center for the Study of Health System Change authored the report that is the source of these data, noting:
“Trends in four of the five spending categories


Jun
22

A new scandal in workers compensation

CorVel and Gallagher Bassett are the subject of a highly critical article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, that could be subtitled “When bad claims management and bad managed care meet bad employers, it’s bad news.” In this case, Broward County School District’s internal audit uncovered a raft of problems with the District’s $34 million annual workers compensation program. The article itself looks like it was co-authored by Carl Hiaasen and Dave Barry, two of South Florida’s keenest observers and funniest writers.
Iin addition to the District itself, the two entities receiving the harshest criticism are CorVel, the District’s managed care “partner”, and Gallagher Bassett. GB receives slightly more than $2 million a year to “manage” the program, while CorVel was paid $2.7 million during the 2003-2004 school year. Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel which reviewed an audit of the workers comp program by District auditors.
“Examples of waste or botched oversight range from using a pediatrician to treat adults to paying a claims investigator for working more than 24 hours a day, three times in one month
“Auditors are also sharply critical that Itasca, Ill.-based Gallagher Bassett subcontracts medical duties, such as selecting doctors and assigning patients, to another firm, CorVel Inc. of Irvine, Calif., but will not give the district a copy of the agreement to evaluate.”
“In one example cited, the firms (CorVel and Gallagher Bassett) spends (sic) $2 million a year to assign a field case manager to supervise nearly every case no matter how minor, a service that usually includes escorting patients to a doctor’s office. Other workers’ compensation companies usually reserve that level of service for catastrophic cases, said Reilly and Shaw. In one case, the district paid a case manager $2,800 to accompany an asthma patient at the doctor’s office.
Auditors chose five doctors at random from CorVel’s list. One had four malpractice settlements since 1992. CorVel has only rejected two out of 1,200 doctors it uses, one for questionable service and one for demanding payment up front.
Additionally, referrals for physical therapy for specific patients were based not on a therapist’s track record, location near the patient or expertise. Instead, therapists were chosen alphabetically, based on which firm was next on an approved list, auditors said.”
In perhaps one of the more stellar examples of understatement, the report noted “It appears the district has taken a casual interest in the operations, resulting in higher direct costs including excessive medical, indemnity [lost time], litigation, monetary settlements, permanent impairment ratings and personnel costs associated with replacement or substitution for injured workers,” auditors wrote.
To quote Dave Barry: “and I’m not making this stuff up.”
One wonders if this will lead to an official inquiry, as the relationships between managed care entities, TPAs, and employers have been the recent target of subpoenas and news articles.
Actually, it is likely not a question of “if” but “when”.
What does this mean to you?
Make sure your managed care relationships are clear, explicit, and public, that all transactions are transparent, and you hire the right managed care firm. Unless you want to see your name in print.


Jun
22

Competing models of health care

The two competing economic models of health care are greatly influencing the debate on the future of health care in the US. One, hewing closely to the free-market standard, calls for consumer-driven decisions, free markets open to all investors in facilities, technology, and insurance. The other views health care as a unique good, one in which unfettered competition will never work and wherein market-based competition will lead to unacceptable social consequences. The latter model typically calls for more regulation and tighter controls.
An excellent perspective on this debate was brought to my attention by Peter Rousmaniere, a wise man and good friend. Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post has written a great synopsis of the debate, one that is well worth considering. Using CMS Administrator Mark McClellan’s recent decision (or more accurately non-decision) on the licensing of ambulatory surgery centers (he decided to procrastinate) as his foil, Pearlstein frames the issues quite succinctly.
“When they are vilifying insurers and managed-care companies, physicians like to present themselves as Dr. Welby — selfless professionals whose medical judgments would never, ever be colored by their financial interests. But in lining up behind physician ownership of specialty hospitals, the doctors essentially acknowledge that they are just like the rest of us, their behavior swayed by even modest financial incentives.
You can’t have it both ways. And the way the people would have it is to pay their doctors well, put them in the central decision-making role in the health care system — and then demand that they give up the right to invest in MRI machines or specialty hospitals or get incentive payments from drug companies.”
Leaving aside Pearlstein’s claim to know what the people want, his arguments about physicians are on point.
However, I believe his analysis, excellent as far as it goes, misses a critical point. In all his discussion, and the national debate for that matter, on costs, process measures, outcomes, motivations, consumer-directed v. regulated, price controls and the like, there is no mention of the output.
I fail to see how an economic debate can serve any useful purpose if it does not consider what individuals or societies get for their expenditure. Think back over the last many years, and all the arguments you have heard and/or participated in, all the columns and studies and analyses and debates. Has anyone ever said, “well, we need to spend $X because it will increase the population’s productivity/functionality/quality by Y%, and that is a better return on investment than my opponent’s recommendation.”
Hell no.
This makes me nuts. The entire health care debate is almost useless, because we are arguing about process, about inputs with no appreciation for outputs and economic good.
Until and unless we engage in a debate about what health care should deliver, we are wasting time, words, intellectual capital, and newsprint.


Jun
21

Drug detailing, direct-to-consumer ads, and off-label use addressed

There are signs that drug marketing is beginning to change, as the FDA focuses on off-label use and some of the big pharmas cut back on their sales forces. This may well be as part of big pharma’s efforts to defuse some of the harsh criticism leveled at them by physicians, consumer groups, and health plans frustrated with pharma’s aggressive marketing tactics.
David Wilson’s Health Business blog notes that Wyeth and Pfizer have both announced plans to cut sales staff. The reasons are:
1. “Mirrored sales teams –the practice of sending multiple sales reps to the same doctor to talk about the same drug– are causing a backlash from doctors and also making it hard to measure the effectiveness of individual sales people
2. There is little new to talk about –because of fewer product launches and in the case of Wyeth the curtailment of uses for its hormone replacement therapy. (Could it be that the more a doctor knows about hormone replacement therapy the less they will prescribe?)
3. The availability of efficient, effective outsourced sales forces available from Ventiv, Innovex and PDI have enabled pharma companies to reduce fixed costs.”
The issue of pharmaceutical detailing has been extensively addressed in DB’s MedRants, a highly entertaining and informative blog authored by physician Robert Centor. Centor has also commented on the recent decision by Bristol-Myers-Squibb to impose “a ban on advertising its new drugs to consumers in their first year on the market, adopting voluntary restrictions that go further than what is anticipated in an industrywide advertising code to be announced next month.” Centor notes
“The optimist in me hopes that the outcries from physicians has influenced their policy. The skeptic in me believes that they understand the DTC drug advertising carries both risks and benefits. Big Pharma has a major image problem. TV drug ads generally hurt their image. ”
As to the issue of off-label use, this is a significant area of concern for many payers, including workers compensation insurers. In my firm’s “Second Annual Survey of Prescription Drug Management in Workers’ Compensation”, payer respondents noted off-label use as a significant concern. Typical was the use of Actiq as a pain med for musculoskeletal pain. Actiq is a brand drug used for break through pain associated with cancer; thus its use in workers comp is the very definition of “off-label”.
What does this mean for you?
If big pharma is finally getting the message, that bodes well for a “decrease in the rate of increase” in pharmaceutical inflation. However, these companies are the ultimate capitalist organizations (that is not intrinsically bad) so they will seek to maximize their returns. And we all know who pays for those “returns”.


Jun
20

Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp scandal widens

Ohio’s workers compensation scandal continues to grow, heading off in ever-more-interesting and bizarre directions every day. The fallout is both political and financial, and has reached the governor’s office.
Here’s the latest information from our friends at “Workers Comp Insider” and other sources. It appears the Bureau of Workers Comp, the entity that oversees the state’s monopolistic workers comp insurer, has lost somewhere around $215 million in funds. These losses were due to investments in rare coins (!); with shady investment manager Alan Brian Bond; and in a hedge fund that was amazingly adept at losing large sums and charging high fees for that ability.
In one of the more entertaining chapters of this growing story, one of the key players suffered an alleged burglary at the home of Michael Storeim that resulted in the loss of significant


Jun
17

Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp scandal hits the big time

The growing scandal in Ohio surrounding the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation‘s wildly inappropriate behavior has officially hit the big time. Initially surfaced by local press, and blogged on several occasions at Workers Comp Insider, the mess has just hit the national press. BWC’s investments in rare coins, affiliation with a politically-connected investment manager, apparent desire to hide losses totaling over $200 million, and perhaps even worse is covered in Paul Krugman’s column in today’s New York Times (free registration required).
Here’s one of Krugman’s more trenchant observations:
“We’re not just talking about campaign contributions, although Mr. Noe’s contributions ranged so widely that five of the state’s seven Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from cases associated with the scandal. (He’s also under suspicion of using intermediaries to contribute large sums, illegally, to the Bush campaign.) We’re talking about personal payoffs: bargain vacations for the governor’s chief of staff at Mr. Noe’s Florida home, the fact that MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers’ compensation oversight board, and more.”
One has to admit, this is lots of fun for outsiders. Perhaps now that Michael Jackson has returned to his devoted fans and home/amusement part/daycare center, and Scott Peterson has left the headlines, the press will focus on this mess, bringing notoriety and “human interest” to our little corner of the world. Imagine, workers comp will be the center of the cocktail party or soccer sideline discussion, enabling the cognoscenti (that’s us) to dispense our wisdom and hard-won knowledge to listeners eager to get in on the latest. I can see Peter Rousmaniere on “NightLine”, Tom Lynch on “Larry King Live”, Larry Dorman on Greta van Susteren, Jon Coppelman on “The Daily Show”


Jun
16

California HMO costs

CalPERS has managed to hold HMO rate increases for 2006 to 8.7%, while PPO increases are up 9.5%. CalPERS is widely recognized as one of, if not the most, effective negotiators with managed care plans, so their achievement will set the standard for other employers/unions/etc as they begin their negotiations with their health plans. According to their website,
California Public Employees’ Retirement System … provides retirement and health benefits to more than 1.4 million public employees, retirees, and their families and more than 2,500 employers…”
The 8.7% is the lowest increase since 1999; with 2005 rates up 10%, 2004 16.4%, and 2003 a mind-numbing 24.1%. Of particular note is that benefit design was essentially unchanged as were copayments and prescription drug coverage.
When health plan rate increases negotiated by a very savvy, and very large, payer are more than three times the overall rate of inflation, and when that is trumpeted as good news, you know we are in trouble.
What does this mean for you?
Hold on to your wallet – if you can keep your rate increase below 11% without significant damage to your benefit design, congratulations.


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.

[ult_buttons btn_title="LEARN MORE" btn_link="url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthstrategyassoc.com%2F||target:%20_blank|" btn_size="ubtn-large" btn_bg_color="#ffffff" icon_size="32" btn_icon_pos="ubtn-sep-icon-at-left" btn_border_style="solid" btn_color_border="#ffffff" btn_border_size="1" btn_radius="45" css_adv_btn=".vc_custom_1523369976284{padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 5px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;}" btn_font_style="font-weight:bold;" btn_font_size="desktop:16px;" btn_line_height="desktop:48px;" el_class="whitebtn"]
 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2026. 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 !!