Archive for January, 2017

Workers’ Compensation Psychosocial Issues: A Big, Fat, Costly Problem

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

Workers’ compensation claims adjusters are busier than the Ed Sullivan Plate Spinner. Running around with one or two hundred lost time claims would make anyone dizzy, but at the recent National Workers’ Compensation & Disability Conference (NWCDC) in New Orleans, presenters tossed the frazzled spinners a few more plates to shoot up on the sticks.

The issue? Psychosocial factors delaying claim resolution.

At one well-attended session, Marco Iglesias, Medical Director for The Hartford, and Robert Hall, Corporate Medical Director for Optum, went into great detail about how psychosocial factors rear their heads in the claim process and how they impede recovery.

For example, consider these research statistics based on a study of 75,000 claims:

Time out of work increases 30% for a musculoskeletal claim with one co-morbid complication;

Duration increases 57% if the claim co-morbidity is depression;

According to The Hartford’s Dr. Iglesias, 10% of claims, the ones with all those psychosocial issues, cause 60% of claim costs;

At another presentation, attendees learned that Mental Health, Addiction and Obesity are the three comorbidities causing the greatest cost and time away from work.

Also, according to an AETNA presentation, 97% of depressed patients have a second co-morbid condition.

Research aplenty. Solutions, not so many.

So, perhaps it’s time for a more comprehensive discussion.

To begin that, let me propose a thesis:

Our nation’s current system for treating injured workers with mental health issues is uncoordinated, overly fragmented, highly wasteful and does not focus enough on speedy return to work. There is a critical need for a more systemic approach as well as an integrated coterie of clinicians and practitioners, trained in workers’ compensation, whose goals are to provide compassionate treatment with a steady return to work trajectory. 

The issue is compounded by the way claim adjusters, supervisors, nurses and defense attorneys view psychological issues. No one wants to ”buy a psych claim,” and many  believe that referring a claimant for behavioral health treatment does nothing more than create a lifetime annuity for a psychologist. Time and again this view has been proven correct.

What to do about that? Ay, there’s the rub. For in that question lies a host of difficulties. These, for instance:

  1. Most mental health professionals do not understand workers’ compensation. They do not realize either its statutory requirements or the concept of maximum medical improvement. They have spent many years being trained to treat the entire person. The players are the patient and the therapist, and it is like sitting on a two-legged stool. They do not fathom that, in workers’ compensation, the stool has five legs, with the other three occupied by the employer, the treating physician and the claim adjuster.
  2. Too often, by the time an adjuster or nurse recognizes that psychosocial issues may be impeding recovery and return to work the claim may have gotten a little long in the tooth; it could be months old, or more.
  3. It can take a claim adjuster weeks, in rare cases, months, to find a psychologist and schedule an appointment. It can also take weeks or months for a report to make it back to the file. Moreover, finding a clinician with even a smattering of workers’ compensation knowledge or experience is often problematic (See 1, above).
  4. Because there is no mental health electronic health record system for workers’ compensation, every report is its own island, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
  5. Everything is paper-based, which wastes claim adjuster time and increases expense.¹
  6. Although psychologists understand the value of work as therapy, many see no reason to help coordinate early return to work with employers, claim adjusters or medical providers

These are deep and difficult considerations. Tomorrow, we’ll describe one possible solution offered by a company in New Jersey, which, in the interests of full disclosure, is a Lynch Ryan clent.

 

¹ Claim adjusters also report that a not insignificant number of these reports are essentially unreadable, because they are handwritten.

 

A Conversation With WCRI’s John Ruser, Ph.D.

Monday, January 30th, 2017

As I write this, we are 34 days from this year’s not-to-be-missed Workers’ Compensation Research Institute’s Annual Conference. It all happens at the Westin Copley Place on March 2 and 3 in the greatest city in America. That would be Boston (sorry New York, Chicago, LA and all the rest of you).

This is always one of the top conferences in the nation, jam packed with enough data to satisfy any green-eye-shaded, algorithm loving, analytic modeler.

As you might imagine, this year’s agenda will include a bit of crystal ball gazing with respect to the future of American health care. I discussed that and other conference topics recently with Dr. John Ruser, WCRI’s President and CEO, at the Institute’s Cambridge, MA, offices.

This is Dr. Ruser’s first full year at the WCRI helm. About a year ago he succeeded Dr. Richard Victor, WCRI’s founder and iconic long time leader. Ruser, a perceptive intellectual, realized he had big shoes to fill, so he told me his goal for the first year was “stability.” He wanted a “steady transition.” That’s one goal he can check off as done. No staff left and they all continued to do significant research, much of which will be on display at the upcoming conference in the world’s greatest city.

WCRI’s research can impact policy. For example, in early December, 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charley Baker unveiled the Commonwealth’s new pilot program to help injured workers with opioid addiction. This from the Worcester Telegram:

The two-year pilot program is designed for people with settled workers’ compensation cases who are being treated with opioid medication, but whose insurance company seeks to stop payment for the opioid. Such cases, Gov. Charlie Baker said, can take up to a year to come to a resolution, and all the while the worker is prescribed opioids

 “Injured workers in Massachusetts receive 10 percent more prescriptions for opioids on average than 25 other states that were studied in a two-year study done by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (emphasis added), and Massachusetts led the studied states with the percentage of pain medications that were written for Oxycodone and nearly half of all prescriptions stronger than schedule II opioids,” Baker said. “There’s more we can do to help injured workers with settled workers’ compensation claims get appropriate treatment for pain management.”

Going forward, Ruser knows it’s time for him to begin making his mark at WCRI. This former Bureau of Labor Statistics executive wants to “increase WCRI’s reach.” He’s commissioned the building of a new website with the aim of “producing a much better search engine,” which will allow for “easier access to the Institute’s work.” I asked him what that really meant? He said he realizes that the work is scientific in nature, but that doesn’t mean it has to be obscure. He’s looking for plain english with a more “pithy” language style for Abstracts and Research Briefs. Doing so will allow WCRI to reach more stakeholders. A worthy goal, and we wish him luck.

John Ruser emphasized this year’s conference will tend to focus on three main questions:

  • What impact will the 2016 election have on healthcare (ACA, Medicare, etc.), labor and the workforce, and workers’ compensation?
  • Is the workers’ compensation system still fulfilling its mission or does it need revisiting?
  • With opioid use decreasing, what alternatives exist to treat pain?

The conference’s agenda is interesting, for sure, but for my money I’m eager to attend the first and last sessions. The opening session is on “The Impact of the 2016 Election,” and the presenters are former U.S. Representative Henry Waxman and former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn. I think that’s where the crystal ball gazing happens. We all know workers’ compensation is the tiny caboose at the end of the great big health care train. It remains to be seen whether the former Senator and former Representative will get deep into the weeds of what the coming blow up of the Affordable Care Act will do to that little caboose. A year from now we’ll see how prescient Waxman and Coburn have been.

But on to the final session. Last year, at this time, the workers’ compensation industry was rocked by a series of articles by ProPublica’s Michael Grabell and NPR’s Howard Berkes. Grabell lifted some ugly stones and rather unpleasant things crawled out. The industry lashed back. Perhaps the most reasoned comment was from Dr. Victor at the 2016 conference when he said, “Using anecdotes isn’t the best way to analyze an entire national system.”

The last session is at 10:35 AM on Friday morning (don’t leave early). This is the first session’s complement and is likely to get into some of the Grabell/Berkes territory.  “Appraising the “Grand Bargain” in 2017″ has four wonderful presenters, all of whom I admire. Professor Emily Spieler, Northeastern University School of Law, Dr. David Deitz, Principal, David Deitz & Associates, Dr. David Michaels, Former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) and Bruce Wood, of the American Insurance Association are going to take a hard look at workers’ compensation in the here and now. Their comments should bookend nicely with those of Henry Waxman and Tom Coburn.

As we were winding up our talk I asked John Ruser what he hoped would be the biggest takeaway for attendees. “Honestly,” he said, “I want everyone to come out feeling they’ve learned something, something important.” Amen to that.

This year’s conference promises to be well-attended, but if you’re going (and you should be going), you might want to book your hotel now. WCRI has reserved a block of rooms at a special rate of $246 per night. They will go fast. You can register here.

I hope to see you soon in the Milky Way’s greatest city.

Go Pats!

 

Fresh Health Wonk Review posted at Joe’s place

Friday, January 27th, 2017

As we embark on the second week of a new administration, Joe Paduda has posted Health Wonk Review’s Inauguration Edition at Managed Care Matters. Rather unsurprisingly, the Affordable Care Act is much on the minds of the wonks, so there’s quite a few posts dealing with various aspects of repeal and replace.

Related to the topic of this week’s health wonkery, Joe also has a post on his blog about how the demise of the ACA would impact workers comp, specifically. A key quote:

“If ACA is repealed without a simultaneous and credible replacement, we may well see a rise in the number of workers without health insurance. The key issue to track is a cutoff of funding for Medicaid expansion – ACA added about 13 million more employed people to the insured rolls; if they lose coverage they’ll need a different payer to cover their injuries. Bad news for workers’ comp.”

And we’d point you to one other not-to-miss post at Managed Care Matters – Beware of Astroturf, the infuriating story of the American Pain Foundation, an pharma industry sponsored opioid-peddling outfit masquerading as a patient advocacy organization.

OSHA under President Trump: early signs

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

We’re still awaiting an appointment to the Department of Labor under the Trump administration, so we don’t expect an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) director to be named until after that. Right now, a hearing for the controversial Andrew Puzder as secretary of labor is scheduled for February 2. Part of the controversy related to the fast-food CEO revolves around numerous civil rights suits that his company has logged.

In the National Safety Council’s Safety + Health Tom Musick reports that legal experts are predicting significant changes for worker safety regulation under the new administration in his article OSHA under Trump: A closer look.

Here’s a summary of the article’s key points:

  • Labor-law experts predict that OSHA will move away from an enforcement-based strategy and toward compliance assistance and cooperative programs for employers.
  • OSHA’s funding could decrease, and the way it spends its funds also could change if Trump limits the agency’s enforcement budget.
  • Recent regulations such as the injury and illness recordkeeping rule, the silica rule and the so-called “blacklisting rule” all could be in jeopardy under the Trump administration.

For another take at the crystal ball, Russell Carr has issued two in three-part series of articles on potential changes at EHS Today. Carr comes from the perspective of an owner of an environmental, health and safety consulting business.

In looking at changes that may be in store for OSHA and other regulatory agencies, it’s instructive to look at the broader context of some steps that have been taken early in the new administration.

Hiring freeze

On his first day in office, President Trump issued a hiring freeze on non-military federal employees and, at least for some departments, on grants and contracts.

“President Donald Trump’s hiring freeze will last only as long as it takes his administration to come up with an alternative attrition plan, according to a memorandum released by the White House Monday, and could provide broad exemptions for agency leaders.

Trump said his hiring moratorium would “be applied across the board in the executive branch” and apply to any positions vacant as of Jan. 22. It would bar agencies from creating new positions. Agency heads can exempt positions they deem “necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities.”

The hiring freeze is expected to be a precursor to federal job cuts of as much as 20% in some departments and was issued to counter “the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years.” An article at Government Executive points out that there has been no federal workforce expansion and that “employment by the federal government as share of all US employment is relatively low compared to most of the last 70 years.”

Opponents to the freeze point to several potential unintended consequences: Trump’s Federal Hiring Freeze May Kill Hundreds of Jobs for Nurses, Scientists and Engineers

Unions and veterans groups say the federal hiring freeze would make the government less efficient, and make it harder for the US military personnel to find jobs when they leave the service. (About a third of all federal hires are military veterans, although if they’re working security positions, for example, they may not be affected).

The freeze could also take off the table thousands of well-paying jobs for US citizens with higher education and specific skills.

Federal employees have other reasons to feel pressure, among them the recent reinstatement of the Holman Rule: House Republicans revive obscure rule that allows them to slash the pay of individual federal workers to $1:

The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.

The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.

Information lockdown – temporary or a sign of things to come?

There’s always a level of anxiety in the federal workforce when a new administration takes the reins, but one other issue has been causing a level of discomfort among employees. Numerous news reports reveal an information crackdown on staff in various federal agencies, from the the Environmental Protection Agency to Departments of Agriculture, Health & Human Services, and the Interior. In its article Trump clamps down on federal agencies, The Hill reports:

It’s not unusual for incoming administrations to seek control over agency communications, especially at the outset, when Cabinet secretaries aren’t in place.

But experts on the federal workforce say they have never seen a White House take the type of steps Trump’s administration has to curb public communications.

Restrictions are reported to include press releases, photos, tweets, speaking engagements, fact sheets, news feeds, and more. See a related story at Politico: Information lockdown hits Trump’s federal agencies. Hopefully, this will be short-term in nature, but one that we will be watching – by early indicators, it doesn’t seem as though an open “sunlight” approach to communications will be a core value of this administration.  if we were putting money on it, we’d bet that it’s just a matter of time until OSHA’s recordkeeping rule is toast, particularly in light of pending lawsuits challenging the rule and Trump’s recent promise to roll back regulations by somewhere int he order of 70-80%.

See our prior post:  Reading the tea leaves: The Trump administration and OSHA

 

Health Wonk Review: The “words matter” edition

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

obamacare

 

Words matter. Right now, for good or bad, as the torch is being passed from one president to new one, one of the key platforms that PEOTUS ran on was eliminating Obamacare. But as the reality of that potential grows closer, social media is abuzz with debates. It would appear that some people didn’t fully understand what they signed up for. Going viral on Facebook, a poster celebrates the demise of Obamacare, patting himself on the back that he had the good sense to go with the Affordable Care Act instead. This person is not alone – witness the Twitter poster who berates Senator Murray: “Why don’t you shut up Murry. Stop Crying. You lost. We won. We are repleaing Obamacare, not the ACA.” We could post more examples, but you get the point. Polls have repeatedly demonstrated that words matter – the healthcare law is viewed much more favorably as the ACA than as Obamacare.  And a number of insureds don’t realize they are one and the same.  We may soon have the dubious privilege of learning how widespread this confusion is.

Wendell Potter also thinks words matter, and opines that poor communication was among the factors that got us to this point of repeal/replace. At healthinsurance.org blog, he says that “lazy, superficial reporting” – and poor communication from the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats – has kept most Americans in the dark about how repeal of Obamacare would affect them. Potter runs down a list of the health coverage problems Americans faced before ACA implementation … as a preview of the problems that the GOP will resurrect if they can repeal the law. Check out Back from the Future. (A sequel we’ll all hate.)

At Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda tries to clear up some of the miscommunication with a Q&A aimed right at the insured. Joe has been engaged in a series of posts aptly titled ACA Deathwatch. In his most recent post, he tackles what ACA repeal will mean to the consumer in a basic Q&A format. He looks at post-repeal life under replacement plans, tackling issues like what will happen to your cost, will pre-existing conditions be covered, will plans be inclusive of all conditions, etc.

At Health Affairs Blog, Joe Antos and Jim Capretta look at the The Problems with “Repeal and Delay”, warning that the most likely end result of repeal and delay would be less secure insurance for many Americans and procrastination by political leaders. They lay out the possible legislative scenario that this would follow and document the problems:

“To build a functioning marketplace, and to provide a ready path for all Americans to get health insurance, it is necessary to put together a coherent series of policies across Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, and the non-group insurance market. A workable plan will necessarily touch on all of these areas, and will be lengthy and politically contentious. That may not be ideal from a political perspective, but the alternative is incoherence and half-measures that will lead to a system that many Americans will view as worse than the ACA status quo.”

At Colorado Health Insurance Insider, Jay Norris offers a street level view of the level of scrutiny that all things ACA have been under in his post Connect for Health Colorado and the OIG Audit Report. Apparently, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit report (the full report is here) regarding Connect for Health Colorado’s use of federal start-up funding. This funding was provided for state-run exchanges to get their operations up and running in 2013 and 2014. A poorly worded title on the front page of the report, combined with clumsy explanations in the report gave the media and anti-ACA folks a lot to complain about. Jay dissects the details, asking whether at least some of this falls under the much ado about nothing category.

Of course, not everyone is a fan of Obamacare or we wouldn’t be engaged in these political brouhahas in the first place. In a post entitled Flatline at InsureBlog, Patrick Paule “pulls back the curtain on the fiasco known as Open Enrollment v4.0. Disappointing!”

We do have at least a few entries that aren’t focused on the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

At Health Care Renewal Blog, Roy Poses looks at Dr. Tom Price and finds him wanting, in his post Follow the Money: Nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services Traded Health Care Stocks and Owned Tobacco Stocks While in Congress. For the uninitiated, Roy is a longtime critic and caller-outer of conflicts of interest as they relate to physicians – something that he as a physician himself is fairly passionate about. He finds the current HHS nominee a little too cozy with big pharma, biotech, device companies and health insurers. But that’s just the least of what Dr. Roy finds objectionable … read up so you can be informed and ready for Tom Price’s cabinet hearing schnduled for January 18.

At Health Business Blog, David Williams says that concierge medicine is well-established in primary care, and now it’s coming to the specialties, too. Concierge pioneer Wayne Lipton explains how the “hybrid” model works and how primary care and specialty practices differ: Concierge Cardiology: podcast interview with Wayne Lipton.

At HealthBlawg, David Harlow ponders whether “Big Data” is too big to analyze productively – reasonable minds may differ. David draws some interesting analogies and concludes that computing power has indeed caught up with our data-generation runaway train. See: Of Borges and Big Data, Or: Is Big Data Too Big?

At Heatlh System Ed Blog, Peggy Salvatore finds bright spots for healthcare in the future, noting that no matter how the economy or politics turn, there are a few constants where people can have some control. Technological advances and wellness movements can help improve national health without increasing the cost of healthcare. See Healthcare’s Future: Population Health and Information Technology.

At The Healthcare Guys, Abhinav Shashank says that as eventful as last year was for the healthcare industry, expect a lot of surprises are in 2017, too. He cites the 21st Century Cures Act and MACRA as transformational legislation, and looks at potential trends and issues we are likely to see in the coming year. See: Healthcare 2017: What Does the New Year Have in Store?

At Healthcare Economist, Jason Shafrin brings us a great video short which reviews a recent publication in JAMA that details health care spending: Health Care Spending is Complicated.

Here at Workers Comp Insider, we forgo our own submission (OK, we’ve been goofing off in the new year) in favor of a post from our friends and colleagues at Work Comp Psych Net. We realize that workers comp is just a sliver of the overall healthcare budget, but we find it an important segment, dealing as it does with the health and safety of American workers. One thing that differs in the occupational arena is healthcare treatment is always working to an outcome, ideally a successful recovery and return to work after a work-related injury or illness. Mental health issues are often  impediments to a smooth recoveries because they are so often not factored in at all. Work Comp Psych Net sheds a light on progress in this area in the post Psychosocial Issues And How To Deal With Them.

Soapbox: As bloggers, we all enjoy speaking our mind.  As political discourse grows increasingly heated, we think it’s worth  this short PSA: Support the First Amendment and freedom of the press. Journalism isn’t free.  You can purchase great editorial cartoons like the one we use in this post at cagle.com. We’d also encourage supporting the Committee to Protect Journalists with donations. Journalists die for that freedom we enjoy.

Next issue: Jan. 25, 2017 – Joe Paduda – Managed Care Matters

2016 in Review: Workers Comp, Risk Management & More

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

b-depositphotos_36634505_s-2015

2016 was both a hair-on-fire and a pants-on-fire kind of year – so much so that the Oxford Dictionary chose “post truth” as its Word of the Year. In case you’ve been buried in a crypt this year or on a desert island (and who could blame you?) here’s an explanation of how they arrived at that choice. Strangely, “fake news” didn’t even make their list, but you can read the runners up.  You shouldn’t find much in the way of fake news here in our post today – we’re looking at key workers comp, insurance and related stories for 2016 – along with a few predictions  for the upcoming year.

First, a look back at the news of 2016

Business Insurance: Most popular workers compensation and safety stories of 2016

Business Insurance: The BI Top 10 of 2016

Insurance Journal: Top 12 Insurance Trends and News Stories of 2016: Countdown

SHRM: Top 5 Risk Management Articles for 2016

Safety News Alert: Top workers’ comp cases of 2016 Part 1: The issues and Top workers’ comp cases of 2016 Part 2: Unique circumstances

DOL Blog: Top 10 OSHA Citations of 2016: A Starting Point for Workplace Safety

OSHA: Worker Fatalities Reported to Federal and State OSHA

Safety News Alert: Top 10 OSHA stories of 2016

Paduda: 2016 predictions – how’d I do?

EHS Today: America’s Top 10 Safest Companies Awards

WorkCompWire: Leaders Speak: 2016 Year in Review

Workerscompensation.com CA Dept of Industrial Relations Releases 2016 Legislative Digest With Overview of New Laws

Claims Journal’s Top 10 Legal Articles of 2016

Terms + Conditions: Top 10 Posts of 2016

Fierce Healthcare: 5 notable physician practice headlines in 2016

Heath Affairs: The Most-Shared Health Affairs Articles of 2016

Medgadget’s Best Medical Technologies of 2016

Insurance Journal: Top 10 ‘Most Ridiculous’ Lawsuits of 2016: Chamber of Commerce

Human Resource Executive: Top HR Stories of 2016

HR Morning: Top 10 biggest HR stories of 2016

HR Daily Advisor: Top 20 HR Strange But True Stories for 2016, Part 1 and Part 2

III: Insurance Industry Employment Trends: 1990-2016 

Insurance News Net: ‘Rotten Apples’ Kept Authorities Busy In 2016

PropertyCasualty360: 9 fraudsters join the 2016 Insurance Hall of Shame

Looking ahead to 2017

Is it just us or is the world a little too volatile right now for the usual torrent of predictions for the coming year? Here are a few intrepid folks who step out into the abyss:

Paduda: Whither Workers’ Comp in 2017 — Part I and Part II

Risk & Insurance: 2017 Insurance Executives to Watch

Risk & Insurance: Next-Level Solutions for 2017

Occupational Health & Safety Magazine: Looking Ahead to 2017 Automation Trends and Impacts

LinkedIn: The Freelance Economy: Top Trends to Watch in 2017

CBS News: Tech trends to watch in 2017

Bloomberg: The Pessimist’s Guide to 2017

Of general interest

New Yorker: The Five Biggest Business Stories of 2016

USA Today: Trump, turmoil: The top 10 business stories of 2016

Dave Barry’s Year in Review: 2016 — What the … ?

76 of Donald Trump’s many campaign promises

TSA’s Top 10 Most Unusual Finds: 2016 (Video)

The Atlantic: Second Helpings: 2016’s Underappreciated Science, Tech, and Health Stories

Longreads: Best of 2016: Business & Tech Reporting

New York Times: The Year in Pictures

Google: See what was trending in 2016

Twitter #ThisHappened in 2016