Tag Archives: workers’ compensation research institute

Claims Advocacy’s Biggest Opportunity

We know the single greatest roadblock to timely work injury recovery and controlling claim costs. And it’s not overpriced care, or doubtful medical provider quality or even litigation. It is the negative impact of personal expectations, behaviors and predicaments that can come with the injured worker or can grow out of work injury.

This suite of roadblocks is classified as “psychosocial” issues – issues that claims leaders now rank as the No. 1 barrier to successful claim outcomes, according to Rising Medical Solutions’ 2016 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study survey.

Psychosocial roadblocks drive up claim costs far more than catastrophic claims, mostly due to delayed recovery, and claims executives told us they occur regardless of the nature of injury. In other words, one cannot predict from medical data the presence of a psychosocial issue; one has to listen to the injured worker with a fresh mind.

See also: Power of ‘Claims Advocacy’  

It’s likely no coincidence that, while the industry has progressively paid more attention to psychosocial issues this past decade, there’s also been a shift toward advocacy-based claims models over adversarial, compliance- and task-based processing styles. Simply put, advocacy models – which treat the worker as a whole person – are better equipped to control or eliminate psychosocial factors during recovery. According to the 2016 Benchmarking Study survey, claims advocacy and greater training in communication and soft skills, like empathy, are associated with higher-performing claims organizations.

Psychosocial – What It Is, What It Is Not

The Hartford’s medical director, Dr. Marcos Iglesias, says that the “psych” part does not mean psychiatric issues, such as schizophrenia, personality disorders or major depressive disorders. Instead, he points out, “We are talking about behavioral issues, the way we think, feel and act. An example is fear of physical movement, as it may worsen one’s impairment or cause pain, or fear of judgment by coworkers.”

The Hartford’s text mining has found the presence of “fear” in claim notes was predictive of poor outcomes. Similar findings were recently cited by both Lockton (“Leading with Empathy: How Data Analytics Uncovered Claimants’ Fears”) and the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (“Predictors of Worker Outcomes”).

Emotional distress, such as catastrophic reaction to pain and activity avoidance, is predictive of poor outcomes. Other conditions, behaviors and predicaments include obesity, hard feelings about coworkers, troubled home life, the lack of temporary modified work assignments, limited English proficiency and – most commonly noted – poor coping skills. Additionally, being out of work can lead to increased rates of smoking, alcohol abuse, illicit drug use, risky sexual behavior and suicide.

When peeling back the psychosocial onion, one can see how adversarial, compliance- and task-driven claim styles are 1) ill-suited for addressing fears, beliefs, perceptions and poor coping skills and 2) less likely to effectively address these roadblocks due to the disruption they pose to workflows and task timelines.

Screening and the One Big Question

Albertsons, with more than 285,000 employees in retail food and related businesses, screens injured workers for psychosocial comorbidities. To ensure workers are comfortable and honest, the company enlists a third-party telephonic triage firm to perform screenings. “It’s voluntary and confidential in details, with only a summary score shared with claims adjusters and case managers,” says Denise Algire, the company’s director of risk initiatives and national medical director.

At The Hartford, Iglesias says claims adjusters ask one very important question of the injured worker, “Jim, when do you expect to return to work?” Any answer of less than 10 days indicates that the worker has good coping skills and that the risk of delayed recovery is low. That kind of answer is a positive flag for timely recovery. If the worker answers with a longer duration, the adjuster explores why the worker believes recovery will be more difficult. For example, the injured worker may identify a barrier of which the adjuster is unaware: His car may have been totaled in an accident. This lack of transportation, and not the injury, may be the return-to-work barrier.

It Takes a Village

Trecia Sigle, Nationwide Insurance’s new associate vice president of workers’ compensation claims, is building a specialized team to address psychosocial roadblocks. Nationwide’s intake process will consist of a combination of manual scoring and predictive modeling, and then adjusters will refer certain workers to specialists with the “right skill set.”

Albertsons invites screened injured workers to receive specialist intervention, usually performed by a network of psychologists who provide health coaching consistent with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) principles. This intervention method is short in duration and focuses on active problem-solving with the patient. The Hartford also transfers cases with important psychosocial issues to a specialist team, selected for their listening, empathy, communication skills and past claims experience.

Emotional Intelligence – Can It Be Learned?

Industry professionals are of mixed minds about how and if frontline claims adjusters can improve their interpersonal skills – sometimes called “emotional intelligence” – through training. These soft skills include customer service, communication, critical thinking, active listening and empathy. Experts interviewed agree that some claims adjusters have innately better soft skills. But they also concur that training and coaching can only enhance these skills among claims staff.

See also: The 2 Types of Claims Managers  

Pamela Highsmith-Johnson, national director of case management at CNA, says the insurer introduced a “trusted adviser” training program for all employees who come into contact with injured workers. Small groups use role-playing and share ideas. An online training component is also included.

Advocacy – The Missing Link to Recovery

Could it be that advocacy – treating the injured worker as a whole person and customer at the center of a claim – is the “missing link” for many existing claim practices to work, or work better? Whether for psychosocial issues or other barriers, organizations like The Hartford, Nationwide, CNA and Albertsons are paving the road to a more effective approach for overcoming pervasive barriers to recovery. Participants in the 2016 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study confirm that higher-performing claims organizations are taking this road.

The coming 2017 study will continue to survey claims leaders on advocacy topics. A copy of that report may be pre-ordered here.

Potential Key to Tackling Opioid Issues

The use of urine drug testing (UDT) for injured workers raises challenges and questions for workers’ compensation stakeholders. Who should be tested? How many tests are too many? Too few? How often should the tests be performed? And, perhaps most importantly, what — if any — action should be taken in response to test results?

These questions have been brought to the forefront with the rise of opioid-related challenges — the same challenges that led a large workers’ compensation insurer to turn to experts for help.

The carrier saw a significant increase in opioid use among injured workers. Claims adjusters did not have the expertise on their own to aid in the problem.

See also: Opioids Are the Opiates of the Masses

Over the past several years, the insurer has aligned with Optum (its pharmacy benefit manager) and Millennium Health (a health solutions company that specializes in medication monitoring) to create a program that identifies and works with injured workers who are potentially at risk for poor recoveries. The insurer has reported impressive results, with reductions on spending for opioid analgesics and decreases in the number of supply days of the medications. Using the clinical experts and toxicologists of Millennium to help interpret test results has helped the clinical pharmacists at Optum provide recommendations to the adjusters and providers.

Medical treatment guidelines increasingly include UDTs for injured workers who are prescribed opioids; however, the decision of how often to test is largely left to the medical provider’s discretion. Experts say UDT, used in conjunction with other tools, can provide objective information regarding current medication, as well as illicit substance use. The results can help identify injured workers who may be abusing, misusing or diverting prescribed opioids.

“The clinical utility of UDT has been well established and is promoted in several medical guidelines. However, in some segments, there is still an underutilization for various reasons,” said Maria Chianta, director for clinical affairs and managed markets at Millennium Health. “It could be a lack of awareness or a lack of time — it takes time to perform the tests and interpret them.”

(Chianta will lead a discussion at the National Workers’ Compensation and Disability Conference & Expo on Dec. 2 in New Orleans. The discussion will cover the use of UDT in workers’ compensation; explain what led the insurer to enlist the help of its pharmacy benefit manager and Millennium Health; and show the results the company has achieved.)

Non-adherence to guidelines

The latest research from the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute bears out the inconsistent use of UDTs in workers’ compensation. A study of 25 states showed that the percentage of injured workers with longer-term use of opioids receiving drug testing was lower than recommended by treatment guidelines. At the same time, however, the frequency of drug tests was unusually high among the top 5% of injured workers who received opioids on a longer-term basis and had drug testing.

A lack of understanding of what actions to take based on UDT results is perhaps one of the major barriers. “It takes time to walk through those results,” Chianta said. “If you get something unexpected, you have to try to get to the cause of that, which takes time. Some providers may not know the best ways to respond to the test results.”

Follow-up is among the key issues for the effective use of UDT. Depending on the results of the tests, the insurer, for example, may engage the services of a telephonic case manager or conduct a pain management program review.

See also: Urine Drug Testing Must Get Smarter

Another area of confusion over UDTs concerns the types of tests available. “Primarily, there is immunoassay technology and mass spectrometry,” Chianta said. “Immunoassay is a presumptive screening, and mass spectrometry is a definitive or confirmation test.”

Chianta will discuss the types of tests in more detail. Some people on the health plan side may be seeing drug tests coming in and paying for them — and that’s the end of the process. The speakers aim to give session attendees an appreciation of the value of becoming more involved with the outcomes of the tests and follow-up actions that are necessary.

Top 5 Things PCI Got Wrong on Work Comp

In June, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) published a report titled “Cost Shifting from Workers’ Comp Opt-Out Systems: Lessons from Texas and Oklahoma.” It claims to show how employers in those states are avoiding costs that should be covered by workers’ comp and that are instead paid by workers, their families, private payers and taxpayers. The report is part of a year-long, anti-competitive campaign that has been orchestrated with claimant attorneys who profit under workers’ comp and resist any move away from the traditional approach. The report shows little regard for the facts, applicable law or actual data on performance of alternatives to traditional workers’ compensation.

Here are five of the most significant bits of misinformation and misrepresentation:

1. No relevant data. The PCI cost shifting report boasts of using “verifiable and relevant data” and speaks to “the behavior of opt-out employers.” But the report fails to actually include any Texas or Oklahoma Option claims data, and the truth is that there is no evidence that PCI has even attempted to obtain such claims data.

2. No apples-to-apples comparison. PCI fails to consider the benefit plan payments, supplemental plan payments and negligence liability settlements and awards under Texas Option programs that are not available under workers’ compensation.

See also: 2016 Outlook for Property-Casualty

3. No mention that the majority of Texas workers are covered. PCI fails to acknowledge that the Texas Department of Insurance has determined that more than 95% of Texas’ workers are covered by either workers’ compensation or an injury benefit plan.

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 1.26.34 PM

Instead of criticizing responsible Texas and Oklahoma employers who provide injury benefit coverage for their workers, PCI should instead focus on the approximately 14 million — and growing — American workers across all states who have no work injury protection whatsoever.

4. No mention that proposed programs in other states have mandated benefits. PCI extrapolates from Texas to posit a false model for Tennessee and South Carolina. Option programs proposed in those states — unlike Texas — have mandated benefits. No bill has been introduced in either of those states to allow employers to “go bare.”

5. No acknowledgement of option program compliance with Medicare reporting and MSA requirements. Option programs normally pay full benefits before Medicare pays anything. The programs comply with Medicare quarterly, electronic reporting rules on open medical claims and liability settlements. The programs protect Medicare’s primary interest before settling claims with Medicare beneficiaries by setting aside a portion of the settlement funds to pay for future treatment.

Instead of using option programs as a scapegoat and pursuing the fatalistic view that savings by employers equate to cost shifting, perhaps the PCI should expend more energy on how to achieve better medical outcomes for injured workers through communication, employee advocacy, accountability and competition.

Option Program Success in Delivering Better Outcomes Is the Real Story

We will continue to advocate for a more positive discussion on how to achieve better medical outcomes. That should include a sincere discussion of the PCI board’s criteria for an acceptable alternative to workers’ compensation, which was approved in July 2015 and publicly introduced eight months later at the 2016 annual conference of the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute.

See also: Healthcare Reform’s Effects on Workers’ Compensation  

Workers’ comp options in Texas and Oklahoma have disrupted the industry with much-needed innovation and positive change. This has understandably created some dissonance and has rightly generated calls for proof. We welcome a review of real option program data, which amply demonstrates how highly respected industry players and employers are improving the lives of injured workers and reducing costs.

Who could be against that?

Are Workers’ Comp Systems Broken?

As national conversations occur about the direction of workers’ compensation (WC) systems, I sometimes hear comments that “WC systems are broken.” Rarely are public programs either all black or all white. The material below summarizes relevant information from a variety of published Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) studies about how most workers fare in WC systems. How workers fare is critical to assessing the performance of WC systems, and the effectiveness of these systems affects the competitiveness of American business.

See also: States of Confusion: Workers Comp Extraterritorial Issues

The data from WCRI illustrates that the majority of workers in the workers’ compensation system:

  • Return to work within a few weeks of the injury, typically to their pre-injury employers at the same jobs and pay as before the injury
  • Receive their first income benefit payment in 30 days or less from the time that the payer is notified of the claim
  • Report that they were satisfied with the overall medical care received, including the time it took to have the first non-emergency visit with a provider and access to the desired medical services

See also: Return to Work Decisions on a Worker’s Comp Claim

Here is more detail:

Return to work and recovery of earnings capacity

The overwhelming majority of injured workers return to work and do so to their pre-injury employer at the same or higher pay:

  • 75% to 85% of workers had less than one week of lost time[1]
  • 80% to 90% of workers had four weeks of lost time or less[2]
  • 85% to 95% of workers had six weeks or less of lost time[3]
  • Only 5% to 10% said they earned a lot less when they first returned to work (for those who returned to work)[4]
  • 87% to 95% said they returned to their pre-injury employer[5]
  • Half of those changing employers reported that the change was not due to the injury[6]

Timely payment

Most workers receive their first indemnity payment without dispute or substantial delay:[7]

  • 40% to 50% in 14 days or less from the time payer was notified of injury
  • 60% to 75% in 30 days or less

Satisfaction and access to medical care

By an overwhelming majority, most workers were satisfied with medical care received (workers with more than seven days of lost time):

  • 75% to 85% reported somewhat or very satisfied[8]
  • 85% to 90% reported no problems or small problems getting desired care[9]
  • 80% to 90% reported being somewhat or very satisfied with the time it took to have the first nonemergency care[10]

While the systems may serve most workers reasonably well, the data also shows that there are injured workers with certain attributes that make them less likely to receive these good outcomes. Discussions that focus on system changes that improve outcomes for these injured workers have high-impact potential. A subsequent post will highlight the evidence on who these workers are.

Power of ‘Claims Advocacy’

“Claims advocacy” is fast getting the attention of workers’ comp claims leaders as a powerful approach to better claims outcomes. The on-demand economy has created cultural and multi-generational expectations around service, speed and simplicity, and some claims leaders have already figured out how to deliver.

The workers’ compensation industry is in the throes of internal debate about mission and purpose.  Employee-centric claims models have become a large part of this debate. Some claims leaders say that payer organizations should move away from a compliance-oriented and, at times, adversarial style to an “advocacy” style of claims management.

Research, too, indicates that claims advocacy is top of mind for industry executives. The responses of 700 participants in Rising Medical Solutions’ Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study confirm that many claims leaders know the building blocks of advocacy and recognize its potential value. 

We recently interviewed claims leaders to better understand the practical meaning of the concept, as it applies to all claims operations, from self-administered employers to insurers handling claims for thousands of policyholders.

What Is Claims Advocacy?

We asked Noreen Olson, workers’ compensation manager with Starbucks, for a definition of advocacy.  (Starbucks employs 180,000 “partners” worldwide and has close to 12,000 outlets in the U.S.) Olson proposed this:

“In workers’ comp, advocacy is a process grounded by the values of dignity, respect and transparency that coordinates activities to assist the injured worker effectively and promote expectancy and engagement in recovery, efficiently restores (and often improves upon) health and well-being, and resolves the experience in mutual satisfaction.”

Others we spoke with endorsed this or a similar definition. They all have in mind not a checklist, nor a charm offensive, but a culture.  A claims culture that makes access to benefits simple and builds trust – and one that must be supported by executive buy-in, organizational values, technology and operating systems to be successful.

Access to benefits from the worker’s perspective includes ease of filing a claim, ease in obtaining prescribed medications, access to medical specialists and help in navigating the healthcare maze. Along the course of injury recovery, there are many opportunities that affect access and trust as perceived by the worker. The highly respected Workers’ Compensation Research Institute reports in its Predictors of Worker Outcomes Series that “trust” is a key driver of claims outcomes.

See also: How Should Workers’ Compensation Evolve?

Why Now?

Tom Stark, technical director of workers’ compensation at Nationwide Insurance, told us that advocacy has been around for a long time. He’s practiced advocacy since the 1980s Several forces converge to promote advocacy in claims today. Claims leaders are emphasizing, or perhaps “reemphasizing,” the importance of interpersonal relations. As claims handling has shifted from onsite home visits to lower contact models, the importance of emotional intelligence, soft skills and customer service skills is greater than ever to dispel uncertainty and engender trust.

Perhaps the biggest driver of customer service and transactional speed is the American retail sector. Its massive engagement in these areas has shaped everyone’s expectations – of all generations. Millennials, born in the 1980s and 1990s, in particular have grown up with this customer-focused approach and therefore bring to the claims environment high expectations for both delivering and receiving quality service. Slow, bureaucratic responses can shock injured workers. Darrell Brown, chief claims officer at Sedgwick, says, “We are now an on-demand economy. That is the way it is.”

Why Is Claims Advocacy Attractive?

Brown says that engaging the injured worker is key. Fast and helpful response to injury pays off in worker satisfaction and lower claims costs. “People file claims, but they don’t know what is going to happen. If you lose injured workers at the beginning of the claim, to anxiety and fear, they go to litigation.” Brown also says that when claims professionals engage more constructively with injured workers, their own experience is better. This leads to better morale and talent retention.

For employers, claims advocacy provides a special opportunity to directly align work injury response with their corporate brand, core values, employee communications and benefit delivery.

Walking the Walk

Albertsons Safeway, with more than a quarter million “associates” in 34 states, has crafted its claims approach to reinforce engagement and confidence for the injured workers. Director of Managed Care and Disability Denise Algire, who is also the principal researcher for the Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study, says that staff talks with injured employees on the day of injury. “We focus on education and reducing uncertainty,” she says.  They avoid potentially intimidating or antagonistic terms like “adjusting,” “examining” and “investigating.” They also start with the positive expectation that every employee wants to return to work. “Workers’ compensation has become adversarial because we manage the system based on the deceptive few versus the deserving many,” she says. “Our claims approach is based on the majority, not the minority.”

Brown talked to us about tangible actions. “If you can make a compensability determination in two days, even though the law gives you 14 days, imagine how much uncertainty and anxiety is removed,” he says. “The same applies to indemnity payments. The industry is often guided by regulatory requirements. If you can take action and make payments sooner, why make it later? You’ve got to walk the walk.” Starbucks, for example, direct deposits indemnity checks into employees’ accounts to increase speed.

Advocacy does not hinder organizations from being compliance-minded. Rather, it becomes one aspect of a holistic, customer-driven framework that aims higher than the bar often set by regulatory standards.

See Also: How to Win at Work Comp Claims

Barriers to Overcome

Stark sees lagging technology as getting in the way of engaging the injured worker. To him, claims tasks grew exponentially while support staff in claims offices were cut. Claims technology has often not kept up. He says, “Look at the work-arounds – count the number of sticky-notes on the adjuster’s screen. If technology is not there to support effective claims management, even in its most transactional form, you are really stressing the model. How are you going to be an advocate?”

Olson brought up two challenges that Starbucks has solved but still confront most employers. She believes that it is important to make it as easy as possible for a partner to report an injury. At Starbucks, they not only have web, mobile and call center options, they also allow partners to self-report their injuries versus going through their manager or HR.

Olson additionally stresses the importance of easily moving the partner to other benefit programs if the injury is not compensable and to avoid language like “your claim is denied.” She says that placing the award of benefits in the “right benefit bucket” needs to be done seamlessly so that the partner does not feel on the hook. In addition to the state mandated language in these instances, Starbucks includes its own letter that communicates that, while the claim isn’t eligible for workers’ comp, the partner may be eligible for other benefits to help with their injury/illness.

One barrier that Algire notes – simply “rebranding” claims adjusters as advocates is not enough. “A true cultural shift will require organizations to move beyond performance metrics that are based primarily in cost containment to those based on clinical quality, functional outcomes and patient satisfaction,” she says. This shift is critical to “walking the walk” and reinforcing the advocacy approach with claims staff.

Conclusion

The on-demand economy has created cultural and multi-generational expectations around service, speed and simplicity – giving workers’ compensation a blueprint for claims advocacy. Embracing consumer-driven models around injury recovery is emerging as a competitive advantage, both from a claims outcomes and a talent recruitment/retention perspective.

The 2016 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study will be surveying claims leaders on advocacy, among other pressing topics, to better understand its current application and perceived viability.  A copy of the 2016 Study report may be ordered here.