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.
Helping Investment Advisers Hurdle New “Customer First” Government Regulation
This spring, the Department of Labor (DOL) rolled out a set of rule changes likely to raise issues for advisers managing their customers’ retirement investment accounts. In an already challenging compliance environment, the new regulation will push financial advisory firms to adapt their business models to adhere to a higher standard while staying profitable.
The new proposal mandates a fiduciary standard that requires advisers to place a client’s best interests before their own when recommending investments, rather than adhering to a more lenient suitability standard. In addition to increasing compliance costs, this standard also ups the liability risk for advisers.
The rule changes will also disrupt the traditional broker-dealer model by pressuring firms to do away with commissions and move instead to fee-based compensation. Fee-based models remove the incentive to recommend high-cost investments to clients when less expensive, comparable options exist.
“Broker-dealers currently follow a sales distribution model, and the concern driving this shift in compensation structure is that IRAs have been suffering because of the commission factor,” said Richard Haran, who oversees the Financial Institutions book of business for Liberty International Underwriters. “Overall, the fiduciary standard is more difficult to comply with than a suitability standard, and the fee-based model could make it harder to do so in an economical way. Broker dealers may have to change the way they do business.”
As a consequence of the new DOL regulation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be forced to respond with its own fiduciary standard which will tighten up their regulations to even the playing field and create consistency for customers seeking investment management.
Because the SEC relies on securities law while the DOL takes guidance from ERISA, there will undoubtedly be nuances between the two new standards, creating compliance confusion for both Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs)and broker-dealers.
To ensure they adhere to the new structure, “we could see more broker-dealers become RIAs or get dually registered, since advisers already follow a fee-based compensation model,” Haran said. “The result is that there will be likely more RIAs after the regulation passes.”
But RIAs have their own set of challenges awaiting them. The SEC announced it would beef up oversight of investment advisors with more frequent examinations, which historically were few and far between.
“Examiners will focus on individual investments deemed very risky,” said Melanie Rivera, Financial Institutions Underwriter for LIU. “They’ll also be looking more closely at cyber security, as RIAs control private customer information like Social Security numbers and account numbers.”
Demand for Cover
In the face of regulatory uncertainty and increased scrutiny from the SEC, investment managers will need to be sure they have coverage to safeguard them from any oversight or failure to comply exactly with the new standards.
In collaboration with claims experts, underwriters, legal counsel and outside brokers, Liberty International Underwriters revamped older forms for investment adviser professional liability and condensed them into a single form that addresses emerging compliance needs.
The new form for investment management solutions pulls together seven coverages:
- Investment Adviser E&O, including a cyber sub-limit
- Investment Advisers D&O
- Mutual Funds D&O and E&O
- Hedge Fund D&O and E&O
- Employment Practices Liability
- Fiduciary Liability
- Service Providers D&O
“A comprehensive solution, like the revamped form provides, will help advisers navigate the new regulatory environment,” Rivera said. “It’s a one-stop shop, allowing clients to bind coverage more efficiently and provide peace of mind.”
Ahead of the Curve
The new form demonstrates how LIU’s best-in class expertise lends itself to the collaborative and innovative approach necessary to anticipate trends and address emerging needs in the marketplace.
“Seeing the pending regulation, we worked internally to assess what the effect would be on our adviser clients, and how we could respond to make the transition as easy as possible,” Haran said. “We believe the new form will not only meet the increased demand for coverage, but actually creates a better product with the introduction of cyber sublimits, which are built into the investment adviser E&O policy.”
The combined form also considers another potential need: cost of correction coverage. Complying with a fiduciary standard could increase the need for this type of cover, which is not currently offered on a consistent basis. LIU’s form will offer cost of correction coverage on a sublimited basis by endorsement.
“We’ve tried to cross product lines and not stay siloed,” Haran said. “Our clients are facing new risks, in a new regulatory environment, and they need a tailored approach. LIU’s history of collaboration and innovation demonstrates that we can provide unique solutions to meet their needs.”
For more information about Liberty International Underwriters’ products for investment managers, visit www.LIU-USA.com.
Liberty International Underwriters is the marketing name for the broker-distributed specialty lines business operations of Liberty Mutual Insurance. Certain coverage may be provided by a surplus lines insurer. Surplus lines insurers do not generally participate in state guaranty funds and insureds are therefore not protected by such funds. This literature is a summary only and does not include all terms, conditions, or exclusions of the coverage described. Please refer to the actual policy issued for complete details of coverage and exclusions.
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty International Underwriters. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.