A Tale of Two Physicians
There are many factors that influence the outcome of a workers’ compensation claim. Some, such as the body part and nature of injury, come as no surprise. Similarly, the state of jurisdiction and associated regulatory requirements are long-recognized as having an impact. One might not consider however, the role of the prescribing physician and how their demographics and behaviors influence outcomes.
To illustrate this, here is a tale of two physicians, Physician A and Physician B. Both are committed to caring for their patients but have markedly different work environments and practice structures that influence their prescribing behaviors.
Physician A treats workers’ compensation patients in a big city. She is well-known and well-respected in the community and has a thriving practice. Physician A is employed by the local hospital and she supplements her salary by performing some in-office, minor procedures, such as skin biopsies and steroid injections for achy shoulders. She belongs to an accountable care organization (ACO) that has quality metrics in place to help its providers follow evidence-based medicine and best practice treatment models. These quality metrics, if met, result in some shared savings that are passed on to physicians as a financial reward for better outcomes.
Physician B sees patients in a rural setting in his own, private practice. For him, the efficiency at which he can see patients determines whether or not he will meet his overhead each month. His nurse fields as many patient questions as possible in advance, and he does a quick exam and writes a prescription. Physician B feels constantly inundated with the increasing changes in healthcare and technology. He has tried to incorporate evidence-based guidelines into his practice but, with everything else on his plate, he is frustrated at the mere thought of keeping up with the constantly expanding medical research. To supplement his income, he works with a physician dispensing company and speaks on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.
A claims professional, in the process of working her caseload, discovers that Physician A’s patient is taking large doses of opioid medications yet has never had any urine drug screens or other documented opioid monitoring. Physician B’s patient was identified by the PBM’s early intervention program as requiring further review. Physician B’s patient is seeing multiple physicians, filling prescriptions at multiple pharmacies, and has a high-risk of long-term opioid use and a high likelihood of prolonged claim duration.
Both physicians receive correspondence from the PBM requesting a Peer-to-Peer medication review. In addition to including all requisite patient information, the letter is courteous and professional, relaying the objective of speaking directly with the prescribing physician in order to discuss the findings and recommendations.
Two Very Different Reactions
Upon receiving the reviewing physician’s phone call, Physician A was appreciative and freely commented that she had missed opportunities to apply opioid monitoring strategies provided by the PBM. She also agreed to convert the claimant’s antacid to an over-the-counter version. The reviewing physician completed a report detailing his conversation with Physician A and submitted copies to her, the claimant’s insurer, the PBM, and the claims specialist. The agreed-upon changes took effect on the next refill.
In contrast, it took several calls from the reviewing physician to convince Physician B’s receptionist to let him speak with Physician B. At first, Physician B was quiet and did not offer much feedback to the recommendations provided by the reviewing physician. He was irritated by the request to switch the claimant’s brand medications to generic, interpreting this request and the entire call to be solely focused on cost savings. Once discussion about the claimant’s opioids began, Physician B couldn’t contain his anger, declaring, “This is my patient! You have never even seen this patient before, so who are you to tell me how to manage his pain?”
Having anticipated such a possible reaction, the reviewing physician calmly deescalated the conversation with careful and sensitive language to reassure Physician B that the recommendations are entirely rooted on evidence-based guidelines and that the control of the patient’s pain remains a priority. The reviewing physician was able to refer to alternative dosing schedules and non-opioid treatment options to address the patient’s neuropathic pain. He also pointed out that the medications being prescribed for insomnia could interact with the claimant’s pain medications, possibly resulting in over sedation and death.
By the end of the call, Physician B realized that he had indeed overlooked some of the medication interactions and opportunities to more effectively manage the claimant’s pain without the use of opioid analgesics. He did not verbalize this realization, but agreed to make some changes to the medication regimen. He was still reluctant to change the claimant’s antacid to an over-the-counter version, citing his experience that they are not as effective as those dispensed by pharmacies. A few months later, the PBM performed a retrospective review; the medication therapy had changed – except for the antacid.
While traveling different paths, both physicians responded favorably to the Peer-to-Peer intervention.
By understanding the challenges some physicians are facing and the impact they can have on prescribing behaviors, payers can be better equipped to engage physicians in cooperative care management. A collaborative approach emphasizing the patient’s safety can enhance the physician’s willingness to compromise with medication therapy recommendations. In the end, the result is a better outcome for the payer, physician, and injured worker.
This article was produced by Helios and not the Risk & Insurance® editorial team.
State Law Exacerbates Fraud Among Peace Officers
For several years now, California police officers, sheriffs’ deputies and firefighters have been entitled to a full salary with no tax deductions for a year when they’re injured on the job.
Apparently, benefits afforded through California Labor Code Section 4850 [LC 4850] have been tempting enough to result in instances of workers’ compensation as well as long-term disability insurance fraud.
Since select probation department employees became eligible to receive LC 4850 benefits in 2000, increases in salary-continuation workers’ compensation benefits to individuals claiming they were injured on the job have increased fourfold, according to Alex Rossi, chief program specialist with the LA County Chief Executive office.
That’s led the Los Angeles County probation department to beef up its investigations and begin to make new arrests. These included the arrest of former probation officer Robyn Palmer on May 16.
David Grkinich, bureau chief of professional standards for the LA County probation department, emphasized that he and his colleagues are now more determined than ever to investigate alleged on-the-job injury cases more closely and to prosecute fraud and employee misconduct.
His advice to other law-enforcement officials dealing with similar problems:
“Never lose track of your employees; make sure someone is engaging with them,” he said. “Learn how they’re doing and when they’re going to come back to work.” That can prevent them from “falling between the cracks,” Grkinich said.
Apparently, California’s new labor laws have had a profound impact on benefits payments. County payroll records indicate that in [calendar year] 1999, the probation department paid out approximately $1.7 million in salary continuation benefits due to workers’ compensation claims, Rossi told Risk and Insurance®. By 2001, the payout of salary continuation — in part due to probation’s inclusion under LC 4850 — was approximately $6.8 million, he said.
Besides that, total reported injuries per fiscal year — expressed as a percentage of the total number of employees — was just 11.22 percent in 1999 versus 15.24 percent by 2002, said the County CEO Risk Management Branch.
Snuffing Out Fraud
When dealing with insurance fraud, it’s easier to detect when there is a paper trail, Grkinich explained. In Palmer’s case, for instance, “Our return-to-work staff noticed a discrepancy on some of the paperwork she is alleged to have forged,” he explained.
Palmer had filed for and received disability benefits for an alleged back and shoulder injury she claimed occurred in July 2013 while restraining a minor. Probation records showed that on the alleged injury date, Palmer was not at work and there were no employee records documenting any work-related injury involving Palmer, the probation department stated.
A probation department complex case committee worked closely with the California Insurance Department and Allstate’s the American Heritage Life Insurance Co. unit. “As a result of this collaboration, Allstate submitted the allegation that Robyn Palmer filed numerous fraudulent insurance claims and received disability insurance benefits she was not entitled to for a total amount of more than $29,122,” the department said in a statement.
Palmer was arrested on 14 felony counts for insurance fraud, forgery, wire fraud, and grand theft. She was arrested and transported to the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, California, where she was booked into custody awaiting arraignment. If convicted, Palmer could be sentenced to state prison or county jail, and was being held without bail as of late May.
Much harder to detect, said Grkinich, are cases where someone is “fully able to do what they say they can’t do,” and there’s no documentation to prove it. Here, he noted, surveillance and other sorts of deep digging are required.
Within the past year, the county probation department added a special projects team comprised of four supervisory level investigators to get things moving. So far, he said, “Our staff has assisted with the prosecution only two cases,” of insurance fraud, but is investigating several more.
Legal reforms could certainly help, he added. “The biggest problem I see out here is the way our law is written and that it makes it more profitable for some employees to stay home,” rather than do their jobs.
Commercial Auto Warning: Emerging Frequency and Severity Trends Threaten Policyholders
The slow but steady climb out of the Great Recession means businesses can finally transition out of survival mode and set their sights on growth and expansion.
The construction, retail and energy sectors in particular are enjoying an influx of business — but getting back on their feet doesn’t come free of challenges.
Increasingly, expensive commercial auto losses hamper the upward trend. From 2012 to 2015, auto loss costs increased a cumulative 20 percent, according to the Insurance Services Office.
“Since the recession ended, commercial auto losses have challenged businesses trying to grow,” said David Blessing, SVP and Chief Underwriting Officer for National Insurance Casualty at Liberty Mutual Insurance. “As the economy improves and businesses expand, it means there are more vehicles on the road covering more miles. That is pushing up the frequency of auto accidents.”
For companies with transportation exposure, costly auto losses can hinder continued growth. Buyers who partner closely with their insurance brokers and carriers to understand these risks – and the consultative support and tools available to manage them – are better positioned to protect their employees, fleets, and businesses.
Liberty Mutual’s David Blessing discusses key challenges in the commercial auto market.
“Since the recession ended, commercial auto losses have challenged businesses trying to grow. As the economy improves and businesses expand, it means there are more vehicles on the road covering more miles. That is pushing up the frequency of auto accidents.”
–David Blessing, SVP and Chief Underwriting Officer for National Insurance Casualty, Liberty Mutual Insurance
More Accidents, More Dollars
Rising claims costs typically stem from either increased frequency or severity — but in the case of commercial auto, it’s both. This presents risk managers with the unique challenge of blunting a double-edged sword.
Cumulative miles driven in February, 2016, were up 5.6 percent compared to February, 2015, Blessing said. Unfortunately, inexperienced drivers are at the helm for a good portion of those miles.
A severe shortage of experienced commercial drivers — nearing 50,000 by the end of 2015, according to the American Trucking Association — means a limited pool to choose from. Drivers completing unfamiliar routes or lacking practice behind the wheel translate into more accidents, but companies facing intense competition for experienced drivers with good driving records may be tempted to let risk management best practices slip, like proper driver screening and training.
Distracted driving, whether it’s as a result of using a phone, eating, or reading directions, is another factor contributing to the number of accidents on the road. Recent findings from the National Safety Council indicate that as much as 27% of crashes involved drivers talking or texting on cell phones.
The factors driving increased frequency in the commercial auto market.
In addition to increased frequency, a variety of other factors are driving up claim severity, resulting in higher payments for both bodily injury and property damage.
Treating those injured in a commercial auto accident is more expensive than ever as medical costs rise at a faster rate than the overall Consumer Price Index.
“Medical inflation continues to go up by about three percent, whereas the core CPI is closer to two percent,” Blessing said.
Changing physical medicine fee schedules in some states also drive up commercial auto claim costs. California, for example, increased the cost of physical medicine by 38 percent over the past two years and will increase it by a total of 64 percent by the end of 2017.
And then there is the cost of repairing and replacing damaged vehicles.
“There are a lot of new vehicles on the road, and those cost more to repair and replace,” Blessing said. “In the last few years, heavy truck sales have increased at double digit rates — 15 percent in 2014, followed by an additional 11 percent in 2015.”
The impact is seen in the industry-wide combined ratio for commercial auto coverage, which per Conning, increased from 103 in 2014 to 105 for 2015, and is forecast to grow to nearly 110 by 2018.
None of these trends show signs of slowing or reversing, especially as the advent of driverless technology introduces its own risks and makes new vehicles all the more valuable. Now is the time to reign in auto exposure, before the cost of claims balloons even further.
The factors driving up commercial auto claims severity.
Data Opens Window to Driver Behavior
To better manage the total cost of commercial auto insurance, Blessing believes risk management should focus on the driver, not just the vehicle. In this journey, fleet telematics data plays a key role, unlocking insight on the driver behavior that contributes to accidents.
“Roughly half of large fleets have telematics built into their trucks,” Blessing said. “Traditionally, they are used to improve business performance by managing maintenance and routing to better control fuel costs. But we see opportunity there to improve driver performance, and so do risk managers.”
Liberty Mutual’s Managing Vital Driver Performance tool helps clients parse through data provided by telematics vendors and apply it toward cultivating safer driving habits.
“Risk managers can get overwhelmed with all of the data coming out of telematics. They may not know how to set the right parameters, or they get too many alerts from the provider,” Blessing said.
“We can help take that data and turn it into a concrete plan of action the customer can use to build a better risk management program by monitoring driver behavior, identifying the root causes of poor driving performance and developing training and other approaches to improve performance.”
Actions risk managers can take to better manage commercial auto frequency and severity trends.
Rather than focusing on the vehicle, the Managing Vital Driver Performance tool focuses on the driver, looking for indicators of aggressive driving that may lead to accidents, such as speeding, sharp turns and hard or sudden braking.
The tool helps a risk manager see if drivers consistently exhibit any of these behaviors, and take actions to improve driving performance before an accident happens. Liberty’s risk control consultants can also interview drivers to drill deeper into the data and find out what causes those behaviors in the first place.
Sometimes patterns of unsafe driving reveal issues at the management level.
“Our behavior-based program is also for supervisors and managers, not just drivers,” Blessing said. “This is where we help them set the tone and expectations with their drivers.”
For example, if data analysis and interviews reveal that fatigue factors into poor driving performance, management can identify ways to address that fatigue, including changing assigned work levels and requirements. Are drivers expected to make too many deliveries in a single shift, or are they required to interact with dispatch while driving?
“Management support of safety is so important, and work levels and expectations should be realistic,” Blessing said.
A Consultative Approach
In addition to its Managing Vital Driver Performance tool, Liberty’s team of risk control consultants helps commercial auto policyholders establish screening criteria for new drivers, creating a “driver scorecard” to reflect a potential new hire’s driving record, any Motor Vehicle Reports, years of experience, and familiarity with the type of vehicle that a company uses.
“Our whole approach is consultative,” Blessing said. “We probe and listen and try to understand a client’s strengths and challenges, and then make recommendations to help them establish the best practices they need.”
“With our approach and tools, we do something no one else in the industry does, which is perform the root cause analysis to help prevent accidents, better protecting a commercial auto policyholder’s employees and bottom line.”
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.