Thursday, June 15, 2006

More onto the Plate...

Apparently, I just have too much free time.

So, in an effort to resolve that problem, I have agreed to take on another task:

Dmitriy Kruglyak has started the Medical Blog Network, the purpose of which is to spur the transformation of the healthcare industry. TMBN is a sort of super-aggregator of medical news, analysis and commentary, and has already created a sizeable "buzz" in the blogosphere.

In addition to the website, there is a weekly digest, available by (free) subscription.

So what does all this have to do with lil ol' me?

I have been invited to contribute weekly articles as a Featured Columnist. I'll be writing about insurance [ed: dunh!], focusing primarily on Consumer Driven Health Care.

My first column will be available on Sunday, and I'll post a link to it here.

Since this is a weekly "gig," I don't anticipate that it will impact IB (other than introducing new readers to us). On the other hand, I'll be tackling some new issues, so that it won't be a re-hash of my work here.

Wish me luck! [ed: he'll need it.]

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Adventures in (Consumer Driven) Health Care

Three interesting stories illustrate that, whatever the ultimate outcome of CDHC turns out to be (boom or bust), the industry is at least giving it a shot.
As you may recall, we've discussed Aetna's transparency pilot program before. At the time, I expressed my hope that the program would be expanded to other venues.
Well, looks like they listened to me [ed: yeah, right!]:
■ Connecticut
■ Washington, D.C.
■ Northern Virginia
■ Maryland
■ Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Springfield, Ohio
■ Northern Kentucky
■ Southeast Indiana
■ South Florida
■ Kansas City, Kan. and Mo.
■ Las Vegas
■ Pittsburgh, Pa."
It's nice to see that program expanding. Of course, the true test will be if (and when) other carriers follow suit. Right now, it's a novelty, perhaps even a marketing gimmick. But as such information becomes more and more readily available, the pressure on other carriers to launch their own transparency initiatives should become quite powerful.
Transparency, though, is but one facet of CDHC. Plan design and popularity are more accurate indicators of market penetration. United HealthCare has seen the ranks of its CDHC plan membership swell recently. According to UHC, "consumer-driven health plan members surpassed 1.75 million people recently. The company has a little more than 710,000 people enrolled in health savings accounts and another one million and change in health reimbursement accounts." [ed: link not yet available] That represents an increase in HSA/HRA participation of some 75%. And that's without a transparency program like Aetna's.
But the “acid test” is whether, after all of the hype (or maybe because of it), do HDHP’s (High Deductible Health Plans) really save money?
According to a report offered by eHealthInsurance, health savings accounts seem to be accomplishing two worthy goals: lower premiums and a fewer uninsured folks. Last year, apparently, consumers paid (on average) about 17% less for individual plans than the year before. And eHealthInsurance says that almost half of the folks who bought their HDHP’s had been previously uninsured. Kudos!
If there’s any real downside, it’s that agents and brokers still aren’t sold on the idea. How can they be, when almost half of us "can't make a cogent argument for or against them.”
Interesting developments.

La Plus Ca Change...

A very good friend shared this with me. It's a newspaper clipping warning of the dangers we face every day.
I won't tell you when it was published (yet).

UPDATE: Okay, I think it's fixed. When you "click to enlarge," you'll see a little "gizmo" that lets you move or enlarge the picture. Thanx, Bob!

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Time for Grand Rounds

Our host this week is (Navy) Lieutenant Niels Olson. Neils is a med student at Tulane University, and blogs at The Haversian Canal. With over 40 entries, it's quite a list.

My favorite came from David Williams at the Health Business Blog. In it, David explores some problems with cancer treatment protocols.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Money Monday

The Carnival of Personal Finance is up and running at Financial Fruition. Our host has posted over 40 links. In keeping, I suppose, with the "new trend," there is no context: it's simply a collection of links (they are alphabetized, however). Looks like I'll have to get used to that.
I especially liked this post at It's Just Money (the next host of the Cavalcade of Risk), exploring some of the benefits of recycling.
This week's Carnival of the Capitalists, on the other hand, is a treat! Our host, Mike, is a (very mature) 15 year old investor, who has aggregated 42 posts, complete with summaries. All the more remarkable, because he stepped in for this week's scheduled host.
Because I tend to keep things bottled up, this post at Entrepreneur's Journey was most welcome. Yaro, from Down Under, has some great perspectives and tips on managing stress.

Good news, bad news...

In our on-going (albeit sporadic) efforts to highlight advances in nutrition and health, we try to bring you the very latest and most important such discoveries. So I was pleased to read that:
Of course, the temptation is to stop right there, but alas, there's bad news, as well:
"(R)esearchers say don't rush out to stock the refrigerator because the ingredient is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to benefit."
[ed: I thought you said there was bad news]
According to researchers, the hops in beer contains something called "xanthohumol," which affects a particular protein in the prostate. This protein is believed to be a "trigger" for prostate cancer, which (according to the CDC) is the most common form of cancer among men in the US. It's also one of the leading causes of death among men, as well.
The researchers are hopeful that big pharma will now look into synthesizing or reproducing the compound, providing an alternative treatment regimen.
I do have one question, however: how do I sign up to help with this research (the beer drinking part)?
UPDATE: And for what is beer the natural accompaniment?
Apparently, tomatoes contain a naturally occuring antioxidant called "lycopene." The idea is that, in addition to giving the 'maters their beautiful red color, it may provide protection against certain cancers.
Of course, the jury's still out on all this, but I'm picturing the new food pyramid.

Friday, June 09, 2006

A Different Kind of Bottle “Cap”

Last week, Bob discussed “caps” (limitations) on outpatient medications. In a related development, researchers report that even though capping drug benefits did lower drug consumption, it also resulted in more negative clinical outcomes and higher medical costs. The study, of some 200,000 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries, was conducted by folks from Kaiser Permanente and two universities (UC and Harvard). Their findings, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, included some startling statistics:
“(S)ubjects whose benefits were capped [at $1,000] had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped…but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower. Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department, nonelective hospitalizations, and death.”
Ouch.
Their conclusion:
"A cap on drug benefits was associated with lower drug consumption and unfavorable clinical outcomes. In patients with -- chronic disease – [emphasis added], the cap was associated with poorer adherence to drug therapy and poorer control of blood pressure, lipid levels, and glucose levels. The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency department care.”
In other words: cheaper isn’t always better. Now, in fairness, they studied a select group of people, in a population that does seem to use a lot of med’s. And they carefully avoided extrapolating their findings to the population at large.
Still, it does give one pause, especially when one considers (click to enlarge):

Kinda scary, no?

Tangled Web, Redux

Why am I not surprised by this:
As Yogi Berra once observed, “it’s déjà vu all over again.” Two weeks ago, it was United HealthCare and a Columbus area broker named Grady.
Today, it’s UHC and a Columbus area broker named Fritz Neuhart; once again, a rather ordinary web-site and a nondescript agency name. Nothing to indicate that Mr Neuhart had (allegedly) pocketed a cool $1 million in fees and commissions. Kinda makes a piker out of poor Mr Grady.
For now, the Department of Insurance is mum on this, although they’re "aware of the situation."
So far, that’s two school districts caught up in similar webs. I wonder how many other superintendents are even now rifling through their insurance files, trying to determine if they, too, have been stung.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

A Slick Operation...

What if your employer paid you to have that knee surgery in India? How about that carpal tunnel correction in Thailand? Or your hip replacement in Singapore?
Sound far-fetched? It’s not:
“Medical Tourism” has become big business. The idea is that folks can travel to a foreign country, receive medical care equal to (or potentially better than) services available here, and still save money (even factoring in travel expenses). Companies like Blue Ridge Paper have determined that, by encouraging their employees to go this route, the company and the employee save money.
I’m not so sure:
For one thing, such expenses are not going to be eligible for reimbursement under a qualified plan (HSA, HRA, FSA, etc). For another, what about accountability? For all the grief we hear about malpractice insurance rates here in the good ol’ U S of A, at least (most of) our providers have it. Will the same be true of Dr Singh in Bombay? Don’t know. And what about complications?
The single mother of three apparently died of a blood clot (a not uncommon complication). She did, however, save almost $16,000 by undergoing the surgery overseas. Where’s the gecko when you need him?
According to Time magazine, this business is booming:
Whether these types of facilities will begin seriously impacting US providers remains, of course, to be seen. And we also know that there is currently a large supply (foreign facilities and providers) with little demand (it’s still somewhat of a novelty). But if and or when that changes, and demand begins to mount, it will be interesting to see if those low, low prices will stick.
So far, I haven’t had any of my groups (or prospects) ask me about this; be interesting to see if that changes.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Cavalcade of Risk (Debut Edition)

Welcome to the very first Cavalcade of Risk. In keeping with its mission statement, the following entries run the gamut from insurance to finance, taxes, and even murder. Several are from blogs that are new to me, but to whom I gladly say: Glad to meet ya!

And now, on with the show:

■ It's Just Money

LA Money Guy tells us about two (not so) Golden Gals who weren't relying on Social Security alone. He also raises some pointed questions for insurers.

■ Trader Knowledge

Knowledgeable Trader Dominic takes a look at momentum trading and how, if properly applied, it can lead to a high probability of financial gain (with low risk).

■ Jon Swift

Jon asks: "Why should I pay for diseases I'll never get?" A much better system would be to have insurance companies sell insurance for different diseases individually. He avers that a la carte insurance could be applied across the entire industry.


As if worrying about host liquor liability isn't enough, WCI's John Coppelman takes a look at hidden risks in company-sponsored summer outings. Employers beware the $200,000 "umbrella torpedo!"

■ Wenchypoo's Warehouse

Blogress Wenchypoo (no kidding!) explores the phenomenon of "luxury-creep:" material things once the province of the well-to-do (stainless steel kitchens, SUV's, even polo shirts) are now just everyday items to us peons. But when is enough, enough?

■ Med Bill Advisor

Why are accurate and current medical records so important? Host Chris Parks explains why they're crucial for our financial health.

■ Roth & Co

When disaster strikes, our first thoughts aren't necessarily about our tax records. But Joe Kristan has some great tips, and warnings, about the need to safeguard our financial info.

■ Health business blog

What do tuna fish and tea have in common? David Williams tells us about the potentialy dangerous amounts of mercury in some herbal concoctions.

■ California Medicine Man

One of my favorite bloggers, Dr John Ford (who posts, IMHO, all too infrequently), has an online debate with the founder of a new diet craze. Interestingly, he's not as concerned about the diet itself, but how it's being "pushed."

Dr Ford's not the only debater in this edition: Cato Institute blogger Michael Cannon dukes it out with Matthew Holt on the merits - and potential downsides - of HSA's (Health Savings Accounts).

■ InsureBlog

Our own Bob Vineyard tells us of his recent epiphany regarding specific-disease policies. Sometimes, even the best health insurance doesn't cover all the potential risks.

The next edition is June 21st, hosted at It's Just Money. Be sure to check the C of R home page, for upcoming hosts.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

A Truly Grand Rounds...

Grand Rounds is up over at Health Voices. Our host, Dmitriy, has used his new submission gizmo to organize over 40 posts, including insights and info on each one. Bravo!

Since Bob and I have both recently posted on medical records, I found Carol Kirshner's post on electronic medical records timely and informative (and I share her frustration).

A Ticket for HIPAA

[Editor’s note: Great minds really do think alike. As I was writing the following, Bob was posting his take on the same issue. Wow]

While I'm no fan of HIPAA (IMO, it created more problems than it solved), it is the law of the land. So I am puzzled, bordering on angry, that

“(i)n the three years since Americans gained federal protection for their private medical information, the Bush administration has received thousands of complaints alleging violations but has not imposed a single civil fine and has prosecuted just two criminal cases.”

According to the WaPo, the complaints reported most often fall into these categories:

■ personal medical details were wrongly revealed
■ information was poorly protected
■ more details were disclosed than necessary
■ proper authorization was not obtained
■ patients were frustrated getting their own records

I can sort of see that last: most physicians' offices charge a fee for those records. Contrary to popular belief, they are not "your own," any more than the service records your mechanic keeps on your car are. Still, it's not supposed to be a frustrating experience.

In this day of identity theft, there really is no excuse for personal information to be "poorly protected," either.

Turns out, three quarters of the cases were deemed to be non-violations, which seems about right: just because you’re ticked with a given provider doesn’t mean they’ve done something illegal. I’m not as sanguine about that other 25%, though:

“(H)ealth plans, hospitals, doctors' offices or other entities [were allowed] simply to promise to fix whatever they had done wrong, escaping any penalty.”

Certainly there needs to be some flexibility in the system, but that’s an awful lot of it. HHS counters that they’re striving for “voluntary compliance,” which they think is working. Of course, the providers are all in favor of the voluntary model (preferring carrots to sticks), but privacy advocates are nonplussed:

“The law was put in place to give people some confidence that when they talk to their doctor or file a claim with their insurance company, that information isn't going to be used against them," said Janlori Goldman, a health-care privacy expert at Columbia University.”

As the clock is ticking toward across-the-board implementation of EMR (Electronic Medical Records), the stakes are getting higher. Part of HIPAA requires that medical record safe-keeping adhere to a set of stringent federal guidelines, instead of on a state-by-state basis, but that raises its own set of problems, namely: security of the records. As we saw recently with the VA, this is far from a slam-dunk.

I’ll let a “neighbor” have the last word:

"It's like when you're driving a car," said consultant Gary Christoph of Teradata Government Systems of Dayton, Ohio. "If you are speeding down the highway and no one is watching, you're much more likely to speed. The problem with voluntary compliance is, it doesn't seem to be motivating people to comply. "

Monday, June 05, 2006

Cavalcade of Risk -- Reminder (Bumped)

Look for the Debut edition of the C of R on Wednesday.

The debut edition of the C of R is later this week (Wednesday, to be precise), and the deadline for submissions is today.
The Cavalcade's purpose is to help folks understand what risk is, and how to manage it. It's about business and finance, of course, but it's also about risks in our everyday lives and personal relationships.

Sunny Money Monday

Mapgirl hosts this week's Carnival of Personal Finance. Despite being at the hospital with family, our hostess managed to organize 47 submissions...that's a lot!
Christine Kane has a helpful post telling us why cheaper isn't always less expensive.
The Carnival of the Capitalists is up, hosted by the folks at Rethink. They've dusted off the spreadsheet template, which makes sorting through the 60 posts much easier. Plus, the included insights help to make each post's subject crystal clear. Super job!
While you're there, check out this post at MarketPlace MD. It's about Consumer Driven Finance, sort of the flip side of CDHC.

Friday, June 02, 2006

And Losing at SOLItaire...

Several weeks ago, we examined Stranger Owned Life Insurance (SOLI), a potentially useful cash flow tool. Seems, though, that there are more nefarious uses for such:
That's just sick.
Apparently, the perps would befriend a homeless person, offering him room and board (and perks?), thus building trust. They would then have the victims sign off on life insurance applications, with themselves as beneficiaries.
I have my doubts about the veracity of this story:
■ If there was no insurable interest, how was the policy underwritten and issued?
■ If the victims were, indeed, homeless, what underwriting dim bulb approved the application?
■ One of the victims apparently had 16 policies; what, exactly, did the agent *think* was going on?
Of course, it's possible (likely?) that these were all purchased on-line, and that no agent was involved. Still, there should have been *some* red flags: insurable interest, moral hazard, possible medical issues. And, each of these policies could have been small enough to fall "under the radar:" no exam, no inspection, no real underwriting.
I'm not sure that really works, though: the sum involved (over $2 million) seems to indicate that at least some of these policies should have triggered at least a cursory examination.
Yikes.

Wonks Rule!

The 8th edition of the Health Wonk Review is now up at Healthvoices (part of the Medical Blog Network). With over 30 entries, this is quite a step up for the fledgling "carnival." Host Dmitriy has done an outstanding job, implementing a brand new submission system, organizing the posts, and making sure that each entry makes sense.
Dr Roy, posting at Health Care Renewal, offers a post on Pay For Performance, cutting through much of the hype, and offering a critical anaylsis. We've posted on this issue before, and have come to some of the same conclusions. Recommended.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

S Corp's, Insurance, and the Tax-Man

In this timely (and helpful) post, our friend Joe Kristan has news for S corp owners who deduct their health insurance premiums.
Sorry to say, it's not good news.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

I rarely read the sports page of our local paper. So when a client called me yesterday to ask if I’d seen the sports section, I told her no, and asked her why.
Her answer surprised me:
The Department of Insurance published the names of those agents who have “failed to meet the [State’s] continuing education requirements.” And there followed a list of all the agents, complete with addresses and dates of birth.
Can anyone say “Identity Theft?”
Now, I hold no brief for those who blow off CE, but this is beyond the pale. Should an agent lose his license for failing to keep up with a pretty easy requirement? Sure. Should he be fined? Probably. Should his finances be potentially at risk? Absolutely not.
Since our local paper listed, well, local agents, I presume that the Enquirer, the Dispatch, the Plain Dealer and the Blade all contained comparable listings. This is unconscionable.
So, what to do?
As a member of the PIA (Professional Insurance Agents – a professional association for independent agents), I called to report this problem. They were as appalled as I am, and are looking into it. Pat, the young lady with whom I spoke, indicated that names and addresses are pretty much a matter of public record. But dates of birth certainly are not, so she’ll be talking with the DOI.
Sheesh!
RELATED: Bob posted about Medical Identity Theft a few weeks ago, and Dr Rob Lamberts has info on federal legislation in this area.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

CMS + D = Ooopsie

When folks sign up for the new Medicare D benefit, many (most?) choose to have the premiums deducted from their Social Security checks. CMS then (in theory) forwards this money directly to the insurer, which relieves the beneficiary (insured) with a bit less stress.
Or so they thought.
Turns out though, that the process was only half thought-out (surprise!). CMS has the ability to deduct these premiums, but apparently no mechanism to actually disburse the funds to the appropriate insurance companies. Think of a hose connected to a running faucet, but the nozzle is closed. Eventually, things back up.
The CMS solution: send all that money back to the insured's. Ooops.
Not to say "I told you so," but...
Long-time IB readers know what I think of the Medicare D "plan," and know that (although I am certified) I have chosen not to sell it.
See why?
According to CMS, they have been inundated with these requests, and are currently backlogged. In fact, they are so far behind that they won’t accept any new requests until…..November. Which is, if you’ll recall, the next open enrollment season. Ooops, redux.
In the meantime, co-blogger Bob Vineyard sent me this, which tends to bolster the diagnosis.
And, of course, these are the folks who would (theoretically) be in charge of a nationalized health system. Great.

(Not So Great) Grand Rounds

Hosting blog-carnivals is no easy task. And when the submissions get up into the 30’s and 40’s, it can be quite daunting. Yet it’s not impossible, as we saw with this week’s financial carnivals.
So I am disappointed that KidneyNotes, the host of this week’s Grand Rounds, did such a lackluster job. Yes, it’s very clever that he (she?) used the “delicious” (or whatever) program to tag the links. But GR is not about how clever one can be in manipulating the technology: it’s about presenting posts in an interesting way. IMO, the host’s job is to review and summarize the submissions, perhaps sorting them into categories (although this last is by no means critical).
In scrolling down the list (in alphabetical order? By order of submission? By zodiac sign? It’s never stated), there’s no way to know what the subject or purpose of any particular post is. Yes, they’re “categorized,” but so what? The categories have no reference.
For example: would you know that this entry was written by a certified office manager (to my knowledge, the first such submission ever to GR):
Of course not. And all of the entries are presented this way. All this shows is that the host can click on a link, and do simple cut-and-paste. It doesn’t show that he’s actually read the post (or even the summary that accompanied the submission).
I certainly have higher aspirations for the Cavalcade of Risk.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Memorial Day Money

I'm impressed! Even though it's a holiday (and a long weekend, to boot), the folks at My Open Wallet and Working Solo took the time and effort to put together two great carnivals. Kudos, folks!
I also found it interesting that both of our hosts this week are actually hostesses: one from Sydney (Australia), and the other from Brooklyn.
MOW presents this week's Carnival of Personal Finance. Madame X received 46 entries, all of which she posted, in order of when they were received. I like that: it's an incentive for folks to get their entries in early (which I can tell you from my own experience with the Health Wonk Review surely helps).
As one who is rather particular in the use of words, I found this post, by Pete at My Financial Awareness, to be spot on.
Leah at Working Solo, hosting the Carnival of the Capitalists, clocked in with 42 submissions, which she sorted into relevant categories (although, in a bit of reverse chauvinism, she highlighted female bloggers' posts first).
Will Crawford at Integrative Streams has a cautionary (and frustrating) tale of a lost cell phone, a lost customer service opportunity, and (ultimately) a lost customer.
And don't forget the new Cavalcade of Risk, premiering next week. It's dedicated to the world of, well, risk, and provides a forum for exploring how each of us defines and manages risk: in business, in our finances, and in our lives.
Submissions are due by June 5th, and the C of R will debut on the 7th.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Merry *Olde* England...

As the Sceptre'd Isle’s much vaunted NHS (National Health Service) continues to implode, that country’s seasoned citizens have become the latest victims:
Hundreds of thousands of elderly Britons could face the very real possibility that their (potentially treatable) condition will become even worse, even as the medication that could alleviate their suffering is cut off:
“The drugs, which campaigners estimate cost £2.50 [about $5] per day per patient, improve memory and can make daily living tasks easier.”
What is that, a mocha latte a day?
On the other hand, last summer the “NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] said access should be restricted because they were not good value for money.”
The NHS also says that this restriction will apply only to those who are diagnosed after the cut-off date; folks already being treated won’t be cut off.
On the one hand, such treatment is criticized as a bad deal, while on the other hand, folks taking it will keep on doing so.
Curious, no?

Friday, May 26, 2006

Big Doin’s in the Green Mountain State...

Yesterday (that would be Thursday the 25th), Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed new legislation to (ostensibly) make health insurance more readily accessible and affordable.
Since this just popped up on my radar, I haven’t had time to really dig into it (as we did for Massachusetts’ efforts). On its face, it doesn’t look all that promising (new bureaucracy, taxes on smokes, employer penalties, yawn). But we’ll have an in-depth analysis shortly.
The point of this post, however [ed: was wondering when you’d get to that], is this observation:
While I’m not enamored of the mechanisms these states have chosen, I heartily approve of the method by which they are moving forward.
Surprised?
I am opposed to government take-over, whether by fiat or legislation, of healthcare. But this is a states’ issue; that is, there is nothing in the US Constitution granting the gummint the right to decide our healthcare, let alone the 15% of our economy it represents. The 10th Amendment, though, preserves for each state the right to address such matters as each sees fit. After all, folks (and employers) will vote with their feet: if the burden is too onerous, then jobs (and those that do them) will exit. If it’s not, well, good luck.
Each state is free to decide if and how to address the issue. I would much rather see it play out this way (as messy as it may well turn out to be) than to have the entrenched bureaucracy in DC enact its version.
Just my $.02
More later.

O What A Tangled Web...

Insurance companies cheating?! Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Apparently, United HealthCare (no stranger to this blog) added a little “vig”to the comp it paid some of its (no doubt favored) brokers. This in addition to the fee said brokers were already being paid by the public agencies doing the shopping.
Having no personal experience in this particular market (well, not really: I recently quoted a small local parks district, but a) they were already with UHC, and b) they weren't paying me anything), I'm somewhat surprised that these brokers were pocketing fees in the first place; generally, we're paid a commission when we actually sell a case. By the carrier.
To make matters worse (not sure how that’s possible), UHC Home Office Critters (HOC’s) also lied to the Department of Insurance investigators. Memo to UHC staff: “Um fellas, that’s a no-no.”
Gee, I wonder what they lied about.
The state’s other major player also seems to have had its hands in the cookie jar.
“Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, based in Mason, Ohio, signed a similar agreement April 3, paying $30,000. Anthem was not accused of lying to the department.”
On the plus side, they apparently ‘fessed up, thereby mitigating the disaster. Seems that, unlike in the UHC kerfluffle, Anthem HOC’s didn’t know that their brokers were double-dipping.
I also found this tidbit interesting: “Also unclear was why the Department of Insurance was enforcing compliance with Ohio ethics laws, which typically are enforced by the Ohio Ethics Commission.”
On the one hand, I teach a course on Insurance Ethics (and no, that’s not an oxymoron)(or any other kind), which class is approved by the DOI. So, technically, I suppose that they do have a horse in this race.
But on the other hand, the Department is not known for aggressively rooting out alleged carrier corruption. So it’s intriguing to see them actually digging into this matter [ed: metaphor alert].
Kevin Grady, the broker at the center of this storm, appears to be an agent in Columbus. His web page is unremarkable; he doesn’t appear to be a particularly flashy kinda guy.
In any case, Mr Grady apparently made out pretty well in this deal (well, until now, anyway): $137,000 from the school district he was ostensibly representing, plus a cool half mil from UHC.
What, he couldn’t settle for a nice calculator or some golf balls, like the rest of us peons?
I particularly liked this characterization from an email sent by one United HOC: “My guess is that the broker doesn’t want to have to deal with the account directly on a fee basis because of the amount of ‘extortion,’ I mean commission being demanded.”
Mr G now will likely lose his license, face substantial fines, and will probably have to return his (allegedly) ill-gotten gains.
But hey, it sure was fun while it lasted.
But wait, there's more!

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Paging Miss Cleo!

Tax seer Joe Kristan, fresh from waxing his Ouija Board, has a (fortune-)telling post about a tax-dodging clairvoyant.

Guess the guy needs a new Magic 8ball.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Under the Microscope (Part 2)

In Part 1, we looked at some of the goals and assumptions underlying the Bay State’s new health care law, MassHealth.
Today, we’ll take a look “under the hood.”
Some time ago, Bob told us that, under the then-proposed regs, there’d be an annual fine of almost $300 per person for companies (with 11 or more employees) that fail to provide health coverage. As he pointed out, this is hardly more than a slap on the wrist ($300 a year fine for $4,000 a year or more premium). That, of course, is back in. Those of us familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences are now wondering: what about cases where both spouses work outside the home? There are good and valid reasons to have one (family) policy. So, if a spouse waives off, is the $295 fine waived?
What do you think?
But wait, there’s more!
Introducing the "Commonwealth Health Care Connector" another new bureaucracy tasked with providing access to “affordable health insurance products” to individuals and small businesses. Folks with jobs will be able to buy their insurance through this Connector. The good news is that this would allow for portability of insurance as individuals move from one job to another. The bad news is, it’s set up as an authority under the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, and overseen by a separate, appointed board of private and public representatives.
As in: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”
So that’s what’s in store for the group market. But what about the individual market? Well, we’ve got that covered, too:
The individual part of MassHealth requires that, as of July 1, 2007, all residents must obtain health insurance coverage, provided that there are affordable options available to them at that time. Every person who files an individual return for the tax year 2007 will be required to indicate whether or not they have had health insurance coverage, claimed an exemption or had a certificate issued by the "Connector." If the Department of Revenue determines that this requirement is not met, a tax will be assessed to the individual. A sliding “affordability scale” will be set annually to determine affordability. Sweet.
I’m reminded of a favorite old saw: “Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.”

Another Ethical Dilemna...

Some months ago, I posed an ethical question about what to do with funds raised to help save a little girl’s life (she unfortunately passed away before using them). Today, I’d like to pose another:
Suppose you are a physician whose uninsured patient requires an expensive, but life-saving, medication. The patient’s family wants you to write the scrip on another family member who is insured.
Well?
(Thank you to Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir)

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

A New Kind of Carnival

Having participated in the Carnival of the Capitalists and of Personal Finance, Grand Rounds and the Health Wonk Review, I noticed something missing.

There doesn't seem to be a comparable compendium [ed: cut it out] for those of us involved in the business of risk management.

That's about to change.

The Cavalcade of Risk is dedicated to the world of risk management; generally, this means insurance, but that’s not a requirement, nor should it be.

The purpose of the C of R is NOT to provide a forum for folks to simply advertise their services, or bash their competitors, or tout any one concept as a panacea. Rather, it is to provide a forum for exploring how each of us defines and manages risk: in business, in our finances, and in our lives.

Please pop on over, read the intro, and submit your own (or even someone else's) post.

Thanks!

And Grand Rounds...

is up, hosted (for the thrid time) by Dr. Emer. With 50 posts, Dr E has done a tremendous job (trust me, I know how hard it was to organize 11!).
I'm a Sweet-N-Low man myself, but this GR entry, from Amy at Diabetes Mine, has the scoop on all the various coffee-sweetening options (and tea, too, I suppose). Be sure to ask about Stevia.

Monday, May 22, 2006

The Health Wonk Review (Lucky #7)

Well, that’ll teach me to volunteer! This week’s putative host has apparently gone AWOL, so HWR honcho Joe Paduda accepted my offer to substitute. Please forgive any mistakes, errors, runs, drips or streaks.
So, a coupla days late, but none the worse for wear (I hope!), here’s this week’s foray into the world of policy, infrastructure, insurance, technology, and managed care bloggers. Enjoy!

■ Politics, Policy, Economics

Jared Rhoads, of The Lucidicus Project, has an interesting article about Massachusetts' new healthcare legislation. Comparing commentary from various members of the free-market community, he concludes that, even as mixed as the free-market folks are, the conservatives are worse. His solution: rights-based capitalism protected by limited government.

Frequent IB foil Jill Quadango posts her presentation to the Democratic Senators Issues Conference on why 46 million Americans lack healthcare. If you haven’t read her book, One Nation Uninsured (which we reviewed last fall), this is a good summary of its contents, and conclusions. While I don’t often agree with Dr Q, she is a compelling and interesting author.

If you follow the Medblogosphere, then you’ve certainly read Marcus Newberry’s great blog about health promotion, healthy lifestyle and disease prevention. In this post, the good doctor tells us about the late Jane Jacobs, author of “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” He compares her thesis that cities are vibrant living systems with the reality of the current situation in health care. As usual, he brings a refreshing insight.

David Williams, proprietor of the Health Business Blog, has an interesting (and provocative) take on Google Health. He tells us that, although the offering itself is weak, Google is also exploiting the goodwill of volunteers under its so-called "Co-op" program. Problem is, it’s not a co-op at all.

Behind The Wheel, brought to you by the folks who run Marketplace MD, is a fun and engaging blog (I know, because I visit it pretty often). This entry is a virtual survey of Consumer Driven Health Care, covering over two weeks' worth of nuggets from blogs, the media, and academic journals. I was particularly pleased to read that Marketplace’s founder has been published by Health Affairs, twice. Mazel Tov, Doc!

PhD-to-be Jason Shafrin, posts as the “Healthcare Economist.” This week, he tells us that the British government is shifting childbirth policy away from hospital delivery and towards births in the home, and asks if this good policy. His post also raises the point that government dictating where you have to give birth to your child is one of the costs of nationalized healthcare.

HWR founder Joe Paduda has some thoughts about the GOP's efforts to pass Association Health Plan and medical malpractice reform legislation. He wonders if it’s necessarily a bad thing that it “ran into a brick wall.” IB’s Bob Vineyard discussed this a while back, and I’d love to read a debate between them (hint, hint).

The final entry in this category is my own: in many markets, one insurer dominates. Some in the governing class object to this, and have proposed dubious solutions. We explore the situation, and possible resolutions.

■ Business of Healthcare

Tony Chen, one of a group of high-powered bloggers at Hospital Impact, has a thought-provoking post on what the mission of hospitals could be in the future. He looks at how Mayo, Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic and other A-list facilities operate now, and what their mission might look like in the future. Talk about Future Shock.

■ Technology, IT

Dmitriy Kruglyak at The Medical Blog Network offers a Consumer Health IT report from the 2006 CDHCC (Consumer Directed Health Care Conference and Expo). He says that Intuit's designs on healthcare connectivity are the most notable, and a panel of investment experts discussed how the industry is likely to evolve. It’s quite a full report, with everything from Rules Engines to Data Mining.

■ Miscellaneous

Jon Coppelman, who writes at the Workers Comp Insider, examines a recent ADA case involving Liberty Mutual Insurance. That case should raise red flags for employers: by granting FMLA leave for treatment, the employer was apparently held accountable for making "reasonable accommodations," even though it appears that none were requested. In other words, “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Well, that's it for this week's edition of HWR. Tune in on June 1rst when Dmitriy Kruglyak hosts at The Medical Blog Network.

Another Money Monday...

The Carnival of the Capitalists is up. This week's edition is hosted at Integrative Stream. Each entry is posted in a specific category, which makes it easy to navigate.
I really liked this post by Joe Kristan over at Roth & Co. Somehow, I had skipped over it when I first saw it on his blog; that was a mistake, because it's a great example of something being too good to be true.
You can catch the current Carnival of Personal Finance at Frugal for Life. Instead of categories, Dawn's chosen a newspaper metaphor. Very interesting, and easy to read.
After my recent (awful) experience with my own insurance carrier, I found this post at the Dividend Guy. He asks whether a personal experience should color a business one.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Playing SOLItaire...

Last fall, Joe Kristan at Roth and Co told us that "Dead Peasant" insurance was dead. But, much like George Romero’s nightmarish vision, the idea may not be.
Stranger Owned Life Insurance (SOLI) is part of the “premium financing” phenomenon. Although it seems to be “under the radar” at the moment, SOLI threatens to become a potentially bigger issue in the life insurance industry than even COLI.
Why?
Because the stakes (and the dollars) are higher, and because the rhetoric is turning nasty. And the financial press loves nothing more than it loves a brutal, knock-down fight among industry insiders.
So, what is SOLI? It’s a potentially dangerous game of financial cat and mouse: an investor (either an individual, or a syndicate, or a commercial lender) approaches a likely mark – er, uh – prospect, almost always a seasoned citizen. He then makes the prospect an offer he can’t refuse:
If you’re the prospect, this is pretty enticing; after all, what is there to lose? But what’s the incentive for the investor, the one putting up those two years’ worth of premiums?
Well, obviously, there’s the potential of a big windfall if the insured assumes room temperature (although that’s problematic, too, as we’ll see in a moment). But mostly, it’s the “glitch” in how life insurance is priced for those of advanced years. A lot of carriers price these plans with the assumption that many, if not most, will lapse. That’s probably a safe bet, since these plans can pretty expensive. Counterintuitively, though, it’s also what makes this “non-recourse premium financing” so attractive: because the carriers assume that a lot of the plans will lapse, they price them “lower than the amount that would have to be charged to maintain adequate reserves if all policies were held to maturity.” [ibid]
So, by keeping the policy “alive,” it’s pretty likely that it will pay off sooner, rather than later, and provide a nice windfall to the investor. Sweet.
So what’s the problem? Well, first, there’s the little matter of “insurable interest.” That is, the beneficiary of a policy must have some financial stake in the insured (for example, the family breadwinner, or a key employee, or the business owner himself). Heck, even with COLI, at least the employer had an ostensible such interest in the employee. But there is no such relationship in SOLI: these are perfect strangers, looking to make a (potentially) quick buck.
So what’s the harm? Yes, there’s the moral hazard: a danger that the beneficiary may get “impatient,” and hasten the payoff date. And, since there are tax implications, it potentially puts the industry under a microscope (not that there’s anything wrong with that). From the insured’s standpoint, though, I’m not sure I see a downside. The real risk, it seems to me, is to the investor whose money is at risk. And, I suppose, the carrier, but no one forced them to price their policies to make this idea attractive.
Zombies, anyone?
RELATED: It gets worse.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Paint me a Picture...

Two weeks ago, we blogged on the topic of carrier domination; that is, where one insurer has a disproportionate share of a given market.
This just in:

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Thoughts from a Medical Office Manager...

[Kelley A Beloff, MSW, is a Certified Medical Office Manager. For years, she has dealt with the real world issues of HIPAA, PHI and other regulations that dictate how she must run her (very busy) physicians' office.
Today, she offers her insights -- and the benefit of experience -- to InsureBlog readers. Enjoy!]
When I got into the office this morning to start another day in a busy doctor’s office, I did my usual routine. Backing up the computer program, going on line to check my emails, and there it was: another article about the costs of health care.
As a Health Care Professional, I strive to keep up to date with all information relating to the health care field. This article was from USATODAY.com and titled “Shopping for Health Care Prices can be pretty confusing.” As I read the article, it was obvious that the author did not talk with anyone who actually works in a physician’s office, so I thought I would correct some misconceptions related in the article.
There is a quote from Dianne Kiehl, Executive Director of the Business Health Care Group of Southeast Wisconsin. Ms. Kiehl states that “(i)f you walk into a (doctor’s office) and ask, ‘What does it cost?’ they can’t tell you. (The medical industry)…is trying to keep this information a secret.” This statement is not only incorrect, but shows a lack of knowledge of the operations of physicians’ offices. Firstly, physicians and their staff are not clairvoyant, we cannot predict what treatment each patient will need prior to any appointment. While there are set fees, such as the office visit (CPT Code 99213), there are other factors which can influence the cost of an appointment: A patient can come in for a visit for an illness, but during the course of the visit the patient reveals that two days ago she fell and twisted her ankle. Suddenly, the appointment has gone from an office visit for an illness to a visit for an illness and a possible bone break or fracture. The appointment has become more complex, the physician needs to order an X-ray, the staff may need to set up the patient, and the appointment becomes more costly due to the higher level of medical treatment. This happens in our office frequently and this exact scenario happened to me with my daughter. Since each appointment with a physician is unique to that patient’s care, it is impossible to predict or “quote a price for care” prior to the appointment.
The article continues and discusses how “insured patients are going to spend more of their own money, not just on premiums, but every time they go to the doctor, pick up a prescription or get admitted to the hospital”. This is true, but the article does not discuss the reasons why. One scenario that continues to happen in my office regarding patients paying more at their appointments has to do with Medicare versus Medicare HMO’s. Patients are not informed regarding the differences between the two, which causes major problems in the doctor’s office. First, patients believe that Medicare and Medicare HMO’s are the SAME. Time and again, I need to explain that these policies are not the same, in fact there are fundamental differences. Most common is the misconception that if a physician accepts Medicare, then they will accept the Medicare HMO. This is not the case: the physician’s office will only accept that HMO if the physician is contracted with the HMO’s company, e.g. Anthem, Humana, etc.
Patients do not know this fact until after they have signed with the company, seen their doctor, the doctor bills Medicare (since the patient thinks they are the same, the patient does not inform the office that they have a new insurance; it is not “new” to them), the bill is denied and the physician’s office bills the patient. At this point a month to several months have gone by, the patient has seen several doctors and suddenly has a pile of bills. Who does the patient blame: the insurance company, the insurance salesman, themselves, or the physicians office? I will give you a minute. The answer: the Physician’s Office. Why? Because we did not inform them that they were not covered under their “new” insurance (remember, they did not inform us of the change) and now we expect them to pay for their medical coverage. If they had known that the physician did not accept their “new” insurance, they would not have been seen, therefore it is our fault that they owe us money.
Secondly, the Medicare HMO may not pay for the services that Medicare was paying for and suddenly the payment for the same physicians appointment has increased. Again, who is to blame? Again, the Physician’s Office. “Why are you charging more for the same treatment I received last month under Medicare?” We are not charging more, your Insurance company is covering less of the bill. The charges are the same; there has been a change in how the bill is divided between the insurance company and the patient. This also relates back to why we cannot tell each patient what their care will cost prior to the appointment. Each insurance company pays based on it’s own internal calculations, and many time the physician’s office will not know the cost to the patient until the Explanation of Benefits (EOB) arrives in the mail.
What this article tiptoes around, but what I tell my patients, is that the patient is responsible for all the aspects of their own health care. This means understanding the insurance policy prior to signing anything, knowing if your doctor is in-network or out-of-network (i.e. takes your insurance or does not take your insurance) and finally, you the patient are ultimately responsible for all health care costs incurred by you.
I would like to thank Hank for letting me inform your audience.
Kelley A Beloff, MSW, CMOM
[ed: You’re welcome!]

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Capitalist Underpinnings...

This week's Carnival of the Capitalists is (finally) up at Virtual Handshake. With over 80 posts, it's well worth the wait. I can only imagine wading through all of those, and annotating them as well (which our host graciously did).
I always wondered why Miss Cleo never saw her psychic network's impending demise; I mean, if she can see the future, surely she could see her future paycheck (or lack thereof). Well, Joe Kristan's CotC entry goes a step further: the tax (and domestic) problems of a Tennessee psychic.

Grand Rounds Time!

Dr Ibear, "a married physician in a medium volume Emergency Department somewhere in the Midwest," hosts this week's edition. There are over 50 entries this time, complete with (cute) illustrations.
This post, by David Williams (proprietor of the Health Business Blog) shines the light of truth on Google's new health care "co-op." Not a pretty sight.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Mixed feelings...

On the one hand, I represent the carriers whose products I sell. On the other hand, I work for my clients. As agents, we walk a thin line, balancing the interests of each of our “masters,” as well as our own.
Most of the time, this is relatively easy. The reason that lawsuits and claims disputes and the rest are news is because, for the most part, they are the exception. That is, most of the time the system works; maybe not perfectly, and perhaps not as smoothly as we’d prefer, but people are issued policies, claims do get paid, and life does go on.
And sometimes carriers do stupid things. I believe (naively, perhaps) that most agents don’t “push” particular carriers or plans just to win a trip or earn a bonus. Yes, those are nice, but they’re really just icing on the cake. Sometimes, carriers are pretty crass about these; for example, I’m getting fed up with annuity vendors offering 8, 9 or 10% commissions on their products, while paying the annuitant 3 or 4%. On the other hand, I don’t much care for the low, flat-fee commission structure that more and more health carriers are putting in place.
But my number one pet peeve is carriers that just can’t get enough PR. These companies spend tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars to sponsor sporting (and other) events, inviting their top producers to participate. That’s money that could be spent on claims, and product development and, yes, commissions for us peons.
So what’s got my knickers in a bunch?
An organization called ProCare has been sued by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. ProCare is an independent organization that seems to have been a thorn in BX’s side for quite a while. I’ve actually blogged on them before, because I recognized a kindred spirit, especially as regards tilting at windmills.
According to ProCare, BX has sued them after they published “truthful but embarrassing information about the company's profligate spending at the U.S. Open golf tournament.” I’ll reserve judgment on the term “profligate,” but I have little doubt that much of what is spent on such activities is not necessarily in the interests of policyholders (or agents). As an ostensible non-profit, it seems to me that they are not easily defended.
The trial is set for, believe it or not, September 11 of this year. It’s possible, although unlikely, that it will be settled out of court. I characterize this possibility as “unlikely” because one of ProCare’s stated goals is to compel BX executive leadership (such as it is) to testify under oath regarding these expenditures. If nothing else, that would make interesting reading for those of us in the industry and, indeed, anyone who has insurance.
Since I can’t reproduce the email here (I’m apparently not the geek I thought I was), I’ve linked their site. I can’t in good conscience vouch for them; I have no connection with ProCare other than being on their distro list. But they seem to be on the level, if a bit zealous.
The truly sad part is that I know that BX is not necessarily the worst of the bunch. I wonder if this lawsuit will embolden others take on its competitors.

Monday Morning Carnival

2million blog hosts this week's edition of the Carnival of Personal Finance. If you're interested in learning more about 401(k)'s, he's got a batch of relevant posts right at the top.
With awareness of (and the threat of) identity theft on the rise, I found this post at My 1st Million at 33 to be very helpful.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

A Rising Tide…

They say that a rising tide lifts all ships. The idea is that when good things happen, everyone benefits.
And that may well be the case with Empowered Consumer Heath Plans (yeah, I got tired of the HDHP acronym; alternate suggestions welcome):
According to ehealthinsurance, these plans are growing in popularity with young consumers and middle-income consumers. “The percentage of HSA-compatible plan purchasers who are ages 20 to 29 increased to 28% in 2005, from 20%, while the percentage in the 30-39 and 40-49 age categories fell.” In other words, younger folks are flocking to these plans, while those who should be in their prime earning years seem to be shying away.
That seems strange to me.
We’ve blogged before about this fallacy of the uninsured: that many of these folks are well able to afford cover, but choose to go without. That seems to be borne out by the ehealth survey [ibid]:
And in fact, almost a third of those who purchased such a HDHP in 2005 were “in the $50,001-$75,000 income category were uninsured, up from 27% in 2004.”
Food for thought.