Avoiding Emotional Investing or Just say “No” to IPOs

23 May

Last Friday the 2nd largest IPO in US history (VISA- [V-NYSE] being the largest IPO launching in March 2008) hit the market with Facebook Inc shares (FB- NYSE) trading for the first time publicly. Many “regular” investors had been waiting for this moment to buy the stock, as the “privileged” investors (those granted shares at the IPO price of $38.00) had already been assured of their purchases. Indeed, a physician client’s wife phoned me just after the stock started trading Friday telling me her husband would like some shares. I had no intention on buying shares in my client’s portfolios that I manage and fortunately, after a ten-minute conversation I was able to discourage her from making the purchase. While shares hit in the $42 territory the first day of trading (as of this writing) shares closed at $31.00 just two trading sessions later. What went wrong?

A number of things did not smell right after the FB launch on Friday morning, but that is not the point. As a rule, I would recommend to any long-term investor to avoid buying any IPO on the first days of trading. Yes, you will miss the scant “good deal” but you will save yourself many headaches in the end.

Issues with a new publically traded company (IPO):

  1. No track record of the stock
  2. No or very little credible public research available on the company
  3. Company founders are typically liquidating some/all of their ownership
  4. IPO price usually only available to institutional investors, not “regular” investors

Working 19 years for two major brokerage firms as a stockbroker, I learned one important lesson about IPOs: You will never get much if any allocation of the “good” ones. Let me explain. When a company hires an underwriter (Morgan Stanley in the case of Facebook), a price is set the night before the company first trades. This price, the IPO offering price, is the price at which all those granted an allocation would pay for the stock. The underwriter is the Santa Claus that awards the allocation to all the other firms, which then offer the shares at the IPO price to their clients. The Branch Manager of the retail brokerage firm office then awards shares of the IPO to the brokers in the office. As a broker, you would always hope to get a larger allocation of shares. Sadly, on the good deals, our entire office might receive a token 50 shares of an IPO deal, and that would go straight to the big producer in the office. On deals that our office was allocated thousands or tens of thousands of shares, you knew that the deal was going to fall flat. The reason the retail allocation was high was that the institutional firms (the “big boys”) passed. Take away: As an investor, you do not want shares of any IPO under most any circumstances, especially if you are able to get the IPO price. Unless you are a prime client sitting on a multimillion-dollar account with a Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley, you are most likely getting a sucker’s bet if your broker offers you shares of an IPO at the IPO price.

The biggest problem with IPO investing is that it is emotional investing. The investor remembers the time the “big one got away” and decides that the next time that will not happen. I have seen normal rational people willing to invest a disproportionate amount of their portfolio in an unproven IPO because they “missed Google” or “missed LinkedIn”. Emotional investing almost always turns out ugly. Most investment mistakes are really investor mistakes. One reason my physician clients hire me is because they have no desire or interest in making the many investment decisions that make up their portfolio and would prefer using a professional instead. The best way to avoid investment mistakes is to hire a real fiduciary financial planner that has your interests at heart.

What are You Paying in Taxes?

21 May

We all probably think “income tax” when we consider our individual tax burden. However, you pay a lot more in taxes than just your income tax. Consider the following:

  • Federal Income Tax
  • State Income Tax
  • Social Security Tax
  • Medicare Tax
  • Self-Employment Tax
  • Alternative Minimum Tax
  • Real Estate / Property Tax
  • Electricity Tax
  • Natural Gas Tax
  • Cable Tax
  • Federal Landline Phone Tax
  • State Landline Phone Tax
  • Federal Cell Phone Tax
  • State Cell Phone Tax
  • Hotel Accommodations Tax
  • Cigarette Tax
  • Sales / Use Tax
  • Other Personal Property Taxes
  • Automobile Property / Excise Tax

Understanding the other more than 20 taxes that you most likely pay will help you think differently about a number of things, including  your buying habits, to where you choose to live and work, to the kind of car you drive. The American Institute of CPAs has developed a free calculator called Total Tax Insights (http://www.totaltaxinsights.org/Calculator ) that you can easily plug in some basic information on yourself and get an approximate figure and breakdown complete with a pie chart on your tax payments. The answer may surprise you but the information should be helpful in your tax and financial planning decisions. I found it useful to change some variables after my first report to see the approximate changes and possible reductions I could make to my tax bill.

Physicians: Is your Retirement Capital Sufficient?

2 May

Optimal Method for Determining Retirement Income Needs and Social Security Benefits

Retiring today can be exciting and yet also frightening for many physician couples and individuals. The prospects of having the freedom to enjoy a new carefree life is mingled with the fear of the unknown. Even physician retirees express fear of running out of money as one of their greatest concerns. Obviously, proper planning for retirement involves the proper methodology for the calculation of future retirement expenses. Another major decision for a couple is determining when to start taking Social Security benefits. Simply taking Social Security as soon as eligibility allows can be foolish when considering all factors such as longevity and integration with both spouses.

Proper retirement cash-flow projections involve more than simply taking a ratio of pre-retirement income needs. The use of a lifecycle model provides best estimates for determining expenses in retirement and likewise provides a better tool for accessing proper wealth accumulation for retirement. The standard use of replacement rates by financial planners in calculating a pre-retirees income needs in retirement is flawed. Scholz, Seshadri and Khitatrakun argue that often households will receive substantial shocks in middle and older ages due to expenses miscalculated by simply taking a ratio of early preretirement costs (615). Healthcare costs are a good example of an expense that will continue to climb at a disproportionate rate in retirement. In addition, financial planning rules of thumb like replacement rates ignore the role of children in retirement planning and do not fully comprehend single individuals compared to married couples. Scholz, Seshadri and Khitatrakun make an interesting point in the errors of using a broad replacement ratio in comparing two different married couples, one couple with children and the other couple being childless, as their preretirement consumption rates are different (615).

The lifecycle model takes into consideration the uncertainties of lifespan, income needs, and old age health shocks in determining expenses in retirement. These are important considerations for retiring physicians and their spouses to consider as often the nest egg built for retirement is considerable yet can rapidly deplete if longevity is combined with poor health. The authors of the research propose that households will best determine expense needs in retirement by discounting the consumption choices from the lifecycle model across periods of their retirement, rather than one lump timeframe. Later years in retirement have higher expenses. The article points out complicated calculations (Appendix 1 -8) based on different earnings distributions and drawing periods to show the variation and likewise utility of employing lifecycles and their relevant expenses during retirement planning. This cannot be done by simple rule of thumb estimates.

By using data provided by the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) conducted by the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Scholz, Seshadri and Khitatrakun point out that older Americans are, for the most part, preparing reasonably for retirement when using lifecycle modeling, while younger Americans are probably not on target for proper retirement expenses (637). Households may have variations in future variables which can include rate of return, life expectancy, future bequests intentions and future reductions in the Social Security system which the HRS data does not fully comprehend (636). The ability of households to comfortably weather large out of pocket future medical costs however is something the authors admit the lifecycle model is not able to accurately forecast or predict.

The life cycle model, as presented by Scholz, Sechadri and Khitatrakun, is defined in clearer age bands by Somnath Basu with the assumption that the typical retiree lives about 30 years in retirement, presumably age 65 to 95 (Basu 30). Basu suggests that the retirees segregate expenses into categories such as taxes, living expenses, health care and leisure and then calculate the anticipated expenses in the year of expected retirement for each expense, with an adjustment to these amounts that reflects post retirement lifestyle changes.

Then these amounts are extrapolated in Basu’s formula through 30 years of retirement using appropriate rates of inflation and then present value of the post-retirement expenses are calculated to arrive at an amount to fund the costs of the next decade. Proper risk levels can then be used with proper rates of return (31). By this method, a retiring couple can calculate retirement cash flow needs without placing extra burdens on their current savings rates as in a typical retirement income calculation in a typical financial plan that uses a form of the replacement ratio method to calculate these future expenses.

In a traditional approach, the planner also uses a reduced rate of return for the portfolio because there is the assumption that the retiree has a high degree of risk aversion. With Basu’s method of age banding, the benefit is that the retiree can employ a separation of the portfolios based on the age band, which allows the retiree to seek higher rates of return. This enables lower savings for the retiring physician, which is a more suitable and reasonable approach.

It is safe to say that there will be flaws in any retirement expense-forecasting model when considering unexpected costs such as health care or unexpected longevity. Also, assumptions about expenditure patterns at various future life cycles in retirement can be guess at best. Will I really spend more at age 70 than I do at age 85 in retirement? However, the use of a lifecycle model best approximates the retirement needs of individuals planning their financial futures as it breaks the retirement period into cycles of expenses.

Social Security Benefits and the Physician

In considering the best method for determining when a couple should start taking Social Security, several important factors should be considered. For most physician couples, the addition of the Social Security benefit does not make or break the ability to retire comfortably. I will often show a financial plan no consideration of the Social Security benefit to reflect a more conservative view of retirement income. But the decision on when to start taking the benefit is relevant when one considers that there is often tens of thousands of dollars in difference between the various elections when considering total lifetime benefits. Because of complex tax laws and Social Security rules, an individual must consider many elements before electing the best Social Security benefits start date. Couples have the added burden of considering multiple combinations of start dates and integration in order to maximize total Social Security benefits.

The best method for determining the start date for drawing Social Security benefits is an approach that, among other things, considers the alternate use of a retiree’s money. Thomas M. Dalton points out in “Retirement at 62: Is Receiving Social Security Early Worth It?” that using a rate of return such as 5% and calculating all possible combinations that a couple could use will yield the best answer (Dalton 3). Current retirees have the flexibility of deciding if they would like to collect the benefit at age 62, at full retirement age of 66, or a delayed age of 70, which would be the largest amount possible for a monthly payment. Often a physician can retire earlier at age 62 or 66 without detrimentally affecting the total financial plan since the Social Security benefit is a smaller part of the total incoming cash flows. But it doesn’t make sense with the taxation penalty in place for a physician to draw Social Security income at age 62 or even age 65 if he/she is still in practice. In a typical couple in which the physician is a male (becoming less common however) the mortality tables show that the wife will outlive her husband by many years. Likewise, the wife’s survivor benefit will usually be reduced (assuming the physician spouse was the higher income earner) because her husband’s choice to take Social Security benefits at age 62 or 66 and not wait until 70. It is not uncommon today to see physicians that enjoy or choose to work into their late 60’s or later. Such cases really benefit the cashflows in retirement for obvious reasons, but also because the election to take Social Security at age 70 becomes an easy choice. The spouse also receives the maximum survivor benefit in this example. Of course what is “typical” may not apply to your situation and it is important that you work with a financial planner that understands the calculation methods. In my practice we will calculate all 18 variations of taking social security to determine which method gives the largest lifetime benefit.

Life expectancy is an important variable in this analysis as well. Dalton points out that the rate of return assumption is the most critical, as a lower number such a 2% shows that delayed retirement age options are more advantageous than early retirement at 62 (4). Couples that are relatively healthy, and have positive health habits reflect a life expectancy that could easily exceed the mortality risk average assumption. Nevertheless, planning should also consider that a long life might not be case for either.

Social Security benefits can be calculated using the quick calculator on their website (http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html) in lieu of your annual Social Security benefit statement. The calculations will show a current dollar approach or an inflated dollars approach. The 2011 Trustees Report utilized by the Social Security folks to determine some of the inflated dollars calculations show that total inflation will be 2.8% or less in the next 20 years or so and does not consider health cost inflation, a major future expense, which has been averaging 6% per year. Also, the Trustees Report projects future income growth of around 4% a year, which is less than most physician’s wage growth. Considering these factors, when using benefit estimates in a financial plan I prefer to use the base numbers in today’s dollars and adjust inflation and wage inflation to a level more appropriate for physicians inside the financial plan.

The portfolio can be structured in various ways to allow for increased liquidity when the first spouse dies. The financial plan would include the assumption that an increase drawdown of retirement capital will compensate for the loss of Social Security income when the first spouse dies. Other techniques used in the portfolio could include the use of  annuities. A joint and survivor annuity will provide income so that at the death of one, the surviving spouse will receive a percentage of the original amount that could compensate for the shortfall.

Dalton also points out that retirees who intend to begin drawing early must also consider the earnings rate of their savings and whether it is cost-effective in the long run to use early benefits in lieu of draining their savings. Permanently lower benefits may not be worth an extra three or four years of benefits that are used to protect retirement savings, depending on the rate of return of those savings (5).

In conclusion, retiring physicians will have the most accurate retirement costs estimates and maximize their Social Security retirement benefits by using the techniques of life cycle models and realistic Social Security calculations that consider the alternate use of a retiree’s money.

Works Cited

Basu, Somnath. “Age Banding: A Model For Planning Retirement Needs.” Journal Of Financial Counseling & Planning 16.1 (2005): 29-36. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

Dalton, Thomas M. “Retirement at 62: Is Receiving Social Security Early Worth It?” Journal of New York State Society of CPA’s 76.6 (2006): n. pag. Web. 31 Mar. 2012.

Scholz, John Karl, Ananth Seshadri, and Surachai Khitatrakun. 2006. “Are Americans Saving ‘Optimally’ for Retirement?” Journal of Political Economy. August, 607-643. Web. 24 Mar. 2012.

New-Age Risks You May Not of Thought of

30 Apr

Fresh Risks to your medical practice, to you, and to your patients thanks to the information age

  1.  Data breech risk. While not a new risk, the higher prevalence is new. The risks of a being fined by OCR due to the privacy rules of HIPAA because a practice had a data-breech with their EHR is becoming more common and very expensive
  2. Risks of telemedicine. As physicians become more technologically enabled in their practice of medicine, some are turning to real-time videoconferencing and other technologies. Some specialties such as psychiatry have been early adopters, but have to make sure they are still employing the same standards of care required by an in office visit (Cash 26). Also, the telephone can facilitate medical care but also result in adverse outcomes leading to telephone-related malpractice suits (Mondor, et al 517).
  3. Risks of new age medicine practices and their regulation. Case in point: Dry needling, which is like acupuncture, is a growing practice in places like Australia but is unregulated. Physicians should understand all regulatory and other risks when implementing new unregulated practices pushed by our new age society (Janz). Home births are on the rise in North America (even in Canada with government provided hospital delivery) but physicians end up dealing with the disasters and associated risks when they occur (Bochove 68).
  4. Reputation Risk. Reputation is a doctor’s most valuable asset. With the new age of internet and instant information, physicians must take great care in managing their reputation on such media sources as they are under increasing public and press scrutiny (Boyd 221).
  5. Communication risks to immigrants with limited non-native language proficiency. With today’s higher immigrant population in the United States, more medical practices are treating patients with limited English language proficiency. Clinicians now run the risk of not properly communicating medical risk information to these populations. A recent study shows that materials that include visual aids are being used by medical practices to effectively communicate with the patient (Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, and Mandeep, K. Dhami 47).
  6. The rise of the informed distrusting patient and related risks. With the ubiquity of medical information on the internet, the risks incurred by a medical practice in properly dealing with the newly informed patients with medical degrees from the University of Google Medical School are on the rise. Physicians must refine their “bed side manner” and improve their communication skills in order to deal with a more questioning patient population. Clinicians should actively discuss what patients have read on the internet when patients refer to their internet diagnoses (Lam-Po-Tang, John, and Diana McKay 130).

 

Works Cited

Bochove, Danielle. “Don’t Try This At Home.” Maclean’s 124.33/34 (2011): 68. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

Boyd, M. “Managing Risk To Reputation.” Clinical Risk 15.6 (2009): 221-223. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

Cash, Charles, D. “Telepsychiatry And Risk Management.” Innovations In Clinical Neuroscience 8.9 (2011): 26-30. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, and Mandeep, K. Dhami. “Pictures Speak Louder Than Numbers: On Communicating Medical Risks To Immigrants With Limited Non-Native Language Proficiency.” Health Expectations 14.(2011): 46-57. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

Janz, StephenAdams “Acupuncture by Another Name: Dry Needling in Australia.” Australian Journal Of Acupuncture & Chinese Medicine 6, no. 2: 3-11. Alt HealthWatch, EBSCOhost. Web. 27 Apr. 2012

Lam-Po-Tang, John, and Diana McKay. “Dr Google, MD: A Survey Of Mental Health-Related Internet Use In A Private Practice Sample.” Australasian Psychiatry 18.2 (2010): 130-133. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.

Maureen Mondor, et al. “Patient Safety And Telephone Medicine.” JGIM: Journal Of General Internal Medicine 23.5 (2008): 517-522. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2012

Stark III Defined

27 Apr

Stark III became effective December 4, 2007 and implements changes and clarifications to Stark II.

The Stark laws in general regulate the referral practices of a physician and were first formed under the “Ethics in Patient Referral Act” in 1992 and became known as “Stark I” after Representative Pete Stark of California. The general provisions of Stark allow that a physician may be compensated and given direct credit for services they personally perform that are “incident to” services. In other words, services that are incidental but an integral part of the physician’s services. Stark III still allows “incident to” services such as drugs, vaccines, revenues from both the nonphysician services and the drugs themselves, and even services provided by nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physical therapists can be billed using incident-to rules and those revenues may also be allocated directly to the treating physician.

One of the biggest changes in Stark III is that the revenues generated from diagnostic testing may not be considered “incident to” the physician service. This is an important distinction as revenues from such procedures as clinical labs, imaging tests (MRI’s, CTs, PETs and ultrasounds) must now float up into a profit distribution pool for the groups and not be credited to the ordering/treating physician.

Another change in Stark III is a further refinement of the definition of “designated health services” (DHS). Under Stark II, the statue prohibits a physician from referring a Medicare patient to any entity which the physician has a financial relationship with when the referral is for a list of items defined under DHS. Under Stark III, evaluation and management services performed by a nurse practitioner, PA and clinical nurse specialist are not DHS. So even if the service is not incident to another physicians’ services, those revenues may be allocated to treating physician because they are not DHS.

Also now allowed under Stark III are Intra-family referrals if there is no alternative provider within 45 minutes of the patient. Stark II allowed for “25 miles” of the patient. In rural communities that can be a big difference for a referring physician.

These are just a few of the key changes in Stark III. Of course, the rules surrounding Stark III, as with the prior provisions of Stark, are quite complicated. Violations are punishable by a $15,000 civil penalty for each infraction, with circumvention schemes punishable by a $100,000 civil penalty.

References:

1. Gosfield, Alice G. “Stark III: Refinement not Revolution” Family Practice Management 15.3 (2008): 25-28. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.
2. “Regulatory Compliance.” American Academy of Family Physicians online. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.

EHRs- Not Yet Ready For Prime Time

27 Apr

Since Feb 17, 2009 when President Obama signed into legislation the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) as a part of the 2009 stimulus package, the incentives were promised for the adoption in health care practices of Electronic Health Records (EHRs).

The Carrot and the Stick

The incentives payments for “meaningful use” range from $63,750 over 6 years by Medicaid to maximum payments of $44,000 over 5 years for Medicare. The penalty for not adopting by Medicare will be 1% of Medicare payments in 2015, increasing to 3% over 3 years. Stimulus money is granted based on meaningful use of an EHR system.

The Reality

Stories are rolling in by early adopters now that give cause for a prudent physician to rethink implementation anytime soon of an EHR for his/her practice. Here is a sampling:

  • EHRs can be hacked and doctors will be held accountable. A total of 385 breaches of protected health information affecting over 19 million records have been reported since August 2009 (Redspin Breach Report 2011). Redspin also reports that industry estimates have put the value of a stolen health record on the black market at about $50 per record. For me, this is the biggest red flag for implementing an EHR now. Vendors are offering solutions in the form of data “masking”, but this could increase the cost of the systems.
  • EHRs have stringent audit requirements under the HITECH Act. Health care organizations are expected to monitor for breaches of PHI. Audit logs must be kept. Audit strategy, process, and implementation tools must be used to meet stage 1 meaningful use criteria. Sanctions to employees for not following protocol. Healthcare facilities leave themselves vulnerable to individual and class action lawsuits when they do not have a strong enforcement and audit program in place for their EHR.
  • EHRs are expensive to implement, both in terms of money and in terms of time. Dollar costs range from free (Practicefusion) to tens of thousands for such EHR vendors as Allscripts or eClinicalWorks + ongoing maintenance costs. But don’t’ forget the time investment. Even small EHR systems can take 2 years to implement. I have just witnessed a client’s large practice literally crippled with the initial time investment required for staff and physicians to learn the system. Half staffing the front desk and other areas so employees can go to training has caused a drain on both patient and employee morale.
  • Legal concerns are still unanswered regarding EHRs. Currently the debate is still on about who owns the electronic data. The EHR vendor will tell you that you do. HIPPA gives the patient the right to see their record or chart, and the right to have a physical copy of their record based on a reasonably cost for copying and postage. Typically doctors share medical records with other health care providers as a professional courtesy. Empowered patients think they own their records. According to a reference regarding an HIMSS white paper, a patient owns the data in a Continuity of Care Document and has the ability to input and access that information.
  • Obtaining meaningful use stimulus payments is not a given. I met with a physician owner client a few months ago in Arizona that has implemented an EHR for their specialty practice and was hoping to receive the stimulus payment for stage one by completing the 20 criteria needed. After plowing through the 31-page “Arizona Medicaid EHR Incentive Program” guide provided by The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration or AHCCCS, which is the Arizona arm of Medicaid he turned in his application, which was denied. His initial reaction was that the program did not have the funding in Arizona, but that seems not to be the case as a number of large payments have been made now in the state. Banner Healthcare, which operates the largest hospital system in the state with thirteen inpatient facilities, reported a total of $12.4 million in Medicaid booty for implementation of its NextGen Healthcare EMR systems in 2011. It appears that there is a learning curve involved here and the smaller practices will catch up while the hospitals currently seem to have better systems in place to capture the stimulus money. An entire MU industry has emerged to help physicians such as my client perfect their stimulus applications.

Risk vs. Reward

In the investment world I am always comparing risk vs. return when managing my client’s portfolios. At times in the marketplace, for various reasons, it just does not make economic sense to make certain investments as the possible risks far outweigh the potential return. An easy example now is the investment in “safe” longer-term treasury bonds. With a near 40-year low in interest rates, the 30-year treasury today yields 3.18 %. Yet if interest rates rise 1% in the marketplace, that 30-year treasury can drop 12%. A 2% rise can result in a fall of 22% in value. It would take 7 years accumulating 3.18% to offset the loss in value caused by a 2% rise in rates. I do not think rates are going up 2% tomorrow, but I just do not like the risk/reward spectrum here. Likewise, the biggest concern currently I have with EHRs is data breeches, as mentioned above, and the stiff penalties involved currently. Paper systems look a whole lot cheaper and safer when considering the ease at which a data breech can occur with electronic data. Fines, criminal sentencing, and disciplinary action by licensing boards are risks that may not worth taking considering current history on data breeches. Consider the following examples from the past few years enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the enforcement side of the US Department of Health and Human Services that enforces HIPAA, and by employers and licensing boards:

Incident: A terminated researcher at UCLA School of Medicine retaliated by accessing UCLA patient records (many celebrities) 323 total times over the next four weeks.

Penalty: 4 years in prison for the terminated researcher for violating HIPAA Privacy Rules

Incident: Thirteen staff members at UCLA hospital accessed Britney Spears’ medical records without authorization.

Penalty: UCLA fired the 13 individuals, suspended another six.

Incident: A doctor and two hospital employees accessed the medical records of a slain Arkansas TV reporter. Details were leaked to the press of her attack.

Penalty: All pled guilty to misdemeanors for violating HIPAA privacy rules and were sentenced to one-year probation. The three all were curious about the case and “peeked” at the patient’s record as employees of the hospital, even though she was not their patient. The doctor’s privileges were suspended by the hospital for two weeks; he was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service by speaking to medical workers about the importance of patient privacy. The two other employees were terminated.

Incident: Cignet denied 41 patients, on separate occasions, access to their medical records when requested.

Penalty: Initial violation was $1.3 million. OCR concluded that Cignet committed willful neglect to comply with the Privacy Rule and fined an additional $3 million.

Incident: 57 unencrypted computer hard discs containing PHI of more than one million people was stolen from a storage locker leased by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST).

Penalty: OCR fined BCBST $1.5 million in settlement. The fact that BCBST secured the information in a leased data closet that was secured by biometric and keycard scan in a building with additional security was not enough. BCBST also spent $17 million in investigation, notification and protection efforts and had increased future compliance costs.

Incident: Health Net discovered that nine portable hard drives that contained PHI and personal financial information of approximately 1.5 million people were missing. The hard drives in question went missing from an IBM-operated datacenter in Rancho Cordova, California.

Penalty: The complaint alleged violations of HIPAA. Connecticut Insurance Commissioner wins a $375,000 fine for failing to protect member information and not reporting in a timely manner just months after the Connecticut AG won a $250,000 settlement for the breach. Vermont’s AG jumps in and gets a settlement of $55,000 to the State because 525 Vermonters were on the lost drive.

Incident: WellPoint / Anthem Blue Cross became aware that its customers’ health applications and information website, which contained up to 470,000 applicant’s information, was potentially publicly accessible when an applicant alerted the company that altered URLS after an upgraded authentication code could allow access to other people’s information.

Penalty: WellPoint / Anthem agreed to the terms of a class action lawsuit filed in California that will provide $1.5 million in general settlement, with an additional donation of $250,000 to two non-profit organizations aimed at protecting consumer’s rights, $150,000 donated to Consumer Action and $100,000 donated to the Public Law Center in Orange County. WellPoint / Anthem also agree to pay $100,000 to the state of Indiana for the data breach that exposed 32,000 state residents. A 2009 Indiana law requires companies to notify the state of certain data breaches within a certain period that was not met.

These examples point out the risks involved of managing an EHR for your practice. Notice that most cases here were due to careless, innocent lapses of judgment. Also in many cases actual damages either did not occur or were hard to prove. The new HITECH act extends HIPAA to allow the states’ attorney general to also bring actions, which adds more salt to the wound. Also, notice that even when the health care provider regarding storing the data exercised extreme care (BCBST with biometric, keyscan leased lockers and Health Net employing IBM’s “secure” datacenter), the health provider was sued and fined. Smaller medical practices could be more susceptible to EHR data breaches, if bad password management practices occur and website maintenance problems, protocols, and training are not firmly in place.

Establishment of an EHR for all medical practices seems inevitable, but 2015 is still a few years off before the first 1% Medicare penalties hit. Physicians need to exercise caution and understand all the risks before implementing an EHR for their practice.

 

David K. Luke, MIM

Physician Financial Advisor

 

NOTE: The above information and citations of events are taken from sources believed to be accurate. Please consult your legal, compliance, and other trusted business advisors.

Intra-Operative Death- Is it covered by your accidental death insurance policy?

6 Apr

The debate continues when a patient dies on the operating table over whether it was an accident or not. This is highlighted by a Forbes article that reports of a Trudy Barnes, a 31 year old that died at a Dallas area hospital in surgery in 2007 that was to correct her curvature of the spine. The anesthesiologist inserted a catheter too far into her chest, puncturing a vein and eventually causing death. AIG fought the accidental death claim filed by the husband, but eventually lost.

What is the purpose of “Accident Insurance”? Why do we as consumers buy an accidental insurance policy? Why does often the “accidental” death occurrence give a higher payout of benefit to the beneficiary than just “death” in a life insurance policy? Once you answer these questions you can only come to the same conclusion Judge Chin did in the Forbes article story referenced above, that death that occurs in the operating room during surgery due to an incident that was “unintentional, unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” is an accident and therefore would qualify for the accidental insurance payout.

Some physicians may feel that such a categorization as “accidental” regarding what occurred in the operating room in this incident fans the fire of malpractice lawyers. After all, isn’t morbidity the results of disease and essentially the human condition? 

First off, I think an understanding of accidental death insurance is in order. Secondly, the dire need for malpractice tort reform in most states, and the fact that a doctor can be sued for ridiculous amounts of money for making a mistake during surgery does not change the fact that accidents can happen.

Let us not forget however that an insurance policy is just a contract, and that insurance companies, while happy to cut checks all day long for “small” claims (under $10k? $25k?), will analyze larger claims. Insurance companies have a mandate from their shareholders to be profitable and “accidental death” is usually strictly defined in most policies. The sad recent case of Whitney Houston’s death, ruled accidental by the coroner, would be denied an accidental death payment by most insurance companies contractually because of the toxicology report finding that “cocaine and metabolites were identified and were contributory to the death”. In addition, death by a disease is typically not covered under an accidently death policy. Trudy Barnes, in the above-mentioned Forbe’s article, had an accidental death policy with a $149,000 benefit. She died on the operating table due to an unintentional occurrence. I dare say that if her accidental death policy was for say, $25,000, that the insurance company would have paid the benefit without even a murmur. After all, you cannot hire a bad faith attorney from a major law firm to defend you for less than that. Does the amount of the claim change the fact that it was an accident?

Life puts all of us at times in situations that we would rather not be. This fact should not in and of itself preempt the validity of an accidental death claim. While Trudy signed the waivers for the operation to fix her curvature of the spine, I do not believe that her desire to seek medical help for her condition disqualifies her accidental death policy and takes her insurance company off the hook. After all, isn’t that why we buy an accidental death policy, because “life happens”? If an individual was involved in a fatal car accident due to snowy conditions that caused his/her car to careen off the side of a cliff, shouldn’t an insurance company pay the accidental death claim? Alternatively, would the insurance company deny the claim with the defense that the person should not have been driving because walking would have been safer or that the person should have obtained better driving skills?

Accidental life insurance has a place in the financial plan of individuals that desire to protect their families from the financial hardships that can occur due to an unexpected death. Accidents (unintentional injuries) according to the CDC is the 5th leading cause of death in the United States, right behind Heart disease, Cancer, Chronic lower respiratory diseases and Stroke, with 118,021 accidental deaths occurring in 2009. By age group, accidents are the leading cause of death for the population aged 1 -44 years. As a financial planner I see death as the risk that I must consider for my clients, and not necessarily whether it was caused by an accident or not. The risk of premature death is covered by adequate life insurance; clients may prefer to pay an added premium if it is reasonable in order for their beneficiary to receive an additional benefit amount or a multiplier if the death was an accident. Insurance companies assess all premiums based on actuarial and other factors. While accidents is the leading cause of all death in those under 44 years of age, and the fifth leading cause of all deaths, it is only about 5% of all deaths in the US. Accidental death is likewise a smaller risk for an insurance company to consider and therefore the premium for this added coverage is relatively inexpensive.

Welfare Benefit Trusts: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

4 Apr

Physicians unfortunately often become unwitting targets of some very egregious investment advice. Usually it involves an investment product with an imbedded fat commission just waiting to be deposited in a “financial advisor’s” bank account.

In the “Hall of Fame” of egregious investment advice is the Welfare Benefit Trust. About 10 years ago, while I was working for a top five national brokerage firm (this was before my fee-only days when I was still on the “dark side”) our internal Insurance Products Department at the brokerage firm’s head office presented an amazing investment product. This “Welfare Benefit Trust” we were told should be shown to our profitable small business owners as a cure for their every ill caused by paying too much taxes. A Welfare Benefit Trust essentially works like this:

  • The business provides a fringe benefit for their employees, such as health insurance and life insurance.
  • The benefit is established in the name of a trust and funded with a cash value life insurance policy
  • Here is the gravy: the entire amount deposited into the trust (insurance policy) is tax deductible to the company, and
  • The owners of the company can withdraw the cash value from the policy in later years tax-free.

Yes, the holy grail of tax avoidance has been achieved: tax deductible up front and tax-free when you withdraw. By the way, if you are not familiar with such investments there is a reason. They are not legal by the tax code. Physician practices, as well as other small and mid-sized businesses, became buyers into these welfare benefit trusts as they were sold as a way for the practice to “protect” a large profit in a certain year from being taxed. We were told it was not uncommon for a single transaction into a welfare benefit trust to be $200,000 to $300,000 dollars or more in a single premium payment, yielding typically a six-figure commission check.

A few years later the gig was up as it became obvious these could not be tax legal. My understanding is that most medical practices that bought these “unrolled” them when the major brokerage firms realized that avarice got the best of them and stopped selling them. In 2007, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued a formal warning cautioning “about certain Trust Arrangements Sold as Welfare Benefit Funds”. The IRS called these “abusive schemes” and made such a transaction what the IRS lovingly calls a “listed transaction”. Essentially, a listed transaction is a transaction that the IRS has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction. The IRS even keeps these Listed Transactions on their website, listed in chronological order from 1 to 34. Welfare Benefit Trusts is #33.

Good Welfare Benefit Trusts

First of all, it is important to mention that “there are many legitimate welfare benefit funds that provide benefits” according to the IRS. Internal Revenue Code Sections 419 and 419A spell out the rules allowing employers to make tax-deductible contributions to Welfare Benefit Plans. There is nothing wrong with these plans and no mystery to them. After all, a medical practice or any business for that matter is allowed to deduct the costs of doing business as an expense. This includes employee salary and benefits.

VEBAs (Voluntary Employee Benefits Association) have been around since 1928 and are used by employers to provide health, life, disability, education and other benefits for their employees and are the original Welfare Benefit Trusts. When properly established and executed, a VEBA can be a legitimate employee benefit structure. In 2007 the United Auto Workers, in order to relieve the Big 3 Automakers from carrying the liability for their health plans on their accounting books, formed the world’s largest VEBA with over $45 billion in assets.

Bad Welfare Benefit Trusts

However, the IRS does have a problem with Welfare Benefit Plans that are promoted to small business owners as a scheme to avoid taxes and provide medical and life insurance benefits to key employees that in substance primarily serve the owner(s) of the business. These 419 Welfare Benefit Plan schemes claim that the employer’s contributions are deductible under IRC section 419 as ordinary and necessary business expenses, allowing the business owner to provide a life insurance policy for his favorite employee, himself, and accumulate cash value in a life insurance policy.

Lest there be any confusion or debate, IRC 264(a)(1) states:

(a) General rule

      No deduction shall be allowed for -

        (1) Premiums on any life insurance policy, or endowment or

      annuity contract, if the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a

      beneficiary under the policy or contract.

 

While VEBAs have been used properly, as in the UAW example above, unfortunately they are often a front for an abusive tax shelter. In the 1970’s VEBAs were being used by the wealthy as a popular tool for tax reduction and asset protection. In 1984 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which limited the use of VEBAs. In the 1990’s however VEBAs were structured to give business owners tax benefits not allowed and got back on the IRS radar. Two state medical societies along with a neonatology group practice became test cases by the IRS that helped close those VEBAs with abusive tax structures and purporting to be employee welfare benefit plans: Southern California Medical Professionals Association VEBA, New Jersey Medical Profession Association VEBA and Neonatology Associates, PA. Although the VEBAs claimed to have favorable determination letters, the actual execution of the plan did not comply with the law, mainly by allowing the employees to hold term policies in the plan that could be converted into universal life policies at the same insurer and use the conversion credit account to spring cash value in the policy. This then allowed policyholders to borrow against the UL policy as a supposedly nontaxable source of retirement income, with the repayment of the loan paid out of the policy’s death benefits. ( “Making Welfare Plans Work”, Advisor Today, September 2000 P 110). This of course is not allowed under the tax code.

Those that think that they may be in the clear with their abusive tax shelter because:

  1. A large passage of time has occurred since they have owned it
  2. They have a favorable determination letter
  3. Other honorable businesses/ Medical Societies also have the same tax shelter
  4. My insurance agent said it was legal

may want to read the 98-page ruling by the United States Tax Court filed on July 31, 2000 in the case of the above-mentioned Neonatology and related cases. The long arm of the IRS reached back 9 years to 1991, 1992, 1993 disallowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and assessing deficiencies and huge “accuracy-related” tax penalties. Even the doctors that had died since then were not given a break either; their estates and surviving widows were assessed the deficiencies and penalties.

In 2002 the IRS talked Congress into passing new laws basically killing the use of multiple employer 419 plans. Some TPAs (third party administrators) that had set up the multiple employer plans discovered that they could use single employer 419 welfare benefit trusts and VEBAs because Congress forgot to include them when they passed the negative laws shutting done the multiple employer plans. This forced the IRS to issue notices 2007-83 and 2007-84, Rev. Ruling 2007-65 and make welfare benefit trusts listed tax transactions now on the listed tax transactions list. (“Negative IRS Notices On 419 and VEBA Plans” Roccy M. Defrancesco Nov 1, 2007

Ugly Welfare Benefit Trusts

I call these “Ugly” because these Welfare Benefit Trusts were sold to small business owners after the 2007 IRS listed transaction warning, and after the multiple IRS notices and revenue rulings. The major brokerage firms by 2004 had stopped selling Welfare Benefit Trusts to protect their own financial interests, realizing these were compliance and lawsuit time bombs. The 2007 IRS listed transaction notice along with multiple other notices however did not seem to stop some smaller broker dealer firms and life insurance agents from promoting these.

I have become aware of the fact that Welfare Benefit Trusts that are in violation of the basics of the tax code (unlimited full deduction of premium,  100% tax free distribution to owner of cash value) are still being sold even today and even affecting existing clients. These Welfare Benefit Trusts go by many different names and the insurance agents selling them are using a number of different insurance companies to fund the plan. These plans involve the sale of an insurance policy usually with a six-digit premium that often pays the insurance agent a six-digit commission, so perhaps I should not be surprised that individuals (physicians?) are still being victimized

Conversation with IRS Attorney on Welfare Benefit Trusts

On January 20, 2012 I discussed with Betty Clary, an IRS attorney that helped draft the listed transaction #33 on the IRS website, on what exactly the IRS considers an abusive Welfare Benefit Plan. She stated that, once you take out the fact that the trust cannot be offering a collective bargaining element which is covered by another IRS code, there were three elements they look for:

  1. There has to be a Trust that claims to be providing welfare benefits
  2. There is either a cash value policy involved that offers accumulation or a policy in which money is set aside for a future policy in which accumulation occurs, such as a term policy that can then offer a higher accumulated value.
  3. The plan cannot deduct in any year more than the benefit provided. For example if the plan just provides a death benefit, the most that can be deducted in a year is only the term cost of that benefit, not the entire premium. If the plan offers medical benefits, then only the cost (what was paid out to the employee) for that benefit can be deducted in that year.

I found it interesting that the IRS is pursuing this broader definition as an abusive plan. Betty explained that in the case of a discovered abusive Welfare Benefit Plan, the IRS would disallow the deductions, assert income back to the owner as a distribution of profits, and assess penalties. The courts are clear that you cannot get out of penalties by claiming you are relying on the person that sold you the Welfare Benefit Plan.

What if you currently have a Welfare Benefit Trust for your Practice?

Realizing that someone you trusted has financially devastated you, carelessly misguided you and sold you a bogus tax program in order to pay cash for his new 7 series BMW can be a difficult and rude awakening. After accepting the fact that your Welfare Benefit Plan you have for your practice meets the basic criteria as mentioned in this article as an abusive transaction, I would recommend that you consult an attorney that specializes in pursuing promoters of abusive Welfare Benefit Plans and discuss your options. I have had discussions with Lance Wallach, an accountant and expert witness used in a number of Welfare Benefit Trust cases, which has confirmed to me that you must be proactive. You may be advised to file an IRS form 8886, which is a disclosure form related to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The penalties for failure to file a form 8886 can be stiff. Of course, filing this form will open the Pandora’s Box on your Welfare Benefit Trust to the IRS. Lance has told me that many of these 8886 filings are done incorrectly. An incorrectly filed IRS form is an unfiled IRS form, so please consult a CPA who is experienced in this area. Your attorney that has expertise with Welfare Benefit Trusts will be able to guide you with this. Regarding recourse, according to Lance, most all cases are settled out of court, as the insurance company, the agent, and the agency prefer to avoid the publicity.

 

Affordable Care Act Summary Table of 45 Key Provisions

3 Apr

Now that the ACA has turned 2 years old, here is a Primer, thanks to MCOL (http://www.mcol.com):

  • Accountable Care Organizations

                The Act requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to establish a shared savings program to facilitate coordination and cooperation among providers to improve the quality of care for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries and reduce unnecessary costs.  Eligible providers, hospitals, and suppliers may participate in the Shared Savings Program by creating or participating in an Accountable Care Organization, also called an ACO. Refer to https://www.cms.gov/sharedsavingsprogram/ The CMS Innovation Center established by the Act has also developed the Pioneer ACO program. Refer to http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/12/20111219a.html

Status: In effect with 32 Pioneer ACOs under contract in 2012; Final rules for MSSP released October 2011

 

  • Administrative Simplification

                The Act will institute a series of changes to standardize billing and requires health plans to begin adopting and implementing rules for the secure, confidential, electronic exchange of health information.

Status: First regulation effective January 1, 2012. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/wqkSP1

 

  • Affordable Insurance Exchanges

                The Act establishes a competitive private health insurance market through the creation of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These State-based, competitive marketplaces, which launch in 2014, will provide individuals and small businesses with “one-stop shopping” for affordable coverage. They will also provide the sole venue where Members of Congress will get their health insurance. DHHS will administer exchanges for states not opting to establish their own exchange. Refer to http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/exchanges/index.html

Status: Effective January 1, 2014. Thirty-three States, including the District of Columbia have received at total of nearly $670 million in Exchange Establishment Grants

 

  • Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage

                For plan years starting between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011, plans may not limit annual coverage of essential benefits such as hospital, physician and pharmacy benefits to less than $750,000.  The restricted annual limit will be $1.25 million for plan years starting on or after September 23, 2011, and $2 million for plan years starting between September 23, 2012 and January 1, 2014. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited. Refer to: http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/marketreforms/annuallimit/index.html

Status: Regulation of limits in effect. Elimination of limits effective plan years starting 1/1/2014.

 

  • Appealing Insurance Company Decisions

                The Act ensures consumers right to appeal health insurance plan decisions, and specifies how plans must handle appeals. If plans deny payment after considering an appeal, consumers may have an independent review organization decide whether to uphold or overturn the plan’s decision. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/p1c5jE
Status: In effect

 

  • Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative

                A national pilot program to align payments for services delivered across an episode of care, such as heart bypass or hip replacement, rather than paying for services separately.  Bundled payments are designed to give doctors and hospitals new incentives to coordinate care, improve the quality of care and save money for Medicare. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/pP19cM

Status: To start on rolling basis during 2012

 

  • Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation

                The Act establishes the Innovation Center to develop new payment and delivery models within parameters of the Act. Refer to http://www.innovations.cms.gov/

Status: In effect with 17 initiatives launched to date.

 

  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding

                States will receive two more years of funding to continue coverage for children not eligible for Medicaid.

Status: Effective October 1, 2013.

 

  • CLASS Voluntary Options for Long-Term Care Insurance

                The law provided for a voluntary long-term care insurance program – called CLASS — with cash benefits to adults who become disabled.

Status: Not being implemented per DHHS postion taken 10/14/2011

 

  • Clinical Trials Coverage

                Insurers will be prohibited from dropping or limiting coverage because an individual chooses to participate in a clinical trial.  Applies to all clinical trials that treat cancer or other life-threatening diseases.

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Community Care Transitions Program

                The Community Care Transitions Program tests models for improving care transitions from the hospital to other settings and reducing readmissions for high-risk Medicare beneficiaries.  The goals of the CCTP are to improve transitions of beneficiaries from the inpatient hospital setting to other care settings, to improve quality of care, to reduce readmissions for high risk beneficiaries, and to document measurable savings to the Medicare program. Refer to http://www.innovations.cms.gov/initiatives/Partnership-for-Patients/CCTP/index.html

Status: In effect.

 

  • Community First Choice Option

                The Community First Choice Option allows states to offer home and community based services to disabled individuals through Medicaid rather than institutional care in nursing homes. This option provides a 6 % increase in Federal matching payments to States for expenditures related to this option. Refer to http://bit.ly/H76m8K

Status: In effect.

 

  • Community Health Centers

                The Act established the Community Health Center fund that provides $11 billion over a 5-year period for the operation, expansion, and construction of health centers throughout the Nation. $9.5 billion is targeted to:  Support ongoing health center operations; Create new health center sites in medically underserved areas; Expand preventive and primary health care services, including oral health, behavioral health, pharmacy, and/or enabling services, at existing health center sites. $1.5 billion will support major construction and renovation projects at community health centers nationwide. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/n8g8mW 

Status: In effect.

 

  • Consumer Assistance Program Grants

                The Consumer Assistance Program grants provide nearly $30 million in new resources to allow States, who are in some cases partnering with local non-profits, to help strengthen and enhance ongoing efforts to educate consumers about their health coverage options and new programs, empower consumers to avail themselves of new protections, ensure consumers have access to accurate information, and help consumers navigate the system to find the most affordable and secure coverage that meets their needs. Refer to http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/10/cap-grants.html

Status: Grants Awarded.

 

  • Consumer Web Site

                The law provides for website where consumers can compare health insurance coverage options and select coverage.  Refer to http://finder.healthcare.gov/

Status: In effect.

 

  • CO-OP: Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans

                The Act provides for the establishment of the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) Program, which will foster the creation of qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers to offer competitive health plans in the individual and small group markets. Refer to http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/coop/index.html

Status: To-date, seven non-profits intending to offer coverage in eight states have been awarded more than $638 million in developmental loans

 

  • Early Retiree Coverage

                Until the new Exchanges are available in 2014,  a program is created to provide needed financial help for employment-based plans to continue to provide coverage to people who retire between the ages of 55 and 65, as well as their spouses and dependents.  Refer to http://www.errp.gov/

Status: ERRP has provided participating employers $5 billion in reinsurance payments to provide benefits, impacting an estimated 19 million early retirees, spouses and dependents.

 

  • Employee Opt-Out of Employer Plan to Exchange

                Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new health insurance Exchanges.

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Fraud, Waste & Abuse

                increases the federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses by 20-50 percent for crimes that involve more than $1 million in losses. The law establishes penalties for obstructing a fraud investigation or audit and makes it easier for the government to recapture any funds acquired through fraudulent practices. The law also makes it easier for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential fraud or wrongdoing at facilities like nursing homes.  An additional $350 million in funding is provided over 10 years to ramp up anti-fraud efforts. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/zDBH0S

Status: In effect.

 

  • Gender or Health Status Based Premium Rate Prohibition

                The Act eliminates the ability of insurance companies to charge different premium rates due to gender or health status.

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Hospital Value Based Purchasing

                The Value-Based Purchasing Program will begin paying 3,500 hospitals nationwide based on care quality, rather than solely relying on the quantity of services provided. Additionally, value-based purchasing in other Medicare programs is currently being developed. Refer to https://www.cms.gov/Hospital-Value-Based-Purchasing/

Status: In FY 2013, an estimated $850 million will be allocated to hospitals based on performance .  The size of the fund will gradually increase over time.

 

  • Independent Payment Advisory Board

                The IPAB is to be comprised of a 15 member independent panel, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, charged with enforcing a limit on Medicare spending growth.  The board will have broad authority to craft and execute new Medicare policies (including changes to provider reimbursement) with limited Congressional input.  The first IPAB proposal must be submitted to Congress and the president beginning in 2014.

Status: Administrative funding initiated.  Bill to eliminate IPAB passed House in March 2012

 

  • Individual Mandate

                The Act requires most individuals to obtain basic health insurance coverage or pay a fee. If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, he or she will be eligible for an exemption.

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Individual Tax Credits

                Tax credits will become available for people with income between 100% and 400% of the poverty line who are not eligible for other affordable coverage. The tax credit is advanceable and refundable, allowing moderate-income families can receive the full benefit of the credit. These individuals may also qualify for reduced cost-sharing (copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles).

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Medicaid Increased Access

                Americans who earn less than 133% of the poverty level (approximately $14,000 for an individual and $29,000 for a family of four) will be eligible to enroll in Medicaid. States will receive 100% federal funding for the first three years to support this expanded coverage, phasing to 90% federal funding in subsequent years.

Status: Effective January 1, 2014.

 

  • Medicaid Preventive Health Coverage

                The Act provides new funding to state Medicaid programs that choose to cover preventive services for patients at little or no cost.

Status: Effective January 1, 2013.

 

  • Medicaid Primary Care Physician Payment Increases

                The Act requires states to pay primary care physicians no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 for Medicaid primary care services. The increase is fully funded by the federal government.

Status: Effective January 1, 2013.

 

  • Medical Loss Ratio Requirements

                The Act requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care.  Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement. This rule does not apply to employers who operate what is called a self-insured plan. Refer to http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html

Status: In effect.

 

  • Medical School Grants for Physician Underserved Rural Recruitment

                The Act establishes a grant program to help medical schools recruit students most likely to practice medicine in underserved rural communities, provide rural-focused training and experience, and increase the number of medical graduates who practice in underserved rural communities. Authorizes $4 million for each of the fiscal years 2010-2013.

Status: In effect.

 

  • Medicare Advantage Payment Reduction to Private Plans

                The Act modifies payments to Medicare Advantage plans in several ways, for a projected savings of $117 billion in federal expenditures for Medicare between fiscal years 2010 and 2019.

Status: In effect.

 

  • Medicare Bonus Payment for Rural/ Underserved Physicans

                The Act provides 10% Medicare Bonus payments to applicable physicians in rural/underserved areas

Status: In effect.

 

  • Medicare Prescription Drug “Donut Hole” Rebates and Discounts

                Each eligible senior will receive a one-time, tax free $250 rebate check in 2010. Starting with 2011. seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50% discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs. Over this decade, discounts apply until the coverage gap is closed in 2020.

Status: In effect through 2020. Discounts were estimated to save seniors $2.1 billion in 2011.

 

  • National Health Service Corps

                The Act provides additional funding to enhance the number of clinicians who practice in underserved communities through the National Health Service Corps. Refer to http://www.nhsc.hrsa.gov/

Status: In effect.

 

  • Pre-Existing Condition Coverage Denial Prohibition for Children

                Insurance companies prevented from denying coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition.

Status: In effect.

 

  • Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan

                The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan provides coverage options to individuals who have been uninsured for at least six months because of a pre-existing condition until coverage is available through Exchanges. States had the option of  running this program in their state, otherwise DHHS established the plan.  Refer to https://www.pcip.gov/

Status: Estimated 50,000 currently covered under program

 

  • Premium Rate Review for Increases Exceeding 10%

                The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases will be eligible for $250 million in new grants. Insurance companies determined to have excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Refer to http://bit.ly/o3jFWs

Status: State grants awarded beginning in 2010, with more than $154 million awarded to fund rate review development/activities

 

  • Prevention and Public Health Fund

                A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund has been established for prevention and public health programs. Refer tohttp://1.usa.gov/mODwxv 

Status: In effect. The Administration allocated $500 million in 2010, $750 million in new funds in 2011 and $1 billion in 2012.

 

  • Preventive Care for Commercial/Individual plans

                All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Refer to http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/preventive-care/index.html

Status: In effect.

 

  • Preventive Care for Seniors

                Key preventive services available with no co-pay or deductibles, such as annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans for seniors on Medicare.  Refer to http://www.medicare.gov/welcometomedicare/visit.html

Status: An estimated 32.5 million+ seniors have already received one or more free preventive services, including the new Annual Wellness Visit, since taking effect 1/1/2011

 

  • Primary Care Access Funding

                The Act provides funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care doctors and nurses working in underserved areas. Doctors and nurses receiving payments made under any state loan repayment or loan forgiveness program intended to increase the availability of health care services in underserved or health professional shortage areas will not have to pay taxes on those payments.

Status: In effect.

 

  • Racial, Ethnic and Language Disparity Identification

                The Act requires any ongoing or new federal health program to collect and report racial, ethnic and language data, to help identify and reduce disparities.

Status: Effective March 2012.

 

  • Rescinding Coverage

                In the past, insurance companies could retroactively deny coverage due to errors on a customer’s application, which is now prohibited. Refer to http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/cancellations/index.html

Status: In effect.

 

  • Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits

                Small businesses that have fewer than 25 employees and provide health insurance qualify for a tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of insurance. This credit will increase in 2014 to 50% (35% for non-profits). Refer to http://1.usa.gov/nrDz6r

Status: 360,000 small employers received credit in 2011. Tax credits increase in 2014.

 

  • Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary

                Plan will be required to provide standardized information about health plan benefits and coverage. Specifically, the rules ensure consumers receive two key forms: A short, easy-to-understand Summary of Benefits and Coverage (or “SBC”); and a list of definitions (called the “Uniform Glossary”) that explains terms commonly used in health insurance coverage. These forms were developed by the DOL, DHHS, and the Treasury, based primarily on model forms created through a public process led by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and a working group of consumers and others. Refer to http://1.usa.gov/oovGw1

Status: Effective Plan Years starting 9/23/2012

 

  • Young Adults Coverage

                Young adults are allowed to stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26 years old (in the case of existing group health plans, this right does not apply if the young adult is offered insurance at work).

Status: In effect. Estimated 2.5 million additional young adults covered.

Book Review- The Business of Medical Practice: Transformational Health 2.0 Skills for Doctors, Third Edition

28 Mar

This is the practice “Bible” for all physician owners and physician financial advisors. With thirty seven chapters and over 700 pages this is mandatory reading on the topics related to all major topics covering the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the business side of today’s medical practice written by experts in the field. The evolution in health care has created even a greater need for business savvy physicians but has also created a entire niche of financial advisors that focus on advising these business owners physicians. This text fills the gap left by Medical Schools and MBA programs that do not cover this subject matter with any degree of competency.

After over twenty years in the business as a financial advisor I found myself lacking in the expertise needed to advise my growing clientele of physician clients.  The Business of Medical Practice was what truly opened the doors for me in understanding the complexities of managing a successful medical practice while also relating to me as a financial advisor my role in how I can become more effective and useful in guiding my physician clients. I believe now that I am much more effective as a financial advisor for my physician clients and can  develop a more meaningful financial plan for them because I have a better understanding of their complete financial picture thanks to the concepts, articles and information jammed into these 751 pages.  I believe that this should be one of the first texts that a financial advisor should read that has decided to concentrate or specialize in advising physicians with their finances. Even advisors such as myself that have experience in the industry and have graduate degrees in business would learn greatly from this book. While I have studied similar financial topics in an MBA and CFP program, this is the first place I have studied these topics in how they relate to a medical practice. The topics that I think most financial advisors and planners would find extremely helpful that are included in this text include:

  • valuation methods of a medical practice
  • medical activity-based cost management
  • accounting for mixed practice costs
  • accounting concerns and fraud prevention for medical practices
  • medical practice benchmarking
  • physician compensation trends and approaches
  • concierge medicine concepts
  • return on practice investment calculations
  • and much more.

Financial advisors with little medical or health care industry training (isn’t that most financial advisors?) will find the qualitative aspects of medical practice laid out in this book very helpful. How can you competently advise your physician clients unless you have a basic understanding of their financial world? Especially if you are working with a physician practice owner, you will find the information invaluable. The text covers important aspects of the current changing health care economics including EMRs and health information technologies, running a lean medical office, understanding professional medical employer organizations, medical practice marketing and compliance, and just plain understanding how medical practices must operate in the new world of accountable healthcare.

The health care world is changing fast. Physicians need competent financial advisors that understand them and their business. The financial advisory world today is also changing quickly and is totally unrecognizable from the industry I entered in the late 1980’s in which getting a sales commission on a financial product was the name of the game.  As the past President of the Financial Planning Association Utah Chapter (2009-2010) and past Chairman (2011) I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with many of our 120+ members which consisted of the more successful financial advisors in the state. I noticed that those practitioners that were experiencing more success and more happiness with their business were the ones that had actually narrowed their practice by developing a niche (government employees, estate planning/or other specialty),  or changing their business model (commissions/ fee based to fee only, for example). I have done both. The strange thing about “narrowing” your practice is that you then become a financial planner or advisor that is sought out for your expertise. A generalist is an expert in everything that is sought out by nobody in our business now. Those that sit on their hands and watch the change instead of doing something about it will miss the great opportunity that is now there and run the risk of being a part of the consolidation that is occurring now in our industry. I encourage all those FA’s that have thought about furthering their knowledge and becoming a better advisor for their physician clients to get this book.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.