When Yelp Reviews Are Better Than Hospital Rating Systems
There is widespread industry agreement that moving towards reimbursing quality versus quantity of care is an important means for controlling medical costs. But how do we define “quality?” And, how do we quantify “quality”?
A recent Health Affairs study illustrates the difficulty of those questions.
The study reviewed four popular hospital rating services (Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades, U.S. News & World Report), and the measures they used were so divergent that their rankings became strikingly different:
- Not one hospital received high marks from all services.
- Only 10 percent of the hospitals rated highly by one service also received top marks from another.
- Twenty-seven hospitals were simultaneously rated among the nation’s best and worst by different services.
We deal with this frequently in our networks. We’ll have one client “absolutely” refuse to work with a provider, while another “absolutely” demands that same provider in their network.
Why such amazing disparity? It’s apparent that both hospital rating services and our clients utilize different factors to measure quality, and weigh those factors differently.
One scoring system may value cost per episode, while another values cost per diem. Another system might reward great valet parking, while another focuses on infection rates. Even slight variances can massively impact ratings. At this point, a Yelp review is likely just as good … or better.
So how do we get to meaningful provider ratings? It’s clearly a pervasive problem. In Rising’s 2014 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study, medical management ranked as the top core competency impacting claim outcomes, yet only 29 percent of respondents rate their medical providers. As demonstrated by the Health Affairs study, it’s really hard to delineate the best from the worst, and trying to make those determinations can cause organizational paralysis.
So, I recommend starting simple. First evaluate what outcomes are most important. Do you value customer experience, clinical, or financial outcomes and to what degree? Do you weigh factors differently by service type (e.g., MRIs weigh convenience highly; surgeries weigh clinical outcomes highly)? If your measurements don’t correlate with your goals, your process won’t produce valuable results.
Even slight variances can massively impact ratings. At this point, a Yelp review is likely just as good … or better.
After determining your most important factors, then your second step is to carve providers from the bottom. This avoids the inertia that can come from trying to rate “top” providers too soon. It’s much easier to eliminate the outlier providers that cause the majority of bad outcomes to instantly improve your program.
Only after these steps would I recommend trying to establish the “best” providers. The “best” often deal with the most difficult cases, with the longest recovery periods or possibly the “worst outcomes.” It’s easy to see how a gifted surgeon might suffer under many quality rating systems. On a positive note, the transition to ICD-10 will allow provider quality comparisons at a deeper level of specificity never possible with ICD-9. In other words, we’ll actually be able to compare apples to apples over time.
With this three-step iterative approach, you can create and refine measurements that bring real, long-term value to your organization…making your system better than Yelp.
Anticipating ACA Risks
As implementation of the Affordable Care Act rolls onward, many employers are still lagging in compliance due to the law’s complexity, according to a presentation at the annual RIMS conference held this week in New Orleans, La.
One reason could be is that the act itself is about 10,000 pages in length.
“People tell me they’ve read the whole thing. I don’t believe them,” said James Anelli, partner at LeClairRyan, a law firm that also provides business counsel.
The primary area of confusion, especially for smaller employers, is determining whether or not they are in fact covered by the ACA. Employers must offer “minimum-value” health care coverage if they have at least 50 full time – or “full time equivalent” – employees.
Full time equivalency is calculated by adding all part-timers’ service hours per month and dividing by 120. An average of 30 hours per week qualifies as full time. Employers with many part-time employees often get tripped up here, as “service hours” include actual work time, paid time off and vacation days.
Wellness plans present another challenge. Encouraged by the ACA as a method to create a healthier workforce and reduce costs long-term, wellness initiatives have come under heavy fire by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
The EEOC filed three lawsuits against employers in 2014, alleging that their wellness plans were not effectively “voluntary” due to severe penalties or withdrawal of incentives levied against employees who did not participate.
“If your company has not had a conversation with your D&O carrier, you’re a little behind on the times,” said Randy Jouben, director of risk management for Five Guy Enterprises, Inc.
“We know there will be claims,” and employers should know who will cover their defense costs.
“If there’s a section that plaintiff’s attorneys will latch onto, it’s the retaliation provision.” — Randy Jouben, director, risk management, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.
The ACA’s non-discrimination provision with respect to benefits also makes employers vulnerable to litigation. Employers can’t offer advantages like free coverage or shorter waiting periods to highly compensated employees.
The penalty for doing so is an excise tax of $100 per day for each individual negatively affected. But the real penalty will be in the cost to defend against claims by employees that claim they were treated unfairly.
“If there’s a section that plaintiff’s attorneys will latch onto, it’s the retaliation provision,” Jouben said.
An employee who is terminated could potentially claim they were targeted for objecting to an action or practice by their employer that does not comply with the ACA.
“The standard of proof is incredibly low,” Anelli said. An employee would simply have to show that their objection was a contributing factor to their termination; then the burden of proof falls on the employer to show it was non-discriminatory.
The speakers reiterated that “litigation will occur because of the sheer complexity and uncertainty surrounding numerous issues relating to ACA implementation.” With a lack of regulatory guidance in place, court decisions will fill in the gaps, and are likely to vary widely from state to state. In essence, ACA mandates will be enforced by plaintiff’s attorneys, more so than the federal government.
“Litigation will occur because of the sheer complexity and uncertainty surrounding numerous issues relating to ACA implementation.”
In addition to lack of guidance, many companies lack the resources to update their systems and policies quickly and effectively.
According to Jouben, risk management, human resources, IT and legal departments all need to work together to identify compliance issues, because “no one group will fully understand it.”
“This screams for ERM,” he said.
“This is an opportunity for risk managers to be the heroes. They have to let people know who’s on the hook.”
New reporting requirements also present additional risks. Beginning in 2015, employers must report certifications for penalty exemptions and other details of the coverage they offer to the IRS.
“Many HR systems are not set up to capture this information,” Jouben said. Many may not distinguish, for example, between stand-alone dental and vision plans – which may not be covered by the ACA – and those that are rolled into full health care plans, which would be subject to ACA provisions.
Collecting and reporting more detailed health plan information also introduces greater cyber risk.
Employers should adopt “clean desk” policies, ensuring that physical documents are scanned into systems that can encrypt their information and are then shredded.
Thirty states so far have enacted laws to destroy personal identifiable information or otherwise render it undecipherable through encryption. Forty six states have legislation requiring notification of a breach to all affected parties.
Jouben and Anelli also addressed concerns that ACA implementation will drive up health care costs. Jouben pointed out that hospitals and health care providers have been a driving force in stabilizing rate increases, and Medicare reimbursement rates have actually decreased. However, it’s unclear if this trend will continue.
Regardless of its effectiveness in reducing health care costs thus far, the reality is that the ACA is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and employers must face its complexity head-on, utilizing resources from every department to find gaps in compliance.
Pathogens, Allergens and Globalization – Oh My!
In 2014, a particular brand of cumin was used by dozens of food manufacturers to produce everything from spice mixes, hummus and bread crumbs to seasoned beef, poultry and pork products.
Yet, unbeknownst to these manufacturers, a potentially deadly contaminant was lurking…
What followed was the largest allergy-related recall since the U.S. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act became law in 2006. Retailers pulled 600,000 pounds of meat off the market, as well as hundreds of other products. As of May 2015, reports of peanut contaminated cumin were still being posted by FDA.
Food manufacturing executives have long known that a product contamination event is a looming risk to their business. While pathogens remain a threat, the dramatic increase in food allergen recalls coupled with distant, global supply chains creates an even more unpredictable and perilous exposure.
Recently peanut, an allergen in cumin, has joined the increasing list of unlikely contaminants, taking its place among a growing list that includes melamine, mineral oil, Sudan red and others.
“I have seen bacterial contaminations that are more damaging to a company’s finances than if a fire burnt down the entire plant.”
— Nicky Alexandru, global head of Crisis Management at AIG
“An event such as the cumin contamination has a domino effect in the supply chain,” said Nicky Alexandru, global head of Crisis Management at AIG, which was the first company to provide contaminated product coverage almost 30 years ago. “With an ingredient like the cumin being used in hundreds of products, the third party damages add up quickly and may bankrupt the supplier. This leaves manufacturers with no ability to recoup their losses.”
“The result is that a single contaminated ingredient may cause damage on a global scale,” added Robert Nevin, vice president at Lexington Insurance Company, an AIG company.
Quality and food safety professionals are able to drive product safety in their own manufacturing operations utilizing processes like kill steps and foreign material detection. But such measures are ineffective against an unexpected contaminant. “Food and beverage manufacturers are constantly challenged to anticipate and foresee unlikely sources of potential contamination leading to product recall,” said Alexandru. “They understandably have more control over their own manufacturing environment but can’t always predict a distant supply chain failure.”
And while companies of various sizes are impacted by a contamination, small to medium size manufacturers are at particular risk. With less of a capital cushion, many of these companies could be forced out of business.
Historically, manufacturing executives were hindered in their risk mitigation efforts by a perceived inability to quantify the exposure. After all, one can’t manage what one can’t measure. But AIG has developed a new approach to calculate the monetary exposure for the individual analysis of the three major elements of a product contamination event: product recall and replacement, restoring a safe manufacturing environment and loss of market. With this more precise cost calculation in hand, risk managers and brokers can pursue more successful risk mitigation and management strategies.
Product Recall and Replacement
Whether the contamination is a microorganism or an allergen, the immediate steps are always the same. The affected products are identified, recalled and destroyed. New product has to be manufactured and shipped to fill the void created by the recall.
The recall and replacement element can be estimated using company data or models, such as NOVI. Most companies can estimate the maximum amount of product available in the stream of commerce at any point in time. NOVI, a free online tool provided by AIG, estimates the recall exposures associated with a contamination event.
Restore a Safe Manufacturing Environment
Once the recall is underway, concurrent resources are focused on removing the contamination from the manufacturing process, and restarting production.
“Unfortunately, this phase often results in shell-shocked managers,” said Nevin. “Most contingency planning focuses on the costs associated with the recall but fail to adequately plan for cleanup and downtime.”
“The losses associated with this phase can be similar to a fire or other property loss that causes the operation to shut down. The consequential financial loss is the same whether the plant is shut down due to a fire or a pathogen contamination.” added Alexandru. “And then you have to factor in the clean-up costs.”
Locating the source of pathogen contamination can make disinfecting a plant after a contamination event more difficult. A single microorganism living in a pipe or in a crevice can create an ongoing contamination.
“I have seen microbial contaminations that are more damaging to a company’s finances than if a fire burnt down the entire plant,” observed Alexandru.
Handling an allergen contamination can be more straightforward because it may be restricted to a single batch. That is, unless there is ingredient used across multiple batches and products that contains an unknown allergen, like peanut residual in cumin.
Supply chain investigation and testing associated with identifying a cross-contaminated ingredient is complicated, costly and time consuming. Again, the supplier can be rendered bankrupt leaving them unable to provide financial reimbursement to client manufacturers.
“Until companies recognize the true magnitude of the financial risk and account for each of three components of a contamination, they can’t effectively protect their balance sheet. Businesses can end up buying too little or no coverage at all, and before they know it, their business is gone.”
— Robert Nevin, vice president at Lexington Insurance, an AIG company
Loss of Market
While the manufacturer is focused on recall and cleanup, the world of commerce continues without them. Customers shift to new suppliers or brands, often resulting in permanent damage to the manufacturer’s market share.
For manufacturers providing private label products to large retailers or grocers, the loss of a single client can be catastrophic.
“Often the customer will deem continuing the relationship as too risky and will switch to another supplier, or redistribute the business to existing suppliers” said Alexandru. “The manufacturer simply cannot find a replacement client; after all, there are a limited number of national retailers.”
On the consumer front, buyers may decide to switch brands based on the negative publicity or simply shift allegiance to another product. Given the competitiveness of the food business, it’s very difficult and costly to get consumers to come back.
“It’s a sad fact that by the time a manufacturer completes a recall, cleans up the plant and gets the product back on the shelf, some people may be hesitant to buy it.” said Nevin.
A complicating factor not always planned for by small and mid-sized companies, is publicity.
The recent incident surrounding a serious ice cream contamination forced both regulatory agencies and the manufacturer to be aggressive in remedial actions. The details of this incident and other contamination events were swiftly and highly publicized. This can be as damaging as the contamination itself and may exacerbate any or all of the three elements discussed above.
Estimating the Financial Risk May Save Your Company
“In our experience, most companies retain product contamination losses within their own balance sheet.” Nevin said. “But in reality, they rarely do a thorough evaluation of the financial risk and sometimes the company simply cannot absorb the financial consequences of a contamination. Potential for loss is much greater when factoring in all three components of a contamination event.”
This brief video provides a concise overview of the three elements of the product contamination event and the NOVI tool and benefits:
“Until companies recognize the true magnitude of the financial risk and account for each of three components of a contamination, they can’t effectively protect their balance sheet,” he said. “Businesses can end up buying too little or no coverage at all, and before they know it, their business is gone.”
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Lexington Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.