A Warning to Work Comp Payers

This new ruling from West Virginia's Supreme Court reminded me of a post I first wrote almost exactly three years ago.  I decided to re-post it here today.  This WV case, in a nutshell, says that the illegal acts of the plaintiff (in this case, addicted opioid users) does not disqualify them from taking legal action against the defendants (in this case, physicians and pharmacies) for being at fault for their own harmful acts.  And as Stephanie Goldberg points out in the linked article, work comp payers should be on alert.  It's not a big leap in logic to apply this same line of reasoning to a payer who chooses to finance the addictive behavior of an injured worker instead of intervening to do something about it.

Here's my post from May 25, 2012:

We Know Too Much: New Liabilities Associated with Opioid Abuse

A new ruling from Texas adds to the list of states that have found payers liable for a range of opioid-related side effects ranging from addiction to death. In this particular case, the payer was found liable for death benefits in light of the injured worker's death caused by hydrocodone overdose. This adds to recent rulings in several other jurisdictions (e.g., Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina - these are the ones I've seen, I believe there are others) in which payers have found themselves on the hook for death benefits due to drug overdose.

Prediction: This is just the beginning. Why? Because we know too much. And our unwillingness (or inability), as an industry, to apply what we know is going to cause a lot of financial pain over the next several years.

We really do know too much. We have sound, evidence-based clinical guidelines. We have peer reviewed studies (many of which are incorporated into the guidelines) that suggest the limited benefits (and significant harm) that results from chronic opioid therapy. We have thought leaders, in both the clinical and business realms, offering a constant drumbeat of warnings that solutions are needed. We have industry conferences devoted entirely to this issue. We have a growing body of regulatory mechanisms intended to help control opioid misuse (e.g., Texas closed formulary rules, new Tennessee UR rules, Washington's guidelines, etc.) We have public health agencies, including the CDC, calling the issue of prescription drug abuse an "epidemic" and a "public health crisis".

I hear various excuses for why payer organizations aren't attacking the problem with greater force. "Look," they say, "this is really complicated... these people are addicted". Or "we don't have sufficient clinical resources"... or "we're pretty sure plaintiff's counsel is going to come at us pretty hard"... or "we're working on it"... or "our PBM has a handle on it".

Enough. There's going to be noise. Deal with it. We're on the right side of this fight. By taking aggressive action, we have the opportunity to improve overall patient health while simultaneously saving money. This is exactly what our health care system needs.

Let's get to work.

Michael

On Twitter @PRIUM1

Two Reasons You Should Care About Hepatitis C

Let's talk about Hepatitis C for just a moment.  

Hep C is a disease of the liver.  It can be mild, nearly asymptomatic... or it can be a lifelong battle, requiring a potential liver transplant.  Hep C isn't genetic or environmental - rather, it's contagious. The virus is spread when the blood of someone with Hep C enters the body of someone who is not infected.  The two most common methods of transmission both involve needles and both impact workers' compensation: 1. accidental needle stick injuries in a health care setting; 2. the sharing of needles and syringes among drug addicts.  

Regarding injuries to healthcare workers... while most payers won't see many Hep C cases that are work comp related, it's best for payers to be prepared if and when a case does arise.  Why?  Because treatment is both complex and enormously expensive.  The recently released Drug Trends Report from pharmacy benefit manager Healthcare Solutions has an excellent section on specialty drugs and a very informative sub-section on Hep C.  "The new Hepatitis C medications, such as Harvoni, Olysio, and Sovaldi, have a treatment success rate of 94-100%, or double that of previous therapies," says the report. "These medications cost $90,000 to $226,000 for a 12 to 24 week course of therapy.  Effectively, a client with a $1 million drug spend could experience a 2% increase in overall drug spend with one claimant receiving these medications." (Emphasis added).  

Regarding Hep C transmission among drug abusers... the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly published a piece on Friday regarding the growth of Hep C in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.  Surveillance data from these four states showed a 364% increase in Hep C cases from 2006 to 2012 among persons <= 30 years of age.  This rise was strongly correlated with opioid misuse and abuse rates as well as substance abuse treatment admissions.  While I've often pointed out that the work comp population is not a primary driver of the type of drug abuse that involves drug tampering and needle sharing, we should nonetheless recognize that work comp is a significant source of diversion (both intentional and unintentional), and therefore the drugs being paid for by work comp payers are, at some level, likely contributing to the rise in Hep C cases.

Hep C is complicated and expensive.  Two lessons for payers:

1. When a work-related Hep C case pops up, put your best clinical resources to work on that claim to ensure prompt, appropriate, adherent, and thorough care; 
2. Make sure you're doing everything you can to stem the tide of prescription drug misuse and abuse. 

Michael   

Follow me on Twitter @PRIUM1

   

Free Speech, FDA, and Short Selling

I was entertained by an article this morning on workcompcentral regarding a drug manufacturer that is suing the FDA for infringing its right to free speech.  Amarin Pharma is upset that it cannot market its fish oil drug for "off-label" uses.  You can't make this stuff up.

A quick refresher (admittedly oversimplified) on the FDA's role as a regulatory body:  A drug manufacturer discovers (or purchases) a chemical entity which they believe has a therapeutic benefit for a particular disease state.  The drug manufacturer runs studies (typically across three phases) to test both the safety and efficacy of the chemical entity for that specified disease state.  Application is made to the FDA and the FDA evaluates all of the evidence.  If the application is approved, the FDA mandates that the drug only be marketed to doctors, patients, and other stakeholders for the specified disease state on which the research and development were conducted.  The FDA does this through the drug's "label" and any marketing for uses not contained on the label (or "off-label" uses) is a violation of federal law.  

So... if you come up with a drug to manage, say, prostate enlargement... and you conduct years worth of studies on the safety and efficacy of the drug for prostate enlargement... and it turns out, after all that, the drug is also causing men with male pattern baldness to grow new hair... you can't simply change your mind and market the drug for male pattern baldness instead of prostate enlargement.  You have to go back through the phase I, II, and III development process (or, at least, recast the data drawn from those studies) to create sufficient evidence for FDA approval to allow you to market the drug for that purpose.  (This actually happened, by the way.  Ever heard of Propecia?)

The argument being made by Amarin is a great example of unintentional comedy: they feel their free speech rights are being infringed because the off-label uses which they'd like to communicate are "truthful" and "non-misleading."  They should be able to market fish oil for off-label usage... because it really works... trust them.

This comes down to a fundamental question of regulatory oversight:  "Truthful" and "non-misleading" according to whom?  

This is why the FDA exists.  I have been a vociferous critic of the agency for its lack of consistency, its approval of questionable medications, and its lack of emphasis on the public health effects of its approval process.  But I have never questioned the necessity of a third party regulatory agency intended to protect Americans from potentially delusional and dangerous claims of safety and efficacy from the pharmaceutical industry.

By the way, Amarin is publicly traded (NASDAQ: AMRN.)  My investment advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it... but I might think about a short position on any company willing to waste money on this kind of frivolous lawsuit.

Michael  

A Legal Challenge to Prescription Drug Monitoring Databases?

Dr. Alwin Lewis was investigated by the Medical Board of California because of an odd diet he had apparently advised patients to undertake.  (The “five bite” diet… don’t eat breakfast, then eat five bites of food for the rest of the day.  I would have demanded an investigation, too.)  During the course of the investigation, the Medical Board uncovered inappropriate prescription patterns in California’s PDMP (the CURES database).  The Medical Board found that he had kept poor medical records and had over-prescribed medications to two patients.  He was placed on three years’ probation. 

And that’s when all heck broke loose…

Dr. Lewis took the case to court, arguing that the Board had gone too far in using information from the PDMP against him.  There’s a lot of confusion here, even by California standards.  Here are some key points to keep in mind:

First, the ACLU, civil rights attorneys, the California Medical Association (CMA), and several other groups are making a lot of noise about this case.  All of them are trying to push this issue far beyond the scope of the challenge that is actually being raised by the Dr. Lewis.  If Lewis prevails, the result will be a revision of the Medical Board’s investigation/disciplinary process, not an invalidation of the CURES statute.

Second, this case is not about protecting patients’ privacy; it’s about protecting patients’ privacy when doing so protects the doctor from a Board investigation.  Lewis has made it clear that this is not a facial challenge to the CURES statute; in fact, he concedes that in most instances, such as in an administrative audit of a pharmacist (but not a physician), pulling a patient’s prescription info is constitutional.  His position is that when a CURES audit is performed “for the express purpose of investigating physician practices,” the auditor should not be able to access patient records without a subpoena, warrant, or good cause.

Third, it’s also about protecting the doctor’s right to privacy.  Lewis is arguing that he has a direct, personal, right to privacy in regards to his prescribing patterns, and that the Board violated that right when they performed the CURES audit of his prescribing history without an administrative subpoena.  While that may sound like a terrible argument, this is California, and so there is actually appellate case law that supports him on that point.  This is actually a central theme in his petition.  He argues that when a pharmacy auditor looks at the medications dispensed to a patient by that pharmacist, neither the rights of the pharmacist nor the rights of the patient are violated; when a physician auditor views the medications prescribed to a patient by that physician, both the rights of the patient and the rights of the prescriber are violated.  Makes complete sense, right?  

The Board’s conduct – however excessive – was aimed at protecting patients.  The PDMP rules are aimed at protecting patients.  The only real danger to the patients’ interests came from the guy that is now trying to pose as their protector in order to get out of a disciplinary action. 

This case, regardless of what you might read elsewhere, shouldn't have a significant impact on PDMP use in California or any other state. 

Michael
Follow us on Twitter @PRIUM1