Category Archives: Providers

A Simple Friday Morning Health Care Philippic – (With Apologies to Simon & Garfunkle)

Health Affairs blog today posted an article about the new rules CMS released on Wednesday that would establish key parameters for the new Quality Payment Program, a framework that includes the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs). These policies were established by the latest, permanent ‘doc fix,’ the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

My writing this morning is not about the proposed rule, the Quality Payment Program, the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), or the Alternative Payment Models (APM’s).

But rather, it is about something I first encountered during my first MHA class on Health Care Quality. Reading the assigned readings in the one textbook we were given, I noticed that throughout the last several decades, CMS has released and created many rules, programs, models, and whatnot, that made my head spin. No doubt that is what the good folks at CMS intended, because these rules, programs, models, schemes and “solutions” have only seemed to make the American health care system more complex, confusing, bureaucratic, wasteful, idiotic, and expensive.

When supporters of the current challenger in the Democratic Party presidential primaries say that their candidate will give them free health care, do they really understand and realize how much of a house of cards the entire system is, and one that will collapse if given enough time?

How so, you ask? Well, if you know of any other human-devised system that is so top-heavy, so convoluted, and so complex that the sheer weight of its rules, regulations, laws, programs and models will cause it to collapse, let me know, because the US health care system is the only one I see.

What those who advocate Medicare for All don’t realize (I am one too, but I realize what is at stake), is that even with all of this complexity, people are profiting from the ever continuing releasing of proposed rules, programs and models, and that to simply do away with them is equally as bad as letting it collapse, but at least when it does collapse, we can start all over again and provide the single payer system they want.

Yet, if we scrape it now, those who just got health coverage will lose it, those who never had it will never be able to afford it, and the entities that profit from it will work day and night to prevent the scraping of their “golden goose”.

I don’t have all the answers, but I know this, too many rules, programs, incentives, models, schemes, etc, etc, and so forth, only makes things worse, not better. I don’t remember learning about other nations’ health care systems being so top-heavy and so complex, and maybe, in the final analysis, is why their systems work, and ours does not.

When an American citizen goes abroad and needs medical care in a country such as France (I read one person’s account of what they experienced), the bill they received after treatment was only a few dollars, not hundreds or thousands. Why is that? Maybe because they don’t have a CMS screwing it up.

Maybe it’s because their doctors don’t wave expensive watches in the faces of their patients, or describe their recent safaris where they shot some endangered species in Africa because they were wealthy and believe they have the right to do so, as a Midwestern dentist did last year to a prized lion.

I also remember that during the run-up to the enactment of the ACA, many senior citizens demanded that the government keep its hands off of their Medicaid, and that they did not want some government bureaucrat to make health care decisions for them and their families. Who do they think makes these decisions in health insurance companies? Do they know any corporate “bureaucrats”, or do they think that because they work for a private company, that they are not part of a bureaucracy?

I’ll end this philippic here, but it makes me wonder why we haven’t gotten wise to the fact that too many cooks, too many rules, etc., only make things worse, not better. We need to wake up and join the rest of the industrialized world.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Blog is now viewed all over the world in 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.

Fee Schedules May Increase Number of Work Comp Claims

The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) published a new study that examined whether fee schedules increase the number of workers’ compensation claims.

In previous reports, the WCRI found that in many states, workers’ compensation pays higher prices than group health.

Another study they issued, found that in some states, workers’ compensation prices were two to four times higher than group health prices.

Moreover, in most states, WCRI found, the workers’ compensation systems rely heavily on the treating physician to determine whether a specific patient’s injury is work-related or not.

Dr. Olesya Fomenko, the author of the report and an economist at WCRI, said that, “Policymakers have always focused on the impact fee schedules have on access to care as well as utilization of services. This study shines a light on an issue that policymakers and other system stakeholders might not be thinking of, which is that physicians may call an injury work-related in order to receive a higher reimbursement for care he or she provides to the patient.”

Two of the findings from the study are as follows:

  • If the cause of injury is not straightforward (e.g., soft tissue conditions), case-shifting is more common in the states with higher workers’ compensation reimbursement rates. In particular, the study estimated that a 20 percent growth in workers’ compensation payments for physician services provided during an office visit increases the number of soft tissue injuries being called work-related by 6 percent.
  • There was no evidence of case-shifting from group health to workers’ compensation for patients with conditions for which causation is more certain (e.g., fractures, lacerations, and contusions).

What does this mean?

It means that physicians seeking higher reimbursements are classifying some injuries as work-related, and that there is no evidence of case-shifting from group health where the cause is more determinable.

What it also means is that no matter what the industry tries to do to lower medical costs, there is always a way for physicians and other stakeholders to do the opposite for their own benefit.

And given that, you have to wonder why the industry is deaf, dumb and blind to alternatives that apply basic economic laws to saving money. If you can get a good or service at the same or better quality, and at lower cost, no matter where that is, you go there.

It works that way when buying cars in one state, when the buyer lives in another state, and it should work that way with medical care, particularly regarding surgery.

The industry should not listen to certain individuals who dismiss this idea, and call the locations where better or equal care can be obtained at lower cost, “Turkishmaninacanstans“.

It demeans the hard work and dedication of medical professionals and business people who have spent years and money on building a business to provide health care that is affordable and of the highest quality.

It insults the education and training of doctors, nurses, and medical technicians in those countries who otherwise might not be working in such a highly respect profession as medicine.

It only proves that the author of that canard is a coward, a racist, and dead wrong.

 

Health care delivery varies a LOT – and there’s your opportunity

So, medicine is a science right? If it is, then the delivery of care should be consistent across the country for patients with identical conditions, right. Absolutely not. That’s the quick takeaway from a terrific panel this morning at WCRI; … Continue reading →

Source: Health care delivery varies a LOT – and there’s your opportunity

Joe Paduda, blogging from the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute’s (WCRI) annual conference in Boston, has shined a light on where medical travel providers can prove that their lower cost, high quality medical care can produce better outcomes for both patients (injured workers) and their employers.

If what Joe says about a huge variation in medical care delivery across geography – why medical care for identical conditions for the same type of patient varies greatly from place to place is pervasive, fascinating, and, more to the point, driver of low quality and high cost care is true, then it would provide an opportunity for international medical providers to stress in their marketing that they do not have different kinds of treatment for the same type of patient, no matter where the medical care is received.

The rest of his article should give international medical providers a better understanding of how to attract not only patients (injured workers), but their employers and insurance companies.

Proving that, for example, disc replacement provides a better outcome than spinal fusion and is lower cost in your facility outside the US, will go a long way to convince both patients and employers and payers of the efficacy of medical travel.

Knowing that there is such a wide discrepancy in delivery of care across the US for the same type of patient and is responsible for lower quality and higher cost is a strength the medical travel industry can exploit.

What do you think?

California Work Comp: What a Mess!

Kevin Tremblay, V.P., National Accounts for SMS National Solutions in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and a connection of mine on LinkedIn, penned the following article about California work comp and liens.

Normally, I shy away from articles involving California work comp, but on one or two occasions have written articles about it that I feel fit the subject of this blog. This article is one of those, but is more about the mismanagement of one state’s work comp system, rather than the state of affairs of the entire system nationwide.

Here is Kevin’s article in full:

California Workers Compensation System – Liens, Waste and Medical Provider Billed Charges

The California workers’ compensation system is unique like no other state in the country. There are two distinct sides of the equation in California workers’ compensation, Applicant and Defense.

Applicant-The party, usually the claimant that opens a case at the local Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) office by filing an application for adjudication of claim.

Defense-The party, usually the employer or its insurance company opposing the claimant in a dispute over services and benefits.

Lien-A right or claim for payment against a workers’ compensation case. A lien claimant, such as a medical provider, can file a form with the local Workers Compensation Appeals Board to request payments of money owed in a workers’ compensation case.

OMFS-The official medical fee schedule is promulgated by the DWC, Department of workers Compensation administrative director under labor code section 5307.1 and can be found in section 9789.10 of title 8, California code of regulations. It is used for payment of medical services required to treat work related injuries and illnesses. The California Official Medical Fee Schedule is considered prima facie evidence of reasonableness.

A lien claimant has the burden of proving that any amount charged is reasonable, and a lien claimant must prove that there are “extraordinary circumstances” that justify a fee that exceeds the Official Medical Fee Schedule.

According to some recent reports, an expected 500,000 liens will be filed by treating medical providers in the California Workers Compensation system in 2015, costing employers and insurers an estimated $200 million dollars in loss adjustment expenses and delaying claims adjudication.

Some of these liens forces some employers or insurance companies to settle liens they may not be legally obligated to pay simply to settle and close the claim to avoid paying additional disability, administrative and legal costs. Emphasis here on, ‘forces

Some additional statistical findings reported by the DWC are:

  • Medical treatment liens account for more than 60 percent of the liens filed, and 80 percent of the dollars in dispute.
  • $1.5 billion per year is claimed in medical lien disputes after adjusting for amended lien files.
  • One-third of medical liens involve disputes over the application of the Official Medical Fee Schedule.
  • Authorization for treatment was in dispute in seven out of 10 medical liens surveyed.
  • Reasons treatment was not authorized were: 37 percent provider not authorized to treat (mostly out-of-network); 7 percent denied claims; 6 percent medical necessity of treatment rejected by utilization review; 1 percent contested body parts; 20 percent authorization status unknown or not stated.
  • The volume of liens filings is sensitive to procedural changes, such as the adoption or repeal of a $100 filing fee and the adoption of new filing procedures.
  • Up to 30 percent of medical liens are prematurely submitted before the time has elapsed for the claims administrator to pay or object to the provider’s bill.
  • Ten percent of medical liens are submitted on the date the service is provided.
  • Nearly one quarter of medical liens are filed more than two years after the last date of services for which payment is claimed, including 6 percent that are filed five or more years after the last date of services.

The report was based on information provided by the Division of Workers’ Compensation, and was an attempt to characterize the problem so policymakers can propose solutions to the lien problem.

Source: CHSWC/InsuranceJournal.com

The Lien System Game:

Bill ($5,000) – Paid ($1,000)-in accordance with OMFS

Fee to file the lien the claim in court by medical provider $150.00

Lien balance $4000

Demand: $3800

Offer: $2000

Negotiation continues

Collector says $3200 is the bottom line for him

Adjuster forced to pay and settle to avoid additional claim cost agreement at $3200

So while the DWC and legislators continue to sort over of resolve the issues of the lien process, what can adjuster’s implement to mitigate the process and reduce claims costs? The following strategies are a good place to start:

  • How much is the lien?
  • How much is the OMFS or reasonable value of the lien?
  • What are your lien defenses?
    • AOE/COE
    • MPN
    • OMFS or other fee schedules / IBR
    • Reasonableness & Necessity
    • UR / IMR
    • Other technical issues
  • What evidence do you have to support your position? Objection letters? MPN Notices?
  • Did you serve your evidence on the lien claimants and/or your counsel?
  • What are the probable economics of your decision to settle or fight?
  • How much are you willing to pay to settle or resolve the lien?
  • We paid per OMFS & DOS is after 1/1/13
  • You failed to request 2nd review within 90 days (LC 4603.2(e)(2))
  • You failed to request IBR within 30 days from 2nd review (LC 4603.6(a)
  • You are done. The Code says: “the bill shall be deemed satisfied and neither the employer nor the employee shall be liable for any further payments.”
  • Any appearance at the board on your lien will result in a petition for costs & sanctions! [LC 5811 & Valdez decision (en banc) (77 CCC 1113)]

The State of California has taken recent measures with the advent of SB863 and labor codes 9792.5.12 and 4903.1(b) regarding independent bill review process and tighter lien submission rules. California legislators need to continue to act and close the loop holes in existing laws to mitigate and eventually eliminate the magnitude of waste and abuse by certain medical providers that is currently taking place and plaguing the workers’ compensation system.

The lien process is certainly unique to the rest of the country’s state by state workers’ compensation system. So what is it? Unethical gaming of the system and adding tremendous unnecessary costs and clogging the California courts and workers’ compensation system, no question. Anything more, you decide…..

Challenges Facing Work Comp

In three weeks, members of the medical tourism industry will gather in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to attend the 6th Mexico Medical Tourism Congress.

You may recall that I was invited and attended the Congress last year, and was invited again this year. However, due to personal and financial reasons, I am not attending this year.

I am however, posting my PowerPoint presentation below for your viewing, with narration by yours truly. I hope you find it interesting and informative.

Challenges Facing Workers’ Comp (PowerPoint)

Challenges Facing Workers’ Comp (video)

 

New Study Confirms ACA May Shift Claims to Work Comp

The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WRCI) released a study today indicating that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may shift claims into workers’ compensation.

Readers of this blog will have read by now the following posts from earlier this year that discussed at length what many in the workers’ compensation and insurance industries said would happen under the ACA.

Here are the posts:

Accountable Care Organizations May Shift Claims into Workers’ Comp

Failure to Expand Medicaid Could Lead to Cost-Shift to Work Comp

Update on Affordable Care Act’s Impact on Workers’ Comp

Challenges Remain in Physician Payment Reform

The WCRI study is quite long, so I will only give you the introduction and summary of findings. You may purchase the complete study by clicking the following link: http://www.wcrinet.org/result/will_aca_shift_wc_result.html.

The study begins by asking the question, “what is the extent to which the move to “capitated” group health arrangements under the ACA leads to cases that previously would have been paid under group health insurance to end up being paid under workers’ compensation.”

They refer to this as case-shifting, as opposed to cost-shifting, and state that if just 3% of group health cases with soft tissue injuries were shifted to workers’ comp, workers’ comp costs in a state like Pennsylvania could increase by nearly $100 million.

In California, the increase would be higher. More than $225 million, and in Iowa, the additional workers’ compensation costs would be around $25 million, or about 5% of the total benefits paid.

One mechanism the WCRI says by which cases would be shifted to work comp is the growth in the number of patients covered by “capitated” health plans.

Medical providers are reimbursed for each procedure in traditional fee-for-service medicine, which is often called, retrospective reimbursement.

Under capitated plans, the study says, medical providers receive a fixed annual payment per patient, which is often called, prospective reimbursement.

As I reported in my previous articles about cost-shifting, a patient covered by a capitated group plan presents different financial incentives about key decisions to a doctor and the health care organization they belong to, compared with a patient covered by a fee-for-service plan.

For example, if a capitated patient has back pain, the provider and the health organization do not get paid for additional care; whereas, for a patient under fee-for-service, the provider and the organization get paid for each service rendered. Workers’ compensation, the study points out, almost always reimburses on a fee-for-service basis.

Another question the study raised was, “to what extent do the financial incentives facing providers and their health care organizations that arise out of capitation influence the determination of whether or not a case is work-related?

The decision of where to send the bill, the study says, should align with the physician’s assessment of whether the cause was work-related or not. It is the amount of uncertainty about the cause of the medical condition that provides the opportunity, according to the WCRI, for the financial incentives to influence the decision.

How the ACA ties into this is apparent in my post, “Accountable Care Organizations May Shift Claims into Workers’ Comp.” According to the WCRI, the ACA promotes the growth of ACO’s, which will increasingly integrate care from all providers under one capitated payment. They will receive one fixed payment regardless of the treatment the patient receives.

This, they say, will provide strong incentives to classify injuries as workers’ comp cases where possible. To date, over 500 ACO’s have been formed since passage of the ACA.

Additionally, the Obama Administration’s proposed moving to “value-based” reimbursement systems for physicians under Medicare (see my post, “Challenges Remain in Physician Payment Reform”), is also cited in the study as another mechanism leading to case shifting.

The WCRI states that the exact definition of this system is unclear, but that it is widely understood that this would imply more prospective reimbursement.

They point to research that indicates that when Medicare changes its payment system, there is a significant price change among commercial insurers. This, too, could further induce shifting of certain cases, they report. (see “Shared Savings ACO Program reaps the most for Primary-care Physicians”)

What are the findings?

The WCRI looked at three groups of states. The first group was states where capitated plans were very common, the second group was states where capitated plans were somewhat common, and the third group was states where capitated plans were less common.

Case-shifting was only found in states where capitated plans were very common, and there was little case-shifting in the other two groups.

Case-shifting to workers’ comp, the study implies, will be expected to increase as capitation becomes more common.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • Patients covered by a capitated health plan was 11% more likely to have a soft tissue injury (back pain) called work-related than a patient covered by fee-for-service.
  • Patients with conditions for more certain causes (fractures, lacerations, contusions), there was no difference between patients covered by capitation or by fee-for-service; hence no case-shifting.
  • Case-shifting was more likely in states where a higher percentage of workers were covered by capitated plans. Two reasons for this are: more cases would be shifted if more patients were covered by such plans, and when these plans were more common, providers were more aware of the financial incentives to case-shift. In states where at least 22% of workers had capitated plans, the odds of a soft tissue injury being work-related was 31% higher than workers in fee-for-service.
  • In states where capitation was less common, there was no case-shifting. Providers were less aware of financial incentives when capitation was infrequent.

What does this mean?

This study confirms what I have been reporting on for much of the past half year, that the ACA may lead to more claims (or cases) shifted into workers’ comp, thus adding to the cost of medical care under workers’ comp, and further burdening an already burdened and broken system.

But it also confirms that there are rough times ahead for the industry, and that unless new ideas are brought forth and alternatives are seriously considered, and not outright dismissed just because someone say they should be dismissed, no matter how many years’ experience they have in workers’ comp, things will get worse.

The world is changing. Things once thought impossible are possible. Ideas once ridiculed are now accepted reality. No one can stop change, not by saying so, nor by any action on their part, so you might as well open your eyes, ears and minds to new ideas, and not shut them just because you don’t agree with them. One day soon, you will be gone, and the problems will still be there. The way forward is to embrace change now so that the future is better for all.

Clarification

Some of you may be thrown off by the title of this article as meaning that the study confirms that the ACA will lead to case-shifting. That is not what was meant. What was meant was that the study confirms what had been previously reported by others and that I had written about in the posts I referenced in my article. If there was any misconstruction on my part, I apologize.

Influx of Newly Insured Not Impacting Primary-Care Physicians

Readers of this blog will recognize the following three previous posts, “Will Medical Tourism Relieve the Doctor Shortage Due to Obamacare?” from 2013, “Affordable Care Act to Lead to Physician Shortages ― What it Could Mean for Medical Tourism in Work Comp” from 2014, and “New Report on Doctor Shortage: What it could mean for Workers’ Comp and Medical Tourism” earlier this year, in which I discussed the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly referred to as “Obamacare” on the predicted shortage of primary-care physicians.

Today, Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, and David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “ How Primary-Care Physicians Are Handling the Influx of Newly Insured.

According to Altman and Blumenthal, most physicians in primary-care said that their ability to provide high-quality care had not changed since January 2014.

Altman and Blumenthal included a graph showing the percentages of physicians who were polled by Kaiser and the Commonwealth fund on their ability to provide high-quality care.

BN-KJ094_ACApri_G_20150917182430

The survey found that, so far, the fears of problems have largely not come to pass. However, physicians did report increased demand for services under the ACA; four in ten (44%) said that the total number of patients they see had increased since January 2041.

Six in ten, or (59%), reported an increase in the number of patients who were newly insured or covered by Medicaid, but this was not swamping their practice.

The chart shows that 59% said their ability to provide care had stayed the same, 20% said that it had improved and gotten worse.

Altman and Blumenthal concluded their article by saying that not yet two years into the coverage expansion of the ACA, it is still too early to know what effect will be, long-term, on the demand for services.

It could also be, they said, that the net increase of 16 million newly insured is less of a burden than expected; however, they concluded by saying that primary-care providers have been able to keep up demand without any negative impact.

Whether this remains so, is yet to be determined, but so far, it appears that there is no nationwide crisis.