Claims Trends

Treating Chronic Pain With Therapies Instead of Drugs

Other pain relief therapies hold substantial promise in defeating drug dependency.
By: | February 20, 2018 • 9 min read

From high praise to a spiraling crash, opioid-based pain medications are out of favor. Once thought to be the solution to chronic pain, opioids opened the door to an even bigger and scarier addiction epidemic — one that menaces the workers’ comp industry and the population in general.

Advertisement




According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, since 1999, more than 183,000 people have died from narcotic painkiller addiction. An estimated 91 people die each day from opioid abuse.

“Opioids are dangerous drugs. The side effects are dangerous and severe. Their efficacy is not always what people expect,” said Marcos Iglesias, senior vice president, chief medical officer, Broadspire.

“If opioids aren’t the answer, what do we turn to?”

The time to answer that question is now. Workers’ comp professionals, physicians, insurers and employers alike are looking for that next solution to pain, one that will help curb addiction and more quickly get workers on their feet.

Medical cannabis is one candidate.

Marcos Iglesias, senior vice president, chief medical officer, Broadspire

“Marijuana is unique in that everyone comes into the conversation with a bias,” said Mark Pew, senior vice president, PRIUM, a division of Genex Services.

With opioids, he said, no one knew of the dangers at first. Marijuana, on the other hand, always provoked two very polarized views: It does a great deal of good or it’s a strong drug with bad consequences.

A 2014 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found a link between legalized medical marijuana and a decrease in opioid-related deaths. States that legalized medical marijuana saw a 25 percent decrease in deaths from opioid overdoses.

Yet, “when people make the claim that medical marijuana is the solution to the opioid epidemic, it resonates with some people because of that bias,” said Pew.

Because of ongoing controversy, not to mention its classification as a Schedule 1 narcotic by the federal government, medical marijuana isn’t lined up to be the pain-relief answer anytime soon.

Non-Drug Therapies

So how about this: Let’s treat pain with no drugs. Radical as it may sound, non-drug pain therapies hold merit.

Meta-analyses collected for a U.S. National Library of Medicine study found that cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) had a positive effect on chronic pain and fatigue. Specifically, CBT was found to be a superior method to other treatments for decreasing pain intensity in fibromyalgia patients.

Iglesias, who has worked as a physician for more than 25 years, said CBT, a psycho-social therapy used to teach patients about the emotional and psychological factors influencing their pain, leaves a lasting impression on the injured.

“The methods I’ve seen work well are behavioral approaches — giving people tools and methods so they can manage their own life.”

“Marijuana is unique in that everyone comes into the conversation with a bias.” — Mark Pew, senior vice president, PRIUM

In workers’ comp, physicians using a CBT approach look at an injured worker’s life outside the office walls. Their home life, their health, their financial responsibilities and their mental ability to cope with an injury all factor into the healing process and could potentially lead to a lengthened claim if untreated.

Assessing these additional forces enables a physician to recommend therapies beyond the typical pill prescription.

Sometimes that means sending a patient to physical or occupational therapy. Sometimes yoga or acupuncture will do the trick, with both philosophies tapping into the mind-body connection  and encouraging relief. Exercise, diet and overall wellness are factored into an injured worker’s chronic pain management.

“Drug-related therapies tend to mask the pain symptoms,” said Michelle Despres, vice president, national product leader physical therapy, One Call Care Management. “Opioids are like the ‘quick fix.’ In physical therapy, we investigate pain patterns, seek to correct musculoskeletal problems and teach people about their anatomy.”

Advertisement




A non-drug pain therapy, PT looks at the physical components of an injury, educating injured workers about the muscles that hurt and how to effectively use them in daily activities. The big question physical therapists ask: What triggers the pain?

“We look at outside activities that could be affecting the injured worker,” she said. “We look at strength, range and flexibility. We want to change the behavior instead of masking the pain.”

Iglesias pointed to another example of non-drug pain therapy called acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), in which health care professionals work with an injured worker to accept their chronic pain but then commit to living their values in spite of that pain.

ACT, in essence, focuses on mindfulness and function in a person’s life.

Iglesias added he’s seen disability duration lessen because more professionals are starting to address function instead of pain.

Cost and Well-being

But pain is still a big factor in an injury, and CBT primarily focuses on pain management. It’s being used increasingly as an alternative to opioids, too. So much so, in fact, that some states are starting to draft legislation aimed at adopting  its methods.

In Ohio, for example, residents with work-related back injuries are now required by law to try remedies such as rest, physical therapy or chiropractic care before surgery or opioids are even brought into the discussion.

And Ohio isn’t alone; at least 17 states have added restrictions on opioid prescriptions, including limiting the length of time such pills can be prescribed. But not all states are turning to CBT and like methods to combat the growing epidemic.

Michelle Despres, vice president, national product leader physical therapy, One Call Care Management

“In workers’ comp, anytime we talk about change, it’s about cost containment,” said Pew. “But this has nothing to do with cost containment, premiums, closing claims, scale of benefits. It’s about personal well-being.”

Iglesias added he has seen much more acceptance of CBT and other non-drug therapies on the payers’ side, though not everyone is on board.

“Payers see opioids have not helped patients. They’re cognizant of needing to move beyond just drug medications. However, psych and behavioral factors can be a significant issue in workers’ comp. Some individual payers are afraid that a behavior approach might induce a psych claim,” he said.

“Nobody wants to pay for everything that happened to you in your life but, in essence, we do when psychosocial concerns aren’t addressed early and it delays recovery,” added Pew.

“There are payers who have started to see the value in the biopsychosocial model [looking at every aspect of a person’s life], but there’s still an obstacle with psych.”

Still, cost-wise, moving beyond opioids yields reduced pharmacy expenses — not just for opioid prescriptions but also for other prescriptions written for opioid-related side effects like nausea, vomiting, headaches, lack of sleep and so on.

“Opioids have addictive qualities,” said Despres. “It’s easy for us as a society to want to see something diagnostic tied to a drug-based solution. But with alternatives, we lose nothing and chances are we can mitigate chronic pain. We know there are no long-term bad effects to physical therapy.

“The cost to get people off of opioids is huge. Just getting them back to their daily routine, the back-end cost of detox from opioids is enough to at least consider other non-drug pain relief methods as the first treatment option.”

Changing Mindsets

Effective change comes once the employers and their workers understand the benefits of non-drug pain therapies.

Untill now, “in between the payer and the treatment is the patient who has often created this passive mindset that someone else will take care of them,” said Pew.

This mindset isn’t going to help in the long run. Education is key for both employees and employers to work toward pain management.

Advertisement




“One appointment isn’t going to solve the problem,” said Despres. “We have to break the cycle. Time is the biggest downfall; we have to get people moving versus letting someone sit at home. For chronic pain, we provide the education [to the injured worker] on what’s happening inside when they do activities and how to not only manage their symptoms but also correct musculoskeletal imbalances.

“Workers’ comp, as a practice, needs to embrace the idea of being seen quickly and early and getting the injured worker in the mindset of having a role to play,” she added.

For employers, Pew said those who are engaged in their workers’ well-being see more positive outcomes when injuries occur. Investing in wellness programs enables workers to address those outside factors — like psych and diet and exercise routines — before any injury.

“[Wellness programs are] a way of trying to show there is more than a drug or a procedure; employers and physicians can work to teach that concept before an injury even occurs,” said Iglesias.

“There’s a fear that we’re taking something away. There’s a belief that opioids are the best pain modality. Could we develop more programs to teach about opioids to an employer’s population before an injury?”

His answer is a resounding yes.

Public perception plays a big role in the move away from opioids. Workers’ comp professionals, health care workers and legislators see and understand the negative effects of opioids; however, the public isn’t as convinced.

Mark Pew, senior vice president, PRIUM

The New England Journal of Medicine released a study in January entitled, “The Public and the Opioid-Abuse Epidemic.” In it, researchers examined several national polls conducted in 2016 and 2017 regarding how the public believes opioid addiction should be addressed. They found that a significant number (28 percent) don’t actually see it as a national emergency.

Fifty-three percent did say it was a major problem, though only 38 percent of respondents said it affected their home communities.

“An important finding from our review is that at a time when [we] are seeking a substantial increase in government funding for opioid-addiction treatment programs … polls show a large share of the public uncertain about the long-term effectiveness of treatment,” the authors wrote.

They speculate this uncertainty might lead to less funding for alternative treatments to opioids and less funding for people recovering from addiction.

“Sometimes we don’t know everything,” said Despres, “but we should still open up and embrace what could be. If [non-drug therapies] don’t work, you haven’t lost anything. If it does help, you’re better off.”

That’s why engaging employers and their employees is imperative.

“If we see an employer with a pattern of the same injuries, we can offer many possible solutions from ergonomic improvements to classes for body mechanics training.”

A Balancing Act

But one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to pain relief, and while non-drug pain therapies do help, Pew said that doing away with drugs altogether would be unwise.

“Every person is an individual and needs customized — individualized — treatment plans. Every individual is different. How they deal with pain is different, what their support system is like is different — that’s why treating pain is so difficult.

Advertisement




“Exercise, a better diet, yoga and other non-pharmaceutical treatments are effective, but often underutilized components to a successful pain management protocol. But trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all is counter to common sense,” he added.

In a 2017 study released by JAMA, researchers examined patients admitted to the emergency room for pain-related causes. They monitored the cause of their pain and what medicine brought them relief.

Acetaminophen and ibuprofen were found to be more effective than opioids. Combined, they had as much of an effect on pain as opioids.

Iglesias added, “We do need to move beyond opioids. Other pharmaceuticals do have a role to play, but we need to embrace other modalities of treating pain.” &

Autumn Heisler is the digital producer and a staff writer at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Exclusive | Hank Greenberg on China Trade, Starr’s Rapid Growth and 100th, Spitzer, Schneiderman and More

In a robust and frank conversation, the insurance legend provides unique insights into global trade, his past battles and what the future holds for the industry and his company.
By: | October 12, 2018 • 12 min read

In 1960, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg was hired as a vice president of C.V. Starr & Co. At age 35, he had already accomplished a great deal.

He served his country as part of the Allied Forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated the Nazi death camps. He fought again during the Korean War, earning a Bronze Star. He held a law degree from New York Law School.

Advertisement




Now he was ready to make his mark on the business world.

Even C.V. Starr himself — who hired Mr. Greenberg and later hand-picked him as the successor to the company he founded in Shanghai in 1919 — could not have imagined what a mark it would be.

Mr. Greenberg began to build AIG as a Starr subsidiary, then in 1969, he took it public. The company would, at its peak, achieve a market cap of some $180 billion and cement its place as the largest insurance and financial services company in history.

This month, Mr. Greenberg travels to China to celebrate the 100th anniversary of C.V. Starr & Co. That visit occurs at a prickly time in U.S.-Sino relations, as the Trump administration levies tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods and China retaliates.

In September, Risk & Insurance® sat down with Mr. Greenberg in his Park Avenue office to hear his thoughts on the centennial of C.V. Starr, the dynamics of U.S. trade relationships with China and the future of the U.S. insurance industry as it faces the challenges of technology development and talent recruitment and retention, among many others. What follows is an edited transcript of that discussion.


R&I: One hundred years is quite an impressive milestone for any company. Celebrating the anniversary in China signifies the importance and longevity of that relationship. Can you tell us more about C.V. Starr’s history with China?

Hank Greenberg: We have a long history in China. I first went there in 1975. There was little there, but I had business throughout Asia, and I stopped there all the time. I’d stop there a couple of times a year and build relationships.

When I first started visiting China, there was only one state-owned insurance company there, PICC (the People’s Insurance Company of China); it was tiny at the time. We helped them to grow.

I also received the first foreign life insurance license in China, for AIA (The American International Assurance Co.). To date, there has been no other foreign life insurance company in China. It took me 20 years of hard work to get that license.

We also introduced an agency system in China. They had none. Their life company employees would get a salary whether they sold something or not. With the agency system of course you get paid a commission if you sell something. Once that agency system was installed, it went on to create more than a million jobs.

R&I: So Starr’s success has meant success for the Chinese insurance industry as well.

Hank Greenberg: That’s partly why we’re going to be celebrating that anniversary there next month. That celebration will occur alongside that of IBLAC (International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council), an international business advisory group that was put together when Zhu Rongji was the mayor of Shanghai [Zhu is since retired from public life]. He asked me to start that to attract foreign companies to invest in Shanghai.

“It turns out that it is harder [for China] to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

Shanghai and China in general were just coming out of the doldrums then; there was a lack of foreign investment. Zhu asked me to chair IBLAC and to help get it started, which I did. I served as chairman of that group for a couple of terms. I am still a part of that board, and it will be celebrating its 30th anniversary along with our 100th anniversary.

Advertisement




We have a good relationship with China, and we’re candid as you can tell from the op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal. I’m told that my op-ed was received quite well in China, by both Chinese companies and foreign companies doing business there.

On August 29, Mr. Greenberg published an opinion piece in the WSJ reminding Chinese leaders of the productive history of U.S.-Sino relations and suggesting that Chinese leaders take pragmatic steps to ease trade tensions with the U.S.

R&I: What’s your outlook on current trade relations between the U.S. and China?

Hank Greenberg: As to the current environment, when you are in negotiations, every leader negotiates differently.

President Trump is negotiating based on his well-known approach. What’s different now is that President Xi (Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) made himself the emperor. All the past presidents in China before the revolution had two terms. He’s there for life, which makes things much more difficult.

R&I: Sure does. You’ve got a one- or two-term president talking to somebody who can wait it out. It’s definitely unique.

Hank Greenberg: So, clearly a lot of change is going on in China. Some of it is good. But as I said in the op-ed, China needs to be treated like the second largest economy in the world, which it is. And it will be the number one economy in the world in not too many years. That means that you can’t use the same terms of trade that you did 25 or 30 years ago.

They want to have access to our market and other markets. Fine, but you have to have reciprocity, and they have not been very good at that.

R&I: What stands in the way of that happening?

Hank Greenberg: I think there are several substantial challenges. One, their structure makes it very difficult. They have a senior official, a regulator, who runs a division within the government for insurance. He keeps that job as long as he does what leadership wants him to do. He may not be sure what they want him to do.

For example, the president made a speech many months ago saying they are going to open up banking, insurance and a couple of additional sectors to foreign investment; nothing happened.

The reason was that the head of that division got changed. A new administrator came in who was not sure what the president wanted so he did nothing. Time went on and the international community said, “Wait a minute, you promised that you were going to do that and you didn’t do that.”

So the structure is such that it is very difficult. China can’t react as fast as it should. That will change, but it is going to take time.

R&I: That’s interesting, because during the financial crisis in 2008 there was talk that China, given their more centralized authority, could react more quickly, not less quickly.

Hank Greenberg: It turns out that it is harder to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.

R&I: Obviously, you have a very unique perspective and experience in China. For American companies coming to China, what are some of the current challenges?

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Well, they very much want to do business in China. That’s due to the sheer size of the country, at 1.4 billion people. It’s a very big market and not just for insurance companies. It’s a whole range of companies that would like to have access to China as easily as Chinese companies have access to the United States. As I said previously, that has to be resolved.

It’s not going to be easy, because China has a history of not being treated well by other countries. The U.S. has been pretty good in that way. We haven’t taken advantage of China.

R&I: Your op-ed was very enlightening on that topic.

Hank Greenberg: President Xi wants to rebuild the “middle kingdom,” to what China was, a great country. Part of that was his takeover of the South China Sea rock islands during the Obama Administration; we did nothing. It’s a little late now to try and do something. They promised they would never militarize those islands. Then they did. That’s a real problem in Southern Asia. The other countries in that region are not happy about that.

R&I: One thing that has differentiated your company is that it is not a public company, and it is not a mutual company. We think you’re the only large insurance company with that structure at that scale. What advantages does that give you?

Hank Greenberg: Two things. First of all, we’re more than an insurance company. We have the traditional investment unit with the insurance company. Then we have a separate investment unit that we started, which is very successful. So we have a source of income that is diverse. We don’t have to underwrite business that is going to lose a lot of money. Not knowingly anyway.

R&I: And that’s because you are a private company?

Hank Greenberg: Yes. We attract a different type of person in a private company.

R&I: Do you think that enables you to react more quickly?

Hank Greenberg: Absolutely. When we left AIG there were three of us. Myself, Howie Smith and Ed Matthews. Howie used to run the internal financials and Ed Matthews was the investment guy coming out of Morgan Stanley when I was putting AIG together. We started with three people and now we have 3,500 and growing.

“I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

R&I:  You being forced to leave AIG in 2005 really was an injustice, by the way. AIG wouldn’t have been in the position it was in 2008 if you had still been there.

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Absolutely not. We had all the right things in place. We met with the financial services division once a day every day to make sure they stuck to what they were supposed to do. Even Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Treasury, sat on the stand during my trial and said that if I’d been at the company, it would not have imploded the way it did.

R&I: And that fateful decision the AIG board made really affected the course of the country.

Hank Greenberg: So many people lost all of their net worth. The new management was taking on billions of dollars’ worth of risk with no collateral. They had decimated the internal risk management controls. And the government takeover of the company when the financial crisis blew up was grossly unfair.

From the time it went public, AIG’s value had increased from $300 million to $180 billion. Thanks to Eliot Spitzer, it’s now worth a fraction of that. His was a gross misuse of the Martin Act. It gives the Attorney General the power to investigate without probable cause and bring fraud charges without having to prove intent. Only in New York does the law grant the AG that much power.

R&I: It’s especially frustrating when you consider the quality of his own character, and the scandal he was involved in.

In early 2008, Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a meeting with a prostitute at a Washington Hotel and resigned shortly thereafter.

Hank Greenberg: Yes. And it’s been successive. Look at Eric Schneiderman. He resigned earlier this year when it came out that he had abused several women. And this was after he came out so strongly against other men accused of the same thing. To me it demonstrates hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Schneiderman followed in Spitzer’s footsteps in leveraging the Martin Act against numerous corporations to generate multi-billion dollar settlements.

R&I: Starr, however, continues to thrive. You said you’re at 3,500 people and still growing. As you continue to expand, how do you deal with the challenge of attracting talent?

Hank Greenberg: We did something last week.

On September 16th, St. John’s University announced the largest gift in its 148-year history. The Starr Foundation donated $15 million to the school, establishing the Maurice R. Greenberg Leadership Initiative at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science.

Hank Greenberg: We have recruited from St. John’s for many, many years. These are young people who want to be in the insurance industry. They don’t get into it by accident. They study to become proficient in this and we have recruited some very qualified individuals from that school. But we also recruit from many other universities. On the investment side, outside of the insurance industry, we also recruit from Wall Street.

R&I: We’re very interested in how you and other leaders in this industry view technology and how they’re going to use it.

Hank Greenberg: I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.

R&I: So as the pre-eminent leader of the insurance industry, what do you see in terms of where insurance is now an where it’s going?

Hank Greenberg: The country and the world will always need insurance. That doesn’t mean that what we have today is what we’re going to have 25 years from now.

How quickly the change comes and how far it will go will depend on individual companies and individual countries. Some will be more brave than others. But change will take place, there is no doubt about it.

Advertisement




More will go on in space, there is no question about that. We’re involved in it right now as an insurance company, and it will get broader.

One of the things you have to worry about is it’s now a nuclear world. It’s a more dangerous world. And again, we have to find some way to deal with that.

So, change is inevitable. You need people who can deal with change.

R&I:  Is there anything else, Mr. Greenberg, you want to comment on?

Hank Greenberg: I think I’ve covered it. &

The R&I Editorial Team can be reached at [email protected]