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.
6 Emerging Supply Chain Risks You Should Know
Changing the WC Medical Care Mindset
Controlling overall workers’ compensation medical costs has been an elusive target.
Yet, according to medical experts from Healthesystems, the Tampa, Fla.-based specialty provider of innovative medical cost management solutions for the workers’ compensation industry, payers today have more powerful options for both offering the highest quality medical care and controlling costs, but they must be more thoroughly and strategically executed.
Specifically as it relates to optimizing patient outcomes and controlling pharmacy costs, the key, say those experts, is to look beyond the typical clinical pharmacy history review and to incorporate a more holistic picture of the entire medical treatment plan. This means when performing clinical reviews, taking into account more comprehensive information such as lab results, physician notes and other critical medical history data which often identifies significant treatment plan concerns but frequently aren’t effectively monitored in total.
Healthesystems’ Dr. Robert Goldberg, chief medical officer, and Dr. Silvia Sacalis, vice president of clinical services, recently weighed in on how using a more holistic, comprehensive strategy can make the critical difference in the ongoing medical care cost control battle.
Fragmentation, Complexity Obscure the Patient Picture
According to Dr. Goldberg, fragmentation remains one of the biggest obstacles to controlling overall healthcare costs and ensuring the most successful treatment in workers’ compensation.
Robert Goldberg, MD, discusses obstacles to controlling overall medical costs and ensuring the best treatment in workers’ compensation.
“There are several hurdles, but they all relate to the fact that healthcare in workers’ comp is just not very well coordinated,” he said. “For the most part, there is poor communication between all parties involved, but especially between the payer and the provider. Unfortunately, it’s rare that all the stakeholders have a clear, complete picture of what’s happening with the patient.”
Dr. Goldberg explains that health care generally has become a more complex landscape, and workers’ comp adds another level of complexity. Physicians have less time to spend with patients due to work loads and other economic factors, and frequently there isn’t adequate time to develop a patient specific treatment strategy.
“Often we don’t have physicians properly incentivized to do a complete job with patients” he said, adding that extra paperwork and similar hurdles limit communication among payers, nurse case managers and other players.
In fact, Dr. Sacalis emphasized that it’s not only the payer, but often the healthcare provider who is not getting a complete picture. For example, a treating doctor may not be the primary care physician and therefore they may not have access to the total healthcare picture for the injured worker.
“Most of all, payers need to adopt a more collaborative approach in their relationships with physicians, employers and patients, as well as networks involved. It will result in getting people back to work through appropriate medical care and moving the case along to a prompt closure.”
– Robert Goldberg, MD, FACOEM, Chief Medical Officer, Healthesystems
“It’s often difficult for multiple physicians to communicate and collaborate about what’s happening because they may not be aware of each-others involvement in that patient’s care,” she said. “Data sharing is lacking, even in integrated healthcare systems where doctors are in the same group.”
Done Right, Technology Can Bridge the Treatment Strategy Gap
Dr. Sacalis explained the role technology advancements can play in creating a more holistic picture of not only an injured workers’ post-accident state or pace of recovery, but also their overall health history. However, the workers’ comp industry by and large is not there yet.
“Today’s technology can be very useful in providing transparency, but to date the data is still very fragmented,” she said. “With technology advancements, we can get a more holistic patient view. However, it is important that the data is both meaningful and actionable to promote effective clinical decision support.”
Silvia Sacalis, PharmD, explains the role that technology advancements can play in creating a more holistic picture of an injured worker’s overall health.
Healthesystems, for example, offers an advanced clinical solution that incorporates a comprehensive analysis of all relevant data sources including pharmacy, medical and lab data as part of a drug therapy analysis. So, for example, the process could uncover co-morbidities – such as diabetes – that may be unrelated to a workplace injury but should be considered in the overall treatment strategy.
“Healthcare professionals must ensure there are no interactions with any
co-morbidities that may limit or affect the treatment plan,” Dr. Sacalis said.
In the majority of cases where Healthesystems has performed advanced clinical analysis, information gathered from the various sources has uncovered critical information that significantly impacted the overall treatment recommendations. Technology and analytics enable the implementation of best practices.
She cites another example of how a physician may order a urine drug screen (UDS), yet the results indicating the presence of a non prescribed drug were not reflected in the treatment regimen as evidenced by the lack of modification in therapy.
“Visibility and transparency will help with facilitating a truly effective treatment plan,” she said, “Predictive analytics are necessary tools for proactive monitoring and detection of trends as well as early identification of cases for intervention.”
Speaking of Best Practices …
Dr. Goldberg highlighted that the most important overall best practice needed to secure the optimal outcome is centered around getting the right care to the right patient at the right time. To him, that means identifying patients who need adjustments in care and then determining medical necessity during the entire case trajectory.
“It means using evidence-based medical treatment guidelines that are coordinated,” he said.
“You must look at the whole patient, which means avoiding the typical barriers in the workers’ comp treatment system, issues such as delays in authorizations, lengthy UR processes or similar scenarios that are well intentioned but if not performed effectively they can get in the way of expedited care.”
Dr. Goldberg and Silvia Sacalis provide recommendations for critical steps payers should take to achieve the best outcomes for everyone.
Dr. Goldberg noted that seeking out the most effective doctors available in geographic locations is another critical best practice. That requires collecting data on physician performance, patient satisfaction and medical outcomes, so payers and networks can identify and incentivize them accordingly.
“This way, you are getting an alignment of incentives with all parties,” Dr. Goldberg said, adding that it also means removing outlier physicians, those whose tendencies are to over-treat, dispense drugs from their office or order unnecessary durable medical equipment, for example.
“Visibility and transparency will help with facilitating a truly effective treatment plan. Predictive analytics are necessary tools for proactive monitoring and detection of trends as well as early identification of cases for intervention.”
– Silvia Sacalis, PharmD, Vice President of Clinical Services, Healthesystems
“Most of all, payers need to adopt a more collaborative approach in their relationships with physicians, employers and patients, as well as networks involved,” he said. “It will result in getting people back to work through appropriate medical care and moving the case along to a prompt closure.”
Dr. Sacalis added that from a pharmacy perspective, another best practice is becoming more patient-centric, using a customized and flexible approach to help payers optimize outcomes for each patient.
“Focus on patient safety first, and that will naturally drive cost containment,” she said. “Focusing on cost alone can actually drive results in the wrong direction.”
Dr. Goldberg explains how consolidation in the health care and WC markets can impact the landscape and quality of care.
Dr. Goldberg and Silvia Sacalis discuss if injured workers today are getting better treatment than they were twenty years ago.
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Healthesystems. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.