Squeeze out waste

Understandably, the painstaking scrutiny of healthcare costs has reached a fever pitch. While administration is a relatively small percentage of the overall costs in the system, the pressure is on payers to trim as much waste from their operations as possible.

Administrative costs—or any outlays that are not specifically tied to medical care—are a political hot button. Insurers defend what they spend on tasks such as case management and disease management as well as investments in technology as necessary spending that results in net savings and improved health. Some critics of the insurance industry characterize administrative costs as nothing more than profits and executive compensation and seek legislation to control how premium dollars are spent.

In fact, 15 states have implemented laws dictating minimum medical loss ratios (MLRs), ranging from 50% to 80%. In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have forced insurers to maintain an MLR of 85%.

According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a 2008 study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 87 cents of every premium dollar goes to healthcare and medical services, and just 3 cents goes toward profits.

PASSING THE BLAME

Governments are taking some steps that could eventually result in lower healthcare costs, such as smoking bans in public places and removing soda and sugary snacks from school vending machines. On Jan. 1, 2010, California became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants and bakeries. New York City adopted a similar ban several years ago.

Nonetheless, it was inevitable that scrutiny would intensify on payers and their efforts to reduce costs and minimize wasted resources in the system, and now that it has, they’re possibly receiving more blame than is fair.

“When people look at waste in claims processing, for example, they assume [all of the money is being wasted] by insurers, when a lot of it is wasted by providers,” says Mark Merlis, a health policy consultant who has written several papers on the topic of healthcare waste. “But in fairness to providers, they have to comply with many different insurers’ administrative processes, so we should be doing as much as we can to promote uniform transactions.”

Merlis says the more uniformity that can be achieved among payers, the more money the system overall is going to save. Market complexity makes it difficult to identify who is “committing” the waste. Furthermore, cutting waste from one area might simply shift costs to another. For example, in an attempt to fight losses from fraud, payers could investigate more claims in detail, but that will delay payments to providers, damaging relations and potentially resulting in legal action under prompt payment laws.

TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUE

The siloed yet sprawling nature of the U.S. healthcare system—payers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, government agencies and consumers—means that waste elimination isn’t as easy as making an individual organization operate more efficiently.

Some Americans, including some physicians, believe a shift to a single payer system would simplify healthcare administration, but the large majority is firmly opposed to such a change. As Merlis points out in his paper, “Simplifying Administration of Health Insurance” (January 2009), complexity is not just a byproduct of the insurance system—it is what insurers are selling.

“The value-added of the managed care industry consists of the very features that make insurance complicated: different coverage rules and formularies, authorization requirements and careful scrutiny of claims, and so on,” he writes. “The variations are what differentiate one plan from another, and competition and uniformity may be conflicting goals.”

Still, that doesn’t mean plans can’t improve their internal operations and their relationships with other healthcare stakeholders. There are also high hopes that technology can eliminate some waste in the system, and at least one project is proving that to be true.

In 2008, Blue Shield of California (BSC) created its Partnership in Operational Excellence and Transparency (POET) transactions-tracking tool to improve payment accuracy and dispute resolution, speed claims turnaround, and increase operational transparency. The program is available online for 90 of the hospitals Blue Shield of California contracts with across the state.

“POET has been enhancing our working relationships with network hospitals by providing opportunities for data-driven discussions that directly improve operational efficiencies,” says Juan Davila, the plan’s senior vice president for network management. “Using key claims performance indicators and transparent claims data, we work jointly with our facilities to target and prioritize impactful process improvements.”

Davila says the claims-processing related improvements have been impressive, and the benefits of improved relations with network providers are even more so.

“We wanted to show that we were really trying to get at the root of the problem,” he says. “We paid for the system up-front, and we were increasing our transparency to them, as opposed to trying to cover up our errors. We genuinely wanted to develop a more collaborative relationship with our network hospitals, and that’s changed the way we think of each other in a very positive way.”

The hospital association of Southern California recently approached BSC to help the association with another large-scale project.

“I have been in this business for 20 years and have never gotten a phone call like that before,” Davila says.

Within administrative functions, such as those BSC is addressing, it’s hard to know exactly what is waste. A 2008 study by PwC’s Health Research Institute, “The Price of Excess: Identifying Waste in Healthcare Spending,” points out that “inefficiency” and “waste” are not interchangeable terms; the former is merely one component of the latter.

Authors define waste as costs that could have been avoided without a negative impact on quality, which is similar to the definition used by the Institute of Medicine and the authors of another watershed study conducted by Thomson Reuters in October 2009: expenses that don’t add value.

WHERE TO FIND WASTE

The PwC research estimates that slightly more than half of all healthcare spending ($1.2 trillion of the annual $2.2 trillion spent) is wasteful and breaks it into three categories:

• Behavioral waste, which accounts for $303 billion to $493 billion each year;
• Clinical waste, accounting for $312 billion annually; and
• Operational waste, which consumes $126 billion to $315 billion.

The study further breaks the operational waste segment down into four subsets:

• Claims processing, which accounts for $21 billion to $210 billion in waste;
• Inefficient use of technology ($81 billion to $88 billion);
• Staff turnover ($21 billion); and
• Paper prescriptions ($4 billion).

The research by New York-based Thomson Reuters Healthcare Analytics (October 2009) is slightly less pessimistic, estimating that each year, between $600 billion and $850 billion of healthcare spending is wasted.

The study, “Where Can $700 Billion in Waste Be Cut Annually from the U.S. Healthcare System?” identifies six primary culprits:

• Unnecessary care (40% of waste), accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion;
• Fraud (19%), $125 billion to $175 billion;
• Administrative inefficiency (17%), $100 billion to $150 billion;
• Healthcare provider errors (12%), $75 billion to $100 billion;
• Preventable conditions (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion; and
• Lack of care coordination (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion.

Those figures are so staggering that the system can’t expect to “cut” its way out of them, according to Bob Kelley, Thomson Reuters’ vice president of healthcare analytics and author of the report.

“Simple external controls on cost and utilization will not work, and any effort to control costs by eliminating waste must be careful to consider possible unintended impact on access to appropriate and necessary care,” he says. “We should expect that any change to the system of care that improves its performance will require a realignment of the types and levels of professional and facility resources and the relationships among these resources.”

The best solutions will effect positive changes and recognize that the healthcare market dynamic is much different from other product or service markets. Most consumers believe that their access to all potentially useful services is a right.

“We need to shift the public’s perception and expectation [of quality] away from ‘more services is better’ to ‘the care that will most likely result in the outcomes that are best for me,’” he says. “Simultaneously, we must begin to reward physicians for providing this type of care, and recognize and pay for the required time and effort.”

CONSUMER BAD HABITS

Shifting public perception is critical, because for many Americans, “waste in healthcare” brings to mind images of bloated, lethargic mega-plans with outdated technologies and overpaid, fat-cat executives. Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that fully half of the nation’s deaths each year are the result of bad and avoidable habits, most Americans, rather than look in the mirror, latch onto headlines about excessive health plan profits and executive bonuses.

When consumers learned that former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received more than $124 million in total compensation in 2005, it’s understandable that many of them reacted with indignation. While the public’s sensitivity to what they perceive as excessive income is at an all-time high, salaries and bonuses paid to health plan executives are a very small number in a very large sum, according to Dan Munro, principal with The DMM Group.

“If you added up all of the executive bonuses and salaries for the entire healthcare industry, it would just be a drop in the bucket compared to the other costs,” he says. “Healthcare is nothing at all like Wall Street, where firms are racing to pay back their Troubled Asset Relief Program funds because they want to go back to handing out those huge bonuses again.”

Merlis agrees, saying executive compensation “might look ugly when you see how much money certain people are being paid, but it’s really not a driver of healthcare expenses.”

It’s clear that politicians are doing what they can to foster greater use of technology in healthcare, particularly with federal funding included in the stimulus package to spur greater adoption of electronic medical records, which are not yet widely adopted.

“The government is trying to encourage the meaningful use of electronic health records,” Munro says. “For the first time, the government is mandating that EHR applications engage the consumer. If you tell most EHR vendors that you’re going to develop a patient-focused system, they’ll laugh at you. They have always been provider-focused, because that’s where the money is.”

An EHR system can cost millions of dollars, so small providers are less likely to adopt them simply because of the cost. The government has realized that use of health IT won’t progress if it doesn’t engage the consumer, Munro says.

THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE REAL

To further explore IT’s opportunities to improve healthcare, Kelley and Thomson Reuters are working on a follow-up whitepaper highlighting specific initiatives that have been successful in eliminating waste, or that show the potential to do so.

“There are certainly high expectations for the contributions of IT to both improved quality and reduced waste,” he says. “Many of these initiatives are either directly related to new or enhanced IT applications or require IT system support to enable new relationships between providers, or between providers and patients.”

Examples of the first type include electronic medical records, health information exchanges, and clinical registries. Examples of the second type include patient-centered medical homes and bundled or episode-based payment systems.

“I think that these opportunities are real, but changes in the systems of care and the relationships among providers and patients will be required if the great potential for these solutions is to be ultimately realized,” he says.

According to Davila, BSC’s POET program is improving efficiencies at the larger system level.

“Historically, when we would show up to renegotiate a contract, the hospital representative would say, ‘My people are telling me that you don’t pay your claims right, you don’t handle appeals well, and you owe us X million dollars. Before we recontract, I need you to fix that.’ The result, inevitably, was a lot of negative energy.”

To solve the problem, BSC worked with a third-party vendor to develop a system that enables participating hospitals to review 24 months of processed claims information and performance metrics on the POET Hospital Dashboard, an online performance analytics portal specifically designed for those hospitals.

Those facilities routinely receive quarterly claim summary reports that provide information on key indicators such as cycle time; submission type; denial volume and reasons for denial; appeal volume, outcomes, and reasons; and claim volume for patients with Bluecard, a national program that allows any Blue member to receive care from another Blue company when traveling or living outside of their usual service area.

“It’s all right there in black and white for everyone to see,” Davila says. “One national hospital system was upset because they thought we weren’t paying as quickly as we should, until POET revealed the problem: We were paying the claim in 12 days, but it was taking them 25 days to get the claim to us. The system showed them exactly where the process was broken so they could fix it.”

PHYSICIANS’ WEIGH THEIR COSTS

The need for such transparency is significant, according to research from the American Medical Assn. Its second annual National Insurer Report Card study attempts to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the claims processing systems used by eight of the nation’s largest health insurers. Five of the eight plans showed improvements in the median amount of time necessary to respond to providers’ claims, but the report estimates that providers still divert as much as 14% of their revenue to ensure they are receiving accurate payments.

Physicians reported spending three hours weekly interacting with plans in 2006, according to a Web Exclusive produced by Health Affairs in May 2009. When time is converted to dollars, the cost to practices is estimated at $23 billion to $31 billion annually, or 6.9% of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services. Further, 45.9% of physicians surveyed for the report said the cost of dealing with health plans had “increased a lot.”

The report goes on to note that administrative cost cannot be reduced to zero dollars and that interactions that cost money also can produce benefit, such as prior authorization, which can reduce inappropriate use.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!