Texas' Efforts to Add Science to the Art of Work Comp Medicine

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | 0

By Joe Paduda

As anyone who has studied physician practice patterns is only too aware, there is wide variation in how physicians practice; the kinds of tests they order, whether they admit patients to the hospital or treat on an outpatient basis, the drugs they prescribe and the outcomes they deliver.

If we are to gain control over health care costs and ensure patients receive the right treatment and payers get value for their dollars, we have to force more science into the art of medicine.

Texas' Division of Workers Comp's push to publish data [sub req] on work comp physicians' compliance with clinical guidelines is a step in the right direction. While only in the formative stage, and pretty limited at that, the effort is long overdue but nonetheless a critical step in reforming the dysfunctional mess that is our health care system.

Unlike any other good or service, when employers 'buy' health care they have no idea of what that investment returns; they don't know what they get for their dollars. When an automobile manufacturer buys tires, it makes its decision on which tires it buys based on the performance of those tires, their durability, ability to carry the car's weight, handling, cost, and value compared to other tires on the market.

That same auto manufacturer has no idea what it gets when it spends millions on health care. What is the return on investment on the premiums paid and the services bought with its dollars? How does it measure the value of the office visit, the return on the MRI, the 30 day supply of medication?

Because employers don't know and can't measure the return on their medical spend, they focus on spending as little as possible they have to provide health and workers comp insurance, but want to spend as few dollars as they can because there's no way to know what the return is on that investment.

Which is why Texas' efforts are so important. While one can (and I'm sure some will) argue that they are starting too small, (WorkCompCentral reports that one recommendation is to begin looking "at compliance by doctors with treatment guidelines in ordering MRIs for back and spine injuries), it is far more beneficial for all concerned to begin the effort, to engage providers, payers, regulators, and claimant advocates than to wait till there's broad consensus on multiple performance measures.

What's great about workers' comp is that unlike group health or medicare or medicaid, the same data set includes information about return to work, the cost and duration of disability, and the final 'functional' outcome (I'll concede that these data aren't always accurate or consistent). When we're evaluating medical care, the ultimate outcome should always be based on the degree to which the patient recovered and returned to functionality.

What does this mean for you?

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good encourage Texas' DWC to proceed quickly with their initial efforts, engage with them in a positive way, share data, and push for more measures, more results, more openness. Understand that physicians have concerns about outcomes, many of them legitimate, and work with them wherever possible.

Joe Paduda is principal of Health Strategy Associates, an employer's consulting firm in Connecticut. This column was reprinted with his permission from his blog, "Managed Care Matters," which can be found here: http://www.joepaduda.com/