Laserfiche WebLink
chment for Request for <br /> .iF.' 5 <br />~Lober ll, 1979 <br /> <br />,rd Action <br /> <br />4. FLEXIBILITY <br />It may be that the principals upon which an HMO must operate and flexibility <br />in plan design and administration of claims are contradictory. PHP is an <br />Individual Practice Association (IPA) and as such must apply strict cost control <br />because of its less structured atmosphere when compared to a clinic based HMO. <br />This, coupled with its early financial problems, have led to a hard line in regard <br />to claims administration. Perhaps PHP perceives this as necessary to compete and <br />survive. The County's concern is that this not lead to communication problems <br />with employees or denial of necessary (in the subjective medical sense) out-of-plan <br />medical services. The post bid meeting did little to lead the County to believe <br />further flexibility would be forthcoming. <br /> <br />The problem of the lack of freedom of choice in medical care as it relates to <br />out-of-plan services is a characteristic of all HMOs. We do not want to unfairly <br />single out PHP as being inflexible in regard to out-of-plan service approval. <br />Our recognition of a larger number of such problems may relate to the larger <br />enrollment in PHP by County employees and to the structure of an IPA's claim <br />administration which may create more visible situations. During the next few <br />weeks, the County's consultant, Risk Manager and Benefits Administrator will <br />develop a set of requirements for improvement in data available, renewal rating <br />procedures, communications, and the acknowledgement of the need for flexibility. <br />PHP will be expected to improve its performance in order for its contract with <br />the County to be reviewed on January l, 1981. <br /> <br />MCHP <br />The problems with MCHP relate to the "governmental load" it places on the County's <br />capitation rates, an apparent lack of enthusiasm to service the County's administrative <br />needs, and its unwillingness to provide separate rates for Medicare Supplement benefits. <br /> <br />1. RATE JUSTIFICATION <br />MCHP was questioned during 1978 as to why its rates for County employees were so <br />much higher than those offered to private employees. The response came from MCHP's <br />consulting actuary through Stephen K. Goldstone, Executive Director of MCHP. The <br />actuary's memo states: "While I have found no direct health cost comparisons, <br />there do exist studies giving other morbidity characteristics by industry." A <br />single study was cited which related to disability days that shows an average total of <br />acute conditions per 1000 covered persons to be 168.9 persons on the average, but <br />202.1 for Public Administration. <br /> <br />Our concern is that the study referred to is too general with no appropriate <br />relationship to the Gounty's demographics and referred to disability frequencies <br />and acute care days and not directly 'to health care costs. The disability data <br />was questionably translated into health care costs and although valuable to the <br />insurance industry~ it does not necessarily nor logically follow that this should <br />be the basis for establishing HMO capitation rates. <br /> <br />To avoid this use of generalized data for justification, the specifications for <br />this year's bids required data on higher utilization of government workers with <br />similar demographics to the County's. The "similar demographics" is meaningful <br />because County enrollees in Med Center are significantly younger, on the average, <br />than County employees enrolled in PHP or the BCBS indemnity plan. MCHP enrolls <br />a large percentage of single females with a relatively low average age. The bid <br />response referenced the previous general data. When asked for specific data, the <br />County was advised its employees utilized the clinic's facilities at an above <br /> <br /> <br />