Tag Archives: cms

Winning the War Against Opioid Addiction and Abuse

As we move forward with winning the war against opioid addiction, it can sometimes be challenging to read the daily headlines and stay positive, especially around the holidays. A December article titled “Drug Abusers May be Injuring Pets to Get Pain Killers” shared how police officers and community leaders informed the Ohio attorney general’s office that people have been abusing drugs rightfully prescribed to pets. The US News HealthDay story titled “Secure Your Prescription Drugs When Hosting Holiday Parties” warned readers about the importance of securing prescription drugs in a safe location before guests arrive. When stories deteriorate to addicts intentionally harming their dogs and to people worrying about holiday guests raiding medicine cabinets, rock bottom isn’t far away.

However, 2013 positioned us well for achieving improved results during 2014. Some of last year’s positive developments include:

1.   State law changes establishing clearer standards of care, reporting and tracking of controlled narcotics, bans on abused narcotics, etc.

2.   State and federal agencies aggressively prosecuting individuals who prescribe opioids illegally or  operate “pill mills,” revoking registrations of some pharmacies and compelling healthcare providers and pharmacies to surrender or forfeit their medical licenses to state medical/pharmacy boards

3.   Physician-led education efforts like the Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing

4.   Medical boards actively addressing the inappropriate and illegal dispensing of drugs

5.   Heightened awareness of the neonatal abstinence syndrome crisis in the U.S.

6.   Workers’ compensation insurers leveraging advanced analytics, physician education efforts, evidence-based pain diagnoses and utilization reviews to reduce injured worker reliance on addictive prescription drugs

7.   The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

8.   The issuance of the October 2013 Trust for America’s Health report titled “Prescription Drug Abuse: Strategies to Stop the Epidemic”

9.   Continuing prosecution and sentencing of healthcare providers

10. Efforts by national medical organizations

The first eight developments were addressed in the authors’ first quarter 2013 Physician Insurer magazine article titled “The Opioid Abuse Epidemic, Turning the Tide” and our Dec. 2, 2013 Property Casualty 360 Claims Magazine article titled “10 Strategies to Combat the Rx Abuse Epidemic – An Insurers Perspective.”

This article will expand on the last two developments and share some thoughts on what may be in our future when it comes to winning the war on opioid addiction and abuse.

Prosecution and sentencing of healthcare providers

2013 was marked by the successful prosecution and sentencing of healthcare professionals involved in various forms of prescription drug diversion. Arguably the most notable of these was the 39-year prison sentence given to David Kwiatkowski, the former New Hampshire hospital technician who caused dozens of people to become infected with hepatitis C when he injected himself with pain killers using syringes that were then used on patients. Kwiatkowski admitted in August to stealing the drugs and leaving used syringes for hospital use for years, despite knowing he was infected with hepatitis C. His case drew national attention to the problem of prescription drug diversion among healthcare workers; caused a number of institutions to finally take a fresh look at their human resource policies and systems being used to detect diversion; and, has, we hope, sent a strong message of deterrence to all healthcare drug diverters — it is only a matter of time before you get caught!

Efforts by national medical organizations (NMOs)

On an extremely positive note, we are beginning to see NMOs join the fight to help stem the opioid epidemic. On Dec. 10, 2013, the American College of Physicians released a position paper titled “Prescription Drug Abuse: A Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.” The goal of the paper was to provide physicians and policy-makers with 10 recommendations to address the significant human and financial costs related to prescription drug abuse. The recommendations include support for additional education, a national prescription drug monitoring program, establishment of evidence-based nonbinding guidelines regarding recommended maximum dosage and duration of therapy, consideration of patient-provider treatment agreements and the passage of legislation by all 50 states permitting electronic prescription for controlled substances.

In turn, in January 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Drugs and Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine issued a report titled “Recognition and Management of Iatrogenically Induced Opioid Dependence and Withdrawal in Children.” The clinical report recommended guidelines for prescribers to follow when weaning children from opioids. As noted by lead author Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, “[t]he key reason the AAP was keen to publish this paper and go forward with this guideline is that people are unaware that patients can get drug-specific withdrawal symptoms from opioids as early as five days to a week after having been on an opioid chronically.”

This recommendation was immediately followed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Jan. 10, 2014, Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 publication of proposed rules revising the Medicare Advantage (MA) regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to help combat fraud and abuse in these programs. The proposed rules include requiring prescribers of Part D drugs to enroll in Medicare, a feature that CMS believes will help ensure that Part D drugs are prescribed only by qualified individuals. As reported by Medscape Medical News, CMS is also seeking the authority to revoke a physician’s or eligible professional’s Medicare enrollment if:

• CMS determines that he or she has a pattern or practice of prescribing Part D drugs that is abusive and represents a threat to the health and safety of Medicare beneficiaries or otherwise fails to meet Medicare requirements; or

• His or her Drug Enforcement Administration certificate of registration is suspended or revoked; or

• The applicable licensing or administrative body for any state in which a physician or eligible professional practices has suspended or revoked the physician or eligible professional’s ability to prescribe drugs.

Furthermore, CMS proposes employing data analysis to identify prescribers and pharmacies that may be engaged in fraudulent or abusive activities. In Table 14 of Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7, CMS’ Office of the Actuary estimates the savings to the federal government from implementing its proposed provisions will be $83 million in calendar year 2015, $132 million in 2016, $171 million in 2017, $364 million in 2018 and $589 million in 2019.

Source: CMS

Innovation in our future

In addition to the above efforts, companies continue to innovate and research new ways to address historical challenges.

Vatex Explorations is building a real-time individual-dose monitoring system called Divert-X to reduce drug trafficking, misuse and addictions that result from routine medical care. Divert-X monitors a patient’s individual doses through the electronic transmission of data identifying the time of dose access, location and other measures. The analysis of the data in real time helps physicians and pharmacists identify drug-taking behaviors that fall outside of norms, allowing early intervention before misuse or addiction set in.

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration approved an ingestible sensor that can be used to track real time data about your pill consumptions habits. The sensor, developed by Proteus Digital Health, was first approved for use in Europe before coming to the U.S. The ingestible sensor is part of the digital health feedback system, which includes a wearable sensor and secure app and is largely focused on serving the transplant population and patients with chronic illnesses. The authors could envision a day when the system could help in the battle against opioid addiction.

Insurance companies are doing a better job of leveraging advanced analytics to understand their opioid-exposed population and the prescribing habits of the physicians treating their injured workers. Through the review of medical bills (e.g., date and types of service and payment, ICD-9 diagnosis codes, CPT-4 procedure codes, etc.) and pharmacy data (e.g., bill frequency,  aggressive refills, NDC drug codes, quantity used, generic vs. brand, supply days, use of prescriber, pharmacy name, etc.), insurance companies can identify usage and treatment patterns that fall outside of expectations using cluster analyses, association rules, anomaly detection and network “link” analyses.

Law enforcement continues to push the envelope in finding innovative ways to combat drug diversion. Take, for example, the strategy developed in consultation with the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators and Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics to curb false reporting of the loss or theft of prescription drugs in Stillwater. According to a police spokesman, most physicians in Stillwater require patients to obtain a police report before they will write a replacement prescription for lost or stolen medications. This requirement resulted in an increase in the number of police reports filed, but a new problem emerged. How could anyone determine whether those police reports were legitimate? In response, the Stillwater police department created a database to record the names of any individual who reported the loss or theft of a prescription drug. The department now requires the individual to take a polygraph test before it will accept any subsequent report of a lost or stolen prescription drug. Fail that polygraph, and criminal prosecution may follow. Query: If this strategy were employed nationwide, would the medicine cabinet at home be guarded more closely?

Conclusion

There is no doubt we have come a long way in the battle against opioid addiction in a relatively short time. Although there is a lot of road left to travel, 2014 is well-positioned to carry forward the effective efforts from last year. Given the innovative spirit of the U.S. and passion of everyone involved in winning this fight, a better long-term solution could be just around the corner.

The Looming $20 Billion MSA Train Wreck: Welcome Aboard

There is a $20 billion calamity on the tracks ahead, and no one seems to care. As this train hurtles ever closer to its inevitable demise, the passengers ride oblivious. A program created to protect those passengers – U.S. taxpayers — seemingly will do anything but what was originally intended. 

Medicare Set Asides were developed with the good intentions of protecting Medicare, and the taxpayers that fund it, from unnecessarily paying for injuries and illnesses that are the prior responsibility of third parties. Quite simply, people were taking settlement money received from a general liability or workplace accident—money that was supposed to pay for future medical needs from the injury—and were spending it on anything but its intended purpose. While this was great for the bass boat and travel industries, it was a less than stellar deal for the U.S. taxpayer, who wound up paying for the injured persons’ care once they were eligible for Medicare.

Enter the MSA: a vehicle designed to protect a designated portion of settlement funds by placing them aside and requiring they be used for the purpose intended. This is not new. The roots of today’s MSA lie in the passing of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980. That act was significantly strengthened in 2003, however, and this has resulted in far more activity for the workers’ compensation industry over the past decade.

True to form, the government has not made implementation easy. Extremely detailed reporting requirements, extensive fines for the Responsible Reporting Entity (even for rules not established at the time) and a complex process made for a confusing road for employers and payers. An entire industry has sprung up to manage this process. The risks of not complying are serious, and the liability for getting it wrong is huge. The Medicare Set Aside today is integral to virtually any settlement situation in the workers’ compensation industry.

All of this is done to protect the U.S. taxpayer from Joe Sixpack and his desire for a bass boat.

I am in no way an expert on MSAs. I have, however, spent time over the last two years attending conferences and talking to various experts on the topic, trying to better understand their purpose and procedure. I discovered a singular statistic that absolutely floored me. It was a fact that, in my opinion, flies in the face of logic and makes all the burdened activity around the MSA seem pointless.

What is so shocking? Only 4% of completed MSAs are professionally administered.

The rest, 96%, are given directly to the claimant/recipient and are self-managed. That means that, when all is said and done, when the calculations are made, when the submissions and approvals are complete, the money that is set aside for the purpose of protecting Medicare and the U.S. taxpayer is given right back to Joe Sixpack, the guy we were trying to protect ourselves from in the first place.

It makes no sense. None.

I am not saying Joe Sixpack is a bad guy. I am not saying his intents are not pure. I am saying that managing payments from an MSA, making sure they are properly coded and complying with mandated reporting is difficult. The process may be well beyond the ability of an injured worker turned fund manager.

Even with his best efforts, Joe could be in trouble when Medicare starts paying for his health care. If he has not dotted every “i” and crossed every “t,” as well as made sure all expenditures were classified to show appropriate care for the affected injury, he could find himself denied needed coverage by Medicare.

And when an army of Joes are pounding at the door of Medicare, because of possible denial of coverage, something is going to have to give.

So how bad is it? What are we looking at here?

For that I turned to Ken Paradis, chairman of Ametros Financial, a company that offers professional administration of MSAs. He confirmed that my suspicions were potentially accurate and provided some very interesting – make that scary – numbers.

In 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved $1.4 billion in MSAs. Assuming a consistent approach since 2001, the inception of the current program, we can estimate that $16.8 billion have been approved for MSAs in the past 12 years. Using a straight-line estimation, this could mean that $16.1 billion is being self-managed.

Not all MSAs are reviewed by CMS—some are set up with no input or review by the government—and these Class III MSAs represent a completely unknown addition in risk to the long-term health of Medicare. Paradis indicated from experience that 20% of MSAs may be in this category. Using the base numbers from our equation, that estimate brings the total risk pool to perhaps $20 billion.

That figure represents true risk for the nation and our industry.

It seems that many are under the impression that self-administered funds are managed with some level of competence by Joe Sixpack’s counsel. However, the existence of waiver or hold-harmless indemnification language in many settlement agreements tells a different tale. The November 2013 manual on MSAs included guidance for non-professionally administered MSAs, which tells us someone out there might need that advice.

After all the convoluted effort focused on setting up MSAs to protect the interests of Medicare, the guidelines on administration offered by CMS are surprisingly simple:

  • Deposit the fund into an interest-bearing account.
  • Use the fund only for the MSA settlement injury.
  • Use the fund only for expenses covered by Medicare.
  • Pay according to the appropriate fee schedule.
  • Prepare and submit an annual account report to CMS.

The first three seem easy enough to understand. The last two, however, are where the wheels will most likely come off the bus for our wayward injured worker turned financial wizard. Fee schedule and medical classification codes are a science unto themselves, yet we expect Joe Sixpack to navigate that labyrinth with a ninja-like accounting skill set that many industry professionals themselves do not possess.

As for those detailed annual reports, anecdotal information shows CMS hasn’t actually seen many of those over the last decade or so. They, and we, are operating blind in that area.

And, as I’ve indicated, it is a damn big area.

The harsh truth is, no one knows what is out there. No one knows what is coming. We are blindly turning on faith that all this energy and effort will somehow end up doing what was intended. Trust me; this is not going to end well.

The cost of professional administration is a mere pittance when compared with the cost and complexity of setting up an MSA. It seems even smaller when we fully recognize the consequences at hand. Some in the industry are openly suggesting that the expense of professional administration could easily be offset by using it in place of the costly and slow approval process. By skipping the approval but securing the long-term health of the MSA, the greater goal of limited liability will be met. The indemnity saved by settling the case sooner would in many cases more than offset the cost of a professional manager.

Under the current scenario, the taxpayers will clearly be on the hook, but the workers' comp industry should not be foolishly complacent. There are potential clawbacks in our future, and many who think they've put these issues to bed may be again facing a call for more cash by our government.

Why the government fails to close the loop on this and secure the protection it originally intended is beyond comprehension. We are requiring the crafting of a lengthy and expensive letter, getting it reviewed, edited and approved, and then no one is putting a stamp on the envelope.

All that effort, all that expense, only to wind up where we were to begin with; with the exception of our new sense of security. Our false sense of security.

This is part of a much bigger issue: 10,000 retirees are entering the Social Security system every day. The Medicare trust fund will be broke by 2022 at its current expenditure rates, and the ability of Joe Sixpack to manage his funds has never been more critical. There is a train wreck coming, and we are all on board for the ride.  An army of angry Joes will soon be pounding on our door, and the $20 billion may be nowhere to be found.

After all the effort and fuss, I find myself wondering: Why?

How to Tap the Secret Power of ICD-9's

The medical portion of Workers’ Compensation claims now meets or exceeds 60% of claim costs. That fact alone should easily convince payers to focus on the rich medical information in their data. Very powerful information residing in claims data is virtually untouched—diagnostic codes in the form of ICD-9’s. The problem is few in the industry really understand ICD-9’s or in what ways they could inform powerful medical management.

ICD Defined
ICD-9 codes are not unique to Workers’ Compensation. ICD-9’s are the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). They are a standardized method of describing injuries, illnesses, and related issues worldwide.

ICD is the classification that codes and classifies mortality data worldwide. The ICD-CM is used to code and classify morbidity data from inpatient and outpatient records and doctor’s offices.

The purpose of the ICD and of WHO (World Health Organization) sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics. New revisions of the ICD are implemented periodically so that the classification also reflects advances in medical science.

ICD’s in Standard Billing Forms
Those who bill for medical services in the U.S. are required to use one of two CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid) standard forms, the HCFA-1500 (Health Insurance Claim Form) for outpatient and UB-04 Unified Billing) for hospitals and other facilities. Both standardized forms require the medical provider to list ICD-9’s appropriate to the medical procedures for which they are billing. The verdant data derived from these forms should be analyzed and incorporated into managed care processes.

Unwieldy and Ignored
Bill review organizations and payers capture data from the standardized billing forms in their systems. Nevertheless, while the ICD information is documented in systems, it’s use usually stops there. ICD-9’s are difficult to interpret.

ICD-9’s on bills are displayed in the form of codes, not descriptions of injuries and illnesses and they number in the thousands. Individuals cannot remember the codes, nor do they have the time to look up codes for interpretation. Instead, they simply ignore them.

Secret Power of ICD
Incremental essential knowledge resides in ICD-9 codes that can be translated to powerful medical management. When they are monitored electronically and concurrently, they reveal and inform.

ICD-9’s Reveal Migrating Claims
For instance, migrating claims accrue ICD’s. Migrating claims are those that are not going well, are becoming more complex and costly, often an insidious process that is missed by claims adjusters and medical case managers until considerable damage is done. What happens in migrating claims is the injured worker is not recovering for some reason and is referred to multiple specialists. Each specialist adds new ICD-9’s to the claim.

As a claims migrates, the number of ICD-9’s associated with it mounts.

Computer Monitoring
Using a computerized system especially designed to monitor ICD-9’s is a powerful knowledge solution. Alerts are sent to appropriate persons when the number of ICD-9’s in a claim increases beyond a designated point. Migrating claims cannot be missed and intervention is early, therefore far more effective.

ICD-9’s are Predictors
Another way to tap the secret power of ICD-9’s is to score them individually for medical severity, the seriousness of the injury or illness. Each claim then contains a total ICD-9 score in the system for medical severity. As ICD-9’s are added during the course of the claim, the claim ICD score increases. As a claim migrates and accumulates ICD-9’s, an appropriate person is automatically notified by the system. Migrating claims cannot go unnoticed.

Claims with high ICD-9 scores are predictors of risk and cost. Claim ICD-9 scores can be monitored from the outset and throughout the course of the claim.

ICD-9’s Scores Level the Playing Field
The claim ICD-9 score reveals the seriousness and complexity of a claim. Medical doctors managing difficult claims can be differentiated from those handling less arduous claims, thereby creating fairness in measuring provider performance.

Many indicators are used for claim monitoring and provider performance including medical cost, frequency and duration of treatment, indemnity costs, return to work and multiple other factors. The claim ICD medical severity score automatically predicts trouble and alerts the appropriate medical managers.

Moving on—ICD-10
The ICD-9 contains thousands of codes. Moreover, the ICD-10 revision will more than double the number of codes, making its information value exponential. ICD-10 is slated to be activated in October of 2014.

Data Integrity – Y2K All Over Again?

Remember Y2K?
“January 1, 2000, that is the day that was to change all of our lives. That was the day that the computers on which we all depended would fail us. That was the day that all of our luxuries of daily life would crumble, and we would be once again forced to live without electricity, running water, heat. The great Y2K scare is what it was called. The scare was that all of our computer systems around the world would cease to function on December 31, 1999.”1 They did not.

Drawing A Parallel In Workers’ Compensation
The hype and fear of Y2K were paralyzing for some and organizations spent large sums of money to reprogram computers in preparation. Indeed, there is far less anxiety about the veracity of medical provider data in Workers’ Comp claims and bill review systems. Yet, medical provider records in Workers’ Comp are just as lacking as the year date in systems prior to 2000 and the ramifications could actually be consequential.

Opportunity Cost
The Y2K issue prior to the late 1990’s was caused by limited disk space that was conserved by using only two digits for the year. The number of bytes that would fit on a screen and in the memory of the machine was limited. On the other hand, the cause of limited medical provider data is simply a matter of traditionally paying the bill efficiently. Only name, address, and Tax ID is needed. However, inadequate and inaccurate medical provider data is opportunity cost for the industry.

New Applications
No longer is the industry interested in using medical provider information for bill payment only. Provider records in systems are key to evaluating provider performance beyond direct fees for service. Medical providers impact return to work, indemnity costs, claim duration, and other factors. The indicators can be found in the data.

Who Knew?
Medical provider records have recently risen to the level of essential information for quality and cost control. In order to evaluate individual medical providers, medical groups, and facilities, the data in provider records must be non-duplicative, accurate, and complete. Yet, most databases contain multiple records for the same, and presumably the same provider. Moreover, the records are incomplete, especially regarding unique identifiers such as state license numbers or NPI (National Provider Identifier) numbers that distinguish individuals.

Duplicate Provider Records
One of the major problems found in most Workers’ Comp data is duplicate medical provider records. Duplicates are a problem because the records for an individual are dispersed over multiple records and can only be evaluated separately rather than collectively. The cumulative data for a provider cannot be assessed until duplicate provider records are merged.

Duplicate provider records occur for many reasons. Some organizations simply add a new provider record to their database when a new bill is received, without checking to see if the provider already exists in the data. This is simple to correct administratively, by requiring data entry persons to check the data for the existing provider. A more reliable solution is to create systems with search and select utilities that limit “add” authority. However, duplicate records occur for other reasons as well.

Duplicate medical provider records can also occur when the same provider is added to the database, but the name is spelled differently, a different suffix is used, and when initials or abbreviations are entered differently. Computer systems read these as different and allow adding the new one. Similar address inconsistency has the same result. Using Ste, Ste., and Suite might result in three separate records for the same person or entity. The solution is using basic record search and select from a drop down list. Moreover, correcting the existing data by scrubbing the database is worth the time and cost.

Optimize Medical Provider Records
Tax ID, so important to paying a bill is nearly useless when evaluating medical provider performance because multiple persons often use the same Tax ID. Establishing a critical mass of data associated with one provider is difficult, and duplicate records simply dilute the information further. Certainty about individual identity is critical and the only way to achieve that is with state license numbers.

License Numbers
Unfortunately, NPI numbers, established by the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) are abused by some. Notorious medical providers apply for and receive multiple NPI numbers. State license numbers are the most reliable and should be added to provider records in databases to differentiate individuals.

Medical Specialty
Including medical specialty in the provider record increases its value exponentially. The most accurate, fair, and illuminating evaluation is comparing peers. Comparing neurosurgeons to dermatologists on some performance indicators makes little sense. Pain specialists, for instance, usually receive complicated cases late in the game and should be compared to other pain specialists, not those who treat acute injuries. Medical specialties are vital to evaluating performance accurately.

What To Do
While it may not be Y2K, the impact of poor data might be greater for Workers’ Comp organizations. Systems should contribute to medical cost management intelligence. However, many cannot because of data quality. Scrub and optimize existing data and establish protocols that prevent continuation of status quo. Outsourcing to a third party specialist is easy and the return on investment certain.

1The Y2K Scare

New AMA Classification Of Obesity: How It Affects Workers’ Compensation And Mandatory Reporting

On June 16, 2013, the American Medical Association voted to declare obesity a disease rather than a comorbidity factor. This change in classification will affect 78 million American Adults and 12 million children. The new status for obesity means that this is now considered a medical condition that requires treatment. In fact, a recent Duke University / RTI International / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study estimates 42 percent of U.S. adults will become obese by 2030.

According to the Medical Dictionary, obesity has been defined as a weight at least 20% above the weight corresponding to the lowest death rate for individuals of a specific height, gender, and age (ideal weight). Twenty to forty percent over ideal weight is considered mildly obese; 40-100% over ideal weight is considered moderately obese; and 100% over ideal weight is considered severely, or morbidly, obese. More recent guidelines for obesity use a measurement called BMI (body mass index) which is the individual's weight divided by their height squared times 703. BMI over 30 is considered obese.

The World Health Organization further classifies BMIs of 30.00 or higher into one of three classes of obesity:

  • Obese class I = 30.00 to 34.99
  • Obese class II = 35.00 to 39.99
  • Obese class III = 40.00 or higher

People in obese class III are considered morbidly obese. According to a 2012 Gallup Poll, 3.6% of Americans were morbidly obese in 2012.

The decision to reclassify obesity gives doctors a greater obligation to discuss with patients their weight problem and how it's affecting their health while enabling them to get reimbursed to do so.

According to the Duke University study, obesity increases the healing times of fractures, strains and sprains, and complicates surgery. According to another Duke University study that looked at the records for work-related injuries:

  • Obese workers filed twice as many comp claims.
  • Obese workers had seven times higher medical costs.
  • Obese workers lost 13 times more days of work.
  • Body parts most prone to injury for obese individuals included lower extremities, wrists or hands, and the back. Most common injuries were slips and falls, and lifting.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the costs to U.S. businesses related to obesity exceed $13 billion each year.

Furthermore, a 2011 Gallup survey found that obese employees account for a disproportionately high number of missed workdays. Also earlier National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) research of workers' compensation claims found that claimants with a comorbidity code indicating obesity experience medical costs that are a multiple of what is observed for comparable non-obese claimants. The NCCI study demonstrated that claimants with a comorbidity factor indicating obesity had five times longer indemnity duration than claimants that were not identified as obese.

Prior to June 16, 2013, the ICD code for comorbidity factors for obesity in workers' was ICD-9 code 278. This is related to obesity-related medical complications, as opposed to the condition of obesity. Now the new ICD codes will indicate a disease, or condition of obesity which needs to be medically addressed. How will this affect work-related injuries?

Instead of obesity being a comorbitity issue, it can now become a secondary claim. If injured workers gain weight due to medications they are placed on as a result of their work-related injury or if an injured worker gains weight since they cannot exercise or keep fit because of their work-related injury and their BMI exceeds 30, they are considered obese and are eligible for medical industrially related treatment. In fact, the American Disability Act Amendment of 2008 allows for a broader scope of protection and the classification of obesity as a disease means that an employer needs to be cognizant that if someone has been treated for this disease for over 6 months then they would be considered protected under the American Disability Act Amendment.

Consider yet another factor: with the advent of Mandatory Reporting (January 1, 2011) by CMS that is triggered by the diagnosis (diagnosis code), the new medical condition of obesity will further make the responsible party liable for this condition and all related conditions for work-related injuries and General Liability claims with no statute of limitations. It is vital to understand that, as of January 1, 2011, Medicare has mandated all work-related and general liability injuries be reported to CMS in an electronic format. This means that CMS has the mechanism to look back and identify work comp related medical care payments made by Medicare. This is a retroactive statute and ultimately, it will be the employer and/or insurance carrier that will be held accountable.

The carrier or employer could pay the future medical cost twice — once to the claimant at settlement and later when Medicare seeks reimbursement of the medical care they paid on behalf of the claimant. This is outside the MSA criteria. The cost of this plus the impact of the workers' compensation costs as well as ADAA issues for reclassification of obesity for an employer and carrier are incalculable.

The solution is baseline testing so that only claims that arise out of the course and scope of employment (AOECOE) are accepted. If a work-related claim is not AOECOE and can be proved by objective medical evidence such as a pre- and post-assessment and there is no change from the baseline, then not only is there no workers' compensation claim, there is no OSHA-recordable claim, and no mandatory reporting issue.

A proven example of a baseline test for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) cases is the EFA-STM program. EFA-STM Program begins by providing baseline injury testing for existing employees and new hires. The data is only interpreted when and if there is a soft tissue claim. After a claim, the injured worker is required to undergo the post-loss testing. The subsequent comparison objectively demonstrates whether or not an acute injury exists. If there is a change from the baseline site specific treatment, recommendations are made for the AOECOE condition ensuring that the injured worker receives the best care possible.

Baseline programs such as the EFA-STM ensure that the employee and employer are protected and take the sting out of the new classification by the AMA for obesity.