Click here to check out the podcast! (Make sure you subscribe to our YouTube and iTunes Channels!)
By: Ron E. Peck, Esq.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I want to address transparency – at least one more time. I’ve noticed of late calls from both our industry, and from Capitol Hill, for transparency. Of course, I don’t think these people really know for what they’re hollering. Let’s expand our focus from healthcare, and wag the finger at people who failed those noble spirits who crusaded for transparency already – and suffered the consequences.
Exhibit A: JC Penny’s. Recall in 2011, when JC Penny’s made what most experts have deemed a catastrophic, strategic mistake, regarding its pricing strategy. What horrific miscalculation did the retail giant make? It replaced “sales” (a/k/a “discount”) and “coupons” with everyday low prices. JC Penny’s told consumers: “Hey! We aren’t going to bamboozle you by inflating prices, and then throwing arbitrary discounts at you. Instead, we’ll offer you fair prices without any games.” This was one example where transparency failed miserably.
Exhibit B: Payless. If you want to buy some sneakers from Payless, you’d better do it soon. Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is closing for good. I’ve never shopped at Payless myself, but they hold a special place in my heart by virtue of something they did in November of 2018. Yes indeed; it was only a few months ago that they supported my theory that transparency without quality awareness is not only useless, but potentially dangerous. Payless opened a fake luxury store, dubbed “Palessi.” At this “boutique,” they displayed shoes (for which they normally charge $20 at their Payless stores), with price tags that ranged up to $600+ (a 1,800% markup). Shoppers saw the higher prices and assumed that – if it costs more, it must be better.
I could keep sharing stories of “transparency” gone bad, such as my everyday example (people pay more for brand name OTC medication instead of the identical store brand drug), but these two examples above are particularly heinous because they not only both feature businesses that proved people don’t actually care about transparency – but both businesses are now failing! Or should I say, we’ve failed them?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – people want the most expensive option. People don’t want to pay for the most expensive option, but they want to have the most expensive option. Look no further than the credit crisis bankrupting so many Americans, who bought more than they could afford. Credit cards made it so easy to dig that hole, from which people can’t emerge, because they made it “feel” like it was someone else’s money.
So… let’s review. People inherently want the most expensive option, because they are convinced price is an indicator of quality. Additionally, luxury purchases are a status symbol. So we want the best, assume the most expensive must be the best; and we want other people to think we have the best (a/k/a most expensive) stuff as well. The only roadblock is that I don’t have money with which to buy the best (most expensive) stuff, but, when someone gives me a “card” and that “card” grants me access to deeper pockets than my own, I can now use that “card” to buy the best (most expensive) stuff. The fact that I have to pay for that “stuff” later (either in the form of credit card payments … or … [assuming my metaphor didn’t go over your head] insurance premiums) won’t stop me from running up an unaffordable bill.
Transparency did nothing to stop people from getting themselves into credit card debt. Transparency will do nothing to curb people’s health care spending, and I actually foresee it making things worse. Consider the proposals to have drug prices on TV advertisements. I’m watching the Patriots beat another opponent, when a commercial for Viagra pops up; (pun intended). The commercial ends by telling me the cost of the drug is $400. Next, a commercial for Cialis appears, and tells me that drug costs $600. Well – don’t I and my spouse deserve the best? Cialis it is!
Unless and until reliable quality measurements are included in the transparency discussion, and that information is delivered in such a way that the consumer will understand and appreciate that price has no relationship with quality, I fear “price transparency” on its own is not only a step too short, but potentially a step backwards, in Palessi boots.
By: Erin M. Hussey, Esq.
A federal court has ordered certain provisions of President Trump’s Association Health Plan (“AHP”) Final Rule to be vacated. The court has remanded the AHP Final Rule to the Department of Labor (“DOL”) for consideration on how the severability provision will affect the remaining portions of the Final Rule. The court detailed that “if a provision is found entirely invalid then ‘the provision shall be severable from [the Final Rule] and shall not affect the remainder thereof.’ 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5(g).”
The court ordered the following provisions, codified as 29 C.F.R. §§ 2510.3-5(b), (c), and (e), to be vacated:
(1) allowing coverage to be offered to working owners; and
(2) the bona fide provisions (including the provisions about a substantial business purpose, control, and the expanded commonality of interest requirements).
The court concluded that the provisions relating to working owners is not within the scope of ERISA because coverage is not being offered to an actual “employer”, and ERISA defines an employer as having at least two or more employees. In addition, Congress intended that only benefit plans that arise from employment relationships fall within ERISA’s scope, and when it comes to a working owner there is no employer-employee relationship. The court noted, “There is no indication that Congress crafted the statute with the intent of sweeping working owners without employees—who employ no one—within ERISA’s scope through the statutory definition of ‘employer.’” The court provided an example to detail the “absurdity of [the] DOL’s interpretation.” The example was of an association forming an AHP that consists of fifty-one working owners without employees. The court concluded that the “number of employees employed by fifty-one working owners without employees. . reaches a sum of zero.”
Furthermore, allowing working owners to purchase coverage through and AHP would be an “end-run” around the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Using the example above, an association consisting of fifty-one working owners would be considered a large employer and the AHP formed could follow large group market rules. Thus, the Final Rule is avoiding ACA consumer protections within the individual market rules (i.e., essential health benefits). The court concluded the following:
“The Court cannot believe that Congress crafted the ACA, with its careful statutory scheme distinguishing rules that apply to individuals, small employers, and large employers, with the intent that fifty-one distinct individuals employing no others could exempt themselves from the individual market’s requirements by loosely affiliating through a so-called “bona fide association” without real employment ties.”
With regards to the bona fide provisions, the court details that this is not a meaningful limit on associations. The court focuses on the three overall criteria that the DOL previously utilized to determine which associations are “bona fide”: purpose, commonality of interest, and control. The court concludes that the Final Rule “departs significantly from the DOL’s prior sub-regulatory guidance in the way it measures these criteria.” As for the “substantial business purpose” criterion, the court concludes that it “sets such a low bar that virtually no association could fail to meet it . . . [and] provides no meaningful limit on the associations that would qualify as ‘bona fide’ ERISA ‘employers.’”
As for the commonalty of interest criterion, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5(c), the Final Rule provides that an AHP will have commonality of interest if:
(i) The employers are in the same trade, industry, line of business or profession; or
(ii) Each employer has a principal place of business in the same region that does not exceed the boundaries of a single State or a metropolitan area (even if the metropolitan area includes more than one State).
The plaintiff states “object to the latter, which deems employers to be united in interest solely because of common geographical location.” The court agreed and noted that “[g]eography, similarly, is not a logical proxy for common interest, and substituting shared geography for the statutory requirement of common interest improperly expands ERISA’s scope.” As such, the court concluded that allowing geography to meet the commonality of interest test “creates no meaningful limit on these associations . . . [and] the geography test does no work to focus the Final Rule on the types of associations that Congress intended ERISA to cover.”
Lastly, as for the criterion of control, the court concludes that the control test is only meaningful if the “members’ interests are already aligned.” However, the AHPs operating under the Final Rule could consist of employer members with “widely disparate interests” and therefore, the “employers’ interests would not be aligned.”
Additionally, the bona fide provisions make it easier for small employers to purchase coverage from an AHP and avoid the small group market rules. Therefore, the court concluded that making it easier to allow small employers, as well as working owners, to purchase coverage through an AHP and avoid individual and small group market rules was an “end-run” around the ACA. The court did note however, that pre-Final Rule, in the “rare instances” an association met the DOL’s prior bona fide association criteria, the association coverage would be considered in a single group health plan document and the number of total employees of all employer members would be counted to determine whether small or large group market rules applied.
The above-noted provisions, that the court ordered to be vacated, are integral to the Final Rule. Those provisions expand the ability for AHPs to form and allow AHPs to offer coverage to more individuals and groups. The remaining portions of the Final Rule are unlikely to survive, besides what is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5(c)(1)(i), where an association of employers in the same trade, industry, line of business or profession, who form an AHP, can expand across state lines. We will be following the reactions to this ruling and how the DOL responds.
Last night, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the Department of Labor’s new rules that expanded the sale of association health plans (“AHPs”) violate existing law. Those rules applied to fully-insured AHPs in September 2018, to existing self-funded AHPs in January 2019, and would have permitted new self-funded AHPs on April 1, 2019. If this ruling stands, it will have a significant impact on the self-funded industry. The Phia Group will have extensive analysis of this decision in the coming days. For now, join Adam and Brady as they unpack this 43-page order and discuss what it all means for employers, TPAs, brokers, and the broader industry.
Listen in as The Phia Group’s Marketing & Accounts Manager, Matthew Painten, and Compliance & Regulatory Affairs Consultant, Philip Qualo, dissect Phia’s very own Self-funded health plan. These guys aren’t holding back and you don’t want to miss out on this podcast!
Whenever a self-funded health plan covers mental health/substance use disorder (“MH/SUD”) benefits, we review the plan to assess whether these benefits are covered in parity with medical/surgical benefits in order to ensure compliance with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”). A recent case, however, has added another layer to compliance when it comes to covering MH/SUD benefits.
In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2019 WL 1033730 (N.D. Cal. 2019), class actions were brought against an insurer by plaintiffs who were “at all relevant times a beneficiary of an ERISA-governed health benefit plan” administered by the insurer. In the capacity of administering MH/SUD benefits, the insurer had developed “Level of Care Guidelines and Coverage Determination Guidelines (collectively, “Guidelines”) that it uses for making coverage determinations” of MH/SUD benefits. Those Guidelines were the main issue in this case as well as how they were utilized to adjudicate claims.
Interestingly enough, the plaintiffs' claims against the insurer did not include a violation of the MHPAEA. Instead, the plaintiffs asserted two ERISA claims: (1) breach of fiduciary duty and (2) arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits. The Plaintiffs argued that the insurer breached its fiduciary duty by:
“1) developing guidelines for making coverage determinations that are far more restrictive than those that are generally accepted even though Plaintiffs’ health insurance plans provide for coverage of treatment that is consistent with generally accepted standards of care, and 2) prioritizing cost savings over members’ interests.”
The plaintiffs also argued that the insurer improperly adjudicated and denied claims because of the overly restrictive Guidelines, and the use of those Guidelines was arbitrary and capricious.
The court ruled that the insurer breached their ERISA fiduciary duty and that the actions were an arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits, and concluded that the insurer’s Guidelines were overly restrictive and not in line with accepted standards of care. The court emphasized that the insurer placed “an excessive emphasis on addressing acute symptoms and stabilizing crises while ignoring the effective treatment of members’ underlying conditions.”
This case is a reminder that the claim guidelines utilized and the process of adjudicating and denying claims must be held to certain standards to ensure ERISA compliance when administering MH/SUD benefits.
By: Brady Bizarro, Esq.
When President Trump nominated Scott Gottlieb to be commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in March of 2017, critics were quick to point out his deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry. They had little hope that he would have the wherewithal to overcome perceived conflicts of interest and challenge the industry on important issues facing consumers and payers. Scott Gottlieb, however, proved to be a rarity, seemingly immune to regulatory capture. He received bipartisan praise as one of the administration’s most effective regulators. His departure in April will be a loss for the self-funded industry and for healthcare cost containment as a whole.
Dr. Gottlieb focused his efforts in three key areas: rising drug prices, the opioid epidemic, and the underage use of e-cigarettes. Under his leadership, the FDA worked to strengthen and speed up the review process for generic drugs. In 2018, first-time generic approval grew by 24%. In all, the FDA approved 971 generic drugs in 2018, an all-time high. With respect to the opioid crisis, which has killed some 85,000 people since 2017 and led to an enormous spike in treatment costs to payers, Dr. Gottlieb took a hard stance on opioid prescribing limits and approved a mobile app to help those with substance use disorder recovering through outpatient treatment. Finally, under Gottlieb, the FDA cracked down on teen vaping by announcing rules to restrict the sale of flavored e-cigarettes, supported banning menthol cigarettes, and reduced nicotine levels in cigarettes.
Soon after he announced his departure, the Trump administration named an interim replacement, Dr. Ned Sharpless, who now heads the Cancer Division of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). The search for a permanent replacement is still underway.
By: Jon Jablon, Esq.
Employers, TPAs, and brokers primarily choose to utilize reference-based pricing programs to cut costs. Instilling systemic changes in the industry can also be a goal of those utilizing this methodology, but cost-containment is a much more tangible goal.
The reference-based pricing mentality can carry with it the opinion that medical providers are crooks – charging many times the fair market value of services with no meaningful system of checks or balances. While that may sometimes be accurate, it’s still important to remember the law that surrounds reference-based pricing and, more importantly, balance-billing, when deciding whether to “stick it to the man.”
Some employers refuse to negotiate balances with medical providers, even if the health plan offers very few or no options for contracted providers. Aside from the Department of Labor’s not-so-favorable stance on this matter (see https://www.phiagroup.com/Media/Posts/PostId/376/unraveling-faq-part-31), medical providers retain the right to send patients to collections, or even file lawsuits against them. Although there is an increasing amount of litigation in the industry regarding this exact topic, there is not yet any concrete guidance that removes a medical provider’s right to send patients to collections or sue a patient.
It’s sometimes tempting to walk away from the bargaining table in frustration, but remember the ramifications on the member if that’s the route taken. My advice is certainly not to bend to any given provider’s whim when it comes to payment – but keep an open mind, and consider the potential consequences associated with every option.
Whether from unpredictable provider charges, “black box” claims repricing, mysterious PBM rebates, or unobtainable claims data, entities operating in the self-funded space such as employers, TPAs, brokers, and stop-loss carriers have been forced to deal with a systemic lack of transparency.
Join The Phia Group’s legal team as they discuss some emerging and ongoing transparency issues, measures being taken to try to resolve them, and methods you can use to get the data you need in order to lower costs.
Click Here to View Our Full Webinar on YouTube
Click Here to Download Webinar Slides Only
By: Andrew Silverio, Esq.
In recent weeks, we have seen an influx of questions regarding the practice of procuring prescription drugs from abroad, particularly Mexico (Canada has historically been the most popular source). The issue has also been popping up in the news, and a program for public employees in Utah to venture to Tijuana to pick up their prescriptions is now live. The potential for significant savings compared to domestic pricing for (essentially) the same drugs is what is driving the popularity of this trend. We won’t get into the legal standing of this practice – feel free to reach out if you’d like information on that topic – but we wanted to highlight a potential risk that we generally don’t see employers consider when looking at programs like this – not a legal or contractual risk, but a health risk stemming from the drugs themselves.
It is true that drugs manufactured for sale abroad can be chemically identical or sometimes even manufactured in the same facilities as their U.S. counterparts. However, this is not always the case, and quality control can be an issue, as can more nefarious problems with counterfeit drugs. Countries designated as “Tier 1” (such as Canada) have comparable safety standards to those in the United States, but the fact remains that the FDA has no authority or ability to oversee drugs manufacturer for sale abroad (even drugs that come off the same conveyor belt as their U.S. counterparts).
Even at home, quality control issues happen. Per a recent CNN article, “there’s no end in sight for one of the largest prescription drug recalls in recent memory.” Numerous different blood pressure medications, from several manufacturers, have been pulled from shelves due to contamination related to “NDMA” (N-nitrosodimethylamine), a chemical which is used to make liquid rocket fuel. This chemical, and another which has been identified called NDEA (N-Nitrosodiethylamine), interfere with DNA replication which can result in cancer, and the issue goes back years, not months. These foreign manufacturers may be taking all the same appropriate corrective action for drugs packaged for sale elsewhere, but the FDA simply doesn’t have the ability or authority to make sure of it.
Finally, in the event a patient visits a foreign country to retrieve their medications and ends up receiving tainted or counterfeit products and having adverse effects (whether due to a lack of FDA oversight or not), that patient will not have the benefit of any domestic laws relating to product safety or medical malpractice. If any recourse against the manufacturer or pharmacy is available at all, they will likely need to return to the source of the drug and operate within an unfamiliar legal system. Of course, if the patient’s health plan actively encouraged the patient to get their drugs from a less reputable foreign source rather than the pharmacy up the street, the plan itself could potentially be liable – and a much more appealing target than a foreign pharmacy. If you need an independent consultation of your health plan, contact us today!