Sponsored Content by CorVel

Rx Roulette

Patient risk versus pharmacy productivity.
By: | March 3, 2017 • 4 min read

A flurry of prescription pills – all different colors, shapes and sizes – pass across white counters. It almost looks like a blur of betting chips thrown across the slick surface. The click-clacking and pinging sounds they make as they ricochet off the sides of the metal pill counting tray create a white noise similar to that of a casino.

While it may appear to be a scene from the Vegas strip, it’s actually the high speed processing that takes place behind the counter of your neighborhood pharmacy.

A gamble, yes, but there is more than just money at stake. High speed dispensing too often comes at a risky price of compromised patient safety in exchange for maximized productivity and profits. With risks of potentially fatal drug interactions resulting from dangerous combinations, the winners and losers are differentiated by more than just a jackpot.

Risk versus Reward

As evidenced by the Chicago Tribune’s recent study, many of today’s medication dispensing practices exemplify the need for speed to satisfy corporate productivity pressures. With success and compensation bonuses based primarily on high volume dispensing, pharmacists and staff may cut corners and compromise patient safety standards in order to meet targets.

While these targets are the focus behind the counter, the consequences for a missed alert can be staggering. Priority one should be protecting the patient, including identifying potential drug interactions. In a day-to-day battle that seems to constantly pit speed against safety, pharmacists are caught in the middle and patients are unknowingly playing a risky game of prescription roulette.

The pharmacists’ plight is not a new one. Fast paced and management free dispensing to facilitate consumer convenience and corporate production expectations fuel the multibillion-dollar pharmacy industry.

Pharmacies value high volume dispensing, and as found by the Chicago Tribune article, more than 50 percent of the time the tested pharmacies were in such a rush to dispense that they did not tell patients about potential interactions.

The Safe Bet

With patient safety being an industry priority, models that promote management, pharmacy accountability and compliance are in high demand.

A more cautious approach may be viewed as “slowing” the dispensing process, but if we apply the tortoise and the hare fable to the return to work race, safe and steady always wins. Prospectively managed medication dispensing improves compliance and patient safety and lowers pharmacy risk.

The pharmacies in the Tribune study were processing medications outside of prospective and concurrent pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) management. While internal alerts are built into pharmacy processing systems to warn pharmacists, they do not require any action. And, after so many endless, seemingly meaningless warnings, it is common for pharmacists to become desensitized. PBMs on the other hand add a second layer of safety to the dispensing process. PBM alerts require edits via overrides and phone calls. This requirement for an affirmative response disrupts the anesthetized alert fatigue and dramatically increasing pharmacist compliance.

In a prospectively managed PBM model, Drug Utilization Review (DUR) edits scan patients’ medication histories and flag unsafe drug interactions. These contraindications alert pharmacists to review each flagged medication to determine the clinical significance. Unlike the episodes detailed in the article, where the medications were processed and dispensed by the referenced pharmacies outside of PBM management, the PBM requires concurrent reviews to be performed by the pharmacist for payment.

A Sure Thing

CorVel delivers the resources to support accountable and safe medication dispensing. In addition to call centers fully staffed with CorVel associates that assist pharmacists nationwide, CorVel’s Certified Pharmacy Technicians work with pharmacies and share information with adjusters to improve decision-making, combatting the slowness that may mistakenly be associated with safety. By addressing key indicators at the front end through alerts and actionable data, prospective management promotes accuracy in concurrent interventions, ultimately driving safe pharmacy utilization practices.

At a time where risks stemming from the overuse and abuse of narcotic pain medications, and unmanaged prescription medications top payors’ lists of concerns, CorVel’s managed dispensing model holds a unique position within industry. CorVel’s process disrupts unmanaged dispensing and holds pharmacies accountable to PBM contracts.

CorVel’s program reduces risk of overdose, no risk of interacting medications and lowers the risks of opioid addiction, all of which contribute to significant savings and better care for patients. Everyone wins.

This article was produced by CorVel Corporation and not the Risk & Insurance® editorial team.

CorVel is a national provider of risk management solutions for employers, third party administrators, insurance companies and government agencies seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Focus: Cyber

Expanding Cyber BI

Cyber business interruption insurance is a thriving market, but growth carries the threat of a mega-loss. 
By: | March 5, 2018 • 7 min read

Lingering hopes that large-scale cyber attack might be a once-in-a-lifetime event were dashed last year. The four-day WannaCry ransomware strike in May across 150 countries targeted more than 300,000 computers running Microsoft Windows. A month later, NotPetya hit multinationals ranging from Danish shipping firm Maersk to pharmaceutical giant Merck.


Maersk’s chairman, Jim Hagemann Snabe, revealed at this year’s Davos summit that NotPetya shut down most of the group’s network. While it was replacing 45,000 PCs and 4,000 servers, freight transactions had to be completed manually. The combined cost of business interruption and rebuilding the system was up to $300 million.

Merck’s CFO Robert Davis told investors that its NotPetya bill included $135 million in lost sales plus $175 million in additional costs. Fellow victims FedEx and French construction group Saint Gobain reported similar financial hits from lost business and clean-up costs.

The fast-expanding world of cryptocurrencies is also increasingly targeted. Echoes of the 2014 hack that triggered the collapse of Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox emerged this January when Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck pledged to repay customers $500 million stolen by hackers in a cyber heist.

The size and scope of last summer’s attacks accelerated discussions on both sides of the Atlantic, between risk managers and brokers seeking more comprehensive cyber business interruption insurance products.

It also recently persuaded Pool Re, the UK’s terrorism reinsurance pool set up 25 years ago after bomb attacks in London’s financial quarter, to announce that from April its cover will extend to include material damage and direct BI resulting from acts of terrorism using a cyber trigger.

“The threat from a cyber attack is evident, and businesses have become increasingly concerned about the extensive repercussions these types of attacks could have on them,” said Pool Re’s chief, Julian Enoizi. “This was a clear gap in our coverage which left businesses potentially exposed.”

Shifting Focus

Development of cyber BI insurance to date reveals something of a transatlantic divide, said Hans Allnutt, head of cyber and data risk at international law firm DAC Beachcroft. The first U.S. mainstream cyber insurance products were a response to California’s data security and breach notification legislation in 2003.

Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Of more recent vintage, Europe’s first cyber policies’ wordings initially reflected U.S. wordings, with the focus on data breaches. “So underwriters had to innovate and push hard on other areas of cyber cover, particularly BI and cyber crimes such as ransomware demands and distributed denial of service attacks,” said Allnut.

“Europe now has regulation coming up this May in the form of the General Data Protection Regulation across the EU, so the focus has essentially come full circle.”

Cyber insurance policies also provide a degree of cover for BI resulting from one of three main triggers, said Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter for specialist insurer Beazley. “First is the malicious-type trigger, where the system goes down or an outage results directly from a hack.

“Second is any incident involving negligence — the so-called ‘fat finger’ — where human or operational error causes a loss or there has been failure to upgrade or maintain the system. Third is any broader unplanned outage that hits either the company or anyone on which it relies, such as a service provider.”

The importance of cyber BI covering negligent acts in addition to phishing and social engineering attacks was underlined by last May’s IT meltdown suffered by airline BA.

This was triggered by a technician who switched off and then reconnected the power supply to BA’s data center, physically damaging servers and distribution panels.

Compensating delayed passengers cost the company around $80 million, although the bill fell short of the $461 million operational error loss suffered by Knight Capital in 2012, which pushed it close to bankruptcy and decimated its share price.

Mistaken Assumption

Awareness of potentially huge BI losses resulting from cyber attack was heightened by well-publicized hacks suffered by retailers such as Target and Home Depot in late 2013 and 2014, said Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability at Victor O. Schinnerer & Company.


However, the incidents didn’t initially alarm smaller, less high-profile businesses, which assumed they wouldn’t be similarly targeted.

“But perpetrators employing bots and ransomware set out to expose any firms with weaknesses in their system,” he added.

“Suddenly, smaller firms found that even when they weren’t themselves targeted, many of those around them had fallen victim to attacks. Awareness started to lift, as the focus moved from large, headline-grabbing attacks to more everyday incidents.”

Publications such as the Director’s Handbook of Cyber-Risk Oversight, issued by the National Association of Corporate Directors and the Internet Security Alliance fixed the issue firmly on boardroom agendas.

“What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.” — Jimaan Sané, technology underwriter, Beazley

Reformed ex-hackers were recruited to offer board members their insights into the most vulnerable points across the company’s systems — in much the same way as forger-turned-security-expert Frank Abagnale Jr., subject of the Spielberg biopic “Catch Me If You Can.”

There also has been an increasing focus on systemic risk related to cyber attacks. Allnutt cites “Business Blackout,” a July 2015 study by Lloyd’s of London and the Cambridge University’s Centre for Risk Studies.

This detailed analysis of what could result from a major cyber attack on America’s power grid predicted a cost to the U.S. economy of hundreds of billions and claims to the insurance industry totalling upwards of $21.4 billion.

Lloyd’s described the scenario as both “technologically possible” and “improbable.” Three years on, however, it appears less fanciful.

In January, the head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, said the UK had been fortunate in so far averting a ‘category one’ attack. A C1 would shut down the financial services sector on which the country relies heavily and other vital infrastructure. It was a case of “when, not if” such an assault would be launched, he warned.

AI: Friend or Foe?

Despite daunting potential financial losses, pioneers of cyber BI insurance such as Beazley, Zurich, AIG and Chubb now see new competitors in the market. Capacity is growing steadily, said Allnutt.

“Not only is cyber insurance a new product, it also offers a new source of premium revenue so there is considerable appetite for taking it on,” he added. “However, whilst most insurers are comfortable with the liability aspects of cyber risk; not all insurers are covering loss of income.”

Matt Kletzli, SVP and head of management liability, Victor O. Schinnerer & Company

Kletzli added that available products include several well-written, broad cyber coverages that take into account all types of potential cyber attack and don’t attempt to limit cover by applying a narrow definition of BI loss.

“It’s a rapidly-evolving coverage — and needs to be — in order to keep up with changing circumstances,” he said.

The good news, according to a Fitch report, is that the cyber loss ratio has been reduced to 45 percent as more companies buy cover and the market continues to expand, bringing down the size of the average loss.

“The bad news is that at cyber events, talk is regularly turning to ‘what will be the Hurricane Katrina-type event’ for the cyber market?” said Kletzli.

“What’s worse is that with hurricane losses, underwriters know which regions are most at risk, whereas cyber is a global risk and insurers potentially face huge aggregation.”


Nor is the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) necessarily cause for optimism. As Allnutt noted, while AI can potentially be used to decode malware, by the same token sophisticated criminals can employ it to develop new malware and escalate the ‘computer versus computer’ battle.

“The trend towards greater automation of business means that we can expect more incidents involving loss of income,” said Sané. “What’s possibly of greater concern is the sheer number of different businesses that can be affected by a single cyber attack and the cost of getting them up and running again quickly.

“We’re likely to see a growing number of attacks where the aim is to cause disruption, rather than demand a ransom.

“The paradox of cyber BI is that the more sophisticated your organization and the more it embraces automation, the bigger the potential impact when an outage does occur. Those old-fashioned businesses still reliant on traditional processes generally aren’t affected as much and incur smaller losses.” &

Graham Buck is editor of gtnews.com. He can be reached at riskletters.com.