Sponsored Content by Helios

A Tale of Two Physicians

Understanding work environments and practice structures can encourage collaboration and enhance outcomes.
By: | May 1, 2014 • 5 min read

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

SponsoredContent_ProMed-PMSIPhysician 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

SponsoredContent_ProMed-PMSIPhysician 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.

Two Patients

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.

PBM Intervention

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.

The Result

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.

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:

Infographic: The Risk List

6 Emerging Supply Chain Risks You Should Know

Risks to your supply chain can come from unexpected sources.
By: | May 5, 2014 • 2 min read


The Risk List is presented by:


Share this article:

Sponsored Content by CorVel

Telehealth: The Wait is Over

Telehealth delivers access to the work comp industry.
By: | November 2, 2015 • 5 min read


From Early Intervention To Immediate Intervention

Reducing medical lag times and initiating early intervention are some of the cornerstones to a successful claims management program. A key element in refining those metrics is improving access to appropriate care.

Telehealth is the use of electronic communications to facilitate interaction between a patient and a physician. With today’s technology and mass presence of mobile devices, injured workers can be connected to providers instantaneously via virtual visits. Early intervention offers time and cost saving benefits, and emerging technology presents the capability for immediate intervention.

Telehealth creates an opportunity to reduce overall claim duration by putting an injured worker in touch with a doctor including a prescription or referral to physical therapy when needed. On demand, secure and cost efficient, telehealth offers significant benefits to both payors and patients.

The Doctor Will See You Now

Major healthcare players like Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield are adding telehealth as part of their program standards. This comes as no surprise as multiple studies have found a correlation between improved outcomes and patients taking responsibility for their treatment with communications outside of the doctor’s office. CorVel has launched the new technology within the workers’ compensation industry as part of their service offering.

“Telehealth is an exciting enhancement for the Workers’ Compensation industry and our program. By piloting this new technology with CorVel, we hope to impact our program by streamlining communication and facilitating injured worker care more efficiently,” said one of CorVel’s clients.

SponsoredContent_Corvel“We expect to add convenience for the injured worker while significantly reducing lag times from the injury to initiating treatment. The goal is to continue to merge the ecosystems of providers, injured workers and payors.”

— David Lupinsky, Vice President, Medical Review Services, CorVel Corporation

As with all new solutions, there are some questions about telehealth. Regarding privacy concerns, telehealth is held to the same standards of HIPAA and all similar rules and regulations regarding health information technology and patients’ personal information. Telehealth offers secure, one on one interactions between the doctor and the injured worker, maintaining patient confidentiality.

The integrity of the patient-physician relationship often fuels debates against technology in healthcare. Conversely, telehealth may facilitate the undivided attention patients seek. In office physicians’ actual facetime with patients is continually decreasing, citing an average of eight minutes per patient, according to a 2013 New York Times article. Telehealth may offer an alternative.

Virtual visits last about 10 to 15 minutes, offering more one on one time with physicians than a standard visit. Patients also can physically participate in the physician examination. When consulting with a telehealth physician, the patient can enter their vital signs like heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature and follow physical cues from the doctor to help determine the diagnosis. This gives patients an active role in their treatment.

Additionally, a 2010 BioMed Central Health Services Research Report is helping to dispel any questions regarding telehealth quality of care, stating “91% of health outcomes were as good or better via telehealth.”

Care: On Demand

By leveraging technology, claims professionals can enhance an already proactive claims model. Mobile phones and tablets provide access anywhere an injured worker may be and break previous barriers set by after hours injuries, incidents occurring in rural areas, or being out of a familiar place (i.e. employees in the transportation industry).

With telehealth, CorVel eliminates travel and wait times. The injured worker meets virtually with an in-network physician via his or her computer, smart phone or tablet device.

As most injuries reported in workers’ compensation are musculoskeletal injuries – soft tissue injuries that may not need escalation – the industry can benefit from telehealth since many times the initial physician visit ends with either a pharmacy or physical therapy script.

In CorVel’s model, because all communication is conducted electronically, the physician receives the patient’s information transmitted from the triage nurse via email and/or electronic data feeds. This saves time and eliminates the patient having to sit in a crowded waiting room trying to fill out a form with information they may not know.

Through electronic correspondence, the physician will also be alerted that the injured worker is a workers’ compensation patient with the goal of returning to work, helping to dictate treatment just as it would for an in office doctor.

In the scope of workers’ compensation, active participation in telehealth examinations, accompanied by convenience, is beneficial for payors. As the physician understands return to work goals, they can ensure follow up care like physical therapy is channeled within the network and can also help determine modified duty and other means to assist the patient to return to work quickly.


Convenience Costs Less

Today, convenience can often be synonymous with costly. While it may be believed that an on demand, physician’s visit would cost more than seeing your regular physician; perceptions can be deceiving. One of the goals of telehealth is to provide quality care with convenience and a fair cost.

Telehealth virtual visits cost on average 30% less than brick and mortar doctor’s office visits, according to California state fee schedule. In addition, “health plans and employers see telehealth as a significant cost savings since as many as 10% of virtual visits replace emergency room visits which cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for relatively minor complaints” according to a study by American Well.

“Telehealth is an exciting enhancement for the Workers’ Compensation industry and our program. By piloting this new technology with CorVel, we hope to impact our program by streamlining communication and facilitating injured worker care more efficiently,” said one of CorVel’s clients.

Benefits For All

Substantial evidence supports that better outcomes are produced the sooner an injured worker seeks care. Layered into CorVel’s proactive claims and medical management model, telehealth can upgrade early intervention to immediate intervention and is crucial for program success.

“We expect to add convenience for the injured worker while significantly reducing lag times from the injury to initiating treatment,” said David Lupinsky, Vice President, Medical Review Services.

“The goal is to continue to merge the ecosystems of providers, injured workers and payors.”

With a people first philosophy and an emphasis on immediacy, CorVel’s telehealth services reduce lag time and connect patients to convenient, quality care. It’s a win-win.

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

CorVel is a national provider of risk management solutions for employers, third party administrators, insurance companies and government agencies seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.
Share this article: