Phia Group Media

rss

Phia Group Media


Can’t We All Just Get Along?
By: Chris Aguiar, Esq.

It always baffles me when sides whose interests should be very well aligned can’t seem to get on the same page.  The Right and the Left blame each other for the problems in America.  Payers chastise providers for charging too much while providers point the finger back at payers for paying too little. The reality is, if we all took a seat at the table together in the spirit cooperation and compromise, we could probably figure out something that worked for everyone.

In today’s blog installment, I’m looking at the relationship between stop loss carriers and benefit plans.  Now, talk to any of us lawyers at The Phia Group, and we could talk all day about horror stories, as far as subrogation is concerned, its comes up in the same way almost every time.  Now, it doesn’t happen often – but every once in a while I’ll  come across a plan that doesn’t want to comply with its stop loss contracts and/or obligations.  It’s important that everyone realizes that we need each other to survive.  Those plans who perhaps don’t have the cash flow or population to sustain large losses especially must consider the importance of stop loss to the health of their self-funded plan.  And let’s face it, if companies didn’t make money offering a stop loss product, it wouldn’t be available in the marketplace.

The truth is, we’re on the same team.  If we can’t get on the same page, how can we expect state regulators to see the value in what self-funding brings to the benefit plan table?


Spinning the Web of the Plan Document
By: Kelly Dempsey, Esq.

(No, this isn’t about spiders.)

The date was somewhere around August 25, 1999. The location was my 10th grade biology class. I remember taking in the scenery of a new classroom and looking at all the pictures and quotes my teacher had up on the walls. One in particular caught my eye:

“I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

Once your head stops spinning, we can continue…

I’ve since learned this quote is attributed to the former head of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan.  The context of this quote is still foreign to me, but I believe it can be applied to just about anything – so let’s apply it to plan documents.  

In general there are several entities involved in the process of administering an ERISA self-funded medical plan document, but ultimately the plan sponsor is responsible for ensuring the terms of the plan document meet the needs of the plan and its members. The plan administrator then has the fiduciary duty to administer the plan in accordance with the terms of the plan document. So when is the last time that you, the plan sponsor, have read the plan document cover to cover?  

Plan documents have to be reviewed and revised for any number of reasons, including regulatory changes – but sometimes plan documents are changed when the plan moves to a different claims administrator (i.e., hires a new TPA to administer claims, or moves from an ASO to a TPA or vice versa). The “rules” each claims administrator sets related to the plan document’s format may vary. Some TPAs will administer the document as-is. Some TPAs prefer to use their own plan document template, which the plan sponsor can either adopt from scratch or conform its existing benefits to.

I’ve written about “gap traps” before, and while this isn’t a really one of those as we typically use the term (which is most often relevant to gaps between a plan document and a stop loss policy), a type of gap arises if a restated document doesn’t mirror the prior plan document. For example, the prior plan document had an illegal acts exclusion that applies for any act that carries with it a potential prison sentence of one year. The restated plan document, however, doesn’t include this specific prison sentence limitation, which means the plan essentially will have to exclude more claims in order to comply with the terms of the plan document (such as, for instance, a DWI, which does not carry with it a sentence of up to one year, but is an illegal act!). While this would comport with the terms of the plan document, it is something for which plan members – and even the plan administrator – may not be prepared.

Another example is a situation where the prior plan contained a medical tourism program that includes many non-U.S. locations, so the plan did not include a foreign travel exclusion. When the two plan documents were “merged” such that the existing document and new format are combined, the new plan document accidentally contained both an international medical tourism program as well as a new exclusion for non-U.S. claims (because foreign travel exclusions are still fairly common). Needless to say, that type of contradiction can cause a slew of problems (including a potential gap with the stop loss policy).

The addition of a new exclusion, or even apparently minor verbiage changes within an existing exclusion (or definition, or benefit, or just about anything else, for that matter), can seem very insignificant, but has the potential for dire consequences if the intent of the plan is not reflected as clearly as possible.   

So, a few questions for employers, TPAs, consultants, brokers, and anyone else involved in plan document drafting:

•    Does the plan document actually say what the plan sponsor wants it to say?
•    Does it clearly outline what is covered?
•    Do the exclusions align with what the plan wants to be excluded?
•    If a plan document has been recently restated, have you confirmed that the terms of the new plan document are the same as the prior plan document?

It’s always best to triple-check these types of things.  Happy reading!


Altogether Now… But Not a Single Payer
By: Ron Peck, Esq.

I have in the past remarked both that a single payer system would be harmful to patients and providers, and that it therefore behooves providers and benefit plan administrators to collaborate on an approach that ensures long term sustainability and viability of private benefit plans.

In response, I have been asked why a single payer system is bad for providers and patients, as well as why the current benefit model is not sustainable or viable long term.  While fully responding to both of these inquiries requires way more real estate than I have here, I hope in this blog entry to briefly explain.

WHY THE STATUS QUO CANNOT CONTINUE

I was recently asked to speak about our healthcare system.  I’d planned to talk about how PPACA (aka the ACA or Obamacare) only targets one-third of the healthcare system – that being payers (insurance), while mostly ignoring the other two-thirds: payees (providers) and patients.  

When I performed a web search to find pictures of the three for my slide deck, (insurance, providers, and patients), almost all of the available stock photo images associated with each were as follows: Provider; a wise, grey haired, caring doctor gently comforting a sick child – someone we could trust.  Patient; a desperate looking otherwise average person, clearly in pain and needing help – someone we could relate to.  Insurance; a sleazy looking businessman in a fancy suit, with a slick grin and pockets full of cash – someone we could hate.

Call it a scapegoat, or something else, but of the three players in healthcare, insurance is the villain.  Small wonder, when you consider that they are the ones that employers blame when rates go up; they are the ones siphoning salary from your paycheck; and they don’t provide anything useful.  I mean – providers save lives.  Insurance ruins them, right?  Insurance profits off of others’ suffering, right?  Insurance can charge whatever they want because the alternative is death, right?  Wrong.

Health insurance is routinely ranked beneath the pharmaceutical industry, medical products and equipment, and even some hospital systems, when it comes to profitability; (https://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/12/21/the-most-profitable-industries-in-2016/#12b660035716).  Now – I understand that “profit” means your revenue to cost ratio is great… and that it’s absolutely possible that insurers are taking in way too much revenue, and simply fail to address costs (resulting in poorer profits), but regardless of the reason – the national belief that insurance is printing money, is misplaced.

As I’ve said many times before, insurance isn’t healthcare – it’s a means to pay for healthcare.  This idea that insurance can strong-arm people into paying whatever they want, because people can’t say no – because not having insurance means certain death – assumes that without insurance there is no healthcare.  Yet, the truth is that healthcare would exist with or without insurance; we’d just need to find a different way to pay for it.  People “need” insurance – not for its own sake – but to pay for healthcare, because healthcare itself is too expensive.  

Imagine the following scenario:  Oil changes for your car jump to $1,000 per oil change.  Rather than be outraged with the price, we turn around and demand that auto insurance start paying for it.  We then get outraged when auto insurance rates increase.

Insurance isn’t without blame.  Indeed, I believe strongly that some forms of benefit plan are the only types that should be allowed to exist; that others are too profit driven, and/or force insureds to pay the cost when they make mistakes or act inefficiently.  Yet, with that said, blaming those actors (even the bad ones) for all the problems facing healthcare is a huge mistake.

Health insurance is not a behemoth, stomping around, forcing its will on insureds and providers.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Problems with the status quo arise not from the strength of the insurance market, but rather, their weakness.  This weakness, which we’ll next dissect, would be abolished by a single payer system – at the expense of medical service providers.

Presently, insurers (try to) negotiate with hospitals and drug companies on their own.  To do this, many rely upon preferred provider organization (PPO) networks or other such programs, whereby someone (the insurer itself or a network acting on a plan’s behalf) negotiate deals with providers, which then allows the provider to be deemed “in network.”  

In exchange for agreeing to the network terms, providers are promised prompt payment, and reductions in (or elimination of) audits and other activities payers otherwise engage in when dealing with medical bills submitted by out of network providers.  Indeed, benefit plans unilaterally calculate what the covered amount is when paying an out of network provider (usually resulting in the “balance” being “billed” to the patient).  When paying an in-network provider, however, benefit plans are required to pay the network rate (the billed charge minus an agreed upon discount), regardless of what pricing parameters they’d usually apply to out of network bills.  This is agreeable to the payer, meanwhile, because it means they get a discount (albeit off of inflated rates), and – more importantly – the payment is payment in full… meaning patients aren’t balance billed.

Due to the payer’s size (or lack of size) and number of payers present, competition between payers and networks, and other elements present in our market, payers cannot “strong arm” providers.   Compare this to markets where there is a single payer; when providers must agree to terms controlled by the payer, since it’s their way or no way.  

In other words, in a pure single-payer system, there is only one payer available – and you play by their rules, or you don’t play at all. Currently, in the United States, Medicare and Medicaid are the two “biggest” payers, and thus, it should come as no surprise that they routinely secure the best rates.

So – when you ask why the current system can’t survive, look at the prices.  Yes – instead of focusing on getting everyone enrolled in an insurance plan, and hoping that will somehow make things less expensive, instead look at what we’re actually paying.  As with the $1,000 oil change, sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.  Healthcare is too expensive because healthcare is too expensive.

A 2011 study (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/9/1647) found that reimbursements to some US providers from public payers, such as Medicare and Medicaid, were 27% higher than in countries with universal coverage, and their reimbursements from private payers were 70% higher.  This tells you two things – private plans pay way more than Medicare, and Medicare pays way more than “single payer systems.”

What does this mean?  If providers fail to offer private payers better rates soon, they will bankrupt the system.  If that happens, Medicare will go from being the “biggest” payer to the “only” payer… and the rates they pay will drop accordingly.  This then, brings us to the next chapter…

THE ISSUES WITH A SINGLE PAYER

Businesses need to stay profitable to stay afloat, and medical providers are no different.  In a single payer system, usage increases (because – from the “consumer” perspective [aka patients] it’s free), and reimbursement to providers decreases (for reasons discussed above).  That means providers are expected to do more with less.  Naturally, this results in decreases in quality, and longer waiting times (assuming access is available at all).  

To counter this natural shift, many nations with single payer systems also implement strict central planning.  This moves many healthcare choices from individual patients and providers, and instead allows the government to set the rules.

Months to have a lump examined?  Hours upon hours sitting in a waiting room?  Death panels?  The “horror” stories we hear from other nations with single payer systems are not shocking – they are expected.  Yet, those who support a single payer system do so because the current system is too expensive.  Thus, to avoid a single payer system, we need to make healthcare less expensive.  How do we do that?  Reduce the cost of healthcare, and reduce the cost of health insurance accordingly.

IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE

First, many have argued (and I tend to agree) that health insurance pays for too many medical services.  Routine, foreseeable services should not be “insured” events.  Insurance is meant to shift risk, associated with unforeseen catastrophic events.  A flu shot doesn’t fall into that category.  If people paid for such costs out of their own pocket, hopefully the cost of insurance would decrease (adding cash to the individual’s assets with which they can pay for said expenses).  Likewise, hopefully providers would recognize that people are paying for these services out of their own pockets, and reduce their fees accordingly.  If an insurance carrier wanted to reimburse insureds for these expenses (promoting a healthy lifestyle and avoiding some catastrophic costs insurance would otherwise pay) or employers want to cover these costs as a separate and independent benefit of employment (distinct from health insurance) so be it; (cough*self-funding*cough).

Next, we need to refocus on primary care as the gatekeeper.  I’ve seen a movement towards “physician only” networks, direct primary care, and other innovative methods by which benefit plans and employers promote the use of primary care physicians, and I applaud the effort.  They provide low cost services, identify potential high cost issues before they multiply, and steer patients to the highest quality yet lowest cost facilities and specialists when needed.

Lastly, I’ve seen benefit plans attempt to remove themselves from traditional “binding” network arrangements and instead contract directly with one or two facilities in a given geographic area.  By engaging with the facility directly, they can find common ground, and identify valuable consideration not previously considered.  Between increased steerage, true exclusivity, electronic payment, prompt payment, dedicated concierge, and other services payers can offer hospitals – above and beyond dollars and cents – some facilities are able to reduce their asking price to a rate that will allow the plan to survive… and thrive.

From ACOs to value based pricing… from direct primary care to carving out the highest cost (yet rarest) types of care – to be negotiated case by case – many innovative payers are trying to cut costs and ensure their survival.  The next step is getting providers to agree that such survival is good for the provider as well.  Compared to the alternative, I hope they will not cut off their noses to spite their faces.

It’s Time for a Wake-Up Call!
By: Jen McCormick, Esq.

Healthcare has received so much attention over the past 10 years. Everyone has something to say about its current form, how comprehensive it should be, or who should be have a role in providing the coverage.   The most contentious piece of the conversation, however, is cost.  Healthcare can be expensive – particularly if you don’t pay attention.  Guess what – it’s time to pay attention… This mean you employers!

As an employer, do you take steps to encourage employees to make smart choices when it comes to healthcare? Are they encouraged to select generics? Are they told to read and understand the benefits available to them? Are they aware of the incentives the employer may offer for making an informed choice? These incentives don’t have to be limited to the plan document either!  Consider having a staff meeting to review all the great benefits the plan offers, maybe poll the staff and see if the employees want to offer a certain benefit (i.e. acupuncture), or even have a quiz which asks questions about the benefits and rewards the highest scoring employee.  

Whatever the method – it’s time to do something different and get employees engaged at the outset (prior to receiving healthcare benefits)!

Behind Closed Doors
By: Brady C. Bizarro, Esq.

Anyone paying attention to national politics in the past six months knows that Washington has a problem with leaks; leaks from the White House, leaks from the intelligence community, and unsurprisingly, leaks from Capitol Hill. While many of these leaks come from “anonymous” sources and some are later debunked, they can be extremely damaging to both administration officials and lawmakers. Leaks, however, are not typically an issue in the legislative process. This is because, although legislation is not usually made public until it reaches a congressional committee, Congress routinely holds public hearings, meetings, and roundtable discussions after introducing legislation that could have a significant impact on domestic policy. This time around, however, Republican leaders have chosen to write their health care bill behind closed doors, and that decision should worry employers, insurers, and providers alike.

Back in March, the Washington Post reported that the House bill to repeal and replace Obamacare was being kept secret in an undisclosed room in the U.S. Capitol. This led Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) on a rather public quest to find the bill and to demand that his House colleagues show him the secret draft. Eventually, a draft leaked to the press, causing Republicans significant grief and making the task of passing the legislation that much more difficult. The Senate has also chosen secrecy, opting not to hold any public meetings on their version of a repeal and replace bill. The strategy seems to be to wait until the Senate has enough votes to pass the bill before unveiling it. Unsurprisingly, an outline of that bill emerged last week and is now causing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) many headaches.

According to the leaked outline, the Senate bill requires insurance companies to offer coverage to people with preexisting conditions and, unlike the House bill, it prohibits them from charging sick people higher premiums. The outline still permits states to seek waivers that would permit insurers to decide not to cover essential health benefits. This effectively means that insurers can reinstate lifetime and annual limits on coverage since the ban on limits applies only to essential health benefits. Finally, the outline reveals that heavy cuts to Medicaid are still planned, but are pushed out a few more years. In short, these changes represent a compromise between hardline conservatives who want a full repeal of Obamacare and moderate Republicans who are concerned about the impact on low-income Americans and those with pre-existing conditions.

Since we do not know for sure what the final bill will look like, it is futile to try to assess its impact on the health care industry as a whole and on the self-insurance industry in particular. Still, one conclusion we can draw is that the legislative strategy at play is creating substantial uncertainty for our industry. When the Affordable Care Act was being passed, Democrats held public hearings involving industry experts, advocacy groups, and other key stakeholders. While the bill was far from perfect, at least interest groups got the chance to give their input and to discuss their concerns in an open forum. By writing their health care reform bill behind closed doors, Republicans are making themselves susceptible to leaks and to charges that they shut key stakeholders out of the process. It remains to be seen if this strategy is more or less likely to produce a bill that works for the health insurance industry and the American people.

“Stay away from Back Surgery”: A Warning from NBA Coach Steve Kerr
Steve Kerr’s comments can be viewed as a warning for self-funded payers and their administrators to educate their members on the shortcomings of some surgeries which are extremely expensive and often unnecessary.  

According to the American Journal of Orthopedics, over a third of Americans reported some musculoskeletal conditions that significantly impaired their normal routines. For many, these issues develop into the perceived need for serious orthopedic procedures and joint replacements, which are among the most profitable surgeries in all of medicine based on the time the surgeries actually take.

It therefore comes as no surprise to discover that, in the last 10 years, the occurrence and associated costs of serious orthopedic procedures have both jumped by 300%. Current projections are that this trend will continue, and (as an example) we may see an additional 400% increase in joint replacements by 2030.

What is the reason for this steady and significant increase in serious orthopedic surgeries and joint replacement procedures?  Regardless of whose opinion you read, you will be told that the reason for more orthopedic procedures is because we are getting older, and we are getting heavier.  This, however, does not fully capture the often-overlooked third factor: consumers are simply being offered greater access to more surgical options.  As an example, adjusted data from the Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research demonstrates that obesity and the aging population fails to account for the 134% increase in total knee replacements between 1998 and 2007 (overall, a 300% increase).  So how do we account for it?  It is not a stretch to suggest that at least part of the increase in serious orthopedic procedures and joint replacements is attributable to the provider community pushing for these surgical options more often than ever before (as mentioned, these surgeries are huge revenue drivers).

Steve Kerr is a powerful voice that is highlighting the importance of understanding pros/cons of surgery, exploring alternatives, and getting a second medical opinion – preferably from someone without a financial incentive to supporting the surgery in the first place.  


Bite the Hand
By: Ron Peck, Esq.

In case you missed it, there is a movement afoot.  It’s found some real purchase in California, but you hear rumblings everywhere.  A call for a single payer system.  Medicare for all.  I’m going to avoid discussing the pros and cons of this idea, as it relates to patients, employers, and us – the folks tied into the benefit plan industry.  Instead, I’m going to focus on (*gasp*) the provider community.  I was researching this topic when I stumbled upon the Physicians for a National Health Program (“PNHP”) website.  Interesting stuff!  While there, I saw a massive “FAQ” page; (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq).  Looking at the first few lines, I suddenly realized how far apart some people are from each other.  For instance, consider the following: “Question: Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?  Answer: No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.  The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.”

Stop.  Wait.  This seems to indicate that providers are free to charge whatever they want, and Medicare (blessed, generous Medicare) pays the bill.  Yet, whenever a private benefit plan offers to pay Medicare PLUS 20%, 40%, or even (sometimes) 200% of Medicare, they are laughed at by the hospital.  They are told that if the hospital accepted what Medicare pays (or even double what Medicare pays), from its privately insured patients, they’d go bankrupt!  Why?  Because Medicare has the size (steerage), clout, and statutory backing to set its own prices.  So, despite the aforementioned FAQ, Medicare DOES dictate what is paid, and DOES control what hospitals and doctors receive.  Imagine how much MORE power Medicare would have, to dictate what is and is not payable, if they WERE THE ONLY PAYER IN THE NATION!!!

This, then, is my point.  Support for a single payer / Medicare for all model is out there… and it is growing.  If this became a reality, forgetting all the other issues, as it relates to providers – hospitals wouldn’t be getting Medicare “plus” anything.  In fact, once Medicare (or whatever the single-payer called itself) literally holds ALL THE PURSE STRINGS I imagine the payable rates would drop BELOW the current Medicare payable rates.  Ouch!

So… doesn’t it benefit these hospitals to preserve private benefit delivery systems?  Shouldn’t they be scrambling to retreat from a single payer?  Given what balance billing hospitals say to me about “Medicare based payments,” I should think so.  Yet, every time a private plan or carrier is charged 1,000% or more of what Medicare pays, that payer is being pushed one step closer to financial ruin.  If that happens, and we are stuck with a single payer, I am convinced it will end badly for my friends in the health care delivery community.  Thus, every time a provider refuses to work with a private payer, to find common ground… it is a prime example of biting the hand that feeds you.  You may be able to squeeze a few more bucks out of the plan today, but mark my words, those dollars will cost you exponentially when the legs are kicked out from under our system and we’re stuck with a single payer.  Trust me.  It is a simple economic truth that when there is one, and only one customer – that customer controls the pricing.

The time has come to play along, for everyone’s sake.


It's Never Too Soon
By: Jen McCormick, Esq.

Although the regulations may change, it's important to begin thinking about plan changes for the upcoming plan year.  The specifics for compliance requirements may still be unclear, employers should already be in process of contemplating cost containment updates.

There are many ways to add value to an employee health benefit plan. An employer should perform an annual review of their plan to confirm that the plan takes advantage of as many cost containment opportunities as possible. For example, does the plan have strong third party recovery language? Overpayments language? Clearly defined terms? Appropriate definitions? Vendor program with corresponding language? If not, the plan should be cognizant of what's missing or not working, so updates can be made.

In addition to cost containment, and while some rules are in flux, there are many regulatory requirements a plan must be aware of and having corresponding language. For example, is the employer subject to ACA Section 1557? Employer Mandate? Does the plan comply with the MHPAEA? Did the plan pick a benchmark for defining essential health benefits? With all the regulatory changes, plans should stay alert and ready to make renewal modifications.

Last, but definitely not least, employers should ask their employees to weigh in on the plan. Remember it's an employee benefit to offer coverage - so employers should be offering beneficial coverage.  For example, is there a specific service that many employees wish was covered? Could that be added to the plan? Is there a trend in services for employees for which you may want to offer an incentive?  Being self funded allows you to be creative - take advantage!

Plans have freedom to design benefits to suit their needs. With this privilege comes the need to plan ahead and be creative.  Employers should be proactive and ensure this opportunity to annually update the plan design is taken seriously!


Words With No Meaning - Subrogation Accident Questionnaire

By: Chris Aguiar, Esq.

Google “average words spoken per day” and you might see some interesting entries – such as, men use 7,000 words a day on average, as compared to women’s 20,000.  When deciding what to write about today – it struck me that so much of my day handling issues on behalf of the benefit plans I represent have to do with words; which ones are used, the context in which they are used, and what they mean.  When having discussions with the Phia Team, we always find ourselves asking, “what does that mean”?  That’s because so much of the law, especially in health plan law, rests on just how clear the terms of the Plan are.  It’s important that everyone be on the same page.  When someone uses the word “normal”, everyone thinks they know what that means – but in reality, it means something slightly different to everyone.  Norms are subjective, so use of the word isn’t necessarily sending the same message universally.  When viewed that way, of course there are misunderstandings.

This whole line of thinking stemmed from a subrogation investigation I was involved in a few weeks ago.  Interestingly, it wasn’t on behalf of a client - I was involved in it for my sister.  My sister fell down the stairs at home and sprained her ankle– and of course, she received an accident questionnaire; naturally, she called me and the following conversation ensued:

… Cell phone rings …

Sister: Hi Chris, I got a letter from my insurance company asking about my ankle.  Isn’t this what you do for a living?

Me:  Yes, it is.  What do you need?

Sister:  Why are they asking me this?

Me:  … Gives long detailed explanation about subrogation and why the insurance company would be asking this question… (Omitted in the interests of brevity)

Sister:  I don’t want to deal with this, what do I do?

Me:  Put that you fell at home and let’s see if they ask any more questions.

As it turns out, the insurance company didn’t ask any more questions.  You might be thinking, “of course they didn’t, Chris – your sister fell at home”.  Well, that’s only partly true.  See, to my sister she was “home” but as far as the insurance company is concerned, she wasn’t.  That’s because my sister doesn’t own her home – she lives in the 2nd floor walk-up apartment owned by my immigrant parents.  Technically, she could bring a claim against my parents and as we know, so could the insurance company.  See “home” is another word on a list of words I call “words with no meaning.”  “Home” is where you lay your head at night, but depending on the context in which it’s being used – it isn’t necessarily something you own, and that has implications on a subrogation investigation.

But I knew what any good subrogation investigator knows – and that is that most of the time, the insurance company will get an accident letter that reads “fell at home” and they close the investigation without further research.  It may not have been a lot of money, but for my immigrant parents, it was a headache I didn’t want them to have to deal with, and it was definitely a lost recovery opportunity for the insurance company.  If you just take the words that people say at face value, you may misunderstand what they actually mean because the fact of the matter is, you have a different idea in your head of what was meant when they used certain words.  Whether it’s in your everyday conversations or in the terms of an employee benefit plan – make sure you say what you mean and you mean what you say.  Prepare yourself properly for a subrogation accident questionnaire. In your day to day life, it most often leads to minor misunderstandings and maybe some hurt feelings, but in the world of health benefits, it could lead to lengthy legal disputes and significant losses in Plan assets.


Pay the Cost to be the Boss!
By: Ron Peck, Esq.

Between Friday and Saturday I was feeling under the weather.  By Easter Sunday, my chest was terribly congested, my nose running, breath wheezing, and more.  My assumption was that on this holiday, I wouldn’t be able to find a provider – and given my breathing issues – I might find myself in the ER.  I contacted my local Urgent Care anyway, and – lo and behold – they were open.  30 minutes later I was being tested for flu, and hooked up to a nebulizer to ease my breathing.  The quality care I received, on this holiday, aside… I want to address the global issue as I see it.  I knew which options were available to me, and made an effort to pursue the option that was best for me AND my employer (as well as our self-funded benefit plan), because we have made efforts to ALIGN THOSE INTERESTS.  I was educated, aware, and incentivized to check the urgent care option before rushing to an emergency room.

Too many employers, that wisely choose to self-fund their health plan, assume that once they pick a claims processor and broker, they are off the hook and some third party will take over.  This dereliction of fiduciary duty saddens me.  Being self-funded means more than funding claims directly.  It means taking ownership over your staff… your team… your second-family (for, indeed, I consider my co-workers to be a second family; who else besides family occupies so much or our time?), and ensuring they understand the options available to them.  Making sure they understand how different choices impact the company, the plan, and their own financial bottom lines needs to be a priority for the employer.

Ask the average American employee if their health plan is self-funded.  They don’t know.  There is a greater than 60% chance they are self-funded, but they will instead quote the name of their network.  Ask how much a visit to the ER costs, compared to their primary care or urgent care, and they will quote the co-pay.

Employers!  Self-funders!  This is a call to action.  Stop passing the buck.  Start explaining how your plan is funded, and take proactive measures to align employee and employer interests.  Information is power.  Furthermore, don’t resort to a high deductible plan – again passing the buck – (this time onto the employee).  How is any employee supposed to “shop around” if they have no access to the cost of care?  As an aside, I think it’s hilarious how we gripe over the ACA, and how “Obama” focused too much on “who” is paying, and not enough on “how much” is being paid… that shifting the burden onto insurance doesn’t solve the issue of cost… and then we turn around and increase deductibles; ignoring the cost and instead shifting the burden.  When we simply pass the buck instead of addressing the cost head-on, we are just as bad as the politicians we complained about!

To that end, transparency is king; regardless of whether the plan is paying dollar number one and incentivizing employee behavior, or the employee is paying the first few thousand dollars via a high deductible.  That’s why I’m excited by organizations like The Free Market Medical Association, and the recent surge in subscription based direct primary care.  By investigating trends like these, educating employees about their plan’s funding mechanism, and actually incentivizing them to behave in a way that benefits them and the plan, we will begin to see real change – just like I did this past Sunday.