Self-Insurer Dec 2012

December 2012

www.sipconline.net

The Once & Future Law

– Learning from Massachusetts’ Cost Containment Efforts

2 December 2012 | The Self-Insurer © Self-Insurers’ Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Take it to theMAXMAXimum Savings

MAXimum Security

MAXimum Satisfaction

MAXimum Transparency

1.855.225.1075 | AssentMCM.com

Bill Review & Negotiations: Assent offers a proven and tested approach to handling both in and out of network healthcare claims. Through direct negotiation process, including our proprietary Assent | MAX COST UP approach combining FINANCIAL ANALYTICS with MEDICAL ANALYSIS, Assent provides guaranteed savings or no fee, one claim at a time.

Innovative Healthcare Cost Management Solutions Since ‘05

Medical Cost Management

ASSEnT

FeaTures

4 The Once & Future Law – Learning from Massachusetts’ Cost Containment efforts by Adam V. Russo, Esq.

Data Mining: Quick Methods to Cast the Widest, effective Net in the sea of subro by Erik Stremke

The Self-Insurer | December 2012 3© Self-Insurers’ Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

December 2012 | Volume 50

December 2012 The Self-Insurer (ISSN 10913815) is published monthly by Self-Insurers’ Publishing Corp. (SIPC), Postmaster : Send address changes to The Self-Insurer P.O. Box 1237 Simpsonville, SC 29681

editorial staff

PuBLIShINg DIrECTOrJames A. Kinder

MANAgINg EDITOrErica Massey

SENIOr EDITOrgretchen grote

DESIgN/grAPhICSIndexx Printing

CONTrIBuTINg EDITOrMike Ferguson

DIrECTOr OF OPErATIONSJustin Miller

DIrECTOr OF ADvErTISINgShane Byars

Editorial and Advertising OfficeP.O. 1237, Simpsonville, SC 29681(888) 394-5688

2012 self-Insurers’ Publishing Corp. Officers

James A. Kinder, CEO/Chairman

Erica M. Massey, President

Lynne Bolduc, Esq. Secretary

arTICLes

12 Medicare Plus repricing; Not for the Faint of heart by Corte B. Iarossi

20 Captives & Dodd-Frank – hitting the right Target

22 health Coverage and the Private Exchange

26 ART Gallery: Independent fiduciaries a boon to benefit plan sponsors

INDusTry LeaDershIp

28 SIIA Chairman Speaks

www.sipconline.net

16


by Adam V. Russo, Esq.

The Once & Future Law

– Learning from Massachusetts’ Cost Containment Efforts

© Self-Insurers’ Publishing Corp. All rights reserved. The Self-Insurer | December 2012 5

The election is over. For most of us that means a return to the status quo. We get up in the morning, we go to

work, and we look forward to dealing with healthcare reform. Speaking of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), if you think that you’ve seen a lot of regulation over the past years... well... “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” As a proud resident of Massachusetts, I can say that with confidence.

While many in our industry have postponed taking substantive action to comply with PPACA, waiting to see if it would stick... the regulators in D.C. have been holding back as well. They have been lying in ambush, awaiting the outcome of the election. Now that we (and they) know who is in charge, and that healthcare reform is indeed the law of the land, the sheer volume of regulation that “will be coming to a plan near you,” is going to reach astronomical levels. Furthermore, if we don’t implement some provider-focused cost containment rules, nothing will be fixed by the current legislation. How do I know these things? I’m a “Bay-Stater” (a lifelong resident of Massachusetts).

Folks like me, living here in Massachusetts, are experienced veterans when it comes to healthcare reform. We’ve survived our own mandate and regulations. Most importantly; we already know what works and what doesn’t.

Massachusetts was a very popular state in the media these past couple years, not only due to our State based health reform, but also because it’s father – our former governor – Mitt romney (unsuccessfully) made his run for the presidency. President Obama’s healthcare reform was therefore, naturally compared to the Bay State model. After all, how could we allow Mitt to get away with criticizing Obamacare when it was so similar

to his own romneycare? And that, of course, is the crux of my article. regardless of what you may have been told, Obamacare was based on the framework first created in the guise of romneycare. While they are not exactly the same, there are many similarities. I am not an artist (though my wife is), but I have learned how to identify a Picasso painting when I see one! While none are exactly the same, they do share similar characteristics – like the two plans.

regarding the Massachusetts healthcare program; there were two main goals involved – achieving universal coverage and controlling the ever-rising cost of care.

What the state saw between 2006 and 2010, despite a rise in uninsured individuals nationwide (17% to 18.5%), was a decrease in the proportion of uninsured residents, (10.9% to 6.3%) during the same time. I am proud of the fact that almost of our residents have health insurance; challenge number one was certainly met. But what about challenge number two? Without addressing the actual cost of care and issues involving access, this was just shifting the burden.

By failing to address the source of care being purchased by these newly insured people, we not only failed to deal with the main issue (the high costs), but we made things worse. With an influx of newly insured people, individuals that in the past would have been more conservative in seeking care, had less reason to postpone doctor’s visits. unfortunately, many appointments were made without real cause. This up-tick in unnecessary appointments, which increased once the consumer viewed it as a freebie, resulted in a logjam. Some providers were so fed up with the program, they wouldn’t treat individuals enrolled in one of the plans that comprised it. Others simply couldn’t find enough time in the day to see everyone. As I love to say when I speak to people about this topic “everyone had a Ferrari sitting in their driveway but nobody actually had the keys to drive it.” This resulted, then, in longer waits for everyone (including people needing care), and increased expenditures by providers to keep up with the higher demand. This in turn resulted in... you guessed it... higher prices. Strike 1.

Take note; the Massachusetts “connector plan,” aka “romneycare,” aka “Commonwealth Care,” is comprised of private carriers. To participate, each carrier must offer low cost policies that mean standards set by the state. These policies must offer certain mandated benefits, and cannot charge more than a capped


premium. In the first year, the essential health benefits were limited in scope, making the program financially viable. Each year, however, lobbyists and special interests groups demanded that their “essential health benefits” be mandated from all participating policies. Carriers thereby found themselves being required to offer more, and thus raising costs. Strike 2.

Finally, nothing promoted consumer awareness, price transparency, or forced patients to have some skin in the game. There was no reason to seek the best price, only the most convenient option. Providers thus were incentivized by this new source of revenue to raise their already excessive prices. Strike 3, we’re out!

In my humble opinion, this history of the Massachusetts’ health care system should serve as a crystal ball for the nation. More importantly, it should serve as an example. We are only now seeing a second wave of legislation, this

time dealing with the actual cost of care. It took my state six years to figure out that you cannot give access to care to all residents without addressing the cost as well.

From 1998 through 2009, Massachusetts had the highest personal health care spending per capita of any state. It wasn’t until in Massachusetts, when everyone became insured, that we realized having insurance doesn’t make healthcare any cheaper. Suddenly, the attention shifted from the payer to the payee.

In Massachusetts, as we started spending tax dollars, attention shifted to the actual cost of care. In 2010, the state attorney general documented wide variations in prices for health care services. It was possible that the same procedure at two hospitals (across the street from each other in Boston) could have a substantial variance in price. Yes;

this came as a surprise to most.

In response to this “outrageous, unfettered pricing,” as the legislative session ended on July 31, 2012, the house and Senate resolved their differences and approved a new law that governor Deval Patrick signed on August 6, 2012.

The new law establishes a health policy commission that acts as an independent public entity to oversee cost growth targets and monitors new payment models. It creates a special commission to report on variations in provider prices and the attorney general will have increased authority to investigate potential anticompetitive practices of health care organizations.

The law addresses medical malpractice with a 182 day cooling off period before patients can file a lawsuit, and makes providers’ apologies to patients inadmissible in malpractice proceedings. The cooling off period is designed to allow time to negotiate

TL

Paying The Claim Correctly Is The Focus

Cost Containment Is The Result

EthiCare Advisors Helps You Focus On The Results Call: 888-838-4422

[email protected]

EthiCare Advisors, Inc.Medical Claims Settlement Specialists


Would you climb a mountain without a guide?

Healthcare is complicated. As a risk management expert, Berkley Accident and Health, LLC can guide you in the right direction.

Our creative, nimble approach to risk, backed by the strength of a Fortune 500 company, gives us a unique perspective. Count on Berkley to show you the way.

Stop Loss | Group Captives | Managed Care | Specialty Accident

BAH AD-20120100 www.BerkleyAH.com

Berkley Accident and Health, LLC is the U.S.-based accident and health operating entity of the W.R. Berkley Corporation Member Companies. Coverages are underwritten by StarNet Insurance Company and/or Berkley Life and Health Insurance Company, both member companies of W.R. Berkley Corporation, and both A+ rated by A.M. Best. © 2012 Berkley Accident and Health, LLC


settlements, and a healthcare professional can admit an error and offer compensation to a patient without the apology being used in court as an admission of liability.

The new law authorizes $60 million over 4 years for wellness and preventive health programs and an annual tax credit up to $10,000 for businesses that create workplace wellness programs. Although we already have a great wellness program in place at my firm, we will now expand it based on this added incentive. I think it’s almost amusing to see that many of these “new” ideas for my state are things the self-insured world has been doing for years. But as they say, better late than never!

The attorney general will have increased authority to investigate potential anticompetitive practices of healthcare organizations. The attorney general will realize that the main reason for higher health insurance premiums is not greedy insurers, but providers attempting to take advantage of the current system in place. Massachusetts is one of the first states to create a payer claims database to monitor and report on variations in payments and the volume of services across healthcare organizations.

The law creates a Special Commission on Price variation to review variation in prices among providers, recommend steps to reduce provider price variation and recommend the maximum reasonable adjustment to a commercial insurer’s median rate for individual services or groups of services for each acceptable factor, by Jan. 1, 2014.

Every day I personally experience the greatest issues with our current healthcare and insurance systems. The biggest driver of rising healthcare costs is that the prices negotiated and paid are due to the market leverage of providers rather than the quality of services offered. The hospitals know whether there are any other options in a particular area and take advantage of that fact. This new law establishes additional tools to scrutinize market behavior, allows us to monitor market activity,

and take necessary actions.

Finding new ways to deal with the problems created by dominant providers will be especially challenging for my state and the nation as a whole. In all fairness, it’s a testament to the state’s leaders that any law passed at all. Massachusetts was disadvantaged to take on costs, with health spending that is among the highest in the country, expensive medical practices, and very politically powerful hospitals and doctors. healthcare is also one of the state’s largest employers.

The main factor that forced this action was the realization that the broad coverage gains that Massachusetts has made would not be possible without finally controlling healthcare costs. Time will tell whether Massachusetts is ultimately successful at cost control but we will all learn a lot over the next few years, much of which will no doubt be useful to other states.

For more information, visit us online at hcc.com/life.

A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. msl2162 - 08/12

Mind over risk.The secret weapon of businesses that dare to venture.

Successful companies value financial stability and strong

credentials, particularly in today’s challenging market.

HCC Life Insurance Company delivers on both counts. We

have the strength and experience to understand industry

trends, manage data and properly assess risk. We cannot

predict the future, but we intelligently remain prepared for

whatever tomorrow brings. We call it Mind over risk.

HCC Life Insurance Company

hcc.com/life


So while it is nice to see that my

state finally addressed the real issue with

healthcare, it’s sad to see that from a

national standpoint nothing is being done.

While the rest of the nation has watched

the Massachusetts model for many years,

it seems that the federal government

hasn’t learned anything from us.

Two things stand out in my mind

when it comes to PPACA. First, that

the Obama Administration didn’t learn

from Massachusetts, and second, that

they didn’t put into place any of the

cost containment measures that our

very Democratic state passed.

This is proof-positive that we can’t rely

on the government to fix our problems.

My sister lives in Barcelona, Spain,

where everyone gets free healthcare.

Yet, she pays for private coverage as

well. I asked her why she has her own

private insurance through her employer.

She simply responded that she didn’t

want to wait months for treatment

or wait in long lines at state facilities.

When she injured herself this summer,

I was amazed at how quickly she was

able to see her doctor. She simply

called the number on her ID card,

spoke to a nurse immediately, and was

seen at a private clinic within minutes. I

have yet to see that type of care here

in the states. In my eyes the more the

government gets involved in healthcare,

the more opportunities we will all

have to secure amazing options for the

private sector.

In the face of rising costs and

PPACA, we are seeing more and more

plan sponsors, carriers, and brokers

across the country assessing the

situation, and looking at self-funding as

an option to avoid the status quo. More

employers are beginning to see that the

net cost to their plans is what needs to

be looked at. There is now an increased

pressure on benefit plans to control

• Claims Negotiation and Repricing • Medicare/DRG Based Pricing • DRG Validation• Medical Bill Review • Case Management • Utilization Review• Data Mining and Scrubbing • Disease Management• Pharmacy Consulting • 3 Star Preferred Network (PPN)• Captives •Transplant Networks

HHC’s licensed attorney and medical professionalnegotiators assist busy payors of health insuranceclaims and their clients in minimizing claims costs.We have over 15 years experience and are one of aselect few URAC accredited companies.

Call Today to Have Our Pros Start Saving for YouPhone 301.963.0762 ext. 110

www.hhcgroup.com

Is Your Negotiatora Little Leaguer?H.H.C. Group’s Are Real Pros

H.H.C. GroupHealth Insurance Consultants

ACCREDITED INDEPENDENT REVIEW

ORGANIZATION


premium growth from plan sponsors, brokers, plan participants, the government,

and stop-loss carriers.

The great news is that more and more individuals in our industry are looking at

new and innovative ways to reduce the cost of care for their plans without reducing

the benefits given to plan members. The problem is that there are many options

out there that are not fully vetted prior to being implemented by plans and TPAs,

leading to bad results and horrible precedent being set. If you follow a well-designed

game plan, everyone involved in the self-funded arena can win, regardless of when

the federal government mimics what Massachusetts did this summer. n

Adam V. Russo, Esq. is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of The Phia Group LLC;

an innovative cost containment and consulting leader in the health insurance industry.

In addition, Attorney Russo is the founder and managing partner of The Law Offices of

Russo & Minchoff, a full-service law firm with offices in Boston and Braintree, MA. He is

a frequent speaker and author on health care and employee benefits topics at webinars,

conferences and seminars across the country.


Group insurance policies are underwritten by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Wellesley Hills, MA) in all states, except New York, under Policy Form Series 02-SL and 07-SL. In New York, group insurance policies are underwritten by Sun Life Insurance and Annuity Company of New York (New York, NY) under Policy Form Series 02-NYSL and 07-NYSL. Product offerings may not be available in all states and may vary depending on state laws and regulations.

© 2012 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481. All rights reserved. Sun Life Financial and the globe symbol are registered trademarks of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. GGAD-2395 (exp. 5/14) SLPC 24191 5/12

With Sun Life, your clients can rest easy knowing that their insurance needs are covered by a market leader. We’ve been providing Stop-Loss solutions for more than 30 years—reimbursing $1.3 billion in claims over the past three years. With our history of fi nancial strength, reliable service, and innovative plan options, it’s no wonder we’re one of the top Stop-Loss providers in the U.S.

Which means you can count on Sun Life to process your customers’ claims—smoothly and successfully. And that’s a boost to anyone’s confi dence.

Get the benefi t. Get to know Sun Life. Visit GetToKnowSunLife.com or call us at 866-683-6334.

Self-assurance for the self-insured


There’s an old saying, purported to be an ancient Chinese curse; May you live in interesting times. Though

there is some question as to the origin

of this saying, there is NO question we

live in interesting times! Considering the

state of the health insurance market, I

think some would suggest that we are

in fact, cursed.

As we all scramble to understand

the potential impact of Obamacare,

we must also continue to find new

solutions to manage ever increasing

healthcare costs. And one option in

particular has generated significant

interest; Medicare Plus repricing.

Though this idea has been floating

around the market for some time, it

only now appears to be gaining more

mainstream attention. In general, the concept of Medicare Plus repricing is to use Medicare allowable PLuS some factor to pay providers for services rendered in lieu of a primary PPO network, or as an alternative for repricing out-of-network medical bills.

The upside of Medicare plus repricing

Significant savings. The government has already done the hard work for us by creating a pricing scheme that drives down the cost of care for the majority of eligible services. And most providers have accepted this reimbursement model as the price for treating Medicare patients, which as we know, is a growing segment of our population.

Today, PPOs are the standard for

generating discounts for health plans.

unfortunately, we also know that the

savings achieved through PPOs can

vary greatly. Additionally, just because

the PPO has a significant discount off

billed charges, does not mean that

the discounted fee is reasonable. We

have all seen provider charges increase

over time to offset the discounts being

provided. The value of Medicare Plus

is that it focuses on a price, rather

than a discount percentage. This makes

it a question of whether the cost is

reasonable and acceptable, without

focusing on the discount percentage.

What some employers have done

is replace the primary PPO using a

multiple of the Medicare Allowable

(for example, 150% of Medicare) as

the payment for services. The thought

Medicare plus repricing; Not for the Faint of heart by Corte B. Iarossi


is that the savings will be materially greater than that of the typical PPO, but the payment will be higher than what Medicare pays the provider; a Win-Win for everyone, right? And when there is no Medicare allowable for covered services (e.g. OB services, pediatric care, certain injectable medications, etc.), then another pricing solution will be used, including but not limited to, rBrvS or a percentage of uCr.

So, if this is the answer to our health plan cost woes, why isn’t everyone jumping on board?

It’s not for the Faint of heart

In other words, as an employer, to make this program successful you will need to stand firm against push back from providers, and weather concerns from employees. Listed below are several key considerations in determining if Medicare Plus repricing is a good alternative to primary PPOs for your group (or your Clients).

1. Plan Documents. One of the CrITICAL issues is insuring that your Plan documents effectively support the application of the Medicare Plus repricing. In all likelihood, you will need to have the documents rewritten. We recommend using a firm that has experience and success in crafting the right language so that the Plan is protected against provider push back. As part of the process, we recommend you place supporting language on the ID cards so that providers are notified in advance that some application of Medicare fees will occur.

2. Employee Education. Just as critical as having the correct Plan documents, is insuring that the employees understand the program, including providing them with responses to providers who

may try to put the patient in the middle of the reimbursement discussion. This may include threats to balance bill or even start the collection process. If the employee/patient doesn’t understand the objective of the program AND/Or does not have guidance on how to respond to the providers, including directing them to a designee to address the issues, you will quickly lose the support of the employees and your leverage in managing the payments to the providers.

3. Prospective Provider Interaction. Another tactic that may smooth the transition to Medicare Plus repricing is to proactively contact providers. The objective is to make them aware of the program, and to create incentives for them to accept the payment. This could include soft steerage, advance or prompt payment, and/or elimination of deductibles and coinsurance, just to name a few. This approach can typically be more effective when the employee population is centrally located, giving you an opportunity to identify highly utilized providers. For populations that are geographically dispersed with no significant penetration in the provider market, this may be more challenging.

4. EOB Supporting Language. It may seem intuitive, but it is worth mentioning that the EOB language accompanying the payment should reflect similar language used on the ID card to explain the program. The objective is to present to the provider a consistent message in as thorough a way as possible.

5. Patient Support & Advocacy. Providing the employee/patient information to help respond to the provider’s inquiry is only part of the equation. You may also want to provide a service that engages the providers directly when they appear unwilling to accept the payment, or have specific questions or issues that can’t be or shouldn’t be addressed by the employee/patient. By providing this service you can help keep the employee from being placed in an adversarial position with the provider, and likely have more success in resolving the provider’s reimbursement issues favorably.

6. Legal Intervention. Though the majority of provider inquiries will typically be addressed through open communication, there is the chance that a disgruntled provider may take a more aggressive position, potentially requiring legal support. The program should include a provision for legal intervention on behalf of the employee, since the Plan language should effectively limit any action against the Plan. however, please note that should the provider and/or patient take legal action against the Plan, the vendor will be required to disengage with the patient and support the Plan.

7. Determining the Medicare Payment Factor. In part this may be a function of the market. If there are other Medicare Plus plans in place, this may assist in determining the factor of Medicare that providers have been willing to accept. If there is no such experience, and there is a strong BCBS or carrier presence, you may be able to gain anecdotal information on how their fees compare to Medicare. We have seen Plans set their reimbursement ranging from 125% to 200% of Medicare. This will be an important consideration in making the program palatable to providers.

8. repricing Non-Medicare Covered Services. unfortunately, not all Plan covered services will be included under Medicare. Therefore, you will need to make sure you have a methodology to reprice covered non-Medicare services, and which is also supported by the Plan language. having a program to address these costs is just as important as repricing Medicare covered services for the success of the program.


9. hold your ground. One of the biggest challenges for the employer will be to

stand firm when the provider threatens collections for the patient, or even

legal action. But if you’ve done your homework, generated the supporting Plan

language, educated your employees, and have a vendor that can intervene and

even negotiate with the provider, you should be in a good position to manage

the results. The first time that you don’t maintain your stance with a provider,

you endanger the effectiveness of the whole program. Once it can be shown

that you have conceded (not to be confused with a negotiating with the

provider), then your ability to maintain other price determinations can be

impacted.

10. Avoid Discrimination. Again, this may seem intuitive, but it is important that

if the Plan applies Medicare Plus pricing, it needs to do so for all services

covered under Medicare. In other words, if the Plan applies Medicare on select

services (e.g. dialysis), but not for other services covered under Medicare, it

could be argued that the process is discriminatory. This would be a nightmare

for the Plan. An alternative is to carve out the select services and treat them

as a separate benefit.

11. Addressing Severity/Complexity of Care. There have been recent court cases

that suggest that applying a fee schedule (uCr or even Medicare) without

taking into consideration extenuating circumstances (severity, complications,

etc.) may facilitate legal action against the Plan by the provider. It is important

that your vendor has the ability to adjust the payment based on variations in

complexity or severity.

12. vendor Fee Structure. Since this type of program is so new, the fees vendors

charge for Medicare Plus repricing and support services can vary significantly.

It can range from a percentage of savings to a flat per claim fee, to a PEPM

rate. The fee will typically be a function of the Client’s expectation of service.

If all you request is an application of the Medicare or alternative fees without

patient or Plan support, a PEPM or per claim fee may be adequate. however,

if the repricing entity is providing the full range of services to include patient

advocacy, provider communication and legal intervention, a percentage of

savings will likely be the pricing methodology used. Because the entity is

taking on the potential legal fees associated with managing and defending the

repricing, the costs can be extremely variable. A PEPM or per claim fee will

typically not provide enough funding for this service.

Medicare plus as an Option for OON ClaimsAs you might expect, the challenges to using Medicare Plus to reprice claims that

fall outside of the primary PPO are fewer. The Plan language still needs to support

this type of payment application, but the employer’s responsibility for protecting

the patient may be less an issue. Employee education is still critical. As long as the

employees understand that if they choose to seek care from a provider not within

the primary PPO network (this will typically exclude urgent or emergent care),

they are responsible for any balance billing by the provider. That is not to say the

employer can’t still engage a service to intervene with the provider on behalf of the

employee/patient, but that can also undermine the value of having a primary PPO. It

will depend on the objectives of each employer in managing the Plan.

Make an Informed Decision

There appears to be a number of

organizations offering a Medicare Plus

repricing solution. Some appear to

suggest that this is a simple and easy

program to implement. unfortunately,

as you have seen from the information

above, it is a solution that needs to be

discussed carefully to determine if it

makes sense for your organization or

Clients. At this time, we don’t believe

it is for every employer, nor every

market. We do feel it can have a very

significant impact on health plan costs if

implemented thoughtfully, and with the

right support mechanisms in place. n

Corte Iarossi is the VP, Sales & Marketing

for United Claim Solutions (UCS).

He has over 20 years success in

the health insurance, managed care

and PPO markets. UCS is a Claims

Flow Management and Medical Cost

Reduction company located in Phoenix,

AZ. Corte can be reached at ciarossi@

unitedclaim.com. Special Thanks to Ron E.

Peck of The Phia Group


Stop Loss / Disability Income / Life / Limited Benefi t Medical

We are Stop Loss experts.And we don’t stop there.Discover Group Life & Disability Income Insurance from Symetra.

As a Stop Loss pioneer, you know us for our fl exible contracts and best-in-class claims service. Now we’re applying that same expertise and personalized approach to Group Life and Disability Income. We have expanded our capabilities including administrative services only (ASO) options for short-term disability as well as comprehensive Family Medical Leave Act (FLMA) and absence management programs—to provide more opportunity for your clients and you. To learn more about our entire suite of Employee Benefi ts, call 800.426.7784 or visit www.symetra.com.

Employee benefi ts are issued by Symetra Life Insurance Company, 777 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004 and are not available in all U.S. states or any U.S. territory. There is a minimum 90 day implementation period for FMLA and absence management.LMC-5586 4/12

Data Mining: Quick methods

to Cast the Widest, Effective Net in the Sea of Subro

by Erik Stremke


Data mining has come a long way in its depth and ease of use in the last decade. In many organizations, a data

mining dashboard is on most Claim and

risk Managers’ desktops. Many brokers

and Captive Managers can offer a data

mining evaluations for their clients.

With all of this data available, using it

to identify areas to increase recovery

dollars and decrease the loss ratio

further is the hard part.

Many Self-insureds, Captives and

rrgs have struggled with increasing

loss ratios/loss payments in the past

few years, and investment income isn’t

what it used to be. Cutting unallocated

Loss Expenses and Allocated Loss

Adjustment Expenses is ever present,

but it is still not enough.

Subrogation has been getting much

more attention in the last decade,

but rarely is it maximized. When

subrogation/recovery is maximized, it

can often exceed investment income

in the current environment. There still

is a lot of money left on the table. In

various studies, only 5-10% of claim

departments maximize recovery.

Subrogation/recovery is a specialized

area of claims. To harvest the most of

this sea of dollars, a plaintiff paradigm is

necessary, which is the opposite of the

rest of the claims world. Staff cuts and

hiring freezes significantly impact this.

Data mining can help. Self-Insureds,

Captives, and RRGs, all benefit.

Identifying claims with recovery

indicators is the starting point. use a

broad set of indicators first. Fish are

easier to throw out of the net, once in,

than catch in the first place. This can

be done on a daily basis, weekly basis,

or monthly depending on volume and

turnaround time. The claims with the

least indicators can be quickly reviewed

and confirmed for further recovery

activity, or removed from the net.

Once the initial culling is done, all

of the claims are promptly handled

by the assigned adjusters. This all can

be done in-house, outsourced, or as a

hybrid. These claims are then added to

the subrogation pending. With staffing

limitations, and rising pending counts,

outsourcing all or part of these claims

get the dollars in more quickly.

To ensure none of the fish can

be thrown out of the net without

confirming they are not suitable for

keeping, the ability to ‘close’ the file on

a system can be limited. Limiting the

closing process to a specific manual

action, that requires affirmative notes

in the system by the ‘closer’, removes

‘Pay and close’, or other automated

closing options. Claims with recovery

potential can still be closed in error. This

will reduce those, and the claims found

closed in error with the continued data

mining and review above, can be used

for training.

Data mining can then track what

ultimately are the most important

aspects – cycle time, dollars recovered,

and ‘ net back’ (if outsourcing, the actual

total dollars back after contingency fees.

This is not a direct result of the fee itself,

but the effectiveness of the outsourcing

party. A low fee does not guarantee

generally top results. The important

value measure is the total dollars the

organization has after the fees. ). Time

is money, cycle time, reduction from

payment to recovery, should be a

constant metric measured, as of course

the ‘net back’ dollars recovered.

The faster more dollars are

recovered, the sooner they impact

the loss experience. using industry

benchmarks compared with the mix of

business for the specific risk types, each

organization can measure results and

trends monthly, quarterly and annually.

A clear difference should be able to

be seen in one quarter on Auto and

Property, two to three quarters to see

the difference in Workers Comp. One

aspect in Workers Comp that has been

measured, is that Med Only claims

and other low severity claims $5000

or less are the most often overlooked

recovery. Because of the frequency,

the overlooking of these claims leave

significant dollars unrecovered with no

or little attempt at recovery.

Measuring results should be done

with total paid and total recovered for

accident or calendar year in the specific

product line (Auto, Property, Workers

Comp) as opposed to payments

identified for recovery. The total paid

dollars and total recovered dollars are

objective numbers. Payments identified

for recovery are subjective.

Industry benchmarks studies use

Total Paid and Total recovered. Because

loss control in the ArT market is

superior to the insurance market place,

ArT market recoverable dollars are

greater as a percentage of total paid

losses. Targets for Commercial Auto in

the ArT market are 27-29% of total

physical damage, comprehensive, and

cargo payments should be recovered.

Property and Workers Comp vary

depending upon property and

employee exposure to third party

negligence, however, that can be

determined by each organization in

comparison to industry benchmarks,

such as those available from NASP

(National Association of Subrogation

Professionals). The general ranges for

Property are 8-13% of total dollars

paid should be recovered. For Workers

Comp the range is 5-9% that should

be recovered. Workers Comp varies

the most. Data mining here can help

tremendously to really measure

the degree to which employees are

exposed to potential outside negligent

parties. The primary areas here will be

Auto Liability (drivers, delivery, repair,


servicing employees, at home nurses, etc.), Premises Liability, Products Liability, and vendors or other outside parties general Liability when on your premises.

Maximized subrogation/recovery can reduce the overall loss ratio by 3-5 points or equal 5-10 % of Total dollars paid in all lines. That is real money directly to your bottom line.

As an added bonus, to fully maximize recovery, a Closed File review can be done. This involves going backward in time to claims closed within the last 3-6 years, depending upon relevant statute of limitations for the specific line and states. This is a windfall of 3-5% of total dollars paid in the specific lines over the specific time period. This is a project that produces significant results within 1-2 quarters. Depending on the mix of business, that can be equal to another 2-3 point reduction in the overall calendar year loss ratio/experience. n

Erik Stremke has been in the Risk Transfer industry for 25 years. He has worked for large

carriers along with Self-Insureds, Insurers, Captives and TPAs as a service provider and

consultant. He has worked with ART programs and related claims for over a decade.

Erik has been previously published in the NASP Subrogator Magazine, Rough Notes,

and Captive Review. He has the CSRP designation, and has been responsible for claims

management, staff management, data mining claims information, subrogation, and

budget management from both the insurer side and the vendor side.

For additional information, please contact: Jake Harris, Vice President of Marketing • 610.828.3847 [email protected]

Member of Old Republic Companies

Excess Employers’ Liabilityfor Single Entities, Groups & Public Entities

Provided by an A.M. Best “A” (Excellent) XIV Rated Carrier

Excess Capacity • $5,000,000

Minimum Retention • $100,000 • Lower retentions may be considered

Self Insured GroupsPrefer stable & established (4 or more years), homogenous groups with common effective date. Claims and/or Underwriting Audit may be required.

Preferred Business Classes • Healthcare • Schools • Religious Institutions • Contractors • Utilities • Auto Dealers • Agricultural • Hospitality • Specialty Artisans • Manufacturing • • Public Entities • Retail / Wholesale • Transportation • Financial Institutions


Stop Loss insurance products are issued by ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (Minneapolis, MN) and ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York (Woodbury, NY). Within the state of New York, only ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York is admitted, and its products issued. Both are members of the ING family of companies. Product availability and specifi c provisions may vary by state. © 2011 ING North America Insurance Corporation. LG9841 12/28/2011

Not all Stop Loss carriers are created equal. Today’s businesses have unique needs that demand expert-level

service. That’s been the foundation of our Stop Loss offering from the beginning. We know it’s not just the plan;

it’s the team behind it.

Your business is unlike any other. It’s time for a Stop Loss carrier that’s unlike any other, too.

Becoming a top tier Stop Loss carrier doesn’t just happen. For 35 years, our dedication to creative solutions has made us the top choice for our clients.

For more information, contact your local ING sales representative or call us at 866-566-2316.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Your future. Made easier.®

We can’t stop misfortune.

We can stop loss.


Editor’s Note: The following story was recently published on the Self-Insurance World

Blog, where SIIA Chief Operating Officer Mike Ferguson offers original reporting and

commentary on legislative/regulatory issues affecting companies involved in the self-

insurance/alternative risk transfer marketplace. The blog can be accessed on-line at

http://self-insuranceworld.blogspot.com

The recent announcement of an industry coalition to push for federal legislation clarifying that the Nonadmitted and reinsurance reform Act (NrrA), included as part of the Dodd-Frank law, does not apply to captive insurance companies certainly sounds like a positive initiative. But

despite good intentions, this blog is skeptical that it will acheive the desired result.

We have actually been tracking this issue for some time and is aware of discussions that have taken place with key congressional sources regarding the viability of a possible legislative fix (two conversations as recent as yesterday). The consensus is that it could be done technically, but DC politics dictate that such an effort would be a heavy lift.

The political reality is that neither Democrats nor republicans have the appetite to open up the Dodd-Frank Law for any changes at this point.

Truth be told, congressional republicans don’t want to do anything to help the law actually work, as this was a highly partisan piece of legislation, much like the

Captives & Dodd-Frank – hitting the right Target

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The only way republicans would be motivated to even consider amending the legislation is if such action would substantively lessen the administrative burdens on the banking industry and provide certainty to the business community, especially small business.

Democrats, for their part, will be resistant to “technical amendment” legislation even if they support it in principle for fear that it would become a legislative vehicle where additional amendments would be grafted on with the intent of watering down the law.

And neither party wants to come back under fire from the powerful financial services industry lobby, which would surely happen if Dodd-Frank is opened back up – even for so-called technical fixes.


But just for the sake of argument,

let’s assume that legislation is

introduced and some co-sponsors

are lined up. Does that mean success

is any more likely? Probably not. To

understand this assessment, we need to

talk about the relative political power

of interest groups in DC.

While many of the larger lobbying

organizations active in DC have the

ability to block and/or shape legislation,

there are far fewer who have enough

political juice to get their own special

interest legislation passed through

Congress, no matter how limited. To

be blunt, the captive insurance industry

simply does not fit into this latter, more

exclusive group.

Finally, the country’s biggest captive

domiciles simply do not have powerful

congressional delegations with regard

to insurance-related issues, which could

potentially offset the deficiencies and

complications described above. That is

not to say these members of Congress

would not be forceful advocates, they

simply are not positioned to move

legislation envisioned by proponents of

this approach.

So does all this mean that there will

never be clarity relative to whether the

NrrA applies to captives? Well, it may

not to come from Congress for the

reasons we just explained, but it may

come from federal regulators as part of

the Dodd-Frank rule-making process.

In fact, this avenue is now being

actively explored by self-insurance

industry lobbyists. This strategy can best

be described as a “surgical strike,” as

opposed to an expensive and pro-longed

“land war,” which the congressional route

would surely become.

We’ll see if the political operatives

now engaged with the regulators can

hit the target. But at least an arguably

clearer path has been identified. n

In MemoryLaurence ‘Larry’ DayOctober 15, 1947 - October 23, 2012

It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of Larry Day,

beloved husband of Sharon Day, father to Aaron, Coby and reagan, and

grandfather to Ari, Samarah, Aidan, Tristan and Maci.

Larry lost his fight against a series of illnesses in the last several months

and through it all he showed his loved ones and his friends what he means

to show true courage and strength.

Larry and Sharon built the business together, “Stop Loss International”

(SLI), an insurance and re-insurance firm in Indiana. The firm grew from three

employees to 156.

Individuals in the self-funded business knew Larry as someone that led

that industry to new heights and in new directions. People that knew Larry

used words like “genius and innovator” when they described his knowledge,

keen insights and leadership in this complex field.

Larry and Sharon were true partners in life. Larry was the Political Science

Major and the individual that loved politics and through his passion he made it

Sharon’s passion in her path to become the republican National Committee

Co-Chair. It was Larry’s encouragement and support that were a major

influence in Sharon’s success and that helped make it possible. They were

politically active to the extent they supported Republican candidates financially,

but working 60 to 80 hours a week left no time to do anything more.

Those that love Larry want all to know that he was funny, passionate,

opinionated, stubborn, quick but short tempered, smart, and generous

beyond belief. Most of all we want all to know that Larry was someone that

loved deeply and was deeply loved. n

Courtesy of MyHealthGuide


PPAcA, HIPAA and Federal Health benefit mandates: Practical Q&AThe Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and other federal health benefit mandates (e.g., the Mental Health Parity Act, the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection Act, and the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act) dramatically impact the administration of self-insured health plans. This monthly column provides practical answers to administration questions and current guidance on PPACA, HIPAA and other federal benefit mandates.

health Coverage and the private exchange

Beginning in 2014, individuals will be able to select from a variety of coverage options made available through the State (or federal) based exchanges required under the Affordable Care Act.1 Many employers are also considering various ways to make multiple coverage options available to

employees, in some cases utilizing the State exchanges, and in other cases making

coverage available through so-called “private exchanges”. This article discusses

issues that may arise where a defined contribution approach (with or without a

health reimbursement arrangement or hrA) is used to make coverage available

through a public or private exchange arrangement.

What is a health Coverage exchangeSimply stated, a health coverage exchange is a marketplace established to

provide a selection of health coverage options. The “public exchange” generally

refers to the individual coverage made available to individuals through the American

Health Benefit Exchange or the group coverage made available to employers

through the Small Business health Options Program (ShOP).2 A private “exchange”,

however, has no set definition, and is generically used to refer to arrangements

under which employers make a variety of coverage options available to employees

through a pre-selected menu.


In some cases, an employer may offer multiple insured or self-funded benefit options (e.g., high deductible, hMO, PPO, etc) to employees and assign different subsidy levels toward the cost of coverage. historically, this type of “private exchange” arrangement has been common among larger employers. What is new, however, is the down-streaming of multiple benefit option arrangements enabling smaller employers to make different coverage options (perhaps with different carriers) available to employees.

Use of Defined Contribution approach to Minimize Financial exposure

A defined contribution approach generally enables employers to fix their financial contribution obligation yet enables employees to use the fixed contribution to select from a variety of benefit options. The defined contribution element provides funding for the purchase of coverage through the exchange “marketplace.” Employees can use allotted funds to select more or less comprehensive coverage to suit their individual preferences.

Not Every Defined Contribution arrangement is an hra

The hallmark of an hrA is that unused amounts carry forward into future coverage periods. Although many health plan service providers refer to their defined contribution “exchange” approach as an hrA, this is somewhat of a misnomer. Not every defined contribution approach incorporates a carryover feature for unused employer contributions. In many cases, the employer subsidy is made available solely to offset coverage in the current year with no carryover.

private exchanges and health Care reform Considerations

Many employers have considered making available a defined contribution approach that offers employees a choice of health (and possibly other) coverage options through individual insurance policies. Prior to 2014, great uncertainty exists because such “defined contribution” arrangements raise a number of compliance concerns under hIPAA’s nondiscrimination rules and practical coverage availability issues due to the impact of individual policy underwriting practices on employees with health concerns.

Beginning in 2014 (unless implementation is delayed), the Affordable Care Act requires that individual health coverage in the private market (both in and out of the public exchange) must be made available without regard to pre-existing conditions or health status. Some employers may see this as an opportunity to consider a defined contribution model (sometimes called a “pure defined contribution model”) under which employer subsidies may be made available strictly for individual health coverage options offered through a public or private exchange. This approach raises several compliance issues under the Affordable Care Act such as:

i) If the employer is an applicable employer (i.e., 50 or more FTE employees), will the employer’s subsidy for individual coverage options be considered to be adequate to satisfy the employer’s availability and affordability requirements under the “play or pay” requirement?3 In other words, will the defined contribution approach be considered to fulfill the minimum essential coverage, affordability, and minimum value requirements through an employer sponsored plan since the employer credits can only be used for qualifying

Integrating medical and business solutions for your organization

CPR Risk Management Services include: Case Management Utilization Management Disease Management Medical Underwriting/Cost Projections Claims Management Hospital Bill Audits Dialysis Cost Containment Underwriting

CPR Risk Management, Inc. services a wide spectrum of clients ranging from employer groups to reinsurers, including stop loss and first dollar products. We provide fully integrated, turn key medical management services, focusing on best practices, superior turn-around time and quality customer service. For more information call or visit our website.

Mary Pozuelo RN, LHRM, CMS Chief Executive Officer

1-727-565-2992

Merry Gann RN, LHRM, CCM, ABDA President

1-727-565-2993

www.cpr-rm.com

Our services can be provided as a primary solution or BACK-UP to your existing clinical staff


Think IHC Risk Solutions

BBuuillt ooonnn nnnannnccciaal sstrrrennngtth annd sttabiilityWith over $1 billion in assets and over 25 years in the stop-loss business, IHC Risk Solutions is a full service direct writer for self-insured employer groups in all 50 states.

Find us at www.ihcrisksolutions.com and on the NY Stock Exchange (NYSE:IHC).

At IHC Risk Solutions, our goal is to be the key to your success. As one of the nation’s largest medical stop-loss direct writers, we also understand that our producer partners don’t want to be surprised by coverage gaps. From the rst RFP submission through the renewal and everything in between, we strive for an uncomplicated and effortless process.

Producer-Centric

CCCCCoooosssttt SSSSSSaaaaavvviiinnnggg

SSSSSSooooollluuuutttiiiooonnns

22222255555 yyyyyeeeeaarrsooooooofffff SSSSStttooooppp-LLLosssEEEEEEEEExxxxxxppppeeerrrriieenncee

PPPPPPPaaaaarrrrrttttnnnnnneeeeerrrsshiipPPPPPPPPhhhhhhiillllooooosssooopphyy

IIIIInnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooovvvvvaaatttiivee FFFFFFFooooorrrrrwwwwwwwaaard-TTTTTTThhhhhhhiiinnnnnnkkiiinngg


health coverage (and not otherwise unreimbursed medical expenses)? It would seem that if the exchange includes at least one coverage option that satisfies the minimum essential coverage requirement,4 and the employer’s subsidy is high enough to satisfy the affordability requirement (i.e., employee’s out of pocket cost does not exceed 9.5% of W-2 compensation)5 that these requirements may be satisfied. But there is no clear guidance on this issue.

ii)Can employees pay for any excess cost of coverage through a pre-tax salary reduction? If the coverage is individual coverage offered through the government exchange, the answer would be no.6

iii)Will the availability of employer subsidized coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value be considered to be group health plan coverage that will cause the employee to be considered ineligible for federal subsidies through the federal exchange?7

iv)Will the employer’s defined contribution arrangement be considered a separate group health plan for purposes of the comparative effectiveness research (CEr) fee and the reinsurance fee?

As these issues are addressed, the defined contribution/individual policy exchange approach may prove to be a valuable tool for both employers and employees. n

Attorneys John R. Hickman, Ashley Gillihan, Johann Lee, and Carolyn Smith provide the answers in this column. Mr. Hickman is partner in charge of the Health Benefits Practice with Alston & Bird, LLP, an Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles, Charlotte and Washington, D.C. law firm. Ashley Gillihan, Carolyn Smith and Johann Lee are members of the Health Benefits Practice. Answers are provided as general guidance on the subjects covered in the question and are not provided as legal advice to the questioner’s situation. Any legal issues should be reviewed by your legal counsel to apply the law to the particular facts of your situation. Readers are encouraged to send questions by E-MAIL to Mr. Hickman at [email protected].

1Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1311(b)(1) (2010) (PPACA). If a State fails to make an exchange available a federally run exchange may be implemented. PPACA § 1321.

2Affordable Insurance Exchanges: Choices, Competition and Clout for States, Mar. 2012, available at http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/07/exchanges07112011a.html (as visited June 11, 2012). A summary of guidance and information regarding Exchanges is available on the National Conference of State Legislatures website – see American health Benefit Exchanges, available at http://www.ncsl.org/issuesresearch/health/american-health-benefit-exchanges.aspx. 3Code Section 4980h

4Code Section 5000A and 4980h.

5See discussion in health Insurance Premium Tax Credit, 26 CFr Parts 1 and 602,77 Fed. reg. 30377 (May 23, 2012)

6Code Section 125(f)(3)

7Code Section 36B and Treas. reg. § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(iii)(A).


by Dick Goff

arT gALLErYIndependent fiduciaries a boon to benefit plan sponsors

I tend to pay attention when Tess Ferrera speaks. A partner in the D.C. office of Schiff hardin, she is among the leading legal experts on ErISA plans and can make even a subject such as “new rules on prohibited transactions” interesting, as her seminar audience learned at this fall’s SIIA conference.

I learned about Ms. Ferrera’s candor a couple of years ago at a Washington conference on national health care reform. She opened her remarks by admitting that “nobody really knows how it will play out,” then added, “the only guarantee is that it’s going to be very messy to implement with three federal agencies writing new regulations that don’t necessarily preempt state insurance laws.”

When we spoke recently, Tess’s great concern was the lack of awareness among employee healthcare plan sponsors about the need to have independent fiduciaries keep an eye on their operations. In her typically pithy style, she said, “Trying to operate one of these plans without an outside fiduciary is like flying a plane through heavy clouds without instruments.” However, she is quick to note that the need for an independent fiduciary in the health care context typically is more critical in the smaller or Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement (MEWA) world where relationships between related entities can create inadvertent problems with ErISA’s technical rules on prohibited transactions between plans and persons or entities with close relationships to the plans.

I have to admit I hadn’t thought a lot about the role of independent fiduciaries in benefit plans. If I had considered plan governance at all, I suppose I would have believed that the usual professional service providers would have all the details covered, and in many instances they do. But this apparently can lead to big mistakes and big problems for plan sponsors who serve as their own fiduciaries – meaning the people who are responsible for financial accuracy and legality.

I sought an experienced independent fiduciary to learn more about the field and was guided to William Kropkof, head of the ERISA Advisory Group of henderson, Nevada. his track record includes several years with the Department of Labor (DOL) as investigator for the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA).

“Sponsors of employee health plans – either self-insured under ErISA or fully-insured -- all have their own businesses to run and can’t be expected to stay on top of the rapidly changing legal requirements,” Mr. Kropkof told me. “This is especially true in those circumstances where the government-regulated benefits landscape is drastically different now than it was even six months ago. Operating an employee plan is not a ‘set it and forget it’ matter, although I have found that this is the attitude of many plan sponsors.”

I asked Mr. Kropkof for some examples of how sponsors of employee health plans can find themselves in need of independent fiduciary services, and he provided me with a few case studies that I have summarized:

• A fully-insured plan serving small business owners came under investigation by the DOL. Its Office of the Solicitor sought the appointment of an

independent fiduciary to oversee operations and to continue with annual reviews, much to the relief of the sponsoring organization and its TPA.

• An ErISA plan was under investigation by the DOL. An independent fiduciary was appointed for a year as part of the settlement with the DOL to review all transactions involving the plan and to review ongoing operations to ensure that ErISA’s technical prohibited transaction rules were followed.

• A MEWA retained the services of an independent fiduciary to review its vendor contracts and to do a comparison of the administrative fees that the MEWA pays vendors to ensure that the contracts met the reasonable compensation requirement of ErISA for vendors.

• The DOL filed a criminal action against the owner/operator of a MEWA, alleging a number of ErISA violations. The court appointed an independent fiduciary to wind down the MEWA and marshal its assets to pay outstanding claims.

• A trade association that sponsors a MEWA retained the services of an independent fiduciary to review its service provider contracts. Service was expanded to include oversight of all trust operations and to review documents with respect to possibly setting up a captive insurance company.

Independent fiduciary services are typically provided in two stages: first, to


provide fiduciary audits and compliance reviews and then, if needed, to redesign the relationships or transactions to correct inadvertent violations of the highly technical ErISA prohibited transaction rules.

It’s my view that employee health plan sponsors would be well served to work with an independent fiduciary before they attract government attention. The earlier a problem can be solved, the cheaper will be the solution.

That’s an epitaph that could be carved on the gravestones of just about every failed benefit plan. n

Dick Goff is managing member of The Taft Companies LLC, a captive insurance management firm and Bermuda broker at [email protected]. Tess Ferrera a partner with Schiff Hardin LLP at [email protected]. William Kropkof is managing member of The ERISA Advisory Group at [email protected].


Alex Giordano

SIIA ChAIrMAN SPEAKSReflecting on 2012 Achievements

All too soon, it’s over. My tenure in SIIA volunteer leadership positions will conclude

at the end of this month as a new

leadership team takes the field for

2013. I have mixed emotions at

this conclusion of a very satisfying

chapter of my career.

My most powerful feelings

are those of pride in SIIA’s

accomplishments over recent

years, especially during these last

two years while serving as your

President and then Chairman of the

Board of Directors. Of course, in

an organization as complex as SIIA,

no individual can take much credit

for the achievements of a dedicated

volunteer leadership corps and a

talented and effective staff, so I am

reflecting here on the collective

work of many participants.

And I also have hopes for SIIA’s

further progress to even greater

achievements in future years.

But I begin with my points of

pride for this year as 2012 nears

its conclusion:

raising the Game That was our rallying cry and

theme for the Annual Conference

this fall but it was also the strategic

objective for the entire year.

Everyone who attended the

conference was blown away by

the dramatic, fast-paced video with

news-style sound bites reflecting

SIIA’s reach into federal and state

governmental actions this year.

We sued the state of Michigan in federal court over what we believe to be an illegal tax on federally-preempted self-insured employee health plans under ErISA – that suit is now in the appeal process after our initial setback. And we threatened in a California legislative hearing to take that state to court if it passed a bill that would inhibit employers’ ability to make meaningful use of stop-loss insurance for ErISA health plans. That bill was withdrawn from current consideration.

SIIA also participated in creating the knowledge base that federal agencies will use in regulating healthcare reform. We continually lobby key senators and members of the house of representatives on vital issues affecting SIIA members.

We didn’t just raise the game; we created a whole new game on a much more level playing field.

Larger company membersSIIA membership grew in 2012,

especially among the larger companies that bring increased economic leverage and political clout to our efforts. SIIA is now recognized as the place to be for business and for defending our industry.

Our political action Committee

SIIA’s PAC continues to grow in numbers and dollars. At the fall conference, 2012 PAC chairman Jay ritchie listed the support that has been provided to SIIA’s friends in Congress. And he didn’t back away from the reality that our PAC still

is outspent by larger committees who support conflicting views on important issues. “We’re feisty and we fight,” Jay told our members. “When we get in front of legislators our arguments usually sell them.”

The self-Insurance educational Foundation

SIEF has grown in the last two years into a broad-based educational effort directed to the u.S. Congress and other policy-makers.

As a charitable organization, as compared to a lobbying organization, SIEF is able to stage “lunch and learn” sessions for members of Congress and their staff for education on vital issues being addressed by current legislation. A good number of these sessions have been held to illuminate self-insurance principles and practices.

The Grassroots ConnectionThis is one of my favorites – a

formalized program to encourage and manage contact by SIIA members with their senators and representatives on Capitol hill or in their home districts. So far, the results are encouraging. Policy-makers who didn’t “get” self-insurance are hearing from their constituents how important it is for businesses and jobs in their districts. This program is open to all SIIA members, and it is managed by SIIA’s Washington staff that sets up meetings, provides policy briefing materials and attends the meetings if needed.

That’s just skimming the surface. I’m also proud of the ever-increasing quality and content of our meetings


and conferences, along with the advocacy and educational efforts of our committees. I can’t think of any SIIA function that hasn’t shown meaningful improvement in these recent years, and the pace of change continues to accelerate.

As to my hopes for SIIA’s future, I’m looking forward to increased achievements among all of those factors listed above. More money, more members, more advocacy and more defense and promotion of self-insurance and alternative risk transfer.

As we say in SIIA, we don’t really change leaders each year ; we just add new ones to a corps that continues to give their time and talent to our cause. So I won’t be saying goodbye but certainly good luck to our new leaders taking us into 2013. n

For now,

©2011 Xerox Corporation and Affiliated Computer Services Inc. All rights reserved. ACS® and the ACS design are trademarks of ACS Marketing LP in the United States and/or other countries. XEROX® and XEROX and Design® are trademarks of the Xerox Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.

ACS Recovery Services for your cost containment needs

To learn more, call 847.755.7452 or email [email protected]

Self-funded benefit plan administrators are continuously faced with escalating healthcare costs and are challenged with finding ways to contain them. Having an effective subrogation and overpayment program is an important aspect of healthcare cost containment. ACS, A Xerox Company, is a pioneer in the subrogation and overpayment industry. ACS Recovery Services backs up its services with more than 25 years of success in the healthcare cost containment industry. We offer industry leading results and flexible solutions that work for you. Our superior industry experience and knowledge allows you the freedom to focus on what you do best— your real business.

www.wspactuaries.com | Email: [email protected]


SIIA New Members

regular MembersCompany Name/

Voting representative

Martin Eveleigh, Chairman,

Atlas Insurance Management, Charlotte, NC

Allen McLean, vice President, Carlisle Medical,

Mobile, AL

Thomas Klages, Executive Director,

Cooperative Managed Care Services, LLC, Indianapolis, IN

Michael Edwards, President,

Matrix Group Benefits, LLC, Falmouth, ME

Paula Beersdorf, President,

Sun risk Management, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL

employer Members

greg roadifer, President,

Associated Employers group, Billings, MT

SIIA would like to recognize our leadership and welcome new members Full SIIA Committee listings can be found at www.siia.org

2012 Board of Directors

ChAIRmAn of ThE BoARD* Alex giordano, vice President of Marketing Elite underwriting Services Indianapolis, IN

PRESIDEnT* John T. Jones, Partner Moulton Bellingham PC Billings, MT

VICE PRESIDEnT oPERATIonS* Les Boughner, Executive vP & Managing Director Willis North American Captive + Consulting Practice Burlington, vT

VICE PRESIDEnT fInAnCE/ChIEf fInAnCIAl offICER/ CoRPoRATE SECRETARy* James E. Burkholder, President/CEO health Portal Solutions San Antonio, TX

Committee Chairs

ChAIRmAn, AlTERnATIVE RISk TRAnSfER Andrew Cavenagh, President Pareto Captive Services, LLC Conshohocken, PA

ChAIRmAn, GoVERnmEnT RElATIonS Horace Garfield, vice President Transamerica Employee Benefits Louisville, KY

ChAIRwomAn, hEAlTh CARE Elizabeth Midtlien, Senior vice President, Sales StarLine uSA, LLC Minneapolis, MN

ChAIRmAn, InTERnATIonAl greg Arms, Global Head, Employee Benefits Practice Marsh, Inc. New York, NY

ChAIRmAn, woRkERS’ ComPEnSATIon Skip Shewmaker, vice President Safety National St. Louis, MO

Directors

Ernie A. Clevenger, President Carehere, LLC Brentwood, TN

ronald K. Dewsnup, President & general Manager Allegiance Benefit Plan Management, Inc. Missoula, MT

Donald K. Drelich, Chairman & CEO D.W. van Dyke & Co. Wilton, CT

Steven J. Link, Executive vice President Midwest Employers Casualty Company Chesterfield, MO

Elizabeth D. Mariner, Executive vice President re-Solutions, LLC Wellington, FL


Self-Insurer Dec 2012

Documents

Transcript of Self-Insurer Dec 2012