Ohio & COBRA/ARRA: More Questions than Answers [UPDATED]

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

[Please scroll to bottom for update]

In looking through the latest missive from the (Ohio) Department of Insurance, I was drawn to this innocuous-looking requirement:

"Employers are required to send a notice to former employees so that former employees can elect to continue their group coverage and receive the subsidy."

What, exactly, does that mean? As we've discussed before, it's just not cost-effective for a small employer to contract out this kind of administration, but it would be nice to know what, exactly, is going to be required of him in the event a former employee (exployee?) becomes eligible under this new program. Then, too, there are budget considerations regarding how far back the employer will need to pay.

So I poked around the DOI and DOL websites for a bit, but was unable to find anything helpful. The phone seemed to beckon me, and so I called Columbus and ended up speaking with a very nice (if befuddled) gentleman from the DOI. After introducing myself, I explained why I had called, and what had me confused. Then, I asked what it means that an employer is "required to send a notice to former employees?"

The answer was not comforting: "we really don't know yet; the legislature is working on it now." The problems include the fact that Ohio's current coverage continuation law runs for only 6 months, while COBRA/ARRA goes for up to 9. So those two have to be reconciled.

Another problem is that there's never really been any formal notice required on the state level; that is, it was up to the employee to seek out coverage. But the new law has this pesky employer requirement, which begs the question we've already mentioned. It seems to me that, with the clock already ticking, this would have been resolved and implemented. But of course, we don't want to confuse governance with common sense.

A related problem is the next sentence: "Former employees will have from the first day they are eligible until 60 days after receiving the notice to enroll." The way I read that, if one became eligible on, say December 1st, but the notice isn't received until, say April 1st (being generous and/or optimistic), how is this going to help the former employee, who now has to come up with 5 months of premium (well, 35% of premium) when they've potentially been unemployed the whole time? And, of course, the employer's 65% liability is at issue, as well.

I hate to keep saying "we'll keep you posted," but as this continues to evolve, that's the best we can do.

UPDATE: In the comments, FoIB Chad (co-blogger at Tusk and Talon) informs us that:

ARRA does require the employer (whether subject to COBRA or state continuation) to send notices to employees terminated between 9/1/08 and 12/31/09. A model notice is due to be issued by the US DOL on 3/17. For those who did not elect COBRA, coverage would be effective for coverage periods starting 2/17 or after (or 3/1 if coverage is monthly). Unlike normal COBRA, coverage is not retro to the qualifying event, rather only to the 2/17 or 3/1 date. ARRA generally does not modify state law as far as the duration of coverage.

So the coverage elected in OH should still only last for 6 months from the date of the event (e.g., if the event was 5 months ago, the EE would only get 1 month of coverage from 3/1 to 4/1). Employers/Carriers will only be able to claim a subsidy for the 6 months or less of coverage extended under OH's state continuation law. There are lots of other nuances but I'd be surprised if the DOI provides any assistance beyond leaning on your carriers to figure out, and do, whatever it is they are supposed to do.

Thank you, Chad!

Grand Rounds: Live! Edition

Dr. Jan Gurley hosts this week's edition of all that's interesting in the medblogosphere. This one's special, though, because it also includes a "LIve!" version with podcasts.

Please stop by.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up

Stock Trading to Go hosts this week's edition. Do check it out.

About Wellpoint's PBM Auction

So Wellpoint is auctioning off its in-house pharmacy benefits management company. The likely purchaser will be one of the big PBM’s whose larger volume will presumably result in lower pharmacy costs for employer plan sponsors.

This article from WSJ Health Blog quotes Citigroup analyst Charles Boorady who believes that insurers would better manage health costs and quality “if they focused on the 85 percent of health care costs that are doctors and hospitals and leave the 15 percent that’s drugs to companies that are already much better at it.”

Boorady is a very smart guy and I think what he says is true as far as it goes - - but I think he is overlooking or discounting a larger point.

Specifically, is health benefits management more effective when pharmacy data are integrated into the management model along with medical data? There’s growing evidence that the answer is yes. To the extent that’s true, an in-house PBM and an in-house medical management capacity are synergistic and neither is as effective standing alone.

To state another way, a PBM may be able to manage its 15% of total health care costs better than an insurer, but the PBM cannot directly manage the other 85% of total health care costs costs at all. The insurer can manage both - if it operates a PBM. That's a good reason for an insurer to have both medical and pharmacy management capacity.

An example is Aetna, which not only has a subsidiary PBM but also owns ActiveHealth whose business is disease management. ActiveHealth asserts that its medical results are noticeably better when it has immediate access to pharmacy records along with medical records.

Ironically, when ActiveHealth was a start-up it received substantial assistance and direction from Empire Blue Cross (today a component of Wellpoint). In retrospect, I think Empire’s failure to acquire ActiveHealth was a strategic error. Anyway, it appears that Wellpoint’s PBM today has more value to another PBM than to Wellpoint - which is probably one of the reasons it’s being auctioned off.

Cavalcade of Risk #73: Call for Submissions

Healthcare Economist Jason Shafrin hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk, slated for the 11th. Submissions are due by this coming Monday (the 9th). Please be sure to include:

■ Your blog's url

■ Your post's url

■ The post's trackback URL (if available)

■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

Concierge? Mais Non...

Bob's written several posts on the idea of "concierge medicine;" that is, one pays a (flat) fee for unfettered, priority access to one's primary care physician, bypassing the normal appointment issues and, perhaps, first dollar insurance coverage for doc office visits (these plans don't help you with big ticket items like hospitalizations, surgeries, etc). Whether or not they're viable alternatives is, of course, open to debate, but they at least offer one a choice.

Unfortunately, the New York Department of Insurance thinks they run contrary to the Empire State's insurance laws:

"A New York City doctor's flat-fee, $79-a-month medical practice has run afoul of state insurance regulators who have told him to shut it down."

It seems that Dr Muney's plan, which "includes unlimited office visits, some tests and in-office surgeries," looks a bit too much like a pre-paid medical insurance plan, but lacks the requisite capitalization and legal paperwork of an actual carrier. He's currently in talks with the DOI, looking to find some way to keep the plan running without breaking any laws.

I'm actually on Dr Muney's side in this; as an insurance agent, it might seem counterintuitive to be rooting for his success, since it may be perceived as "competition." But I've always felt that competition was a good thing, and I also appreciate that he's looking for ways to help his patients gain quicker access. We'll have to wait and see if he's able to navigate the regulators' waters.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Brad Ford]

New P&C Blog

Thanks to a tip from FoIB Bill Montgomery (who, by the way, is considered the "go to guy" for vacant dwelling cover here in southwest Ohio), we learn of an outstanding blog focusing on the Property/Casualty side of the insurance business. Hosted by Tim Norris, an agent in Cincinnati, the National Real Estate Insurance Group blog offers insights on everything from umbrellas to commercial property coverage, all written in an easy-to-follow format.

Recommended.

Thursday Potpourri

■ Can we actually control cancer? That's the question being discussed by the Global Leadership Forum for Cancer Control. This international, grassroots organization believes that with "existing knowledge, it is possible to prevent at least one-third of the 10 million cases that occur annually. Where sufficient resources are available, current knowledge allows the early detection and treatment of another one-third of cases."

That seems a tall order, but perhaps they're on to something. If you're interested, they're holding their first Global Leadership Forum for Cancer Control in Canada later this year. For more info, check out their website.

■ Regular readers know that we don't do paid advertising here, but we do offer links to a few specialty products, primarily as a convenience for our clients. You may have noticed a new product at the bottom of the sidebar: "HIPAA Compliant Special Risk Medical." We're sort of ambivalent about limited benefit (aka "mini-med") plans: while they can be a terrific safety net for folks with severe, chronic health problems, they're often misused by agents who may not fully appreciate their limitations (or who don't really care about them). Still, they can be helpful because they're (usually) guaranteed issue, and will eventually cover pre-existing conditions.

That "eventually" is really the sticking point: why should one pay premiums for 6 or 12 months even before coverage for pre-existing conditions takes effect? Well, if that's your only choice, then so be it. But this new plan will cover pre-ex immediately (assuming previous coverage), neatly avoiding that problem.

■ Finally, this video from a group called "Conservatives for Patients' Rights." What I found so interesting about this video, which outlines four "pillars" of health care reform, is that it stresses (at least) two IB themes: transparency and personal responsibility. I also appreciated that it takes only about 30 or so seconds to make its point.

Health Wonk Review worth "Watching"

Brady Augustine takes a page from the comics, presenting a rather unique edition of the Health Wonk Review. Based on the new movie "Watchmen," this week's edition is short, sweet, and to the point.

Enjoy!

Windy City Treat: Connecting the Dots

Back in the day (well, a few short months ago, really), the University of Chicago Medical Center undertook to reduce its exposure to the costs associated with treating the uninsured. In particular, the neighborhood in which the Center was located, which boasted a particularly high percentage of these folks. Curiously, they also happened to be predominantly poor. And did I mention, black?

Now, one might suppose that this would have resulted in a hew and cry from that community's leadership, which also happened to share some of those demographics. After all, if you're a hospital turning away black people, one would think there was a problem, no?

As it turns out, one would be wrong:

"Michelle Obama...helped create the program, which aims to find neighborhood doctors for low-income people who were flooding the emergency room for basic treatment."

For those in the dark on this, Ms Obama's other job is currently First Lady. Interesting also is the involvement of David Axelrod, currently serving as Senior Advisor to President Obama. His PR firm was given the task of "selling" the program, dubbed the "Urban Health Initiative" to the public and in particular, the folks who live in the neighborhood surrounding the UCMC.

Does anyone else see a disconnect between the stated goals of the new administration (more access, better care) and a program designed to save a particular hospital money by turning away those most in need?

Maybe it's just me.

More ARRA/COBRA Confusion

[Welcome Industry Radar and Wall Street Journal readers!]

Received in the mail this morning a letter which included the following:

"...small employers that are exempt from COBRA (e.g. employers with less than 20 employees) but subject to state continuation laws [ed: "mini-COBRA] will have to comply with the new subsidy requirements..."

Which we already knew, but:

"The new rules require employers to send out special notices and to allow certain individuals who originally declined coverage a second opportunity to elect to continue coverage." [emphasis added]

Now, this is from a noted expert on COBRA (in fact, he's one of our favorite CE instructors on the subject), so one might presume that this could be taken as "gospel."

Not so fast.

Let's back up a moment: as we've discussed, the Spendulus included some radical changes to COBRA, one of which extended the "subsidy" to smaller groups. From what we've learned so far, this applied only to the "subsidy" itself, not the notification requirements. Until now, Ohio (for example) had none: it was up to the (former) employee to seek out that coverage continuation. COBRA requirements in that area, however, are onerous, and almost always contracted out by employers. This is cost-effective for a larger group, but prohibitive for smaller ones.

If true, this new notification requirement would be a severe blow to any small employer's budget: under COBRA, the penalties for screwing up notifications are severe and not just applicable to the employer, but to the hapless employee who was assigned the task. So many groups (and most of the smart ones) contract with a COBRA administrator to handle this chore. That's probably not an option for a group of, say 10 or 12 employees, so the temptation to do this in-house will be great.

And unwise.

I'm still not convinced that this is the new law of the land, however. We've been keeping a very close watch on this issue, and haven't seen this particular item come in, except for this letter. So I called the Department of Insurance to see if they knew about it.

They did not.

In fact, their response was to "stay tuned" because the Department of Labor (the federal agency tasked with overseeing COBRA) was still ironing out details. Better yet, I clicked on over to the DOL, and found a brief FAQ about the new rules, none of which addressed the notification issue at the state level. Ditto at the dedicated COBRA site.

So, is this fact or urban legend?

At this point, no one seems to know. We'll keep you posted.

Email of the Day

From FoIB Brian D, comes this breaking news from Washington. We're proud to have scooped the MSM on this important, ground-breaking new program: 

The Americans With No Abilities Act

Washington , DC - (Dateline March 3, 2009) President Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer - Democrat. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi – Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – Democrat - pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement warehouse stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under AWNAA, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"

"As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,"said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey."This new law should be real good for people like me," Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat-IL), "As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

Grand Rounds 5:24

FoIB David Williams, proprietor of the Health Business Blog, hosts this week's roundup of great medblog posts. Once again, it's obvious that David's taken the time and trouble to actually read each submission, and it shows in the recaps of each post.

Well done!

AIG: Chutzpah Redefined

Honestly, I had decided not to post yet another diatribe on the travails of disgraced (former) insurance giant AIG. After all, there's an ethical Rubicon that I feared to cross, given that we'd beaten up on the carrier so often of late.

This morning brought news that they were back at the trough, demanding that we taxpayers fork over another $30 Billion.

But that was then, this is now:

"In the midst of its negotiation with the federal government over revised terms of its bailout, American International Group Inc. sued the U.S. on Friday over a disputed $306 million in taxes, interest and penalties."

And guess who pays for that bit of litigation?

Thee and me.

Please remind me again why we threw them a safety net?

Told Ya So...

Earlier this week, referring to the President's "vision" of health care reform, I observed that "(h)istorically, too, such programs inevitably outgrow their initially estimated size (cf: Medicare), and become cures which are worse than the underlying disease. Thus, a big problem becomes an even bigger one, with little hope of slowing down."

Lo and behold:

"Orszag [director of the White House Office of Management and Budget] described the $634 billion the administration built into the new budget over the next 10 years -- as a “down payment” for health reform." [emphasis added]

But of course.

Far-reaching programs such as this always grow, whether by design or implementation.

And of course, no such program would be complete without its backers conflating health care with health insurance: e.g. "(r)educing premiums and other health-care costs."

Sheesh!

As our own Mike Feehan observed in the comments in a recent post:

"The difference between health care and health insurance is not mere semantics and it is not hair splitting. It's a difference that truly makes a difference.

The economic law of demand says that price and demand reach equilibrium at some point.

The more billions the government pours into subsidizing health insurance, the higher health insurance prices can go before reaching equilibrium with demand."

I certainly can't improve on that.

COBRA/Spendulus: Another Update

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Just got another email from our FSA/HRA/HSA Guru, who clarifies that:

"FSAs were specifically excluded from the temporary COBRA subsidy program. There are a couple of links below that speak to the subsidy and note the exclusion of FSAs."

He also sent along this helpful link.

Thanks, Pete!

Carnival of Personal Finance now online

Free Money Finance once again hosts the venerable collection of all thing financial. There's a LOT of material, and you're sure to find something useful.

Much Ado About...Well?

Of all the "hot button issues" extant, perhaps none is more volatile than abortion. We take no official stand on this issue at IB (although I presume that each of us has our own opinion)(or maybe more than one), but this "theory" seems to be making the radar:

"Doctors are forecasting the closure of hospitals and clinics across America and a mass migration of physicians and their assistances to other careers should the Obama administrationsucceed in its attempt to overrule their rights of conscience."

In brief, existing laws grant an exemption of sorts to health care providers who have moral reservations regarding abortion, allowing them to turn away patients who seek them. And I'd add that, although the linked article doesn't mention it, one would presume that pharmacists who refuse to dispense the so-called "abortion drug" (RU-486) would also fall under this proposal.

This seems to me to be rather more complex than it would at first seem: on the one hand, folks (currently) have the right to seek an abortion; on the other, providers shouldn't be forced to perform procedures (or dispense meds) with which they have moral and/or ethical problems. And, of course, there are few, if any, insurance plans that would cover either abortion or RU-486; perhaps those will become mandated benefits under the proposed new regulations.

Frankly, I'm skeptical that we'll see a wave of hospital closures as a result; it's not as if the rules require that providers perform the procedure. In fact, this isn't really a new set of laws, per se, but a rescission of a "rule that currently protects civil rights and the exercise of conscience in healthcare." If the rule is rescinded, then it seems to me that this will become a matter for the courts to decide. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.

David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, avers that "(t)he real threat to healthcare access is driving out every healthcare professional who conscientiously practices medicine according to life-affirming ethical standards." While I personally object to the rule's rescission, I also think that statements like this do more harm than good, in that they seem to vastly overstate the case, thereby reducing their own credibility.

What do our readers think?

Not qualified to be governor of California

This article discusses one of the dirty little secrets of health plans. They have future liabilities.

“[California] already owes another $48.2 billion in unpaid costs for retiree health and dental benefits.”

In the public sector, prime example California, these future liabilities tend not to be funded.

Suggestion from InsureBlog: if in this world of increasing pandemonium, you yearn for a brief respite of total silence - ask your town manager or mayor how much is the unfunded liability in your town employees' health plan.

Years ago, FASB decreed that all private companies disclose this unfunded health plan future liability and, in fact, reflect it as a cost on their financial statements. Not so for public entities like cities, counties, and states.

Or Medicare.

You don't think California is the only government entity with unfunded future liabilities, do you?

The unfunded future liability in Medicare is something like $60 trillion – give or take a trillion.

Just who do you think is going to pay these bills? Bernie Madoff? The tooth fairy? Your children and their children and their children?

Oh, and I can’t resist noting this additional gem:

“$11 billion in new borrowing”

See, that’s how states get out of debt these days. Ain’t it swell?

‘sfunny. It never occurred to me to borrow money to avoid indebtedness. Oh well.

All these things explain why I’m not qualified to be governor of California.

Another twist in the new COBRA rules

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Here's another interesting twist in the new COBRA rules...the 65% subsidy starts phasing out if an individual's income is above $125,000 ($250,000 for couples) and is completely gone at the $145K ($290K) income point.

Admittedly this won't affect too many people, but let's think about how this works in practice. You get laid off. You take COBRA and pay the 35% that the plan administrator bills you. Your government pays the other 65% via the payroll tax subsidy to your ex-employer. You think that this is a great deal and add Obama to your holiday gift list.

Then you get another highly paid position and end up, at year end, with taxable income above the threshold. Guess how the subsidy gets paid back to the government...

You got it. On your tax return. Not only will you face a surprise tax bill, can you say "Underpayment penalties ??"

COBRA/Spendulus Update, Part 2

[ed: For background, click here and/or here]

FoIB and regular commenter Chad made this observation:

"As far as I can tell the subsidy applies to all group health plans subject to COBRA including dental, vision, HRAs, and [wait for it] health FSAs. Who wouldn't elect COBRA for their HFSA if the taxpayer is going to pick up 65% of the cost of the annual election. What a sweet deal!"

There was some discussion as to whether or not this was accurate, so I checked in with my Guru of All Things FSA/HSA/HRA, Pete Deist. He responded this morning that:

"It is but they still have to pay 35% AND have qualifying expenses to use up the money. I doubt many people will ... figure this one out."

So there you have it. For now.

And from co-blogger Bob Vineyard, this site has a plethora of up-to-date and helpful information on this complex and volatile issue.

Bad News, Good News

■ Item the 1st, Bad News Dept: On the one hand, it's remotely possible that, over the years, I may have had occasion to, um, disappoint my wife and/or daughters. Thankfully, however, it's never gotten quite this far [ed: that you know of]:

"(A)uthorities told [Kenneth Hughes] his wife of 34 years, Shirley Hughes, and his oldest daughter, Tammy Lewis, had plotted a murder-for-hire scheme to collect on his $200,000 life insurance policy."

Ouch!

But wait, there's a twist:

"(H)e was shocked at the allegations made against his wife but not his daughter." [emphasis added]

Memo to self: No more chores for Junior.

Of course, even had the plan succeeded, it's likely that neither wife/mom nor daughter would have collected a cent on the policy: since it's illegal for someone to profit from their crimes, the benefits would have been paid to either a contingent beneficiary or Mr Hughes' estate.

■ Item the 2nd, Bad News Dept: I've never been a big fan of dental insurance (at best, it's swapping dollars with the insurer), but this seems like a good reason to stay in-network:

"The attorney for a Woodland dentist told jurors that his client massaged women's chests as part of a medical treatment."

The, um, unorthodox "procedure" was ostensibly to treat his patients' temporomandibular disorder; TMJ generally affects the jaw and some facial muscles, so this defense seems unlikely to prevail.

Memo to self: Always accompany the wife to her dentist appointment.

■ Item the 3rd, Good News Dept: It seems safe to say that we've all heard of CAT scans, but would you believe that the MVNHS© is now using DOG scans?

Okay, it's not really the British health care system's newest medical tech, but a 64 year old woman's collie who made the potentially life-saving discovery:

"After Max began sniffing Mrs Burns's breath and then gently nudging her right breast, the 64-year-old examined herself and discovered a small lump in the same breast."

One wonders if this new technique will gain wider acceptance, but there's no doubt that, in this case, "Max" really was her best friend. Oh, in case you're wondering, Mrs Burns has "since had the lump removed and her prognosis is excellent."

Obama Doesn't Read InsureBlog

[Welcome FoxNews and Kaiser Network readers!]

Else he would know the difference between health insurance and health care. He would also understand that health care costs drive health insurance costs, and that simply extending insurance coverage to more people does nothing to cut the cost of health care.

So why is this important?

Because he's recommending that Congress spend an additional two-thirds of a trillion dollars to expand health insurance coverage.

Well, that's not quite right either: as we've pointed out many times here at IB, the gummint doesn't actually have any money: it simply takes funds from one group of people and redistributes them to another. This is called "taxes," and it's the primary means by which Congress can "pay for" such schemes.

The problem is that this is a well that can quickly dry up, especially as those folks targeted for additional taxation -- "the rich" -- stand by helplessly as their actual worth goes plummeting down the memory hole as the stock market continues its downward plunge. Then, too, there's the indisputable historical fact that higher taxes result in lower revenue for the gummint, thereby short-circuiting the process.

Historically, too, such programs inevitably outgrow their initially estimated size (cf: Medicare), and become cures which are worse than the underlying disease. Thus, a big problem becomes an even bigger one, with little hope of slowing down. Our political class has always been loathe to cut out programs which exhibit these traits (again, cf: Medicare), why would we believe that this one would somehow break that cycle?

The President is said to rely on "eight principles to guide his health reform effort," including freedom of choice as regards health care providers. But that flies in the face of experience: there are already two national health care schemes extant, Medicare and the VA. Both of these restrict that choice; why would any other program be any different? Indeed, how could another such system be any different?

The underlying problem is that the administration's “goal is still to bring down the cost of care and to get universal coverage." The problem is that it ignores the third leg: quality of care. As the saying goes, "you can have it fast, you can have it cheap, you can have it good. Pick any two."

Which ones would you choose?

Insurance Person of the Year Awards

No, not us (heck, none of us is even eligible!). Our friends at the Lexis-Nexis Insurance Law Center (which has deemed us as one of the Top 50 Insurance Law Blogs) is debuting its First Annual Person of the Year Awards for 2008. Categories include:

■ Policyholder Attorney of the Year

■ Insurer Attorney of the Year

■ Insurance Regulator of the Year

and

■ Insurance Jurist of the Year

According to FoIB Karen Yotis, nominations are being taken through March 6, "comments will be taken through March 13, and the ILC Board will make its selections at its monthly meeting on March 16. Recipients of the award will be featured in ILC’s April “Meet Me” campaign."

You can submit your nomination(s) directly to Karen via email.

Cavalcade of Risk #72 online now

From The Land Down Under, Russell Hutchinson hosts this week's roundup of all that's risky in the blogosphere.

Do stop by!

COBRA/Spendulus Update

[Updated - scroll down]

FoIB Bill Montgomery, CIC, points us to another "deal killer" in this bill. According to a memo from United Healthcare, "the subsidy provisions apply to state continuation coverage that is comparable to federal COBRA. That would include so-called "mini-COBRA" state laws that cover groups below the 20 employee threshold for COBRA."

Here in Ohio, groups with 2 (!) or more employees must indeed offer such an option; the key threshold is whether the (former) employee is eligible for unemployment compensation. If so, he or she may elect to continue the group coverage, at his/her own expense, for up to 6 months. Of course, this now means "at a substantial discount" for up to 6 months.

This does not bode well for small employers, who may have believed that they'd "dodged a bullet" when it appeared that these new reg's applied only to larger, COBRA compliant groups.

Of course, since "mini-COBRA" admin requirements are much less onerous than COBRA's, it's up to the (now former) employee to seek out this coverage. Still, if the extra costs are a problem for COBRA compliant groups, they could be disasterous for mom-and-pop shops.

Ooops.

Over on the Left Coast, co-blogger Bill Halper reports that California has CalCobra. He says that it "covers all group health plans (except those regulated by ERISA) with 2-19 eligible employees. The eligibility requirements are the same as Federal Cobra: as long as you are on the employer’s plan, pretty much anything short of walking in carrying an Uzi means you’re eligible. Voluntarily quitting your job, which would make you ineligible for unemployment, doesn’t affect your CalCobra eligibility. You can stay on CalCobra for 36 months; normally premiums are 110% of the employer’s premiums [ed: well, they were 110%. Now, not so much].

It’ll be amusing to see how this is implemented. Under CalCobra, the carriers are responsible for all of the administrative work. The employer notifies the carrier of a qualifying event, the carrier sends out the notice and then bills the participant and collects the premium. The employer is completely out of the loop. The Federal Law complicates things a bit.

OY! UPDATE: Just got this from one of our dental carriers: "Dental benefits are included in the health plan definitions of COBRA."

Exit question: If I didn't have dental before, will I be able to elect it at termination?

More (Bad) AIG News

From the Throwing Good Money After Bad Department:

"American Insurance Group, the insurance giant that is 80-percent owned by the US government, is in discussions with the government to secure additional funds so it can keep operating after next Monday, when it will report the largest loss in U.S. corporate history." [ed: emphasis added]

As we averred when the political class began schushing down this slippery slope, "When the gummint is your reinsurer, you're pretty much bullet-proof as to claims, reserves, you name it." And thus we see the results of unfettered access to someone else's (i.e. taxpayer) money. We're already some $150 billion into the struggling, ertswhile insurance giant, with no "happy ending" in sight. In fact, the rocket surgeons in Washington are now looking at swapping "some of the debt held by the government for equity in AIG."

What part of "enough is enough" don't these people understand?

There should come a point where the market is left to correct itself (I hesitate to say "must" because, with the gummint, all bets regarding common sense are off); sometimes this correction is painful. But it's the nature of risk; that is, sometimes you lose. Based on what we've seen so far, it doesn't seem likely that another infusion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars will net a long-term positive effect.

In other words, why won't they let us cut our losses?

Yummy! Grand Rounds is on the Table

The Blog That Ate Manhattan (burp!) hosts this week's roundup of medblog posts. From soup to nuts, you're sure to find some tasty food for thought.

Knowledge is Power. Except when it's not...

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Here at IB, an overarching theme is "empowerment." Generally, this means consumer driven health insurance plans (e.g. HSA's), but it also means taking a more pro-active role in learning about treatment options. Of course, the two are interrelated: when one has more "skin in the game," as in high deductible health plans, one has a greater financial stake in finding out as much as possible about what one's physician is recommending.

Which brings us to our first bit of news:

"Cancer patients who research treatment options are three times more likely to get the newest drugs than patients who don't spend extra time learning about their condition."

This makes sense, since it implies that those folks who take the time and put forth the effort to research their options are bound to know more about their possible choices than those who don't. These are folks who've scoured the 'net, read newspaper and magazine articles, and (presumably) talked to other folks with similar conditions.

And it gets better, since "those who pursued second opinions from doctors as part of their research were the most likely actually to be prescribed" one (or more) of the newer cancer med's, such as Erbitux, and Avastin. These are drugs which seem to slow the growth of tumors (although the article is quick to point out that they don't necessarily cure cancer).

On the other hand, those "first adopters" also face increased risk of developing negative side effects from these meds: "Avastin increases the risk of strokes, heart attacks and serious blood clots. Erbitux can cause a disfiguring rash."

Still, they show promise, especially for folks who face a death sentence.

On the other hand, just relying on the doc's, without doing one's own "due diligence," may backfire. The University of Michigan recently surveyed over 3,000 folks, all over 40, who had recently had office visits:

■ In "93% of talks about taking cholesterol or blood pressure drugs and in a majority of talks about cancer screening and elective surgery," the doc's initiated the conversation.

■ Doctors were much more likely to recommend taking action rather than adopt a "wait and see" posture.

That second may not seem like a big deal, but sometimes not taking action is the right course; at the very least, there's concern that, as researcher Brian Zikmund-Fisher oberves, "You need to have an opportunity to say yes or no."

Which is not to say that the doc's themselves are completely to blame here; after all, how many of us do make the time and effort to ask questions? Yet that's exactly what we should be doing, regardless of what kind of insurance we have. Or whether we're insured at all.

It really comes down to this: personal reponsibility and empowerment.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up

The Broke Grad Student hosts this week's extravaganza, replete with (questionable) YouTube clips. It's a great way to see a lot of interesting finance-related posts.

Shut Up, and Call Me in the Morning

It's as American as apple pie: the right to complain about poor service. But beware, you may have to give up that right if you want your doctor to continue treating you.

"Doctors across the country are forcing their patients to sign waivers giving up their right to post comments and reviews about them online."

Of course, just because you sign something doesn't automatically mean that you're bound by it. But there are usually consequences for ignoring the rules, especially ones to which you've explicitly agreed. In this case, the consequence is a boot out the door - of the doc's office, that is.

According to Laurence McCullough, a professor of medical ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, "(t)his is just the guild trying to protect itself from accountability to those it serves. That's not professional behavior — this is self-interested behavior." Of course, the medical profession has been under fire of late for other potential lapses in ethics, so this isn't necessarily breaking new ground.

But it is troubling:

Dr. Wendy Mariner, a law professor and director of the Patients' Rights Program at Boston University, opines that "the waivers create an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients, and could possibly limit options for patients seeking care. If this kind of thing gains any traction, medical licensing boards will, and I think should, prohibit it."

On the other hand, the reviews in question are often, well, questionable themselves. After all, how is one to know if the person posting an online complaint against Dr Smith was actually a patient of his, or simply a disgruntled employee, for example? Absent some kind of monitoring, who's to know. But that, of course, begs the question: who does the vetting? There doesn't seem to be any reasonable answer to that one.

And there's this:

"Under the terms of the agreements, patients promise they "will not denigrate, defame, disparage or cast aspersions upon" their doctors or post comments to any Web pages by name or anonymously."

Of course, if it's anonymous, how would the doc know whom to "fire?"

For now, both sides seem to be finding their way around these questions. It may be a while before we see any substantive answers.

Cavalcade of Risk #72: Submissions Due

Next week's edition is hosted by Russell Hutchinson. Submissions are due by Monday, the 23rd, and should include:

■ Your blog's url

■ Your post's url

■ The post's trackback URL (if available)

■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

Health Wonk Review: The Anti-Spam Edition

In honor of all the "spamblog" submissions I received for this outing, I thought it appropriate to include some useful spam tidbits. And so, each post this week is accompanied by a relevant, and yet tasty, Spam© concoction.

Enjoy!

(Oh, and if that doesn't work, try this)

■ We start off with a Singapore Salad, in honor of Pizaazz blogger Glenn Laffel's post reminding us that not all talk of health care reform is taking place here in the US: China's system is undergoing some changes, as well.

Careful though, about an hour after you read this post, you'll want to re-read it.

■ Moving on to the appetizer course, Sarah Axeen of the New Health Dialogue blog argues that we can both save the economy and reform our health care system, all in one fell swoop.

■ For those interested in lighter fare, we present Fiona Gathright's post at the Employee Wellness blog. She contends that folks are more likely to lose weight if they are paid for it, and that this weight loss would then translate to lower health care costs.

■ Sometimes, Puffs are a great idea. But David Williams, proprietor of the Health Business Blog, warns that looking for bargains in healthcare can lead to puffed up claims, particularly for uninsured and underinsured patients.

■ In a nod to our new president's heritage, we have a Hawaiian Spamburger, courtesy of Musings of a Distractible Mind's Dr Rob Lamberts.

The good doctor is thoroughly unimpressed with the state of Medicare, and in an Open Letter to the President, he explains why.

■ For a south of the border taste, we look to Nursing Degree blog. Looking to mix travel with surgery? Erika Collins has an indispensible guide to what she considers the Top 50 (and then some!) resources for Medical Tourism.

■ Interested in something that may sound good on paper, but might just be overreaching? Our own Bill Halper gives us his take on the "Stimulus" package (known around these parts as "The Spendulus"). Bill takes a look at all the health care provisions, and worries about their impact.

■ Like this recipe for incomparable corn chowder pot pies, Health Care Renewal guru Roy Poses has his own take on the comparative effectiveness research imperative in the recently passed "Stimulus" bill: if done right, he's all for it.

■ Sometimes, it's important to remember the basics, like a classic baked Spam loaf. Jason Shafrin, the Healthcare Economist, reviews some important healthcare statistics. These are classic, too, like health care spending that is expected to grow to almost 20% of GDP in 2017.

■ Remember when Egg McMuffins were first introduced, and folks wondered what they were? Well, just what is the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology, and why should we care? Healthcare journalist Neil Versel explains both, including what they have in common with Bernie Madoff.

■ Is the Kaiser Family Foundation's recent report a bit cheesy? Disease Management blogger Jaan Sidorov thinks so, and gives the KFF a thorough fisking for its disingenuous criticism of insurance coverage for cancer patients. The good news, Jaan assures us, is that his own "pic is Obama-esque."

■ When grilling kabobs, managing heat is critical. So, too, is managing patient care, as Dr Rich reminds us in this "meditation" on why patients who receive stents are so poorly informed, and how policy decisions (i.e, how doctors are "managed") may play a role.

■ Talk about heartburn in a bowl: Blogger Merrill Goozner takes aim at the Atlantic Magazine's apparent misrepresentation of comparative effectiveness. Ouch!

■ This Mexican Extravaganza is sure to cause some gastric pain. And while we're thinking of it, does the level of pain you experience while recovering from surgery have any relationship to the type of coverage you have? Jon Coppelman of Workers' Comp Insider makes the case that it sometimes does.

■ If you're on a budget, these BLT Bites might be just the ticket. But, as Medicaid Front Page's Brady Augustine reports, the new SCHIP legislation may leave states scrambling to stay within their own budgets.

■ Bet you never expected to see the words 'Spam' and 'cupcake' together, did you? Canadian Medicine blog's Sam Solomon reports on a similar surprise: the Canadian Medical Association is lobbying to reform the country's healthcare system to make it look more like one of the mixed public-private European systems.

■ These Tuscan Spam Bites aren't the only things with (metaphorical) fangs; Anthony Wright opines that the benefits of COBRA shows the complete disaster that is the individual insurance market.

■ Just as this Seven Layer Dip has many levels, Louise at Colorado Health Insurance Insider reports that the Stimulus Package [ed: referred to as "The Spendulus" here at IB] includes some not so obvious ingredients, including some that she hopes will help to ameliorate the problem of so many uninsured.

■ And for dessert, something both sweet and tart. THCB's Brian Klepper reports on a recent appeals court decision that held against the advocacy organization Consumers' Checkbook, and with the AMA and HHS. The latter two are looking to keep Medicare physician data secret, but this may conflict with increased efforts at transparency in health care.

Be sure to check out the comments for some great fireworks, um, debate.

Thanks for stopping by; be sure to catch the next edition when Brady Augustine hosts at MedicaidFrontPage.

Taxes and Top 10 Lists

Our good friend Joe Kristan has been named one of the Top 10 Tax Bloggers.

Congratulations, Joe!!

Medical Transparency Update

Boy, do we get results!

Regular readers may recall that we recently reported on regulations regarding physician rewards for recommending certain regimens [ed: okay, enough already with the alliteration!]. Specifically, "the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to a voluntary moratorium on the kind of branded goodies...that were meant to foster good will and, some would say, encourage doctors to prescribe more of the drugs."

First out of the box, it would appear, is Big Pharma Behemoth Pfizer, which has just announced that "will begin disclosing all sizable payments it makes to doctors, including those who test experimental drugs in people, a first for the industry." Now, that's not quite the same as, you know, actually ending said payments, but it certainly adds an element of transparency to a hitherto murky underworld of quid-pro-quo.

As Pfizer's Chief Executive Jeffrey Kindler noted, "It's very important that we earn the trust of patients and the public."

No kidding.

And it looks like Pfizer's move has sparked an interest in others, as well: "A handful of drugmakers, including Merck & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co., have recently announced plans to disclose payments for consulting, giving speeches and the like."

Another "freebie" sore point has gone unremarked; the underwriting of CME (Continuing Medical Education) credits by Big Pharma isn't mentioned. It would appear that this potentially valuable "gimme" will remain untouched by these new efforts. Actually, that doesn't really bother me: presuming that CME courses undergo at least as much scrutiny as insurance ones do, I don't think there's much danger of "contamination."

Word Problems

No, not that kind of word problems. More like this kind:

When is a rate reduction not a rate reduction?

When it's tied to buying another product. As in this lovely little offer that I recently received from our UHC service rep: "My UW [ed: underwriter] has provided 3% rate relief, off your groups medical rates, if you add any of our ancillary lines...dental...vision...or life."

A few simple words, and I blew my stack.

Why is that, you ask? Let's rephrase this, and perhaps it will become more apparent:

"We're offering a one-time, multi-policy discount on your group health rates if you also purchase dental, vision or life coverage. In fact, this discount could pay for itself."

(NB: I had to add the "one-time" bit because they already offer an on-going "package" discount)

So why would one phrase give me the warm fuzzies, and a simple re-wording send me through the roof?

Call me old-school, but when a carrier rep says "underwriter" and "rate relief" in the same sentence, it implies a whole series of specific processes and decisions, the results of which should be completely independent of whether or not we buy an additional line of coverage.

In fact, wording it in such a way strikes me as just shy of extortion ("(t)aking money by force, threats or deception or by excessive overcharging"). After all, if we're healthy, why not just offer the lower rates? In fact, if the underwriter has determined that we qualify for lower rates, isn't the carrier obligated to just put them in place?

Why not?

But recasting this as a completely separate business decision (which, after speaking with the rep, I came to understand it to be) makes it an attractive offer, not a thinly veiled attempt at squeezing even more premium.

As they say, "words mean things." And sometimes, they mean things we don't intend.

Grand Rounds is up!

Nurse Kim hosts this week's 'Rounds, and it's Dynamite! (Napolean Dynamite, that is). Kim does a great job of weaving together snippets from the film with great medblog posts.

BREAKING: ShenLife on the Rocks [Updated]

Just "over the wire:" Shenandoah Life has been placed in receivership. This means that the state of Virgina has taken (at least temporary) custody of the troubled carrier.

The good news is that the system works: already, other carriers have stepped up to the plate, offering safe harbors for ShenLife insureds.

We'll have more on this over the weekend, as details come in.

[Hat Tip: An anonymous FoIB]

MORE: Readers may be wondering just why ShenLife foundered. Apparently, the predicate cause was its substantial position in certain pillars of financial stability:

"Shenandoah Life lost approximately $50 million when the value of its equity position in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock was significantly diminished."

[ed: "Significantly diminished" is insure-speak for "flaming burn-out."]

I must admit to having been somewhat flummoxed when I first heard the news this afternoon; it had flown completely under my radar. However, our "Anonymous FoIB" told me that it had caught pretty much everyone by surprise: as late as yesterday, another carrier had been in negotiations to buy ShenLife's entire book of business; that fell through and the Virginia Insurance Department (aka the State Corporation Commission) stepped in to act as safety net.

Just goes to show you, though, how important it is to diversify, and to avoid putting so much money into investments backed by questionable actors.

Health Wonk Review Coming Up

We're pleased as punch to host next week's roundup of all that's wonky. If you'd like to participate, please submit your post no later than next Wednesday (the 18th). Please be sure include:

■ Your blog's url

■ Your post's url

■ The post's trackback URL (if available)

■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE note: Only posts which meet the HWR Guidelines will be included:

"Health policy, funding, insurance, managed care, infrastructure, IT, the uninsured, economics and trends re same are all fair game."

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or by dropping us an email.

On the Radar

If you're in the health care or insurance biz, HR or Project Management; if your job has anything at all to do with risk or benefits, you need to be reading the Industry Radar.

Head Honcho John Nail has grown this aggregator into a powerful tool for anyone who wants (or needs) to know about what's going on in health care financing, risk management, and benefits in general.

Highly recommended.

Are WE Stupid, Too?

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Recently, I noted that doctors demonstrate a remarkable lack of intelligence and sense. But I also wonder why the public at large believes that health care reform included in the Spendulus is going to have a happy ending.

As we've repeatedly noted here at IB, unless we're able to contain health care costs, our likelihood of controlling health insurance costs is a pipe-dream. And we can look at real world examples to ascertain the truth of this.

One such example, often cited as a model of health care efficacy by those in favor of such systems, is Medicare. Unfortunately, it fails miserably on all counts:

"An ambitious effort to cut costs and keep aging, sick Medicare patients out of the hospital mostly didn't work, a government-contracted study found."

Got that? A "government-contracted study." Not an insurance company or doctor's association. For many seniors, chronic illness is a way of life; the challenge is to manage it cost-effectively. Unfortunately, this gummint-run system has demonstrated no such ability:

"Most of the patients had serious, but common, age-related illnesses...Programs were set up at 15 centers...Only two cut the number of times these patients were hospitalized...None saved Medicare any money." [emphasis added]

One of the primary problems (and again, one we've mentioned many times) is that many folks have behaviors that can be changed, but too often remain unchecked: weight, excercise, smoking, etc. Without more personal responsibility, there's very little hope of change, the power of the gummint notwithstanding:

"The only way you can really do it is by changing patients' behavior and by changing physicians' behavior, and both things are really hard to do," according to the study's author, Randall Brown.

No kidding.

Stupid Mommy Tricks

Several years ago, we caused a kerfluffle with a series of posts explaining why IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) should not be covered by insurance. At the time, it never occured to us that we should have added "or by the taxpayer."

Ooops:

"A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman’s 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California’s taxpayers."

Turns out, the young "lady" (who had already spawned 6 children) has been receiving gummint subsidies, at least in part because she is unemployed. For some reason, this rocket surgeon decided that having a slew of additional mouths to feed would be appropriate, and that it would also be appropriate for thee and me to pay for their care.

Perhaps the hardworking taxpayers of the Golden State (or should that be "Goldbrick" State?) had other plans for those dollars; alas, those tireless workers weren't consulted, only forced to pay up.

But wait, it gets better!

"(T)he hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed." [emphasis added]

Oh, great: a blank check!

The good news is that Ms Suleman "doesn’t consider the public assistance she receives to be welfare." Well good on her! After all, it's only important to consider what one calls it, not that one is expected to pay for it.

Surprisingly, "bloggers rained insults on Suleman." Gee, I wonder why?

Cavalcade of Risk #71 Now Up

Once again, Julie Ferguson presents an outstanding edition of the Cavalcade of Risk. From peanut butter to lightbulbs, medical errors to radiation risks, you're sure to find something to interest (or scare) you.

Do check it out.

And consider hosting your own Cav; we're scheduling for Spring '09. Just drop us a line to snag yours.

Doctors are Stupid (Updated)

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

[ed: File this under "great" (?) minds think alike - before I had the chance to push the "Go!" button on this post, my colleague Bill Halper had his take on the Spendulus Package. Please be sure to read it. And it appears that Bob will also be sharing his thoughts on it a bit later.]

Yup, that's what I said: as a group, doctors are stupid.

That bears repeating: as a group, physicians are stupid.

And on what do I base this?

Well, let's look at the headlines on the front page of the AMA website:

■ AMA Cheers New Law to Get Kids Health Coverage

■ AMA Wins Legal Victory for Physicians in Privacy Court Case

■ AMA Wins Victory with Record-Breaking Settlement in case against insurer

Not one word on the Spendulus package, which contains even more pieces of a nationalized health care system As Bloomberg News' Betsy McCaughey reports:

"The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system."

And:

"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."

So let's review those AMA headlines in this new context, shall we:

■ AMA Wins Legal Victory for Physicians in Privacy Court Case. Nope, you can kiss that privacy goodbye. After all, the gummint's proven so adept at keeping private information private.

■AMA Wins Victory with Record-Breaking Settlement in case against insurer. And that goes the way of the dodo, as well: can't sue the gummint. So when the bureaucrats in Washington say "jump," the doc's only response will be "how high, boss?"

These are folks who willingly gave up major chunks of their lives to study, work, even brreathe medicine. many of whom make (very) nice wages for these efforts. Yet they willingly risk throwing all of that away to make, what, a political point?

Okay, that's certainly their right and prerogative.

But it's also proof of my original thesis.

And there's this: If you're a "seasoned citizen," be aware (and beware) that this bill dramatically reduces your choices (and chances), as well:
"In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye."

[ed: as we reported last summer]

According to Ms McCaughey, "seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing." Talk about an uncertain future.

Carnival, anyone?

Oh, and for Economies With "Performance Issues," there's this:

[Hat Tip: Joe Kristan]