Category Archives: Employees

Trumpcare and Medical Travel: What Will Happen

The following infographic shows what will happen to the US healthcare system when the Senate rams the ACHA down our throats, as many are indicating will occur because McConnell and a group of GOP Men are hiding behind closed doors and won’t even tell their own party what’s in the bill they are writing.

What this will mean for medical travel is not hard to figure out. For some, it will offer an opportunity to seek lower cost medical care due to premiums that will increase and costs rising as well.

This will be especially true for self-insured employers who will want to save money by offering this to their employees.

Here is the infographic:

fa97feb3-c0f5-4fdb-9c79-6cfe82add29e-original

Washington State Workers’ Comp Accepts Foreign Medical Providers

Seven years ago, when I was working on my MHA degree, I wrote a paper which has become the basis of this blog.

During that time, I found the website of the Department of Labor & Industries for Washington State, and was surprised to find landing pages that listed physicians in Canada, Mexico, and other countries. These countries were mentioned in my paper, and I have referred to it in subsequent posts from time to time.

However, in the period since, I have noticed that the landing page for other countries was removed. I contacted WA state a while back and was told they were updating it. Yet, as of recently, it is still not been replaced, so I contacted them again yesterday.

I received a reply from Cheryl D’Angelo-Gary, Health Services Analyst at the WA Department of Labor & Industries. She indicated in her response that she is the business owner of the Find a Doctor application (FAD).

According to Ms. D’Angelo-Gary, “our experience showed that most of Washington’s injured workers who leave the country travel to one of these adjacent nations. Workers who travel further afield are advised to work with their claim manager to locate (or likely recruit) a provider. All worker comp claims with overseas mailing addresses are handled by a team of claim managers who have some extra training to help the worker find a qualified provider.”

I asked her to clarify this statement further in my next email by asking if this means that any claimant who travels outside of North America will have to ask the claims manager to find them a doctor.

She replied, “interesting questions!” She also differentiated between an injured worker who is traveling versus one who has relocated out of country.

She went on to say that, “a worker who is traveling and needs claim-related care would be instructed to seek treatment at an ER or urgent care clinic, where the providers do not need to be part of our network and would not be providing ongoing treatment. To be paid, the provider would have to send us a bill and a completed non-network application (available online). Under no circumstances should the provider bill the worker.”

However, she continued, “a worker who has relocated overseas must send in a change of address (required whenever a worker moves). That allows us to transfer management of the claim to a unit that specializes in out-of-country claims. The claim manager would work with the injured worker to help the worker find somebody in their new location. It’s critical (per state law) that the worker choose their own provider, though the provider must meet our requirements and standards of care. Proactive workers tend to handle this well, and find a provider in very little time; less proactive workers can find this challenging. We’re currently looking at this process to see how we can do this better.”

And in final emails to her last night, I tied the first scenario to medical travel, and the second scenario to ex-pats living abroad, but needing medical care. I also asked about workers who wanted to travel back to their home country for medical care, and said that I write about medical travel for workers’ comp.

As of today, I have not heard back, but it is early, and there is a three-hour difference between us.

It must be pointed out that WA state is what is termed a ‘monopolistic state’ in that the state does all the work of handling workers’ comp insurance and claims. Thus, when Ms. D’Angelo-Gary says that worker must work with the claim manager, the claim manager in question is a state employee, and not an employee of a commercial insurance company.

It may be possible, therefore, for medical travel to be implemented in workers’ comp, and it should be something that the medical travel industry and the state should explore together. Ms. D’Angelo-Gary did say they were looking at this process to do better. What better way to improve the process then by utilizing medical travel?

An Old Topic Returns

Back when I began this blog, I discussed in several posts, the difference between employee and employer choice of physician in each state for workers’ comp.

As reported last week, and elaborated here by Peter Rousmaniere, there is some question as to whether the choice of doctor affects costs.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide what is true.

ARAWC Strikes Again: Opt-out Rolls On

“Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”

Michael Corleone, Godfather, Part III

Source: https://www.pinterest.com/Mamzeltt/famous-movie-quotes/

When Michael confronts Connie and Neri in the kitchen of his townhouse, he warns them to never give an order to kill someone again (in this case, it was Joey Zaza), and goes on to state that when he thought he had left the mob lifestyle, they pull him back.

Thus, is the case with opt-out, as I discussed in my last post on the subject.

Kristen Beckman, in today’s Business Insurance, reminds us that opt-out, like the Mob, is pulling us back into the conversation.

As I reported last time, a bill in Arkansas, Senate Bill 653, pending in that state’s legislature’s Insurance & Commerce Committee since the beginning of March, proposes an alternative to the state system.

Ms. Beckman quotes Fred C. Bosse (not Fred C. Dobbs), the southwest region vice president of the American Insurance Association (AIA), who said that the bill is an attempt to keep the workers comp opt-out conversation going.

Mr. Bosse said that the AIA takes these bills seriously (good for them) and engages legislators to dissuade progress of such legislation the AIA believes could create an unequal benefit system for employees. (They haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid either)

Arkansas’ bill is the only legislation currently under consideration, but a state Rep in Florida, Cord Byrd (there’s a name for you), a Republican (it figures) from Jacksonville Beach, promoted legislation last year, but never filed it.

South Carolina and Tennessee, where bills were previously introduced within the past two years has gone nowhere.

And once again ARAWC rears its ugly head. For those of you unfamiliar with ARAWC, or the Association for Responsible Alternatives to Workers’ Compensation, it is a right-wing lobbying and legislation writing group based in Reston, Virginia. (see several other posts on ARAWC on this blog)

A statement ARAWC sent to BI said that these bills are beginning to pop up organically to model benefits that companies have seen from Texas’ non-subscription model. (Organically? That’s like saying mushroom clouds organically popped up over Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Here’s a laugh for you, straight from the ARAWC statement:

Outcomes and benefits for injured workers have improved, employers are more competitive when costs are contained and taxpayers are well served by market-driven solutions,” They further said, “We recognize that each state is different and that the discussions at the state level will involve varied opinions.”

Of course, we cannot really know if injured workers are benefitting, or just being denied their rights, and it seems that opt-out is only to help employers and taxpayers get out of their responsibility to those who sustain serious injuries while employed.

In another post, the notion that Texas’ system could serve as a model for other states was outlined in a report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (don’t you just love the names of these reactionary groups?)

Bill Minick, president of PartnerSource, praised the report, according to Ms. Beckman, and said that competition has driven down insurance premium rates and improved benefits for Texas workers. (That’s what he says, but is any of it true, I wonder? I doubt it.)

ARAWC has listed a laundry list of benefits they say responsible alternative comp laws could provide:

  • Better wage replacement
  • Reduced overall employer costs
  • Faster return to work
  • Fewer claims disputes (yeah, because they would be denied)
  • Faster claim payouts
  • Faster closure (well, when you deny claims, they can be closed faster, duh!)

It is good to know that the AIA is critical of the report, and that in their opinion, it is unworkable to allow employers to adopt a separate, but unequal system of employee benefits.

And as we have seen with the defeat of the AHCA, leaving a government-sponsored program up to market-driven forces is a recipe for disaster that should not be repeated in workers’ comp, no matter what flavor the Kool-Aid comes in.

Opt-out: The Thing That Will Not Die

An article in today’s Business Insurance magazine, Texas comp opt-out model could spread to other states: Report, said that the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free enterprise research and advocacy group, released a report that analyzed the Texas nonsubscription system, and said the other states may try to emulate the model.

Folks, we’ve been down this road before as I wrote last August.

The report is called, “The Lone Star Model for Helping Injured Workers,” [really?] says that the competition between the state’s system and the nonsubscription system has led to improved claims handling, cost control and better return-to-work rates.

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it is, then how come no other state is following suit? Could it be that it doesn’t do what they say it does?

The report also says that 78% of Texas employers, who represent 82% of the state’s private-sector employers are covered by the state system, and five percent of employees are not covered by workers’ comp or an alternative system. This was reported in my earlier posts.

In previous posts, I have said that there are unanswered questions as to how well injured workers would be treated, and I have also said that opt-out is just a way to tear down the entire workers’ compensation system nationwide.

Even the late David De Paolo wrote that the comp industry should not drink the kool-aid on opt-out.

And given the fact that the Oklahoma law was declared unconstitutional, and the other states that were considering it have pulled the legislation back, means that opt-out is not what its defenders claim it to be.

ARAWC, the organization behind much of the legislation has not been successful in getting other states to follow Texas’ lead.

Why is that?

It is because no one wants to go back to the 19th century where workers were without any protections and had to go to court to get any sort of benefits should they be injured on the job.

The Oklahoma law proves that it just does not have the welfare of the injured worker in its best interest, and that opt-out is only a means by which an employer can get away without any liability or responsibility for taking care of the worker.

Taking back the country before the Socialists took over is a powerful, right-wing talking point and meme, but no way to move a technologically advanced country forward into the 21st century.

 

ACA Repeal Opens Up Medical Travel: A Second Look

Note: Here is Laura’s second article on repeal of the ACA and its’ impact on medical travel. She breaks the article down by areas of the healthcare industry that will be affected by repeal and that might benefit from medical travel.

Repeal of Affordable Care Act Impacts International Medical Travel
by Laura Carabello

wphealthcarenews.com- The repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been met with considerable market uncertainty. As the transition gets underway, many Americans will be scrambling to access affordable, quality care.

Fortunately, the international medical travel industry -“Travel for Treatment” – may finally gain the attention it deserves from the American public and U.S. employers. Experts predict that the number of Americans traveling abroad for medical care or episodes of treatment is expected to increase 25 percent annually over the next decade.

Medical travelers are likely to come from every market sector: the growing ranks of uninsured individuals, self-insured employers facing higher healthcare expenditures, disenfranchised Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as Medicare enrollees with high out-of-pocket expenditures and the loss of coverage for preventive care.

Individual Consumers
Once “minimum essential healthcare coverage” is no longer mandated, the burden of payment will transfer onto healthcare providers and systems that will be forced to continue cost shifting onto the backs of paying customers.

Fewer insurance companies will be willing to underwrite coverage in the exchanges. In fact, many will leave the individual marketplaces altogether because of the potential loss of federal subsidies for both beneficiaries and insurance companies themselves.

Burdened by hefty cost-shifting, more Americans will be forced to pay out of their own pockets for surgeries or treatments in the U.S. Those who can afford a plane ticket will find it increasingly attractive to travel outside the country for quality, affordable options, such as joint replacement, cardio-thoracic surgery, oncology, bariatrics, and a host of other medical procedures, including treatment for Hepatitis C.

Low-Income (Medicaid) and Seniors (Medicare)
For Medicaid beneficiaries who remained optimistic that their home state would offer expanded coverage, their prospects look dim. The unraveling of the ACA will leave millions of the poorest and sickest Americans without insurance. Many states may either abandon Medicaid expansion or be forced to significantly redesign their programs to ensure that individuals below 400 percent of the federal poverty level can receive affordable healthcare coverage and services.

While these low-income families may not have cash reserves to fund expensive care in the U.S., they might be able to gather the resources to access needed surgeries overseas – and pay less than half of the US rates. Those who have emigrated from Latin American countries, in particular, will take advantage of opportunities to travel to their homelands to gain access to care that is substantially less expensive, and in a familiar setting.

The 57 million senior citizens and disabled Americans enrolled in Medicare could also benefit from accessing international medical travel. Under a full repeal of the ACA, seniors face higher deductibles and co-payments for their Part A, which covers hospital stays, and higher premiums and deductibles for Part B, which pays for doctor visits and other services. Medicare enrollees may also lose some of their free preventative benefits, such as screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, heart disease and diabetes. The opportunity to access quality care at lower costs – plus prescription drugs that are sold at far lower price points outside the US – present attractive options.

Employers
Healthcare will continue to be driven through employers, and cost pressures will push high-deductible plans, risk-based contracting and consumerism. In the United States today, even a negotiated, discounted rate for a total knee replacement at a local hospital may well exceed $45,000, $60,000, or more. The bottom line for self-insured employers – the coverage model that now dominates the marketplace: even after factoring in the cost of travel and accommodations for the patient and the companion, as well as waiving deductibles and co-pays as incentives to program adoption, the savings on surgical procedures such as joint replacement are significant.

Employers will also be more likely to send workers to emerging COEs outside the country in light of the many partnerships that are underway between US providers and foreign hospitals. These collaborative programs are bringing American ingenuity, sophisticated technology and advanced levels of care to institutions throughout the world.

Quality and safety standards at many institutions are now equal to or exceed US benchmarks. Many foreign hospitals are accredited by Joint Commission International, an extension of the US-based Joint Commission. Select hospitals outside the country adhere to US clinical protocols.

In fact, one organization that serves self-insured employers – North American Specialty Hospital in Cancun – even offers U.S. surgeons with US malpractice insurance who perform pre- and post-operative care in the US and then travel to Cancun for surgery. This ensures continuous engagement and continuity of care.

Hospitals
The ACA has contributed to hospitals experiencing higher volumes of insured patients, but those volumes would drop with the law’s repeal. It could also cause fewer people to keep prescription coverage, which would be modestly negative for the pharmaceutical industry.

Experts believe the majority of primary care physicians are open to changes in the law but overwhelmingly oppose full repeal, according to a survey published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Insurance coverage for the 20 million people who obtained insurance from the exchanges sparked growth in patient numbers for hospitals, which offset lower payments. Without this, hospitals can expect deepening economic problems. This could lead to higher prices, and greater impetus among individuals to seek medical care outside of the U.S.

Key Destinations for International Medical Travel
With the growing ranks of uninsured, medical travel options are likely to emerge as a critical solution to healthcare cost woes. Hospitals and providers in nearby locations such as Latin America – known as the LAC Region – are likely to become destinations of choice: less expensive travel expenses, reduced language barriers, and cultural familiarity. Individuals and employers will require guidance in terms of choosing the right providers and determining costs to overcome the challenges that lie ahead.

To view the original article, click here.

I’m Back

To quote Michael Corleone, in the Godfather, Part III, “just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.” To blogging again, that is; not joining the Mob.

There is so much to catch up on in my absence, that I decided to apprise you, my loyal readers, of a subject I discussed earlier this year, the proposed Amendment 69 in the state of Colorado.

To refresh your memories, Amendment 69 (couldn’t they come up with another number?), also called “ColoradoCare”, was an attempt to create a single-payer system in the Rockies.

My previous three posts, “Colorado Gets Real on Workers’ Comp and Health Care”, “Colorado “Single Payer” in Health Care Industry’s Sights”, and “A Little Disruption is a Good Thing” outlined the plan for single-payer, the opposition to single-payer from the health care industry, and how it would be a good thing to have some disruption, especially in workers’ comp.

My writing on the subject also got the notice of a fellow writer, Katie Kuehner-Hebert, of Workers Comp Forum, a sister publication of Risk & Insurance magazine. Her article discussed whether the proposed amendment would be helpful or harmful for workers’ comp payers.

Last month, the voters in Colorado defeated the measure by a wide margin. On election night, at 8:30 p.m., with nearly 1.8 million votes counted across the state, the amendment was trailing 79.6% to 20.4%. Vote totals at 7 a.m., the next morning, with 86 percent of the vote counted, the measure continued trailing at roughly the same percentage or 1,833,879 to 467,424.

As reported in the Denver Post by John Ingold, throughout the campaign, the measure had polled better with Democrats than Republicans, and even in left-leaning Denver, the amendment lost by 2-to-1.

What does the defeat of the single-payer measure mean for the future of health care and possibly workers’ comp?

It means that until there is a nation-wide push for single-payer, state-specific measures such as Amendment 69 will either go down to defeat, or be scraped altogether, as happened in Bernie Sanders’ home state of Vermont. Amendment 69 was an attempt to get there, but as I followed up some weeks later, it was targeted by the health care industry, and never had a chance.

That brings me to my next topic. The recent political campaign that witnessed a misogynistic, egomaniacal, sexist, racist, Corporatist/Fascist bully and demagogue elected president, and a Congress of like-minded semi-demagogues.

Now this capitalist clown is appointing men to his cabinet who stand in opposition to many things the American people believe in, and one man, Representative Tom Price, R-GA , an ardent opponent of the ACA, is to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the department which oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who makes the rules for the health care law and the other medical insurance programs of the government.

Folks, that’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Sooner or later, the chickens are going to be devoured, except it won’t be dead chickens lying around, but millions of Americans who will lose their health care newly won, and who may die because of it.

We still don’t know what will happen to the ACA after January 20th, because that man refuses to release his tax returns, refuses to commit to anything and goes off on tirades on Twitter to anyone who gets in his way. But I believe that this idiot and Congress will take away not only health care for millions, but eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, which is what Speaker Paul Ryan wants to do, but may be forced to back down once opposition gets wind of it.

Either way, health care in this country will get worse, not better.

That moron soon to occupy the White House has even nominated the CEO of a fast food chain to be Secretary of Labor. This guy, Andy Pudzer (or is it Putzer?, or just plain Putz?) wants to replace fast food workers with robots. Methinks he is one.

True, by 2025, it is predicted that 50% of all occupations will be replaced by automation, but the reason Pudzer wants to replace fast food workers with robots is so that the companies won’t have to pay living wages of $15 an hour to their workers.

I guess this putz would like to see workers thrown out into the street, especially younger minority workers who generally take these jobs to give themselves some work experience, and older workers left out of the changing economy.

You know what 50% less workers mean for workers’ comp? 50% less claims adjusters, physical therapists, durable medical equipment companies, pharmacy benefit management personnel, etc.

It also means that there will be more unease, anger, and maybe even violence. The kind of violence that has been avoided for decades, and that was predicted more than one hundred and fifty years ago by a certain German writer. And what if that 50% goes to 75%? What then?

One idea is to give these permanently unemployed a universal basic income (UBI), but with this Congress, that too will not happen.

There is an old Chinese curse that is appropriate now: “May you live in interesting times.” Interesting, possibly; dangerous, most definitely.