RIMS 2015

Anticipating ACA Risks

Speakers identify key compliance risks presented by the ACA and how to head off vulnerabilities.
By: | April 23, 2015 • 4 min read
ACA RIMS

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.

Advertisement




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.

Advertisement




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.

Katie Siegel is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at ksiegel@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Affordable Care Act

More Accountable Care

The ACA’s sweeping changes have many benefits, but adequate insurance limits for expanded accountable care organizations is a concern.
By: | April 8, 2015 • 8 min read
04012015_10_medmal_main

More physicians are selling their practices and becoming employees of larger entities, as the Affordable Care Act encourages the creation of expanded accountable care organizations.

Advertisement




So far, underwriters are viewing the trend as a positive, with improved risk management practices and less “finger-pointing” between hospitals and doctors during the claims resolution process, as all parties are now covered under the employers’ professional liability policies (physicians working as employees typically no longer buy medical malpractice insurance.)

But as more patients are served under this model, experts said, certain issues need to be ironed out, such as whether health care organizations can meet new “pay-for-performance” metrics and whether they are buying as much limits as they should to adequately handle jury awards.

Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance views the ongoing migration of physicians toward institutional employment as a favorable trend, both for the individual practitioner as well as for the institution employing them, said Leo Carroll, head of healthcare professional liability.

Leo Carroll, head of healthcare professional liability, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance

Leo Carroll, head of healthcare professional liability, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance

“Physicians are less distracted and burdened by some of the administrative responsibilities of running a practice, by handing that over to the institution to manage,” Carroll said.

Physicians benefit when they join an institution’s risk management program, in part by being able to use a common medical record system, usually electronic, to help to optimize technological efficiencies and promote consistent communication, he said.

Moreover, communication between physicians and institutions within the employment model generally is “a little tighter and more efficient,” as comprehensive treatment plans can be shared more effectively across a unified team.

Physicians are also integrated into a larger insurance program overseen by the institution, which allows them access to broader risk management training and promotes more time with patients, Carroll said.

Claims can also be resolved more efficiently because the “finger-pointing” between doctors and hospitals under separate insurance policies has been eliminated, and the cost of a coordinated defense using one law firm is typically much lower.

Still, a unified approach to resolving conflict “does come with compromise for all involved,” so that claims can be resolved in the best interests of all parties, Carroll said.

“The future is a pay-for-performance environment.” — Bob Allen, president, Pro-Praxis Insurance

“It’s really important for physicians to be open and well-informed about the culture of the institution they are joining,” he said.

“They need to make sure to understand that there may be differences in the way that care is delivered and what the expectations are of the physicians by the institutions.”

Medical specialists are also making the switch, said Mary Ursul, executive vice president at Coverys, a Boston-based provider of medical professional liability insurance.

In recent years, Coverys has seen instances where independent cardiologists in a community all become employed by a health system, Ursul said.

“Whether it is the push to upgrade equipment, implement electronic medical records, the uncertainty of future private payer and government reimbursement, or the predicted shortage of health care providers, the shift away from independence seems to be heavily weighted towards financial concerns,” she said.

Mary Ursul, executive vice president, Coverys

Mary Ursul, executive vice president, Coverys

The ACA’s call for more integrated care delivery is also prompting the move toward employment — as well as the increasing trend of hospitals and health care organizations to also acquire acute care, post-care, rehabilitation facilities and other entities across the health care delivery system, Ursul said.

As larger entities acquire physician practices, there are certain training protocols that should be considered to minimize risk exposure, she said.

“For example, something as simple but important as a new patient intake process within an unfamiliar electronic medical record can create situations where risk exposure can increase without sufficient training,” Ursul said.

“That could be a steep learning curve for staff in a physician’s medical office, therefore, time, training and appropriate resources are all important to make the transition smooth and to ensure that clinical information is handled appropriately so that risk can be reduced.”

Advertisement




While Coverys offers comprehensive clinical risk management services to its insured independent physicians, the carrier finds that not all physicians have access to such services, she said.

Coverys advises hospitals acquiring physician practices to conduct risk management assessments as soon as practical, a service that the carrier provides to insured hospitals.

“These assessments can provide a baseline of data on processes, possible gaps in best practices, and assist in determining what type of education and training staff may need,” Ursul said.

One benefit to being acquired is often access to professional clinical risk management resources through the hospital’s risk management department.

“This may not actually be viewed as a benefit from the physician side of the transition as physician practices are largely unregulated, so the level of oversight may be viewed as burdensome,” she said.

As hospitals and health care organizations acquire more physician practices and other entities throughout the health care spectrum, the risk in maintaining “the health of the community” becomes the new issue, said Bob Allen, president of Pro-Praxis Insurance in New York.

The Importance of Care Coordination

To manage the health within a patient population, there has to be coordinated care across physicians, hospitals and rehab services, Allen said.

Bob Allen, president, Pro-Praxis Insurance

Bob Allen, president, Pro-Praxis Insurance

“For example, one entity says that it can take care of all of the diabetes cases in its region for x number of dollars, and so the ‘risk’ is being able to have the hospital and the doctors on the same page to be able to take care of those cases at or under that targeted dollar amount,” he said.

That exposure is also translated into the financial risk of taking a flat fee for a particular type of care, what is known in the industry as a “capitated risk,” Allen said.

If a health insurer agrees to give a hospital and its physician network a flat fee to treat 1 million people in its area, the insurer may pay for office visits, including annual checkups, but it likely won’t pay if the network provides poor quality of care.

Insurers are now measuring that by “quality indicators,” he said. Insurers are increasingly reviewing the number of surgical infections or falls during hospital stays that occurred due to poor quality treatment or follow-up after surgeries, and determining whether the rates are too low, high enough or whether not to pay.

“The future is a pay-for-performance environment,” Allen said.

“If the network doesn’t perform well, it doesn’t get paid for services rendered — that’s the risk. It’s more of a business risk than a typical malpractice risk.”

To mitigate this financial risk, hospitals and physicians have to be on the same page, have greater collaboration, and “probably” the best way to do that is within an employer/employee structure, he said. Historically physicians had hospital privileges as independent contractors, but now as employees, there is better management of making sure doctors do checklists before performing surgery.

“As an integrated group, there are resources and rules for who will do the follow-up calls after surgery to make sure stitches are not going to be ripped open,” Allen said.

Pro-Praxis offers a professional liability program that covers every entity within the network — hospital, physicians and other employees such as certified nurse assistants, as well as other entities that hospitals have been acquiring such as nursing homes and outpatient surgery centers, as part of providing a continuum of care, he said.

Professional liability has taken the place of medical malpractice for individual physicians, Allen added.

For example, a hospital may pay $1 million in premiums, but after it brought a physician group of five doctors who each used to pay $100,000 in premiums for medical malpractice insurance, the hospital would now pay a total of less than $1.1 million in premiums.

In addition to less “finger-pointing” with a joint defense, typically the new employer/employee structure can result in “behavioral changes.”

“That is not to say that physicians didn’t behave well before, but now the hospital can better manage treatment and follow-up, and the workflow of all of its employees,” he said.

Advertisement




For insurers, the biggest challenge with the new structure pertains to policy limits, Allen said. Under the traditional structure, hospitals typically have a $2 million limit for professional liability and physician groups have a $1 million limit for malpractice. If they were sued and the jury awarded $3 million, the two entities could cover it with their respective limits.

“But now that there is no more sharing and just one health system that has to pay that $3 million jury award, the hospital would now have to pay $1 million out of pocket because its limit is still $2 million,” he said.

“This hasn’t happened yet, but from an underwriter’s perspective, we are concerned about loss allocation.”

Some health care organizations have been buying more limits and have been paying more in premiums, so they won’t have to pay out-of-pocket, something the insurers are hoping more will do as their exposure to losses increases.

“They have to be careful now that they’ve brought on all of those physicians as employees,” Allen said.

“Our job is to figure the impact of losses on how much limits they should get, and there is no hard data on that, yet.”

Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in California. She has more than two decades of journalism experience and expertise in financial writing. She can be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Sponsored Content by Helios

Mitigating Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of Opioid Medications

Proactive screening for fraud, waste and abuse situations is the best way to minimize their effects on opioid management.
By: | May 8, 2015 • 5 min read
SponsoredContent_Helios

There’s a fine line between instances of fraud, waste, and abuse. One of the key differences is intent and knowledge. Fraud is knowingly and willfully defrauding a health care benefit program for personal gain or profit. Each of the parties to a claim has opportunity and motive to commit fraud. For example, an injured worker might fill a prescription for pain medication only to sell it to a third party for profit. A prescriber might knowingly write prescriptions for certain pain medications in order to receive a “kickback” by the manufacturer.

Waste is overuse of services and misuse of resources resulting in unnecessary costs, whereas abuse is practices that are inconsistent with professional standards of care, leading to avoidable costs. In both situations, the wrongdoer may not realize the effects of their actions. Examples of waste include under-utilization of generics, either because of an injured worker’s request for brand name medication, or the prescriber writing for such. Examples of abusive behavior are an injured worker requesting refills too soon, and a prescriber billing for services that were not medically necessary.

Actions that Interfere with Opioid Management

Early intervention of potential fraud, waste, and abuse situations is the best way to mitigate its effects. By considering the total pharmacotherapy program of an injured worker, prescribing behaviors of physicians, and pharmacy dispensing patterns, opportunities to intervene, control, and correct behaviors that are counterproductive to treatment and increase costs become possible. Certain behaviors in each community are indicative of potential fraud, waste, and abuse situations. Through their identification, early intervention can begin.

Injured workers

  • Prescriber/Pharmacy Shopping – By going to different prescribers or pharmacies, an injured worker can acquire multiple prescriptions for opioids. They may be able to obtain “legitimate” prescriptions, as well as find those physicians who aren’t so diligent in their prescribing practices.
  • Utilizing Pill Mills – Pain clinics or pill mills are typically cash-only facilities that bypass physical exams, medical records, and x-rays and prescribe pain medications to anyone—no questions asked.
  • Beating the Urine Test – Injured workers can beat the urine drug test by using any of the multiple commercial products available in an attempt to mask results, or declaring religious/moral grounds as a refusal for taking the test. They may also take certain products known to deliver a false positive in order to show compliance. For example, using the over-the-counter Vicks® inhaler will show positive for amphetamines in an in-office test.
  • Renting Pills – When prescribers demand an injured worker submit to pill counts (random or not), he or she must bring in their prescription bottles. Rent-a-pill operations allow an injured worker to pay a fee to rent the pills needed for this upcoming office visit.
  • Forging or Altering Prescriptions –Today’s technology makes it easy to create and edit prescription pads. The phone number of the prescriber can be easily replaced with that of a friend for verification purposes. Injured workers can also take sheets from a prescription pad while at the physician’s office.

Physicians

  • Over-Prescribing of Controlled Substances – By prescribing high amounts and dosages of opioids, a physician quickly becomes a go-to physician for injured workers seeking opioids.
  • Physician dispensing and compounded medication – By dispensing opioids from their office, a physician may benefit from the revenue generated by these medications, and may be prone to prescribe more of these medications for that reason. Additionally, a physician who prescribes compounded medications before a commercially available product is tried may have a financial relationship with a compounding pharmacy.
  • Historical Non-Compliance – Physicians who have exhibited potentially high-risk behavior in the past (e.g., sanctions, outlier prescribing patterns compared to their peers, reluctance or refusal to engage in peer-to-peer outreach) are likely to continue aberrant behavior.
  • Unnecessary Brand Utilization – Writing prescriptions for brand medication when a generic is available may be an indicator of potential fraud, waste, or abuse.
  • Unnecessary Diagnostic Procedures or Surgeries – A physician may require or recommend tests or procedures that are not typical or necessary for the treatment of the injury, which can be wasteful.
  • Billing for Services Not Provided – Since the injured worker is not financially responsible for his or her treatment, a physician may mistakenly, or knowingly, bill a payer for services not provided.

Pharmacies

  • Compounded Medications – Compounded medications are often very costly, more so than other treatments. A pharmacy that dispenses compounded medications may have a financial arrangement with a prescriber.
  • Historical Non-Compliance – Like physicians, pharmacies with a history of non-compliance raise a red flag. In states with Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), pharmacies who fail to consult this database prior to dispensing may be turning a blind eye to injured workers filling multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians.
  • Excessive Dispensing of Controlled Substances – Dispensing of a high number of controlled substances could be a sign of aberrant behavior, either on behalf of the pharmacy itself or that injured workers have found this pharmacy to be lenient in its processes.

SponsoredContent_Helios

Clinical Tools for Opioid Management

Once identified, acting on the potential situations of fraud, waste, and abuse should leverage all key stakeholders. Intervention approaches include notifying claims professionals, sending letters to prescribing physicians, performing urine drug testing, reviewing full medical records with peer-to-peer outreach, and referring to payer special investigative unit (SIU) resources. A program that integrates clinical strategies to identify aberrant behavior, alert stakeholders of potential issues, act through intervention, and monitor progress with the injured worker, prescriber, and pharmacy communities can prevent and resolve fraud, waste, and abuse situations.

Proactive Opioid Management Mitigates Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Opioids can be used safely when properly monitored and controlled. By taking proactive measures to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse of opioids, payers improve injured worker safety and obtain more control over medication expenses. A Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) can offer payers an effective opioid utilization strategy to identify, alert, intervene upon, and monitor potential aberrant behavior, providing a path to brighter outcomes for all.

This article was produced by Helios and not the Risk & Insurance® editorial team.



Helios brings the focus of workers’ compensation and auto no-fault Pharmacy Benefit Management, Ancillary, and Settlement Solutions back to where it belongs—the injured person. This comes with a passion and intensity on delivering value beyond just the transactional savings for which we excel. To learn how our creative and innovative tools, expertise, and industry leadership can help your business shine, visit www.HeliosComp.com.
Share this article: