1 / 38

Long-term Care Liability Impact and Concerns of the Current Marketplace

Long-term Care Liability Impact and Concerns of the Current Marketplace. Michael R. Walton AMWINS HealthCare American Wholesale Insurance Group March 11, 2003. Impact of Current Marketplace on Long-term Care Providers.

triage
Télécharger la présentation

Long-term Care Liability Impact and Concerns of the Current Marketplace

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Long-term Care LiabilityImpact and Concerns of the Current Marketplace Michael R. Walton AMWINS HealthCare American Wholesale Insurance Group March 11, 2003

  2. Impact of Current Marketplaceon Long-term Care Providers • Huge premium increases and risk retention requirements have added financial pressures to an industry segment that is already strained financially. • Facilities are “going bare”, self insuring and/or reducing limits of coverage. • Higher premiums and claims costs take money from operations, including quality improvement and risk management activities.

  3. Liability Insurance Availability and Affordability Issues are Severe –Insurance Company Concerns • Historic Underwriting Results • Reported Loss and Litigation Trends • Aggressiveness of plaintiffs’ attorneys in soliciting cases • Frequent negative press coverage of LTC • Extraordinary Jury Awards • Political and Public Scrutiny of Eldercare • Availability of Government and Proprietary “Quality” Performance Data/Web Sites/Rankings • Claims Defense Capabilities

  4. Company Concerns -Reported LTC Liability Trends Trends 1995 – 2001(FHCA Study) • Increased Frequency of Claims (Litigation) • FL 233% > (28/1k beds) - Other 25% (6.7/1k beds) • Increased Severity of Claims • FL 210% - Other 140% • FL $455,000.Avg. - Other $156,000. Avg. • Multi-million Dollar Jury Awards • Numerous and Unpredictable • Loss Cost / Bed in 2000 • FL $12,700. - Other States $1,050.

  5. Verdict $312.71 Million $82 Million $78.43 Million $50 Million Case Fuqua v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. Ernst v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. Sauer v. Advocat, Inc. Copeland v. Dallas Home for Jewish Aged, Inc. Company Concerns-Mega-Verdicts in 2001

  6. Insurance Industry Reaction • Data is Data • “Broad Brush” Application • Require Risk Retention / Deductibles • Move from Occurrence to Claims Made • Only Insure “The Best” Nursing Facilities • Ultra-conservative Underwriting Practices

  7. Examining LTC Liability Insurance Underwriting Procedures • Past “Soft Market” Underwriting • Completed Application • 5 Years Loss Data • Competitive Premium/Coverage Information • Written & Onsite Risk Surveys (Maybe)

  8. Current “Hard Market” Underwriting Completed Application and Supplemental Application including: • Staff Education and Training Requirements and Procedures • Administrative and DON Tenure • Written Elopement, Fall, Skin Care, Medication and Abuse Policies and prevention procedures • Current CMS 671 (Facility Staffing). • Current CMS 672 (Resident Census). • Most recent CMS Statement of Deficiencies (with Plan of Correction • Marketing materials & brochures • Current financial statements • Copy of Quality Indicator Profile for recent period

  9. Additional Underwriting Risk Evaluation Tools • Medicare’s “Nursing Home Compare” • Proprietary Web Sites/Quality Rankings • OSCAR (Online Survey, Certification and Reporting) Data • CMS’s Quality Indicator’s (QI’s) and Quality Measures (QM’s) • Staffing Ratio’s Objective: Risk Evaluation / Selection

  10. Long-term Care Liability CrisisLTC Provider Perspective / Concerns • Many suffer for the sins of few. – The “broad brush” underwriting approach is inappropriate. • Diverse industry with relatively common treatment from underwriters. • Venue, Ownership & Corporate Structure, Medical Services, Philosophy, Quality, etc. • Widely published LTC trend reports are concerning. • Risk assessment tools and methodologies are inaccurate, faulty and subjective.

  11. The “broad brush” underwriting approach is inappropriate. • Set base rates according to geographical location, facility size, and percentage of more acute residents – minimal or no consideration toward level of quality care or type of ownership. • Common sense suggests that facilities rendering high quality care have lower risk than those rendering poor care – reluctance to commit to estimates of proportional risk. • We are in a “seller’s market”. $$

  12. Widely published LTC liability trend reports are concerning. • Consider the 2001 FHCA Study • Approx. 20% of nursing home beds in U.S. (336,000) of which 33,000 were in FL • This study segregated FL, TX & CA from “all other” States • Consider the 2002 AHCA Study • Approx. 25% nursing home beds in U.S. (440,000) • This study segregated GA, WV, TX, FL, CA, AR, MS and AL from “all other” States

  13. Widely published LTC liability trend reports are concerning. Comparing the Studies: 2001 vs. 2002: • “All Other” States 2001 2002 • Loss Cost $1,050. $620. Excludes:(ex. FL) (AL,AR,CA,FL,GA,MS,TX,WV) $ 750. (excluding FL & TX) $ 730. (excluding FL, TX & CA) • Avg. Claim $160,000. < $100,000. • Frequency 6.7 / 1000 Approx. Same Note: Consider the projected 25% claims trend

  14. Widely published LTC liability trend reports are concerning. • What segment of the nursing home industry dominated the data used in the studies? • The segregated States: • AL – 78% For-profit 63% Multi-facility Ownership • AR – 79% For-profit 60% Multi-facility Ownership • CA – 75% For-profit 63% Multi-facility Ownership • FL – 76% For-profit 70% Multi-facility Ownership • GA – 75% For-profit 74% Multi-facility Ownership • MS – 73% For-profit 61% Multi-facility Ownership • TX – 81% For-profit 72% Multi-facility Ownership National Average: 65% For-profit 55% Multi-facility Ownership

  15. Data Source Considerations LTCQ, Inc., an AMWINS Strategic Partner, compared public data on the following groups: • 1035 facilities owned by religious organizations • 4770 facilities owned by other non-profit entities (public and private) • 10883 facilities owned by for-profit entities (individuals, partnerships, or corporations)

  16. Consider quality performance by type of ownership - Deficiencies

  17. Failure to follow physicians’ orders. Failure to treat. Physical or verbal abuse. Medication error. Failure to monitor adequately. Improper care. Resident rights violation. Failure to diagnose. Unsafe environment. Inadequate management of incontinence. Inadequate prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Fall hazards. Nutrition-related deficiencies Deficiencies (litigation risk) -measured by ownership type:

  18. Consider quality performance by type of ownership - Complaints

  19. Complaints (litigation risk) -measured by ownership type: • Resident abuse. • Resident rights violations. • Unacceptable or dangerous environment. • Poor care.

  20. Risk/Quality assessment tools and methodologies are inaccurate, faulty and subjective. • CMS’s “Nursing Home Compare” • OSCAR (Online Survey, Certification and Reporting) Data- Inspection results can vary with inspection teams and are subjective evaluations of regulatory compliance. • CMS’s Quality Indicator’s (QI’s) and Quality Measures (QM’s) – CMS’s QI’s & QM’s do not provide definitive measures of quality of care or adequately monitor resident status. Prevalence vs.. Incident based data. • Staffing Ratio’s - Often based on arbitrary criteria.

  21. Medicare’s “Nursing Home Compare” • About the Nursing Home: including the number of beds and type of ownership. • About the Residents of the Nursing Home: including the percent of residents with pressure sores, urinary incontinence, physical restraints, unplanned weight gain or loss, restricted joint motion, behavior symptoms and who are very dependent in eating and Bedfast. • About the Nursing Home Inspection Results: including summary results from the last state nursing home inspection. • About Nursing Home Staff: including the number of registered nurses, licensed practical or vocational nurses, and nursing assistants in each nursing home. ”The significant limitations can cause misinterpretation of data and unwarranted scrutiny of institutional quality and capability”.

  22. Concerns with OSCAR (Online Survey, Certification and Reporting) Data • Data Accuracy • Size Bias • Geographic Bias • Ownership Bias • Payer Bias • Case Mix Bias

  23. Pitfalls of OSCAR Analysis • Simple counts of survey deficiencies can be misleading unless the scope, severity, and type of each deficiency is considered. • Percentages of residents with particular conditions, e.g., pressure ulcers, don’t distinguish between problems inherited from the hospital and those that occurred for the first time at the nursing home as well as clinically unavoidable outcomes. • Surveyors’ methods, severity, and consistency vary from CMS to CMS region, State to State and within regions of a State. • Survey bias seem to be associated with certain types of residents.

  24. Concerns with OSCAR data: Accuracy • In a recent analysis of 16,698 OSCAR assessments: • 6% of facilities report total census numbers not equal the total number of residents calculated from other OSCAR items. • One item inquires how many residents with pressure ulcers at survey also had pressure ulcers at admission. 7% of facilities reported a greater number of residents than logically possible. • 10% of facilities had unlikely ADL dependency relationships (where eating > dressing)

  25. OSCAR Bias Example: Geographic

  26. Survey Performance is Best Predicted by Zip Code

  27. Concerns with CMS’s Quality Indicators (QIs) and Quality Measures (QMs) as quality/risk assessment tools. • CMS has a quality monitoring system that utilizes MDS derived QIs & QMs. • CMS generates a QI report that profiles the proportion of residents in the facility with a particular undesirable condition. It identifies 24 functional outcomes to summarize facility performance. • In November 2002 CMS introduced publicly-available QM’s • There are 32 QI’s & QM’s. Only 6 of these measures are Incidence based. The rest are prevalence measures.

  28. Prevalence and Incidence Measurements • Prevalence: How you look at one point in time. The status of your residents according to one data point (MDS assessment). • Incidence: How you look at one point in time compared to previous point in time. The status of your residents according to two data points (MDS assessment).

  29. There Are Six “Chronic” Care QM’s (Pilot Names Are in Parenthesis) Residents with Pain (Inadequate pain management) Residents who need more help doing daily activities (Late-loss ADL Worsening)* Residents with Infections (Infections) Residents with Pressure Sores (Pressure Ulcers) (FAP) Residents with Pressure Sores (Pressure Ulcers) (No FAP) Residents with Physical Restraints (Physical Restraints Used Daily) There Are Four “Post-acute” Care QM’s Residents with delirium (Failure to Improve & Manage Delirium) (FAP) Residents with delirium (Failure to Improve & Manage Delirium) (No FAP) Residents with pain (Inadequate Pain Management) Residents who improved in walking (Improvement in Walking)* (With FAP) The new CMS Quality MeasuresNote:FAP – Facility Admission Practice * Incidence Measure

  30. How good is the Data?MDS Data Quality Reliability and validity studies • Reliability in the workforce • Lack of training • Facility staff turnover • Usability of the MDS • Surveyor training • MDS data integrity

  31. 66% 34% MDSs with1 or moreissues MDSs withno issues Source: LTCQ’s Q-Metrics Data Integrity Audit Data from 1998-2000

  32. Consideration • The combination of standardization, electronic transmission, and compulsory submission makes the MDS the most advanced electronic medical record in all of American health care. • Data accuracy, interpretation and application is critical to its value.

  33. Are there better ways to measure quality and risk? • Yes: OSCAR analysis can be improved by using geographical adjustment, severity-adjustment, focus on litigation risks, and other methods. • Yes: MDS data quality can be improved with staff training, use of auditing tools and feedback to facilities. • Yes: Quality can be measured with valid, incidence-based risk-adjusted tools. • Yes: The risk of many adverse events can be modeled if good data are available on risk factors.

  34. Recap of Insurance Industry Concerns • Historic Underwriting Results • Reported Loss and Litigation Trends • Activity of Plaintiffs’ Bar • Constant Publicity of Negative Eldercare Issues • Extraordinary Jury Awards • Political and Public Scrutiny of Eldercare • Availability of Government and Proprietary “Quality” Performance Data/Web Sites/Rankings • Claims Defense Capabilities

  35. Are there Solutions? Opportunities? Absolutely! Utilize advanced methods of assessing, managing, and defending long-term care quality and associated risk. • Long-term Care Providers / Clinicians • Insurance Providers • Defense Council • Risk Managers • Insurance Brokers and Consultants • Consumers

More Related