All GH Specialty COPY COPY Flashcards
Types of people risk
- [I]ndirect employment-related risks: the risk that the wrong people are employed, retained, or promoted
- [A]dverse selection: the risk that the demand for insurance will be positively correlated with the risk of loss
- [M]oral hazard: the risk that people who are insured will be less likely to avoid risk
- [A]gency risk: the risk that a party that is appointed to act on behalf of another will instead act on its own behalf
- [B]ias: type of systemic risk
> Deliberate bias can arise if key risks are intentionally omitted or downplayed
> Unintentional bias may occur due to overconfidence in one’s ability to complete a difficult task
AB AMI
Sweeting Ch. 7
Policy barriers that make it difficult for CO-OPs to compete in the health insurance market
ACA provisions:
> CO-OPs are prohibited from using federal funds for marketing
> “Substantially all” business must be derived from the individual and small-group markets. This makes it harder for CO-OPs to enter the large employer market, which tends to be a bigger and more stable source of revenue
Decisions made by federal policymakers during implementation of this program
> Budget agreements with Congress slashed the program’s $6 B allotment down to $2.4 B
> States were allowed to permit individuals and small employers to remain enrolled, for a transitional period, in their pre-ACA policies. As healthy enrollees stayed on their plans, a sicker risk pool was left for insurers selling on the marketplaces
3. Another budget agreement late in 2014 disabled the ACA’s risk corridor program by requiring it to be budget neutral. As a result, payouts to insurers with losses were only 12.6% of what had been expected
GHS-122-18
Methodology used to develop the Arizona Medicaid risk adjustment model
- Model selected: Symmetry’s Episode Risk Groups (ERG) model
- Type of data used: diagnosis codes and procedural information from medical data and NDC codes from pharmacy data
- Data timing: three months of claim run-out was used
- Eligibility groups: risk adjustment was applied to prospective, non-reconciled risk groups
- Model calibration: the model was recalibrated by developing risk weights through a linear regression model based on Arizona Medicaid data, and then credibility weighting those rates with the model’s original risk weights
- Geographic issues: risk adjustment will take place at the geographical service area and risk group level
- Individual approach: risk scores calculated during the experience period will follow the individual during the rating period. This will accurately reflect movement of individuals between health plans
- Risk factors are updated once per year
- Risk factors for new members: members with at least six months of enrollment (“long” cohort) during the experience period will be given a claims-based risk factor. Other members (“short” cohort) will be given a risk factor that is the average of an age-gender factor and an adjusted plan factor
> Adjusted plan factor = (average ERG risk score of long cohort / pure age-gender factor of long cohort) * pure age-gender factor of short cohort - Phase-in: risk adjustment is being phased in such that only 80% of the 2009 rate is risk adjusted
- Risk factors for newborns: a different approach is needed because newborns have no prior year claims from which to develop condition-based risk scores. Claims of the prior cohort of newborns in the experience period are used to project newborn experience in the rating period
Duncan Ch. 13 (Risk)
Definition and aspects of risk treatment
- Definition of risk treatment: the process of selecting actions and making decisions to transfer, retain, limit, and avoid risk
- Aspects of risk treatment:
> Determining risk [T]olerance
> Choosing risk [A]ppetites
> Setting risk [L]imits
> Performing [R]isk mitigation activities
> Optimizing organizational [O]bjectives relative to risk
TORAL
ASOP #47
Definitions of sensitivity and specificity
When building clinical identification algorithms the proper balance between sensitivity and specificity must be found
- Sensitivity: the percentage of members correctly identified as having a condition (“true positives”)
- Specificity: the percentage of members correctly identified as not having a condition (“true negatives”)
Duncan Ch. 4 (Risk)
Options for allocating the benefits of diversification
- Allocating the full stand-alone capital requirement to each line and retaining the diversification benefit centrally
- Giving the full benefit of diversification to the new line of business that triggers the benefits
- Allocate the benefit in proportion to the stand-alone capital requirements by LOB
- Euler capital allocation principle: consider the marginal contribution of each additional unit of business to the overall capital required. For example: if the required economic capital is proportional to the SD of a loss, then allocate risk capital for a given line of business in proportion to the following ratio:
> The cov. between the loss in that line and total loss
> Divided by the SD for the total loss
Sweeting Ch. 18
Calculation of risk charge for disability income
The risk charege is the sum of:
1. A factor multiplied by earned premium. The factors vary by coverage
Coverage Type $0-50 M $50 M +
Non-Canc. Ind 35% 15%
Other Ind 25.00% 7.00%
Group LT 15% 3.00%
Group ST 5.00% 3.00%
> In applying factors, both individual products are combined and both group products are combined, but the individual and group products are not combined with one another
> For each of individual and group, the largest factor is applied first
2. 5% of claim reserves
Skwire Ch. 39
Approaches for defining coverage periods for health reinsurance
- “Losses occurring during”: claims are covered only if they occur during the agreement year, regardless of the effective date of risks accepted by the insurer. It is most commonly used for excess arrangements
- “Risk attaching”: provides that the reinsurance period for each underlying risk from the insurer coincides with the insurer’s policy year. Is commonly used for proportional reinsurance
GHS-117-16
Components of an MTM program for Part D
- Performing or obtaining necessary [A]ssessments of the patient’s health status
- Formulating a medication treatment [P]lan
- Selecting, initiating, modifying, or administering medication {T}herapy
- Monitoring and evaluating the patient’s [R]esponse to therapy
- Performing a comprehensive medication [R]eview to identify, resolve, and prevent medication-related problems
- [D]ocumenting the care delivered and communicating essential information to the patient’s other primary care providers
- Providing verbal [E]ducation and training designed to enhance patient understanding and appropriate use of medications
- Providing information, support services, and resources to enhance patient [A]dherence to drug regimens
- [C]oordinating and integrating MTM services with other health care management services
TRADE CARP
Duncan Ch. 3
Practical issues with applying risk adjustment models
- Risk transfer models generally assume that risk and cost are correlated, so a 1% increase in risk is assumed to increase costs by 1%. But not all cost-risk relationships are linear. As a result, these models overcompensate some plans and undercompensate others
- The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) identified the following issues related to MEdicare HCCs:
> Although the CMS-HCC risk adjusters map diagnosis codes to 189 HCCs, only 70 HCCs are actually [U]sed for risk scoring
> There is considerable [V]ariation within HCCs in terms of patient severity and experience
> Certain [R]acial groups and income levels are likely to be higher consumers of healthcare, but this is not reflected in the model
> Because the model only uses [O]ne year of data for determining risk scores, for some chronic conditions the model under-predicts since the patient doesn’t have a claim each year
> The standard model does not include a factor for the [N]umber of conditions. But MedPAC has found that this factor would lead to more accurate predictions - Several issues exist in ACA risk adjustment
UV RON
Duncan Ch. 21 (Risk)
Common features of Medicare prospective payment systems
- A system of [A]verages: providers cannot expect to make a profit on each case, but efficient providers can make a reasonable return on average
- Increased [C]omplexity: DRGs are more complicated than a system based on per diem payments
- [R]elative weights: associated with each patient group to reflect the average resources used by efficient providers
- Conversion [F]actor (base price): the dollar amount for a unit of services. Is multiplied by the relative weight to determine payment
- [O]utliers: unusual cases that require above-average resources and receive extra payments
- [U]pdates: the conversion factor and relative weights are adjusted annually to reflect new technologies and changing practice patterns
- Access and [Q]uality: policymakers monitor PPSs and survey patients to ensure that beneficiaries have adequate access to high quality care and that providers are compensated adequately
QUA CORF
Duncan Ch. 6 (Risk)
Ways in which provider group-based ACOs are expected to generate savings
- The practice should implement “[C]are coordination” to manage the care of the patients who need additional services
- [A]ccess to integrated medical records and consistent management by the physician should reduce the need for tests
- The ACO should develop a [N]etwork of efficient providers and limit the use of less efficient providers
- The focus on quality should result in fewer [U]nnecessary services and better population health
CAN U
Duncan Ch. 22 (Risk)
Additional challenges faced by CO-OPs when they began operations
- To meet regulatory requirements on short deadlines, CO-OPs had to outsource critical functions such as claims adjudication, customer call centers, and provider networks
- CO-OPs had to decide whether to offer platinum-level coverage, which has lower cost sharing and therefore attracts consumers with significant health needs. Half of the CO-OPs studient offered these plans initially, but then later reversed this decision
- CO-OPs were at a pricing disadvantage since they did not have historical claims data with which to price. And many of them did not have experienced actuaries on staff
- CO-OPs may also be at a disadvantage in the risk adjustment program. To be successful with risk adjustment, an insurer must record every diagnosis of every member, but this is a challenge for CO-OPs who have not yet built the data capacity needed
GHS-122-18
Components of the Risk Management Economic Model
- [P]revalence of different chronic diseases
- the [C]ost of the chronic disease
- [P]ayer risk - the most savings for the plan will come when the plan is at financial risk for all of the patient’s costs
- [T]argeting and risk - members should be prioritized based on the probability of experiencing the targeted event. Those with the highest risk ranks will be selected for the program
- [E]stimated cost of the target event
- [C]ontact rate - the rate at which the company is able to make contact with targeted members
- [E]ngagement or enrollment rate
- Member [R]e-stratification rates - the initial risk of the member will be re-stratified after the nurse interacts with the member and assesses the member’s risk. Factors that affect whether the member should be re-stratified include the accuracy of the diagnosis, risk factors present, the ability of the DM program to intervene for the condition, the patient’s readiness to change, and the patient’s self-management skills
CREPT PEC
Duncan Ch. 8
Major publishers of health care quality measures
- National Quality Forum (NQF): has the lead responsibility in the US for determining which heatlh care quality measures should be recognized as national standards. Operates under a three-part mission to improve the quality of healthcare by:
> Building consensus on national priorities and goals for performance improvement
> Endorsing national consensus standards for measuring and publicly reporting on performance
> Promoting the attainment of national goals through education and outreach programs - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: developed a set of QIs (Quality Indicators) which use hospital data to highlight potential quality concerns. The QIs include IP, prevention, patient safety, and pediatric indicators
- Joint Commission: the primary accrediting body for hospitals, nursing homes, and other care facilities
- CMS: works with health care providers to develop measures of quality. Has the ability and the funding to sponsor various quality initiatives
- Hospital Quality Alliance: formed to develop performance measures of hospital care. One of its products is the “Hospital Compare” website
- Measures Applications Partnership: a public-private partnership convened by the NQF to provide input on the selection of performance measures for public reporting and performance-based payment programs
- American Medical Association Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement: a physician-led consortium focused on clinical quality improvement and patient safety
Duncan Ch. 4 (Risk)
Characteristics and skills of a CRO
- CROs come from various disciplines, including legal, auditing, strategic planning, investor relations, line-operation management, and hazard risk management
- For insurance organizations, insurance, actuarial, and accounting backgrounds are assets
- Excellent communication skills are important
- Key background skills center on math, statistics, finance, and accounting
- A recent survey rated the ability to understand business issues as the most important skill
- A broad health care and business background is also important
GHS-123-18
Factors other than health status that affect drug utilization
- Plan and physician [P]rescribing patterns
- [C]ost sharing features
- Drug [U]tilization management features
- Proclivities of providers for using drug versus non-drug [T]reatments for a medical condition
- The [I]ncome level of enrollees
CUTIP
GHS-120-17
Models typically used to stratify members in a care management program
- Stratify members according to the predictive risk [S}core - but at the top of that list are many members who represent a low opportunity for cost savings. Additionally there is a diverse mix of conditions and demographics that make it hard to select an appropriate intervention.
- [C]ondition-specific model - focus on members with a specific condition, such as diabetes. But any program targeted at a specific condition may miss the greater opportunity of addressing the co-morbid conditions of that population
- [R]ules-based approach - clinicians use a set of rules to identify patients for care management. But the literature suggests that clinicians are not particularly good at identifying patients for management. Also, regression to the mean is likely.
Opportunity analysis is designed to address the shortcomings of these models.
SRC
Duncan Ch. 9
Steps for developing a risk map
This is a visual aid to depict the frequency of occurrence and possible severity of an organization’s risks
- [I]dentify the risks to be analyzed and their correlation to all other risks
- [D]evelop the threshold of acceptable exposure: this often varies based on the specific risk. And it relates to risk appetite
- [E]valuate the [s]everity of impact if a risk event occurred and identify what percentage of the organization would be impacted
IDEs
GHS-123-18
Calculation of average per capita expenditure for ACOs
- Expenditures are calculated for ACO-assigned beneficiaries separately for the following Medicare enrollment types:
> ESRD
> Disabled
> Aged/dual
> Aged/non-dual - Expenditures are defined as total Med Part A and B FFS payments from any provider for SSP-eligible months
- Claims are assessed after three months of run-out. And a CF is applied by CMS
- Average per capita expenditure = SUM(claims^k * t^k)/SUM(t^k)
> The k values represent the different beneficiaries, and t^k is the exposure period of the kth ben
> This calc is done separately for each combo of Medicare enrollment type and benchmark and performance year
Duncan Ch. 22 (Risk)
LTC pricing assumptions that missed the mark and lead to the insolvency of Penn Treaty
- Lapse rates: when the policyholder voluntarily stops paying premiums, rates were lower than expected
> [L]apse rate assumptions for LTC insurance was mostly based on history of lapses on annuities which turned out to be too high - [M]ortality: death either before or during receipt of LTC benefits. Mortality was lower than expected
> Assumptions were based on general population data, and not adjusted for the healthier people that were choosing to purchase the insurance (anti-selection) - [I]nterest rates: premiums invested and accumulate interest. Interest rates have been low since the ‘08 financial crisis
> Assets that were intended to coincide with the lapse and mortality assumptions matured too early relative to the intended risk they would cover. This also led to lower rates - Claim [I]ncidence: likelihood that a policyholder will require LTC
- Benefit utilization: what % of the daily limit does the insured use while receiving LTC
- Claim [T]ermination: likelihood of recovery for a policyholder already receiving LTC benefits
(The last 3 assumptions led to claim costs that were significantly higher than expected)
U LIMIT
GHS-127-19
Types of systemic risk
- [F]inancial infrastructure: e.g., a bank unable to pay back loans from other banks
- [L]iquidity risk: can become systemic if run on banks occurs
- [C]ommon market positions: feedback risk is the risk that a change in an investment’s price will result in further changes in the same direction. This could impact all investors who have a common investment position
- [E]xposure to a common counter-party: risk that a relatively small failure will cascade through several layers of investors
CLEF
Sweeting Ch. 7
Recommended practices for actuarial communications
- Actuarial communications should meet the following [R]equirements:
> The form and content of the communication must be appropriate for the given circumstance
> The communication should be clear
> Each communication should be issued within a reasonable time period
> All actuaries responsible for the communication should be clearly identified - The actuary should complete an actuarial report if the actuary intends the findings to be [R]elied upon by any intended user
- Some circumstances (such as regulations) may [C]onstrain the content of an actuarial report. In these cases, the actuary should follow the guidance of this standard to the extent reasonably possible
- The actuary should recognize the risk of unintended [U]sers misusing an actuarial document, and should take reasonable steps to ensure it is clear and presented fairly
CURR
ASOP #41
Recommended financial metrics for EHM programs
- Directly-monetized claim savings - one of the following metrics should be selected
> Cost trend compared with industry peers: compares trend to peers without EHM
> Adjusted-expected compared to actual cost trend: compares observed and expected trends. The adjusted-expected trend is the product of:
– trend components that are impactible by EHM (util and risk net of demographics) these are forecasted before the year
– Trend components that are non-impactible by EHM (demographics, price per unit, and plan design)
> Chronic vs. non-chronic trend comparison: used for disease management. Compares expected trend (from the non-chronic population) to observed trend (from the chronic population)
> Cost or trend comparison of program participants vs non-participants: compares cost trajectories of the two groups, after neutralizing the impact of non-EHM differences
> Comparison with matched controls in a non-exposed population: compares cost trajectories of members who meet criteria for EHM program targeting in the employer’s population with members who meet criteria in a comparison population that does not have an EHM program - The monetized impact on utilization that is potentially preventable by EHM: monetizes a downward trend in ER and hospital visits and procedures that can be prevented by EHM
- Financial impact based on a model that links to what occurred during the program and characteristics of program participants
- Reduction or prevention of lifestyle-related health risk factors: relates reduction in or prevention of lifestyle-related health risk factors to published evidence on the economics of preventing and reducing such risk factors
GHS-125-19