Risk Insider: Jason Beans

When Yelp Reviews Are Better Than Hospital Rating Systems

By: | May 12, 2015 • 2 min read

Jason Beans is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Rising Medical Solutions, a medical cost management firm. He has over 20 years of industry experience. He can be reached at [email protected]

There is widespread industry agreement that moving towards reimbursing quality versus quantity of care is an important means for controlling medical costs. But how do we define “quality?” And, how do we quantify “quality”?

A recent Health Affairs study illustrates the difficulty of those questions.

The study reviewed four popular hospital rating services (Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades, U.S. News & World Report), and the measures they used were so divergent that their rankings became strikingly different:

  • Not one hospital received high marks from all services.
  • Only 10 percent of the hospitals rated highly by one service also received top marks from another.
  • Twenty-seven hospitals were simultaneously rated among the nation’s best and worst by different services.

We deal with this frequently in our networks. We’ll have one client “absolutely” refuse to work with a provider, while another “absolutely” demands that same provider in their network.

Why such amazing disparity? It’s apparent that both hospital rating services and our clients utilize different factors to measure quality, and weigh those factors differently.

One scoring system may value cost per episode, while another values cost per diem. Another system might reward great valet parking, while another focuses on infection rates. Even slight variances can massively impact ratings. At this point, a Yelp review is likely just as good … or better.

So how do we get to meaningful provider ratings? It’s clearly a pervasive problem. In Rising’s 2014 Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking Study, medical management ranked as the top core competency impacting claim outcomes, yet only 29 percent of respondents rate their medical providers. As demonstrated by the Health Affairs study, it’s really hard to delineate the best from the worst, and trying to make those determinations can cause organizational paralysis.

So, I recommend starting simple. First evaluate what outcomes are most important. Do you value customer experience, clinical, or financial outcomes and to what degree?  Do you weigh factors differently by service type (e.g., MRIs weigh convenience highly; surgeries weigh clinical outcomes highly)? If your measurements don’t correlate with your goals, your process won’t produce valuable results.

Even slight variances can massively impact ratings. At this point, a Yelp review is likely just as good … or better.

After determining your most important factors, then your second step is to carve providers from the bottom.  This avoids the inertia that can come from trying to rate “top” providers too soon. It’s much easier to eliminate the outlier providers that cause the majority of bad outcomes to instantly improve your program.

Only after these steps would I recommend trying to establish the “best” providers. The “best” often deal with the most difficult cases, with the longest recovery periods or possibly the “worst outcomes.” It’s easy to see how a gifted surgeon might suffer under many quality rating systems. On a positive note, the transition to ICD-10 will allow provider quality comparisons at a deeper level of specificity never possible with ICD-9. In other words, we’ll actually be able to compare apples to apples over time.

With this three-step iterative approach, you can create and refine measurements that bring real, long-term value to your organization…making your system better than Yelp.

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]