Tag Archives: insurance

Drug Formularies, Part 1: The Rest of the Story

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

A drug formulary is a term describing a list of drugs that are covered by an insurance plan. In workers’ compensation, formularies are touted as a way to reduce prescription costs and lead to more effective care. Formularies are particularly pushed as a solution for opioid use and abuse for injured employees.

The headline numbers about the reduction of prescription costs look eye popping. One group of pharmacy benefit managers, the companies that manage drug formularies, claimed a 9 percent reduction in prescription costs over the last year. Ohio, which has the largest state-run workers compensation fund in the country, claimed a 16 percent reduction in prescription costs in the first three years after they implemented a drug formulary. Ohio reported 15.7 million fewer doses of opioids in that time period and a 36 percent reduction in opioid costs.

The Rest of the Story about Drug Formularies

Florida workers’ compensation judge David Langham has asked “what is the rest of the story” about drug formularies. If drug formularies are so effective, then why have they only been adopted in a few states for workers’ compensation?

While drug formularies are a relatively recent development in workers’ compensation, they are well established in the larger world of health insurance. Drug formularies have long been criticized for increasing costs in health insurance plans by reducing prescription usage because costs are shifted to insureds, which forces insureds to seek more expensive care, because chronic conditions go untreated. Overall costs are increased. The costs are also shifted onto insureds who have to pick up the costs for more expensive procedures that could have been taken care of through medication. Cost shifting from the employer onto the employee, other forms of insurance and the government is already a serious problem in workers’ compensation. Drug formularies in workers’ compensation could exacerbate the issue of cost-shifting.

Do Drug Formularies add up?  Cost = Price * Utilization

When you study drug formularies for any amount of time, you run across the equation that drug costs equal price multiplied by utilization. Proponents of drug formularies tout that they can decrease both the utilization and the price of prescription drugs. Ohio has provided detailed information about the decrease in the utilization of certain drugs like opioids because of formularies. However, the decrease in the utilization in opioids cited by proponents of drug formularies coincides with an overall long-standing decrease in the frequency or number of workers’ compensation claims. Fewer overall claims mean less overall utilization, which could explain some of the cost decrease. A better measure of the effectiveness in drug formularies in controlling costs would be measured by looking at prescription cost per claim. So far, drug formulary proponents have been unable to show that data. Even if drug formulary proponents could show that data, there is still the issue of whether reductions in prescription drug costs lead to increases medical costs by forcing injured employees to seek more expensive care that could have been taken care of by prescriptions.

On the price end of the equation, drug formularies are thought to control costs by having pharmacy benefit managers negotiate bulk discounts on prescription drugs. But pharmacy benefit managers have come under fire with allegations that they actually increase drug prices or at the very least are powerless to stop the increases in drug prices. The issue of drug formularies, pharmacy benefit managers and drug prices is complicated and will be addressed in Part 2 of this series.

“Cost-Shifting” Exposed: How Injured Worker Medical Care Decisions Are Made (And Who Pays)

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

Medical coverage is a topic on everyone’s mind. Obamacare, while controversial, has started a real dialogue in this country regarding health care. Regardless of whether you are in favor of the current law, most Americans want affordable health care for themselves and their families.

Many employers pay for a substantial amount of their workers’ premiums as a benefit to them, and take this into consideration when making salary decisions due to the high cost, thereby leaving workers to pay for all or some of their medical coverage. Sometimes insurers pay for benefits that are not their responsibility because the proper entity refuses to pay. This is known as cost shifting. As a practitioner in the field of Workers’ Compensation, this idea of cost shifting has become an all too common occurrence. 

By way of background, as a result of social reform, most states enacted some form of Workers’ Compensation legislation in the early 20th Century. In exchange for timely payment of medical and indemnity benefits, workers gave up the right to sue their employers. In 2007 in New York, there was a series of further reforms that led to compromise between labor groups, the insurance industry and the Business Counsel. There was an increase in the amount of weekly benefits to injured workers to conform with the State average weekly wage (now a maximum of approximately $800 per week) in exchange for a limit on the amount of weeks an injured worker is entitled to receive these benefits.  Additionally, medical treatment guidelines have been introduced with the premise that they would streamline costs and get injured workers faster and more effective medical care. These guidelines are based upon the principles of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), which is the use of clinical trials and data to determine whether a specific treatment should be recommended for a specific diagnosis.  It is sometimes referred to as “cookbook” treatment. 

In New York, the Court of Appeals recently ruled by a 4-3 margin that any treatment not specifically included and pre-authorized is presumptively unnecessary. In other words, if a treatment requested is not within the medical treatment guidelines, it is denied. This takes the decision making out of the hands of the treating physician who is really in the best position to determine what treatment would be most beneficial for patients. In order to overcome this presumption, the doctor now must engage in what has been seen in most cases as an exercise in futility to request a variance to overcome this presumption.

The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) reported that the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board received 202,643 variance requests in the first 10 months the guidelines were implemented. A quarter of the requests were rejected by the Board immediately. The rest can lead to protracted litigation. As a result, in many instances injured workers will now shift the cost to another party, such as their own private insurance, Medicare or even worse, pay for the treatment out of pocket. It is the path of least resistance. We all pay an additional price for medical costs borne by group health insurance carriers, Medicaid, and Medicare that should in fact be paid by Worker’s Compensation insurers. This cost shifting may increase Workers’ Compensation insurance profits, but it hurts both the employers’ and the employees’ bottom line. Injured workers don’t stop needing treatment just because their medical claim is denied. Someone has to pay for the cost of lost time and medical treatment. It is time that the proper party step up and take responsibility.

 

 

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.

Medical Care Politics in Worker’s Compensation

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

The mythology surrounding employee fraud in worker’s compensation is pervasive. Many of my clients begin their conversations with me indicating the following: “I’m not one of those folks faking their worker’s compensation claim.”  The exaggerated media publicity concerning employee fraud has also resulted in outright worker intimidation regarding filing a claim. I had this conversation today with a prospective client.

Attorney: Why didn’t you report the incident?
Client: I didn’t want to have that on my record.  Nobody will hire me if I have a worker’s comp injury.
Attorney: Why didn’t you seek medical treatment?
Client: I do not have insurance.
Attorney: Can you obtain insurance under the Affordable Care Act?
Client: You mean Obamacare?  No way!

Fear of being stigmatized as a complainer, whiner, or simply a recipient of worker’s compensation benefits has prompted many legitimately injured workers from filing a worker’s compensation claim.

The adverse publicity concerning the Affordable Care Act (and its pejorative popular name “Obamacare”) results in many otherwise qualified workers from obtaining the health care they need, especially when denied by a worker’s compensation insurance carrier. 

The politics of medical care intrudes in the worker’s compensation arena daily.