Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

A Solution for Chronic Pain?

Effort to contain rising medical costs in the past decade focused on the 5 percent of lost time claimants with chronic pain.

By Peter Rousmaniere

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Pain medications for these claimants rose to or exceeded $1,000 a month. These claimants now account for a third to a half of all claims costs.

And they are at the heart of the workers' compensation field's first serious crisis in patient safety. It is conceivable that more than 100 claimants die each year from misuse of prescribed pain killers.

Are we better off now than five years ago in meeting these challenges? In one way, yes. Pharmacy benefits managers are more assiduous in screening for poor doctor prescribing and more insistent in refusing to pay for inappropriate pain drugs.

In the main, however, our industry's approach was been way off. Until we correct this, chronic pain issues will remain demoralizing in various ways for claimant, clinician and adjuster.

To present a coherent, disciplined approach to chronic pain, I offer a program introduced in 2009 by Connecticut's self-insurance pool of 390 healthcare employers, called simply The Workers' Compensation Trust.

The Trust is using a five-pronged approach. Each of the five advances the effectiveness of the other four. Consider how many of the five you or your vendors apply.

First, the Trust works with its PBM to identify aberrant prescribing and to discourage inappropriate drugs. While lower unit costs of drugs is fine, the Trust focuses on what really drives drug costs, which is utilization.

Second, it screens early for high-risk claimants. Brian Downs, vice president for quality and claims, told me that the key indicators include nontraumatic soft-tissue injury, smoking, obesity, a clinical finding that surgery is not indicated for a patient and other underlying medical issues such as diabetes.

Third, the Trust has created a pain treatment network of doctors to whom to refer chronic pain patients. Downs said that if he limited the network to doctors he considers qualified, he would enroll only 10. That's rather sobering considering that Connecticut has a population of 3.5 million.

To meet state guidelines for access to doctors, he enrolled 33 into the pain network, triple his wish list. All of them are either anesthesiologists or physiatrists with a lot of experience in treating injured workers. The Trust is trying to avoid doctors who are intermittent pain treaters or who are not in tune with the issues of functional recovery and return to work.

Connecticut allows for employer/insurer choice of doctor. Downs said that he would build a network even if this formal power were absent.

Fourth, the Trust is stepping up to the challenge of drug misuse. It asked its network of doctors to have their patients sign a so-called opioid agreement, which expressly proscribes bad behavior. And it asks that patients be urine tested randomly.

Fifth, the Trust is pushing for exercise programs for chronic pain patients. Downs wants at least 50 percent of chronic pain patients enrolled in such programs and he wants them enrolled as part of a multidisciplinary program.

With this fifth prong, the Trust is correcting the habit of many insurers to fight against the least expensive and least risky treatments, which are exercise and counseling.

By refusing to pay for these treatments, insurers implicitly bolster the more expensive and risky treatments, such as surgeries.

PETER ROUSMANIERE is an expert on the workers' compensation industry.

March 1, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.